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?

[Daedalus X]

There are ways of skewing things without being inaccurate, right? Simply removing unflattering banter (which should rightly be removed from an memo) would skew things for Trump. Perhaps more sinisterly, maybe the exact phrase Trump used was even more explicit than "I want you to do us a favor though..." It's seen accurate because the memo kept its explicit nature, but skew things enough for Trump and friends to rally around.

If the transcript had been skewed, then Lt. Col. Vindman would have said something. If a hostile witness to the phone call does not dispute the transcript of the phone call, then we can trust that the transcript of the phone call was not doctored to be favorable to the president.

Sure he did, is the word "though" not significant? There would be some wiggle room without that word.

Do you really want to impeach a sitting president because he used the word 'though'?

"I'm not for impeachment," Pelosi said. "This is news. I'm going to give you some news right now because I haven't said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I've been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."

Yet here we are trying to impeach a president for the word crime of saying 'though'. If this were actually so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, then Trump would have already been impeached, but the Democrats know that they have NOTHING, that is why they are not voting to impeach but just dragging this out for political reasons. Since day one, of the Trump presidency, they have worked to impeach Trump and if they can't find a reason they will make something up, and that is what this is all about. With over two years of the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax under our belts we should know better.

Suffice to repeat my observation, "I want you to do us a favor though..." was an explicit quid pro quo. More to the point, as I pointed out before, merely soliciting help to provide dirt on his political rivals is enough for it to be illegal.

As I said in post 24 to Danmark, a quid pro quo is NOT a crime. Also do you have any evidence to support your claim that Trump was getting 'dirt' on his political rivals, rather than doing his job of investigating crimes that may have been committed by the people that he has probable cause on.

Here is a clear quid pro quo, should we investigate and prosecute?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... cutor.html

[Bust Nak]

If the transcript had been skewed, then Lt. Col. Vindman would have said something.

But he did say something though.

If a hostile witness to the phone call does not dispute the transcript of the phone call, then we can trust that the transcript of the phone call was not doctored to be favorable to the president.

Again, my point was that you don't need to doctor the call to skew things for the president. I even point out an example of legitimate way of skewing things in my last post, removing unflattering banter.

Do you really want to impeach a sitting president because he used the word 'though'?

Depends on which president, whether I want to or not isn't all that important here. Suffice to say the word 'though' is sufficient to establish an a quid pro quo, as opposed to asking for charity.

Yet here we are trying to impeach a president for the word crime of saying 'though'. If this were actually so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, then Trump would have already been impeached...

It would not be in the best interest of the Democrats to skip the due process now, would it? Also, why did you add "bipartisan" here? No one here has suggested this was a bipartisan issue. It's not bipartisan, that's why it's not a good idea.

but the Democrats know that they have NOTHING, that is why they are not voting to impeach but just dragging this out for political reasons.

They are not voting to impeach? That would be news to me.

Since day one, of the Trump presidency, they have worked to impeach Trump and if they can't find a reason they will make something up, and that is what this is all about. With over two years of the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax under our belts we should know better.

Oh yeah, the hoax that revealed significant interference from Russia, where a number of high profile Trump associates have been jailed. The hoax where the main reason given for not making an explicit charge against Trump was that a president cannot be indicted so it's best handle via impeachment?

As I said in post 24 to Danmark, a quid pro quo is NOT a crime.

Right, so why fight so hard over a non-issue?

Also do you have any evidence to support your claim that Trump was getting 'dirt' on his political rivals, rather than doing his job of investigating crimes that may have been committed by the people that he has probable cause on.

You say that like there is a difference, when the accusation is leveled at a political rival.

Here is a clear quid pro quo, should we investigate and prosecute?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... cutor.html

Of course not. Note the absence of getting 'dirt' on his political rivals.

[Daedalus X]

But he did say something though.

The omissions, Lt. Col. Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, (see the link at bottom of post 31) and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter. (no bombshell here)

Again, my point was that you don't need to doctor the call to skew things for the president. I even point out an example of legitimate way of skewing things in my last post, removing unflattering banter.

Again, my point was that if unflattering banter had been removed then Lt. Col. Vindman would have said there were three corrections to the transcript that needed to be made, not just two.

Depends on which president, whether I want to or not isn't all that important here. Suffice to say the word 'though' is sufficient to establish an a quid pro quo, as opposed to asking for charity.

Again, a 'quid pro quo' is NOT a crime.
Trump did say "I would like you to do 'us' a favor though". Notice that he did NOT say "I would like you to do 'me' a favor though". Suffice it to say the word 'us' is sufficient to establish he was asking on behalf of the people of the United States and not for himself.

Yet here we are trying to impeach a president for the word crime of saying 'though'. If this were actually so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, then Trump would have already been impeached...

It would not be in the best interest of the Democrats to skip the due process now, would it? Also, why did you add "bipartisan" here? No one here has suggested this was a bipartisan issue. It's not bipartisan, that's why it's not a good idea.

You got it right, it is all about "the best interest of the Democrats" and not the best interest of the American people as a whole. It was Nancy Pelosi who said an impeachment is a bad idea if it is not bipartisan. And she was right.

They are not voting to impeach? That would be news to me.

The House only voted for an impeachment inquiry, because they did not have any evidence against the President, if they had evidence they would have voted to impeach and the Senate would be dealing with it now.

Oh yeah, the hoax that revealed significant interference from Russia, where a number of high profile Trump associates have been jailed. The hoax where the main reason given for not making an explicit charge against Trump was that a president cannot be indicted so it's best handle via impeachment?

I will make a new thread where you can support your claims here.

Also do you have any evidence to support your claim that Trump was getting 'dirt' on his political rivals, rather than doing his job of investigating crimes that may have been committed by the people that he has probable cause on.

You say that like there is a difference, when the accusation is leveled at a political rival.

You say that like a political rival is above the law. If Al Capone had known that, he would have run for president and avoided prison.

Here is a clear quid pro quo, should we investigate and prosecute?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... cutor.html

Of course not. Note the absence of getting 'dirt' on his political rivals.

Did any of the money (US taxpayer money) that Vice President Biden offered to the Ukraine go to Barisma? Did Vice President Biden know that Hunter Biden was working for Barisma? If Barisma did get any American money, how was it used? If the money had gone into the pockets of the oligarchs that owned Barisma, would that be a crime against the American people?

[Bust Nak]

The omissions, Lt. Col. Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, (see the link at bottom of post 31) and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter. (no bombshell here)

Right, so you accept that he did complain about inaccuracies, but do not think the inaccuracies have skewed things for Trump?

Again, my point was that if unflattering banter had been removed then Lt. Col. Vindman would have said there were three corrections to the transcript that needed to be made, not just two.

Why though, if it is legit use?

Again, a 'quid pro quo' is NOT a crime.

Hence my earlier question, why fight over this non-issue?

Trump did say "I would like you to do 'us' a favor though". Notice that he did NOT say "I would like you to do 'me' a favor though". Suffice it to say the word 'us' is sufficient to establish he was asking on behalf of the people of the United States and not for himself.

Or "us" as in he and his friends? More to the point, are you changing your position from "no quid pro quo" to "quid pro quo for the greater good?"

You got it right, it is all about "the best interest of the Democrats" and not the best interest of the American people as a whole.

Why not both? These are not opposing ideals. The nation wins when a corrupted president is impeached. Better still to have him removed, but an improvement is still an improvement.

It was Nancy Pelosi who said an impeachment is a bad idea if it is not bipartisan. And she was right.

That the Democrats are willing to go ahead with this despite it not being a good idea, risking their votes, should tell you the impeachment is not just about the best interest of the Democrats but the best interest of the nation too.

The House only voted for an impeachment inquiry, because they did not have any evidence against the President, if they had evidence they would have voted to impeach and the Senate would be dealing with it now.

Again, this is all part of the process. The vote to impeach is comes after the inquiry. News just in, the impeachment vote is going ahead.

I will make a new thread where you can support your claims here.

Of you can just read Mueller's report?

You say that like a political rival is above the law. If Al Capone had known that, he would have run for president and avoided prison.

You are missing a major point here: a political rival is not above the law, but he is above being the target of an foreign investigation on behest of a president. Running for president would not save Al Capone from prison, the investigation on him was conducted by domestic agents.

Did any of the money (US taxpayer money) that Vice President Biden offered to the Ukraine go to Barisma? Did Vice President Biden know that Hunter Biden was working for Barisma? If Barisma did get any American money, how was it used?

Don't know, my understand is that "the money" in question took the form of a loan guarantee, no US taxpayer money would leave the US unless a Ukrainian loan is defaulted; and if that did happen, the money went to Ukraine's creditors, not to Ukraine itself.

If the money had gone into the pockets of the oligarchs that owned Barisma, would that be a crime against the American people?

Maybe, maybe not.

[Daedalus X]

This man may be on to something.

Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
https://news.grabien.com/story-nadler-1 ... ill-voters

[Daedalus X]

The omissions, Lt. Col. Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, (see the link at bottom of post 31) and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter. (no bombshell here)

Right, so you accept that he did complain about inaccuracies, but do not think the inaccuracies have skewed things for Trump?

Again, my point was that if unflattering banter had been removed then Lt. Col. Vindman would have said there were three corrections to the transcript that needed to be made, not just two.

Why though, if it is legit use?

I am just trying to understand how your mind works here.

Are you saying that the two things that were omitted and mentioned by Lt. Col. Vindman were NOT 'legit use'. (whatever that means) And the item that was omitted and NOT mentioned by Lt. Col. Vindman was 'legit use'. (whatever that means). Can you explain what makes something 'legit use'?

Again, a 'quid pro quo' is NOT a crime.

Hence my earlier question, why fight over this non-issue?

You and Danmark keep bringing it up as if it were a crime, I am just correcting that error.

Or "us" as in he and his friends?

Yes, it could be. But the burden of proof is on you and the Democrats. Remember we still live in an "innocent till proven guilty" society, even though the Democrats are doing their best to change that.

More to the point, are you changing your position from "no quid pro quo" to "quid pro quo for the greater good?"

Where did I say "no quid pro quo"?

You got it right, it is all about "the best interest of the Democrats" and not the best interest of the American people as a whole.

Why not both? These are not opposing ideals. The nation wins when a corrupted president is impeached. Better still to have him removed, but an improvement is still an improvement.

The nation wins when a corrupted former vice president is incarcerated. Remember it is trumps constitutional duty to investigate Biden, if he does not do so, then he should be impeached. (Article 2 Section 3)

It was Nancy Pelosi who said an impeachment is a bad idea if it is not bipartisan. And she was right.

That the Democrats are willing to go ahead with this despite it not being a good idea, risking their votes, should tell you the impeachment is not just about the best interest of the Democrats but the best interest of the nation too.

A better explanation is that the Democrats are willing to go ahead because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

You say that like a political rival is above the law. If Al Capone had known that, he would have run for president and avoided prison.

You are missing a major point here: a political rival is not above the law, but he is above being the target of an foreign investigation on behest of a president. Running for president would not save Al Capone from prison, the investigation on him was conducted by domestic agents.

America does not have the right to investigate in foreign countries, that is why it is up to the executive branch of our government to work with foreign governments to investigate crimes committed by American government officials in foreign countries. As Trump did do.

Did any of the money (US taxpayer money) that Vice President Biden offered to the Ukraine go to Barisma? Did Vice President Biden know that Hunter Biden was working for Barisma? If Barisma did get any American money, how was it used?

Don't know, my understand is that "the money" in question took the form of a loan guarantee, no US taxpayer money would leave the US unless a Ukrainian loan is defaulted; and if that did happen, the money went to Ukraine's creditors, not to Ukraine itself.

If you don't know then you should welcome an investigation.

If the money had gone into the pockets of the oligarchs that owned Barisma, would that be a crime against the American people?

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe we should welcome an investigation to find out?

[Bust Nak]

Are you saying that the two things that were omitted and mentioned by Lt. Col. Vindman were NOT 'legit use'. (whatever that means) And the item that was omitted and NOT mentioned by Lt. Col. Vindman was 'legit use'. (whatever that means). Can you explain what makes something 'legit use'?

I gave you an example, removing unflattering banter would be a legit use. I can give a more concrete example if you like, it would be legit to change "covfefe" to "coverage."

You and Danmark keep bringing it up as if it were a crime, I am just correcting that error.

First of all, certain forms of "quid pro quo" are crimes, bribery for example.

Secondly, both me and Danmark pointed out that "quid pro quo" is not required before you even joined the conversation.

Finally you "correcting that error" by pointing out that 'quid pro quo' is NOT a crime, instead of arguing that there was no 'quid pro quo,' so it's still not clear why you were making a big deal out of a non-issue.

Yes, it could be. But the burden of proof is on you and the Democrats. Remember we still live in an "innocent till proven guilty" society, even though the Democrats are doing their best to change that.

That's what the enquire is for.

Where did I say "no quid pro quo"?

Post #26 "He did ask for a favor, but he did not ask for a "favor in return", he did not need to condition the favor for the aid."

The nation wins when a corrupted former vice president is incarcerated. Remember it is trumps constitutional duty to investigate Biden, if he does not do so, then he should be impeached. (Article 2 Section 3)

Taking care that the Laws be faithfully executed does not involve investigate someone who is not accused of or related to a crime.

A better explanation is that the Democrats are willing to go ahead because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

Better in what sense?

America does not have the right to investigate in foreign countries, that is why it is up to the executive branch of our government to work with foreign governments to investigate crimes committed by American government officials in foreign countries.

By going through his personal lawyer?

If you don't know then you should welcome an investigation.

Sure, but not at the expense of the nation, nor for the wrong motive.

[Danmark]

Trump DID condition the aid on 'the [political] favor' of going after his Dem. front runner in the coming election. He just did not use the words "quid pro quo" or explicitly describe the quid pro quo. Given his limited vocabulary, he likely did not even know the term until it hit the airwaves.

Bribery is not only a crime, it is specifically listed in Constitution as a "High Crime" that deserves impeachment. But that is not the only crime. As Mueller said about his investigation, but for the opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, the President could be charged with crimes. Mueller specifically said Trump could be charged with crimes after he leaves office.

What crimes?
Besides obstruction of justice and abuse of power there are more, among them election fraud felonies.
"Trump may face significant peril from federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to legal experts. His former personal lawyer Michael Cohen said in Feb. 27 congressional testimony that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is examining Trump’s business practices and financial dealings. Cohen already has implicated Trump in campaign finance law violations to which he pleaded guilty in August 2018 as part of the Southern District investigation.

Cohen admitted he violated campaign finance laws by arranging, at Trump’s direction, “hush money� payments shortly before the 2016 presidential election to porn film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy magazine model Karen McDougal to prevent damage to Trump’s candidacy."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1R50S3

One of the reasons for impeachment is to prosecute crimes there is probable cause to believe a sitting President has committed, but he can't be prosecuted for while he is in office.

[Daedalus X]

I gave you an example, removing unflattering banter would be a legit use. I can give a more concrete example if you like, it would be legit to change "covfefe" to "coverage."

Okay, the transcript was legit and reliable then.

First of all, certain forms of "quid pro quo" are crimes, bribery for example.

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

Secondly, both me and Danmark pointed out that "quid pro quo" is not required before you even joined the conversation.

Okay, 'quid pro quo' is irrelevant.

Finally you "correcting that error" by pointing out that 'quid pro quo' is NOT a crime, instead of arguing that there was no 'quid pro quo,' so it's still not clear why you were making a big deal out of a non-issue.

A 'quid pro quo' is irrelevant here. It is like saying to your waitress "I would like you do me a favor though I am on a diet I would like you to bring me a slice of apple pie". It is not an explicit 'quid pro quo' as she is doing something that she is already obligated to do for you and not illegal for you to ask.That is basically all that Trump did.

Yes, it could be. But the burden of proof is on you and the Democrats. Remember we still live in an "innocent till proven guilty" society, even though the Democrats are doing their best to change that.

That's what the enquire is for.

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

Where did I say "no quid pro quo"?

Post #26 "He did ask for a favor, but he did not ask for a "favor in return", he did not need to condition the favor for the aid."

Just saying, that Trump did not make it an explicit 'quid pro quo', as he did not say "I would like you to do us a 'favor in return' for all this beautiful military hardware".

The nation wins when a corrupted former vice president is incarcerated. Remember it is trumps constitutional duty to investigate Biden, if he does not do so, then he should be impeached. (Article 2 Section 3)

Taking care that the Laws be faithfully executed does not involve investigate someone who is not accused of or related to a crime.

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

A better explanation is that the Democrats are willing to go ahead because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

Better in what sense?

It better explains why the Democrats are acting so irrational.

America does not have the right to investigate in foreign countries, that is why it is up to the executive branch of our government to work with foreign governments to investigate crimes committed by American government officials in foreign countries.

By going through his personal lawyer?

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.

If you don't know then you should welcome an investigation.

Sure, but not at the expense of the nation, nor for the wrong motive.

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

[youtube][/youtube]

[historia]

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?