• 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!

It's not Illegal if the President does it.

Jay59 said:
It's becoming moot. The story didn't take off, so it appears they will look for another way to drum up support. That's all it ever was--another broken promise.
Click to expand...

???


Are you in a denial stage ?

Are you saying there won't be an impeachment trial in the Senate ?
 
Jay59 said:
Right on the first guess.
Click to expand...

OK, I guess we'll see because it wouldn't have got this far if the House wasn't going to vote for an impeachment trial.

Most political commentators think it will be soon too - before Christmas.


The question is will enough GOP senators vote to impeach Trump. It will take about 20.
A month ago, I'd have said no chance, now it's a maybe.
 
Rich2018 said:
OK, I guess we'll see because it wouldn't have got this far if the House wasn't going to vote for an impeachment trial. Most political commentators think it will be soon too - before Christmas. The question is will enough GOP senators vote to impeach Trump. It will take about 20.
A month ago, I'd have said no chance, now it's a maybe.
Click to expand...
It has to happen soon, because in the spring Washington, the House in particular, empties for the campaign season.
 
Jay59 said:
It has to happen soon, because in the spring Washington, the House in particular, empties for the campaign season.
Click to expand...

That was one of the points made.

It can happen shortly into the new year but the balance of opinion was for November/December.
 
Rich2018 said:
That was one of the points made. It can happen shortly into the new year but the balance of opinion was for November/December.
Click to expand...
Which is too soon for a serious investigation by several months.

It's one reason why it is clear that this was never intended to be a serious impeachment attempt. It's political theater first, last and only.
 
Jay59 said:
Which is too soon for a serious investigation by several months.

It's one reason why it is clear that this was never intended to be a serious impeachment attempt. It's political theater first, last and only.
Click to expand...

So you're arguing that whatever a president may have been accused of, the impeachment process is invalid after the midway point of his/her presidency ?


"The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings...on December 19, 1998, Clinton became the 2nd president to be impeached when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment...the trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, 1999 Clinton was acquitted..."


Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia


Are you saying the Republican dominated Congress rushed the impeachment ?
 
Jay59 said:
The whistleblower narrative has already blown over. Trump scuttled it by being transparent. It's hard to keep up the pretense of secret underhanded dealings when the actual call memorandum is available. Likewise, they have been accusing Trump of doing something Joe Biden openly boasted about doing, without a ripple of pushback at the time. Previous impeachment proceedings had a version of due process, but this one has none. It's understandable that Republicans are blowing it off. There is no there, there.
Click to expand...

Trump's "transparency" made it perfectly clear what he was doing.... if anything, it made me wonder if that was what he was willing to admit, then what in the hell is he hiding?

God, Jay... did you even read the transcript of that conversation?!?! He's setting up his personal attorney to investigate a manufactured crime against a political rival. What's more, he's abusing the powers of his office as leverage for this! Just because you "transparently" rob a bank in broad daylight and don't wear a mask and make sure everyone knows your identity doesn't make you any less guilty. It just makes you one of those idiot criminals everyone laughs at when it gets reported on the news.
 
chuckiechan said:
Bull****. If they wanted to “gather evidence” they would do the vote and get subpoena power.

We all know what they are doing - using leaks to the media to continually peck away at Trumps popularity. Will Trump do that to the next half-wit “Mc Govern, 2.0”? You bet!
Click to expand...

They have all the oversight subpoena power they need already, Chuckie.... all holding a vote at this stage would do is freeze people into political positions which they'd find hard to shift from if and when new information came to light.

I think it far better for House Oversight Committees to investigate this matter, follow where the evidence leads, and then if information is found that incriminates the President, submit it to the Judiciary Committee, consistent with Chairman Nadler's Aug. 22 letter.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you're arguing that whatever a president may have been accused of, the impeachment process is invalid after the midway point of his/her presidency?
"The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings...on December 19, 1998, Clinton became the 2nd president to be impeached when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment...the trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, 1999 Clinton was acquitted..." Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia
Are you saying the Republican dominated Congress rushed the impeachment ?
Click to expand...
Dream on. The Starr investigation had already taken four years. The basis of the impeachment was laid out in 11 felony causes detailed in the report.

Five and a half years on Clinton. How many days on Trump?
 
Cordelier said:
Trump's "transparency" made it perfectly clear what he was doing.... if anything, it made me wonder if that was what he was willing to admit, then what in the hell is he hiding?

God, Jay... did you even read the transcript of that conversation?!?! He's setting up his personal attorney to investigate a manufactured crime against a political rival. What's more, he's abusing the powers of his office as leverage for this! Just because you "transparently" rob a bank in broad daylight and don't wear a mask and make sure everyone knows your identity doesn't make you any less guilty. It just makes you one of those idiot criminals everyone laughs at when it gets reported on the news.
Click to expand...
I am losing hope that you are an rational human. This is obvious stuff.

I read the transcript multiple times. At no point does Trump suggest that funding would be withheld. At no point does he offer a quid pro quo. What he does do is remind Zelenskyy about Crowdstrike, which is a 2016 topic. Trump wants to find out how he had been framed for colluding with the Russians. That's reasonable.
 
Jay59 said:
I am losing hope that you are an rational human. This is obvious stuff.

I read the transcript multiple times. At no point does Trump suggest that funding would be withheld. At no point does he offer a quid pro quo. What he does do is remind Zelenskyy about Crowdstrike, which is a 2016 topic. Trump wants to find out how he had been framed for colluding with the Russians. That's reasonable.
Click to expand...

There's nothing reasonable about it... please enlighten me - what the hell does the Ukrainian Government have to do with Crowdstrike? From my perspective, he might as well be telling Zelensky the foreign aid depended on his coming clean about how the Ukraine faked the moon landings.

Look, I can understand defending the actions of a President you support. But partisanship has to have limits... and this goes way beyond whatever those limits are. If I were in Obama's cabinet and a similar conversation came to light, I'll tell you straight... I'd be making an appointment with the Vice President and talking to him very frankly that the time had come to invoke the 25th Amendment.
 
Cordelier said:
There's nothing reasonable about it... please enlighten me - what the hell does the Ukrainian Government have to do with Crowdstrike? From my perspective, he might as well be telling Zelensky the foreign aid depended on his coming clean about how the Ukraine faked the moon landings.

Look, I can understand defending the actions of a President you support. But partisanship has to have limits... and this goes way beyond whatever those limits are. If I were in Obama's cabinet and a similar conversation came to light, I'll tell you straight... I'd be making an appointment with the Vice President and talking to him very frankly that the time had come to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Why is it when they have nothing, they try to invoke the 25th. Now you are doing it. Trump is doing a damn good job at his job. The 25th is for Presidents that are physically incapable of the day to day workload. As much as you are in denial about what Trump has accomplished, you should at least acknowledge that he is physically on the job every day.

The partisanship is more stark than anything I can remember. Major felonies are swept under the rug by Democrats, while every tiny detail is picked upon with a Republican. We spent two weeks detailing something that might, or might not, have happened 30 years ago in the Kavenaugh hearings, but brush aside serial sexual predation by Bill Clinton. The duplicity is beyond ridiculous. Now you are willing to expel President Trump because he is trying to find out what happened in 2015 and 2016. It is not a sane reaction.
 
Jay59 said:
Why is it when they have nothing, they try to invoke the 25th. Now you are doing it. Trump is doing a damn good job at his job. The 25th is for Presidents that are physically incapable of the day to day workload. As much as you are in denial about what Trump has accomplished, you should at least acknowledge that he is physically on the job every day.

The partisanship is more stark than anything I can remember. Major felonies are swept under the rug by Democrats, while every tiny detail is picked upon with a Republican. We spent two weeks detailing something that might, or might not, have happened 30 years ago in the Kavenaugh hearings, but brush aside serial sexual predation by Bill Clinton. The duplicity is beyond ridiculous. Now you are willing to expel President Trump because he is trying to find out what happened in 2015 and 2016. It is not a sane reaction.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing his physical ability to do the job... I'm arguing his mental ability. This whole Crowstrike argument that you're attempting to make is a case in point. It's delusional. It's paranoid. What's more, it's utterly baseless - if there were a shred of evidence to back up any of his conspiracy theories, there'd already be a Special Counsel appointed to investigate it. Same goes for the Bidens or the Clinton's or anything else his twisted mind manufactures.

That's where we're at right now.... the President is either corrupt or he's mentally unfit for the office. Or both. And I'm pretty sure this conversation with President Zelensky is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm not arguing his physical ability to do the job... I'm arguing his mental ability. This whole Crowstrike argument that you're attempting to make is a case in point. It's delusional. It's paranoid. What's more, it's utterly baseless - if there were a shred of evidence to back up any of his conspiracy theories, there'd already be a Special Counsel appointed to investigate it. Same goes for the Bidens or the Clinton's or anything else his twisted mind manufactures.

That's where we're at right now.... the President is either corrupt or he's mentally unfit for the office. Or both. And I'm pretty sure this conversation with President Zelensky is just the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...
Why bring up the 25th at all? You can dislike him if you wish--in fact your dislike is clearly affecting your judgement--but the 25th does not apply. It's for Presidents in intensive care, like Woodrow Wilson after his stroke.

I am pretty sure he has asked other governments try to help him reconstruct what his own intelligence services did to sabotage his Presidency. I would too.
 
Jay59 said:
Why bring up the 25th at all? You can dislike him if you wish--in fact your dislike is clearly affecting your judgement--but the 25th does not apply. It's for Presidents in intensive care, like Woodrow Wilson after his stroke.

I am pretty sure he has asked other governments try to help him reconstruct what his own intelligence services did to sabotage his Presidency. I would too.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, Jay... there's not a shred of solid evidence to back up that assertion. It's just something he made up. It seems to me that means one of four things... 1) either he's mentally unstable and delusional, in which case the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked; or 2) he made it up as a smokescreen to cover his own wrong-doings, in which case he needs to be impeached.

Of course, there's a third and fourth option as well... 3) the first two options aren't mutually exclusive - both of them could be true.... and 4) he could be entirely accurate and there is a "deep state" cabal out to bring him down.

But let's say you're correct... let's say "deep state" exists. That's an extraordinary claim to make... so let's see some extraordinary evidence to back it up.
 
Jay59 said:
Dream on. The Starr investigation had already taken four years. The basis of the impeachment was laid out in 11 felony causes detailed in the report.

Five and a half years on Clinton. How many days on Trump?
Click to expand...

So? The Mueller report took months and it will be studied in this inquiry

Starr wasn't part of the Impeachment hearings which took just a couple of months. There is more than enough time to draw up articles of impeachment of Trump and conduct his trial in the Senate.


You are grasping at straws.


Is the the latest right wing attempt to stop impeachment ? Claim the the inquiry doesn't have enough time so should be scrapped ?

How desperate the right must be to stop this impeachment, which is strange as Trump claims he finds it "energizing" - if anything Trump is daring the House to push forward with a vote, not hold back. Trump doesn't feel time in an issue.
 
Rich2018 said:
I think it's accepted now that a person committing a crime cannot be indicted while serving as President of the USA.
Click to expand...

The question has not gone before a court, so it is still an open question. The "acception" is based solely on a DOJ policy, not a law or court ruling.

Of course, Trump has declared that he could "shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes." What he is saying is that his popularity allows him to literally do anything and not be held accountable. The senate, the key to removing Trump from office, does not have the spine to hold Trump accountable. The GOP senators fear what will happen to them personally if they actually try to live up to their oaths of office.

The scariest part of all of this is the senate is traveling down the road to irrelevance. Maybe not this year or the next, but eventually it will mean that corporate interests will place key senators in place to do their bidding. They will not oppose whomever is in the White House because they have ceded all their authority.

This is precisely what happened to the Roman senate about 2,000 years. Eventually, the masses will come to accept it.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
The question has not gone before a court, so it is still an open question. The "acception" is based solely on a DOJ policy, not a law or court ruling.

Of course, Trump has declared that he could "shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes." What he is saying is that his popularity allows him to literally do anything and not be held accountable. The senate, the key to removing Trump from office, does not have the spine to hold Trump accountable. The GOP senators fear what will happen to them personally if they actually try to live up to their oaths of office.

The scariest part of all of this is the senate is traveling down the road to irrelevance. Maybe not this year or the next, but eventually it will mean that corporate interests will place key senators in place to do their bidding. They will not oppose whomever is in the White House because they have ceded all their authority.

This is precisely what happened to the Roman senate about 2,000 years. Eventually, the masses will come to accept it.
Click to expand...


To be fair, though, let's not forget that the Senate literally had to lose a Civil War in Rome... and even then, they still assassinated the victorious Caesar and had to be defeated in another Civil War before they became irrelevant....so it's not like they went down without a fight.
 
Cordelier said:
To be fair, though, let's not forget that the Senate literally had to lose a Civil War in Rome... and even then, they still assassinated the victorious Caesar and had to be defeated in another Civil War before they became irrelevant....so it's not like they went down without a fight.
Click to expand...

To be clear, you're not suggesting that the senate assassinate Trump, are you? Of course not, that would be absurd, right?

People in power tend to want to keep their power. However, in this situation, the senators do not give a tinker's damn about where the senate will be 20 or 40 years from now. All they care about is staying in power right now.

That is why McConnell is not allowing any house bills to be considered in the senate. It is all about getting incumbent GOP senators re-elected right now.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
To be clear, you're not suggesting that the senate assassinate Trump, are you? Of course not, that would be absurd, right?

People in power tend to want to keep their power. However, in this situation, the senators do not give a tinker's damn about where the senate will be 20 or 40 years from now. All they care about is staying in power right now.

That is why McConnell is not allowing any house bills to be considered in the senate. It is all about getting incumbent GOP senators re-elected right now.
Click to expand...

I was just citing history, SW... we're not ancient Rome - the Senate has other means of getting rid of Presidents it really wants to get rid of.

*L* Are you saying Mitch McConnell needs an excuse for inaction? Legislatively, I think Trump's biggest mistake - assuming he actually intended to get things passed - was not to pull a Trent Lott deal on McConnell and put John Thune in as Majority Leader. If you want things done, you need a Thune.... if you don't want things done, you need a McConnell.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
The question has not gone before a court, so it is still an open question. The "acception" is based solely on a DOJ policy, not a law or court ruling.

Of course, Trump has declared that he could "shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes." What he is saying is that his popularity allows him to literally do anything and not be held accountable. The senate, the key to removing Trump from office, does not have the spine to hold Trump accountable. The GOP senators fear what will happen to them personally if they actually try to live up to their oaths of office.

The scariest part of all of this is the senate is traveling down the road to irrelevance. Maybe not this year or the next, but eventually it will mean that corporate interests will place key senators in place to do their bidding. They will not oppose whomever is in the White House because they have ceded all their authority.

This is precisely what happened to the Roman senate about 2,000 years. Eventually, the masses will come to accept it.
Click to expand...

What ? The Roman Senate - I think they got their positions from birthright or patronage.

Are you saying the US Senate will pick its members the same way without a regular election ?
 
Rich2018 said:
What ? The Roman Senate - I think they got their positions from birthright or patronage.

Are you saying the US Senate will pick its members the same way without a regular election ?
Click to expand...

Now that the USSC has ruled that unlimited corporate money can be used to influence any election, and we now have super pacs with anonymous donors and no accountability and the people are being conditioned to accept foreign influence in our elections, a regular election is a joke. Soon, it will become common practice to question and throw out any election results that does not please the president.

The notion of a government of the people by the people and for the people will be relegated to the dustbins of history.

Well, we made it for well over 200 years. It was a pretty good run.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Now that the USSC has ruled that unlimited corporate money can be used to influence any election, and we now have super pacs with anonymous donors and no accountability and the people are being conditioned to accept foreign influence in our elections, a regular election is a joke. Soon, it will become common practice to question and throw out any election results that does not please the president.

The notion of a government of the people by the people and for the people will be relegated to the dustbins of history.

Well, we made it for well over 200 years. It was a pretty good run.
Click to expand...


So we need a donations law....all donations without exception) have to be made public.
 
It's not Illegal if the President does it.'

Just this morning on Face The Nation Margaret Brennan asked GOP Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND), sitting right there, if US presidents should be able to ask/pressure foreign nations to interfere in our elections.

Armstrong said, and I paraphrase, 'No, I don't generally believe so. But this president is different. That's his style. People knew this and he was still elected. That's just the way Trump is.'

Brennan scrunched up her eyes as Armstrong was saying this (like she couldn't possibly be hearing what she was actually hearing) and then turned toward the camera with a shocked and incredulous look on her face to break away.

It was painful and extremely sad to hear a member of Congress excuse the flouting of our Constitution in such a cavalier manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom