Impeachment Thread

[icanhelp1]

Actually, the Dems wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, either by somehow redoing the 2016 election or by persuading the electors to vote contrary to the instructions of the voters in some states. Their efforts to impeach began on Jan. 20, 2017 and have been continuing since that date.

All started with Green and Waters, no corruption there, as well as the deep state!

 

[magicalmoments]

if it were Obama who had done the same thing that trump did, viz a viz the Ukraine, would the republicans be impeaching his ass? Dead right they would.
Would the democrats be pushing the crazy ass defences that the republicans are now? Dead right they would.
The difference is that Obama was too smart to get caught. Trump is just too fucking dumb, or so afflicted by personality disorder to see, let alone avoid the holes he is falling into.
The senate are going to let him off, just as it did with Clinton, is that just? No, in either case.

 

[KeithD]

The senate are going to let him off, just as it did with Clinton, is that just? No, in either case.

Let's see, putting these two cases on the scales. On the one side you have Clinton, charged with lying about getting blow jobs from a willing, adult intern but still continuing to fully discharge his duties as president. On the other side, we have Trump, extorting a foreign government for domestic political dirt on an opponent, holding up military aid to that government that the Congress had already appropriated, with Ukrainians dying left and right from an invasion by Russia, which Trump has aided at every opportunity he's had. And on top of that Trump is obstructing the called testimony of government employees by the Congress of the United States and, oh yeah, on the side, settling a case of having stolen money from veterans, bonking a bevy of prostitutes and lying about it (same essential sole thing Clinton was impeached for--minus the prostitutes and hidden payoffs), failing to detach from his businesses, which he is profiting from in his government position (and trying to do even more--trying to get an international meeting held as one of his failing properties)--and advertising his son's book from the office of the president. Among a whole bunch of other corrupt and illegal stuff. And all the time all the time Trump has left over to function as president is going to the golf course.

Let's look at that balance--oh my, Trump's side of the scales seems to have sunk into the subbasement, where the board Trumpettes are busy devising deflection and distraction.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Not even CLOSE to the truth. The right stood by and (some loudly) griped while Obama systematically set us back 20 or 30 years.

The left, since Trump DEFEATED Hillary, has been pulling out all stops, getting injunctions, suing, roadblocks, finding ANYTHING they can throw at the wall in desperate hopes it will stick.

The right has been paying attention and the next Dem president (possibly after Pence's second term, so around 2032) will have a HELL of a battle on their hands.

Can you say Merrick Garland? I think you can.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Well, I decided!!! I don't carry water for Trump but I would rather support a Captain that may be a little boisterous, exaggerates some but does have genuine interest in the wellbeing of his constituents. Most people don't care if members of the family work for him, after all, they're working for the American people free of charge.

The 4th U.S. circuit court of appeals dismissed lawsuit alleging emolument clause violation.
Some of his own appointees are deep state, Chameleons! Obama's whistleblowers were fired, not protected, just to illustrate the double standard the dems so readily demonstrate.

I find your use of " boisterous, exaggerates some but does have genuine interest in the wellbeing of his constituents", interesting, If that is your take. I have always said the people get the government they deserve.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuzzy's passive bias is quite comical. Me thinks he has voices in his head!

What is passive bias?

That I have no bias towards either of your current political parties, is not passive, or aggressive.

It is a fact. Your government is not mine.

 

[icanhelp1]

if it were Obama who had done the same thing that trump did, viz a viz the Ukraine, would the republicans be impeaching his ass? Dead right they would.
Would the democrats be pushing the crazy ass defences that the republicans are now? Dead right they would.
The difference is that Obama was too smart to get caught. Trump is just too fucking dumb, or so afflicted by personality disorder to see, let alone avoid the holes he is falling into.
The senate are going to let him off, just as it did with Clinton, is that just? No, in either case.

Trump is out in the open and transparent, that's not dumb. The senate is going to acquit, no crime was committed by Trump. Although, one crime may have been committed, white house personnel violating the handling of classified material protocol 18 U.S. code [1924 and 798 ]. Any conversation by a president and a foreign leader is privileged information. Anyone within that circle is sworn to secrecy. Any protest or challenges to those conversations have two avenues for reprieve 1. White house counsel 2. Directly to the ICIG, any other means is a breach of security protocol and could be criminally charged. This violation will eventually come out.

 

[icanhelp1]

I find your use of " boisterous, exaggerates some but does have genuine interest in the wellbeing of his constituents", interesting, If that is your take. I have always said the people get the government they deserve.

I think most Canadians agree with my assertions!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think most Canadians agree with my assertions!

Might I suggest you research that a bit.

 

[magicalmoments]

# 260 above

Well... Ole' 1i certainly lives up to his handle, as one eyed as you can get.
You make my point. Your defence of trump is exactly what the democrats would use if a democratic president had been impeached in the same circumstances. It's a bullshit argument in either case.

 

[magicalmoments]

#256 above

Either obstruction of justice is a high crime and misdemeanour or it isn't. In clintons case it seems that the republicans were convinced that it was.
If the evidence proved Clinton obstructed justice then he should have paid the price and been removed. There are not degrees of obstruction of justice.
This same standard should be applied to trump. I'm sure all the non hypocritical republicans on here will agree with me. The 1i'd amongst them will twist and squirm and abandon their values and deny deny deny. There is no law against being a hypocrite.

 

[icanhelp1]

# 260 above

Well... Ole' 1i certainly lives up to his handle, as one eyed as you can get.
You make my point. Your defence of trump is exactly what the democrats would use if a democratic president had been impeached in the same circumstances. It's a bullshit argument in either case.

Pubs wouldn't impeach a dems pres for what Trump is going through. Trump didn't break any laws, no reason for impeachment. There's a new breakthrough drug for dementia, you might want to try it!

 

[magicalmoments]

If I knew how to set up a poll I would. The question would be:

If Obama had done what trump had done exactly the same in regard to the Ukraine would the republicans have started impeachment proceedings against him?"

I'm picking that even with all the 1i'd alts on here it would be a landslide "yes" vote.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If I knew how to set up a poll I would. The question would be:

If Obama had done what trump had done exactly the same in regard to the Ukraine would the republicans have started impeachment proceedings against him?"

I'm picking that even with all the 1i'd alts on here it would be a landslide "yes" vote.

Well if it was Obama or Bush, or FDR getting caught doing what Trump got caught doing, I'd vote yes in your Pole MM.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

#256 above

Either obstruction of justice is a high crime and misdemeanour or it isn't. In clintons case it seems that the republicans were convinced that it was.
If the evidence proved Clinton obstructed justice then he should have paid the price and been removed. There are not degrees of obstruction of justice.
This same standard should be applied to trump. I'm sure all the non hypocritical republicans on here will agree with me. The 1i'd amongst them will twist and squirm and abandon their values and deny deny deny. There is no law against being a hypocrite.

If you are going to bring up the Clinton impeachment, I am not sure Clinton really was guilty of anything other than getting some head from an intern. Now the fact he "lied" about it, makes you have to weigh the verdict of is that guilty of impeachment?

I think the Senate voted correctly. Clinton did lie, but not really lie, and his reason for the lie was not to circumvent the will of the people, financially benefit himself,or break the rule of law. He did like any other husband caught fucking around would. Except in his case, he was president at the time.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If you are going to bring up the Clinton impeachment, I am not sure Clinton really was guilty of anything other than getting some head from an intern. Now the fact he "lied" about it, makes you have to weigh the verdict of is that guilty of impeachment?

I think the Senate voted correctly. Clinton did lie, but not really lie, and his reason for the lie was not to circumvent the will of the people, financially benefit himself,or break the rule of law. He did like any other husband caught fucking around would. Except in his case, he was president at the time.

You've just reversed global warming. (Hell froze over)

We're in pretty much complete agreement on that. It was a personal matter between he and his wife. He "should have" responded with "None of your business." I and most right wingers that I know would have accepted that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You've just reversed global warming. (Hell froze over)

We're in pretty much complete agreement on that. It was a personal matter between he and his wife. He "should have" responded with "None of your business." I and most right wingers that I know would have accepted that.

I've voiced this opinion on other threads around here too.

Though the House Republicans went after him, (White water on down the road)
and all they got him on was "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman", I think the Republicans in the Senate could see through that, right to the husband who got caught.

While I agree with your "none of your business" answer, I am not sure that would have been an acceptable answer, to either the Republicans,Democrats or Hillary, chuckles

I fail to see why "hell froze over"?

 

[gunthernehmen]

I fail to see why "hell froze over"?

You left wingers aren't supposed to hold rightist opinions, that's all.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You left wingers aren't supposed to hold rightist opinions, that's all.

Ah, ok, well you do realize in Canadian Politics, I am not left wing. However, as I have often said here, our right wing is not as far right, as your left wing already is.

 

[icanhelp1]

#256 above

Either obstruction of justice is a high crime and misdemeanour or it isn't. In clintons case it seems that the republicans were convinced that it was.
If the evidence proved Clinton obstructed justice then he should have paid the price and been removed. There are not degrees of obstruction of justice.
This same standard should be applied to trump. I'm sure all the non hypocritical republicans on here will agree with me. The 1i'd amongst them will twist and squirm and abandon their values and deny deny deny. There is no law against being a hypocrite.

More generalities. No one will dispute obstruction of justice is a criminal offense in a court of law. Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Had he been prosecuted in a court of law he may have been found guilty and sentenced. Clinton's articles of impeachment were based on criminal allegations within a POLITICAL ARENA. The house found the allegations were strong enough to establish article of impeachment and then received the necessary votes to elevate to the senate for trial. Although, 2 crimes were committed the senate did not get the required votes for removal, an example where a statute was violated and prosecuted in a political arena and the senate ( jurors ) could not remove (political)
Kenneth Starr was an { INDEPENDENT COUNSEL } appointed by a 3 judge panel investigating whitewater ( witch hunt ), evolved into the Tripp/ Lewinsky allegations and all findings were reported to congress. Clinton could have been referred for criminal prosecution after his term was up, but, I believe charges were dropped because of the political climate at the time.

Mueller was appointed as a { SPECIAL COUNSEL } under the auspices of the DOJ for a criminal investigation and not privy to public scrutiny. If no crime is found and no indictment filed the investigation should have been closed. The obstruction of justice portions of the mueller report ( part II ) did not exonerate Trump. In a DOJ criminal investigation there is no such thing as the term exonerate, you either indict and prosecute or charges are dropped but because Trump wanted it released the exonerated narrative ( 10 +/- ) portions became a rallying cry by the dem house for a political obstruction of justice case, no crime, just political. Mueller hid behind the OLC's guidance ( cannot indict a sitting president ) which he lied. He and Weismann overstepped they authority by not closing the case a year earlier. The Manafort conviction is at the heart of Ukraine investigation and the Clintons buying dirt on Trump trying to associate Trump with Manafort's criminal enterprises.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you are going to bring up the Clinton impeachment, I am not sure Clinton really was guilty of anything other than getting some head from an intern. Now the fact he "lied" about it, makes you have to weigh the verdict of is that guilty of impeachment?

I think the Senate voted correctly. Clinton did lie, but not really lie, and his reason for the lie was not to circumvent the will of the people, financially benefit himself,or break the rule of law. He did like any other husband caught fucking around would. Except in his case, he was president at the time.

That lie was perjury, a felony, and he was also committing sexual harassment. I agree, though, his actions did not constitute "High crimes and misdemeanors."

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That lie was perjury, a felony, and he was also committing sexual harassment. I agree, though, his actions did not constitute "High crimes and misdemeanors."

Well his lie was not a lie. He said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". When he said it, it was not to congress, he said it in an televised speech. As such the investigation began, he got impeached. And at least according to the Senate in their determination; since he never had vaginal/anal sexual relations with her, he had not lied. He did admit to receiveing blow jobs, and stimulated her with a cigar, ( that was fucking funny as I recall) so they acquired.

In a criminal case, I don't see how getting a blow job between two concenting adults is a Felony?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ah, ok, well you do realize in Canadian Politics, I am not left wing. However, as I have often said here, our right wing is not as far right, as your left wing already is.

Our left wing is advocating nationalizing the economy and getting rid of private property.

It doesn't get any further left, it's all the way over and getting more authoritarian in nature by the day LOL

So where are you to the left that our intersectional semi-Marxist are on your right???

 

[icanhelp1]

Might I suggest you research that a bit.

Might I suggest you acquire a sense of humor.

 

[KeithD]

Well his lie was not a lie. He said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". When he said it, it was not to congress, he said it in an televised speech. As such the investigation began, he got impeached. And at least according to the Senate in their determination; since he never had vaginal/anal sexual relations with her, he had not lied. He did admit to receiveing blow jobs, and stimulated her with a cigar, ( that was fucking funny as I recall) so they acquired.

In a criminal case, I don't see how getting a blow job between two concenting adults is a Felony?

Clinton also wasn't committing sexual harassment in the case cited (I looked carefully at all of them at the time, and I only saw one case I'd classify that way--with one case being enough, of course. And also, of course, not even being in the league of what Trump has done in his life). Little Miss Monica knew exactly what she was doing and she was of age.