Trump impeachment

[historia]

On September 24, 2019, the US House of Representatives began an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump.

Most political analysts agree that the House, which has a Democratic majority, is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. While the Senate, which has a Republican majority, is unlikely to reach the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office.

Questions for debate:

1. Should Trump be impeached?

2. Should Trump be removed from office?

3. If the process plays out as analysts expect, will this redound to the Democrats' or the Republicans' benefit in the 2020 elections?

[Danmark]

Okay. On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution on impeachment.

That resolution includes two articles of impeachment: (1) Abuse of Power, and (2) Obstruction of Congress.

It now goes to the full House for a vote. How would you vote?

He quite literally has obstructed Congress by using a blanket refusal to comply with any request; plus refusing to let witnesses testify to the extent he has any control. He is asserting an 'absolute privilege,' a privilege which does not exist.

Attempting to Bribe a foreign power for personal political gain is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. He did it. The evidence is in his own words.

If he was innocent, if the Republican Senate thought he was innocent, then HE and THEY would be forthcoming with the very evidence Trump is withholding by his obstruction.

[Danmark]

“At first glance, the impeachment proceedings against President Trump might seem to be a specifically and narrowly American matter,� Fareed writes in his latest Washington Post column. “But if you look around the world, you see this is taking place amid a deeply worrying global trend. In country after country, we are witnessing an unprecedented wave of attacks on the constitutions, institutions, norms and values that have given democracy strength and meaning.�

All in the last week, India passed a law that excludes Muslim migrants from fast-tracked citizenship granted to other religions, Israel has headed for a third election as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attacks the country’s judiciary while facing indictment, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has pushed laws targeting his opposition and disempowering local governments, and former human-rights champion Aung San Suu Kyi defended Myanmar against accusations of ethnic cleansing at the International Court of Justice.

“Across the democratic world, the institutions of liberty and law are under attack,� Fareed writes. “If they give way, the fraying democratic fabric of our societies will ultimately tear apart.�

__ Fareed Zakaria
Dec. 13, 2019, Washington Post

[Divine Insight]

Apparently many Americans don't care about freedom anymore.

Trump would have whistle-blowers charged with "Treason".

Trump renounces the FBI, the Intelligence agency. He even mocks the congress and makes fun of serious impeachment charges.

Trump stands for totalitarian dictatorship where his authority cannot be questioned. To question his authority or accuse him of wrong doing it "treasonous" according to him.

He's real friendly with Vladimir Putin who is also totally into totalitarian authority. If Americans keep supporting this guy they may indeed lose their free democracy, where the house and senate are not permitted to do anything but keep their mouths shut and do as they are told.

Yes, the USA is in grave danger of falling prey to autocracy. Cause the House and Senate to lose their ability to challenge the president and Freedom in the USA will be lost and gone forever.

Uprising in the street won't help at that point. They'll just be quenched by the might of the military with no congress to object. The USA will fall prey to totalitarianism. Most likely orchestrated by Russia and implemented by Donald Trump, the hand-picked puppet of Vladimir Putin.

[Bust Nak]

Okay, the transcript was legit and reliable then.

But we don't have a transcript.

True, but notice that charges of bribery were NOT included in the articles of impeachment.

It does go towards the abuse of power charge.

Okay, 'quid pro quo' is irrelevant... A 'quid pro quo' is irrelevant here...It is like saying to your waitress... Just saying, that Trump did not make it an explicit 'quid pro quo'...

So, again, why make such a big deal over a non-issue?

Okay, the Democrats have still not met their burden of proof.

Sure they have, multiple witness has confirmed the whistle blower's report.

That is what the investigation is for, to determine whether an offense was committed.

That is a violation of a person's right to privacy. You need a reason to believe an offence was committed first.

It better explains why the Democrats are acting so irrational.

That's just begs the question. Why would you classify the desire for justice as irrational?

If Trump had the time and expertise then he would do it himself, but he has other duties to attend to, so he must outsource the task to someone who he can trust and has the expertise to do it.

That doesn't make it okay to use his personal lawyer.

Do you think that America can't handle the truth?

Half cannot, but that's besides the point, it's about wrong doing at the expense of the nation.

[historia]

1. Should Trump be impeached?

I would have to say yes.

I think the best explanation of the available evidence -- not just the transcript, but also the witness testimony -- is that the President pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into his primary domestic political rival for his own personal benefit, which is an abuse of the power of his office.

If there is any remaining uncertainty as to the President's intentions in these events -- and I will gladly admit that there is -- that is only because the White House is currently preventing several key witnesses from testifying. Why not allow them to testify if they can exonerate the President?

I do have some reservations about the articles of impeachment themselves being too broad, and would like to have seen a more specific charge of bribery or extortion brought forward for consideration.

the Democrats have still not met their burden of proof.

One thing to consider here is that impeachment and removal is a two-step process, which, in some respects, mirrors the Grand Jury (or preliminary hearing) and trial process that follows from a criminal complaint.

The burden of proof is different in each. As with a Grand Jury, the goal of the House impeachment hearings is to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial, not whether the defendant is ultimately guilty or not. That is the purpose of the Senate trial, which can -- and in this case certainly should -- include additional witnesses and evidence.

[historia]

Trump has now been impeached by the House on both articles, largely along party lines.

[bjs]

At first I favored the effort, but now it seems like an exercise in futility. Trump has been impeached purely along partisan lines, and it looks likely that he will be acquitted by the Senate purely along partisan lines.

The only Democrat to oppose impeachment is considering leaving the Democratic Party, and the only conservative to support it recently left the Republican Party. It is statistically impossible that every person who looked at the evidence reached a decision that fell in line with their party’s way of thinking. This means that Republicans and Democrats have reached their position through partisan politics instead of examining the facts.

Both sides agree that Trump will be acquitted, meaning that the entire endeavor was a waste of time that should have been put toward effective governing.

Perhaps the only good thing to come of all this is that Trump seems to have felt the need to “look busy� and thus several legislative compromises has been reached.

[Daedalus X]

Trump DID condition the aid on 'the [political] favor' of going after his Dem. front runner in the coming election.

Trump DID NOT condition the aid on 'the [political] favor' of going after his Dem. front runner in the coming election.

See how that works? Or should I say "see how that does NOT work"? “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.� – Christopher Hitchens.

Before you multiply claims beyond necessity, why don't you answer these questions about your previous claims. ==> viewtopic.php?p=989675#989675

Forum Rules:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

[Daedalus X]

But we don't have a transcript.

But we do know what was said during the call, and we do know that there was no impeachable offense in the call. That is all that we need to know about that.

True, but notice that charges of bribery were NOT included in the articles of impeachment.

It does go towards the abuse of power charge.

We have an abuse of power charge, yet NO violation of the law! How does that make any logical sense?

Okay, 'quid pro quo' is irrelevant... A 'quid pro quo' is irrelevant here...It is like saying to your waitress... Just saying, that Trump did not make it an explicit 'quid pro quo'...

So, again, why make such a big deal over a non-issue?

There is no 'big deal'. That is kind of what is meant by the use of the word 'irrelevant'.

Okay, the Democrats have still not met their burden of proof.

Sure they have, multiple witness has confirmed the whistle blower's report.

What have they confirmed, other than there was nothing impeachable in the call?

That is what the investigation is for, to determine whether an offense was committed.

That is a violation of a person's right to privacy. You need a reason to believe an offence was committed first.

"On its face, there’s a lot of smoke there. Whether that was corrupt at the end of the day, I don’t know, but there’s more than enough evidence to investigate corruption.� – Sen. Ted Cruz.

That's just begs the question. Why would you classify the desire for justice as irrational?

A partisan impeachment is not a 'desire for justice', it is just irrational. If you know that an impeachment requires a two thirds vote and you have less than half, why divide the nation further? This is what Russia is accused of doing, and now the Democrats are trying to do what they accused Russia of doing.

That doesn't make it okay to use his personal lawyer.

Is there a law against a private citizen investigating corruption in the Ukraine?

Do you think that America can't handle the truth?

Half cannot, but that's besides the point, it's about wrong doing at the expense of the nation.

I would say a little less than half. Let them have their tantrum and be done with it.

[youtube][/youtube]

The investigation of 'wrong doing' is not wrong doing at the expense of the nation.

[Bust Nak]

But we do know what was said during the call, and we do know that there was no impeachable offense in the call. That is all that we need to know about that.

But we don't know that at all, we know there is impeachable offense in the call, backed up by testimony of those who are familiar with the events relating to the call.

We have an abuse of power charge, yet NO violation of the law! How does that make any logical sense?

I don't know how to answer that when I have no idea where you are even coming from. Impeachment isn't necessarily about law breaking, why is that odd to you?

There is no 'big deal'. That is kind of what is meant by the use of the word 'irrelevant'.

Hence my question. One the one hand, you say there is no big deal, use words like "irrelevant," yet make a huge deal over it, and I want to why.

What have they confirmed, other than there was nothing impeachable in the call?

That there is something impeachable in the call.

"On its face, there’s a lot of smoke there. Whether that was corrupt at the end of the day, I don’t know, but there’s more than enough evidence to investigate corruption.� – Sen. Ted Cruz.

So investigate corruption, as opposed to investigating Bidden.

A partisan impeachment is not a 'desire for justice', it is just irrational.

Again, that rises yet another question, why do you believe that?

If you know that an impeachment requires a two thirds vote and you have less than half, why divide the nation further?

Because justice is just that important a principle.

This is what Russia is accused of doing, and now the Democrats are trying to do what they accused Russia of doing.

Russia is merely accused of doing that, as in they aren't actually doing that?

Is there a law against a private citizen investigating corruption in the Ukraine?

In this context, yes. The Logan Act.

I would say a little less than half. Let them have their tantrum and be done with it.

In this post-truth era, we have to make do with little victories, the tantrum of Trump and co is the best we can really expect. It's a real shame that tantrums would likely be the end of it. The party of law and order is anything but.

The investigation of 'wrong doing' is not wrong doing at the expense of the nation.

It need not be in general, but it is in this case.