• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democratic impeachment calls swell as McGahn defies subpoena (1 Viewer)

Could be, I doubt it though. I heard the same talk prior to the 2018 midterms where the good economy was going to save the house for the Republicans. It didn't. Like in 2018 and 2016, Republicans will vote for Trump, Democrats for their candidate. How independents vote will decide it. In 2016 independents went to Trump 46-42 over Hillary, in 2018 independents went for the Democrats 54-42.

Will independents come back to Trump? I think we are forgetting that 12% of independents voted against Trump, against Clinton by refusing to choose between them. Voting for a third party candidate because they didn't like nor want neither one as president. I don't think those 12% have changed their minds about Trump. The big difference between 2016 and 2018, there was no Hillary on the ballot representing the democrats in 2018. Hillary won't be there in 2020 either to save Trump.

That 12% of independents who voted third party in 2016 represents 9 million voters. Being they probably won't be voting for Trump, like in 2016, the question becomes how many flip to the Democratic candidate, how many vote third party once again and how many just say to heck with it and stay home? We know in 2018 a good sized majority of those 9 million voted for the democratic congressional candidates. Hence the Democratic share of the total independent vote shot up from 42% in 2016 to 54% in 2018. Will they do the same in 2020 as 2018? That remains to be seen.

The bottom line is that the Republican Party is still the smaller of the two major parties. That's been the case since FDR. Republicans, Trump in this case must win the independent vote or lose the election. We still have a year and a half before election day. We don't know whom the Democrats will nominate which could make all the difference. Time will tell, but today, the independent vote isn't looking good for Trump.

Then too, there is always a major unforeseen event or two which could throw everything upside down.
No, the good economy saved the senate for the Republicans because you have a bunch of radical left-wing nut cases that gave the Democrats 40 seats in the 2018 midterms!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
I think it is becoming inevitable. He declared last week that he will ignore every Congressional subpoena, regardless of reason. Today, he said that he will not work with Congress on anything, unless the investigations stop. He's showing us daily that he won't faithfully execute his office or preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


All orchestrated to bring down a President. I hope you succeed and begin immediately. It’s just what the country needs!
 
It won't backfire. They'll have Trump out by next November and there will hardly even be a need for an election in 2020. Impeachment is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best things Democrats could do to help themselves. 99.7% of Americans HATE Trump and would vote for anybody other than him.

Gilligan comes to mind.
 
All orchestrated to bring down a President. I hope you succeed and begin immediately. It’s just what the country needs!

Any impeachment hearing could fit your definition. Cry moar for your orange emperor.
 
All orchestrated to bring down a President. I hope you succeed and begin immediately. It’s just what the country needs!
Democrats didn't orchestrate Trump's behavior nor his obstruction nor his continued use of his office to coverup further. Blaming Democrats for acts that Trump commits, is like the argument a serial killer makes to the police: "Those that died are your fault because you didn't stop me."
 
I have no idea what is wrong with you people because actions speak louder than words except in the liberal world! What Trump said and what he did are two different things and if he did something illegal that would be obstruction but saying something isn't.

There isn't any Court in the world that would take rhetoric as proof of obstruction because actions are what constitutes obstruction. You people want to get rid of trump and replace him with whom?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

If, from a position of authority over you, I say you should do something illegal, that is illegal in itself, regardless of whether or not you do what I say.

From the articles of impeachment against Nixon:

3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

I don't believe Trump would be removed by the Senate. As of now, it is in Republican senators' political interest to ignore the law. If he were, Pence seems like a pretty clean guy so far, so that's the constitutionally who should replace him.
 
What was your position when Republicans won 60 seats in 2010?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Democrats didn't orchestrate Trump's behavior nor his obstruction nor his continued use of his office to coverup further. Blaming Democrats for acts that Trump commits, is like the argument a serial killer makes to the police: "Those that died are your fault because you didn't stop me."

Democrats thought Hillary was gonna win

Democrats thought Mueller Report was gonna indict Trump

see a pattern?
 
Take that to court and see what happens? No action taken, no crime!

Ever been to court on an issue like this? I have, you lose. Why is this even an issue? Win on ideas not trumped up charges

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Democrats thought Hillary was gonna win

Democrats thought Mueller Report was gonna indict Trump

see a pattern?

HRC got millions of more votes than Trump but "lost" the election.
In 2018, voters voted in record numbers and voted for Democrats in such a wide margin that it overcame Congressional district gerrymandering in a historic election.
See a pattern?
 
Take that to court and see what happens? No action taken, no crime!

Ever been to court on an issue like this? I have, you lose. Why is this even an issue? Win on ideas not trumped up charges
You do realize that it is Trump, not the Democrats, running to the courts, right? The two lawsuits that Trump lost were brought by Trump.
 
You do realize that it is Trump, not the Democrats, running to the courts, right? The two lawsuits that Trump lost were brought by Trump.
Individual privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution but what does this have to do with the thread topic

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
If, from a position of authority over you, I say you should do something illegal, that is illegal in itself, regardless of whether or not you do what I say.

From the articles of impeachment against Nixon:









I don't believe Trump would be removed by the Senate. As of now, it is in Republican senators' political interest to ignore the law. If he were, Pence seems like a pretty clean guy so far, so that's the constitutionally who should replace him.

It is not necessary for him to lose the impeachment, just a dozen or so Republicans voting against him will not only get rid of him but by doing so could save the Republican party...
 
Individual privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution but what does this have to do with the thread topic

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Congress has the right to trumps finances if they are working on legislation which they are and have provided. They are working to possibly strengthen disclosure and ethics laws. You need to go back and learn your civics classes con. You’re sorely incorrect and you should be embarrassed about your lack of knowledge of common civics con.
 
HRC got millions of more votes than Trump but "lost" the election.
In 2018, voters voted in record numbers and voted for Democrats in such a wide margin that it overcame Congressional district gerrymandering in a historic election.
See a pattern?

Yes...Hillary is not President

Yes...GOP held the Senate

Yes...judges are still getting appointed
 
Take that to court and see what happens? No action taken, no crime!

Ever been to court on an issue like this? I have, you lose. Why is this even an issue? Win on ideas not trumped up charges

Take what to court? Your point is moot. Justice department policy says a sitting president cannot be indicted. It cannot be taken to court. That's why Mueller left it to Congress. I don't really care about your anecdotes, I have no particular reason to believe them, or even accept that they were relevant even if I did.

From the Mueller Report:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

“With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,”

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible . 3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
 
Continued:

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5 The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report , could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term , OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ."

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
 
Congress has the right to trumps finances if they are working on legislation which they are and have provided. They are working to possibly strengthen disclosure and ethics laws. You need to go back and learn your civics classes con. You’re sorely incorrect and you should be embarrassed about your lack of knowledge of common civics con.
For what purposes? What does IRS do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
You don't agree with me. You just want the same thing for very different reasons. You agree more with Pelosi. You want things to be done because polls currently tell you to think that way.

When impeachment starts and Trump is prohibited from all his obstruction, those polls will change.

Trump will never stop obstructing, impeachment or no,impeachment. He's empowered by his own, corrupt DOJ and Treasury dept.
 
Take what to court? Your point is moot. Justice department policy says a sitting president cannot be indicted. It cannot be taken to court. That's why Mueller left it to Congress. I don't really care about your anecdotes, I have no particular reason to believe them, or even accept that they were relevant even if I did.

From the Mueller Report:
Yet Don Jr wasn't indicted, whyD

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Yet Don Jr wasn't indicted, whyD

Don Jr was not charged with felony campaign finance violation because it could not be proven that he willingly violated the law.

Trump was repeatedly advised that interfering with the Special Counsel's investigation would constitute obstruction. He has no excuse.
 
Don Jr was not charged with felony campaign finance violation because it could not be proven that he willingly violated the law.

Trump was repeatedly advised that interfering with the Special Counsel's investigation would constitute obstruction. He has no excuse.
Nor is Trump what a waste of time

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom