koobookie wrote: What's the difference between a President interfering in another countries elections, and a President asking a country to interfere in our elections?
The first situation is using the power of the office to benefit of the country (arguably).
The second situation is using the power of the office to benefit an individual that is in office.
See the difference?
So one would be considered crimes against millions and the other one is a crime against a candidate who might be out of the race before South Carolina. And if the Democrats are so upset about President Trump and want him removed immediately, why did they just approve a new budget deal for him to sign and then still haven't got around to actually delivering the impeachment paperwork to the Senate? Sounds like they really don't care if Trump goes.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Rick wrote: In your own words, using ONLY facts, please describe to me what President Trump did to deserve being thrown out of office and do you think Trumps words and actions would be seen as impeachable by the founders. Of course this last part is just your opinion and is exempt from the facts only criteria.
Hope you’re all having a fantastic weekend! I’m sick in bed
Edit to add, please don’t post any articles or links that backup your facts, let’s pretend like we are sitting around a campfire with no internet. We can fact check later if necessary.
Hey, RICK......touching bases, how ya' doing?.....We finally got snow this morning (we finally got snow, the day AFTER Christmas.) foggy, 1/2 in or so, looks like a winter wonderland)
towermonkey wrote: I doubt you’ll get many responses so I’ll throw my take in. Trump probably intended to ask for an investigation into the DNC server and Crowdstrike in exchange for the money being released. The new Ukrainian President didn’t catch the innuendo and was oblivious that that is what was going on. I think the Biden thing was just thrown in as an afterthought, probably spurred by Rudy’s investigations. There is no proof that there was this intent, there is only speculation from secondhand sources. First hand sources were not allowed to testify, and rather than wait for the courts to compel this testimony, which they would have, the house democrats jumped the gun. Now they know they have no case and are not sending the articles to the Senate, in which case, Trump has not been impeached. There are still only two presidents who have been.
Thanks for your input TM, while I agree with the overall picture you painted as a likely scenario, it isn't a fact when we have to use words like "probably" or "I think". This is what the media and Democrats have been doing since Trump took office.
But, I will say that you did include one very important fact... there is no proof of intent either way. That is the same fact that got Hillary off when she was found to have had a secret server which she used for government business including classified information. I personally don't believe she was investigated nearly as thoroughly as Trump has been but in the end it was determined that intent of wrongdoing was not proven. I believe it could have been proven, but that is not a fact. I also believe that if Trump had destroyed any kind of subpoenaed evidence, destroyed personal devices with hammers, and scrubbed his secret server, he would have already been kicked out of office with bipartisan support. That may not be a factual statement, but I think it's common sense when you look at the last three years of much weaker charges that have mostly been debunked.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
koobookie wrote: Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution give Congress sole power to determine how impeachments are handled. Trump has ordered people to ignore Congressional subpoenas. That is obstruction of justice, and is grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
Thanks for your response koobookie and I'm really glad you're here to help even out this board. I've read your posts from another site where you are one of the sole left leaning voices that gets piled on consistently.... I respect your ability to do what others on that site gave up on. I have no interest in being part of a lopsided site where everybody agrees with me, so that's why I'm here.
As for your point, I would say that there are three coequal branches of government, the judicial, the legislative, and the executive.. The founders wanted them to have equal power for a good reason, so that one could place checks on the other two and that one could never abuse it's power. I'm no expert on the Constitution but this whole process has gotten me more interested in relearning what I was taught so many years ago in school.
From what I've read recently (I can't say this is fact because I'm no expert), the House did not have to rush this process and they could have utilized the judicial branch if the legislative branch felt it was in the right.
Now an interesting and relevant side note, Joe Biden just said that he would refuse to comply with a Senate subpoena. So would that be considered an obstruction of congress, using the same standard set by Democrats?
EDIT to add, I just read Towermonkey's post where he said the same thing about the remedy for failure to comply to a subpoena from the house.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: In your own words, using ONLY facts, please describe to me what President Trump did to deserve being thrown out of office and do you think Trumps words and actions would be seen as impeachable by the founders. Of course this last part is just your opinion and is exempt from the facts only criteria.
Hope you’re all having a fantastic weekend! I’m sick in bed
Edit to add, please don’t post any articles or links that backup your facts, let’s pretend like we are sitting around a campfire with no internet. We can fact check later if necessary.
Well, he hasn't been thrown out yet, but Christmas miracles may yet come to pass.
What did he do to deserve being impeached?
1. He's violating the emoluments clause
2. He's shared top secret classified information with foreign adversaries
3. He's apologized for a foreign dictator who had a journalist brutally murdered for daring to criticize his government and justified supporting said dictator because of an arms deal that'll make billions
4. He's attacked citizens of the United States publicly for expressing their 1st Amendment rights and called for their firing from their jobs
5. He had an affair, paid off the woman with campaign funds through a proxy, and then lied about it.
6. He insists on using un-encrypted devices in public venues which every foreign intelligence agency in the world can intercept.
7. He's publicly asked our enemies for help getting him (re-)elected.
8. He's enacted policies causing the Unites States to now be committing human rights abuses.
9. He's betrayed our allies in the war against terrorists.
10. His [acting] Cabinet is not fulfilling their duties in enacting the 25th Amendment as he's clearly suffering major cognitive decline.
Do I think our Founding Fathers would consider his actions impeachable?
Hell yes. Have you read The Federalist Papers #65, 66, and 69 by Alexander Hamilton?
Sorry you weren't feeling well, I hope your cold has improved and you can enjoy a wonderful holiday with your family.
Thanks for your response SC, I hope you know I've always looked forward to your opinions about what I feel because I know I won't be attacked with insults and I think you're a smart and considerate person who doesn't need to do that to attempt to win an argument. Ok, enough of the ass kissing
What I was looking for were the facts that developed the two articles of impeachment that could potentially remove the sitting president form office. I think that with all the legal power the House has, if any of those things on your list were impeachable offences, they would surely have been included as new articles or additions to the two in question. I could give you my own list of things Obama did which I feel were at least as egregious or more so, but not in this thread since Obama has no part of this topic.
I don't have much time left (gotta start clearing some snow) but I'll address your #1. I don't think the founders intended for elected presidents to divest in any and all businesses in which they could receive market rate revenue from foreign officials who purchase a good or service from said president. I believe the first 5 presidents were farmers who sold crops to buyers from other countries and Obama sold his books. I haven't looking into this much, but again, if the Democrats thought that Trump violated the emoluments clause, why was that violation not included in the articles?
Wishing you more success in business and a healthy family in this new year!
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
homeagain wrote: I KNOW you will get few responses, and because you are sick, I will entertain you.
PAST behavior is indicative of present performance. I have taken my clues from his childhood
and his father. In his adult life (pre political)his abilities/performance/business acuity was NOT
fined tuned and has NOT improved to this day. As I have stated before, he does NOT make it, he fakes it. THAT can be traced to his understanding of integrity and accountability.From my
understanding, the father was the role model and he was always attempting to "please" or make proud...in order to accomplish that he (as a trust fund teenager)found the path to please. Do
whatever it takes (legal or illegal,moral or immoral....no matter): THE PRESENT PERSON you
have in front of you is the product of POOR self image and lack of personal evolution.
(as I sit on this log, with my hands wrapped around a warm mug of Bailey's and coffee,boots braced against a rock, fire crackling......theses are my thoughts)
I appreciate your response to my questions and your willingness to "entertain" me:) . However, I was just looking for facts which Democrats included in their articles of impeachment that would justify Trump's removal from office.
Hope you had a great Christmas and are enjoying this beautiful day!
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
FredHayek wrote: You appear to be a little myopic. You think Trump should go down for this crime but probably ignored when President Obama tried to influence the elections of Israel. Or the Kennedy administration overthrowing the government of Vietnam. Think those are bigger crimes than asking about some corruption? Biden was one of twenty candidates then. Should all of those candidates not be investigated for possible overseas dealings that smell fishy? Just because they are running?
Those are some great points and I never heard of any of those actions being considered impeachable offenses. I think it would be easier to say they were impeachable offenses if the men in question had a history of saying mean things and didn't act "presidential". But one's personality should not be a factor that tips the scales, especially when it comes to removing a duly elected president.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
homeagain wrote: I KNOW you will get few responses, and because you are sick, I will entertain you.
PAST behavior is indicative of present performance. I have taken my clues from his childhood
and his father. In his adult life (pre political)his abilities/performance/business acuity was NOT
fined tuned and has NOT improved to this day. As I have stated before, he does NOT make it, he fakes it. THAT can be traced to his understanding of integrity and accountability.From my
understanding, the father was the role model and he was always attempting to "please" or make proud...in order to accomplish that he (as a trust fund teenager)found the path to please. Do
whatever it takes (legal or illegal,moral or immoral....no matter): THE PRESENT PERSON you
have in front of you is the product of POOR self image and lack of personal evolution.
(as I sit on this log, with my hands wrapped around a warm mug of Bailey's and coffee,boots braced against a rock, fire crackling......theses are my thoughts)
FOR RICK.....who states I never offer my OWN thoughts,but only words of others....I do not
comprehend the confusion,as I was very succinct in statement.
OTHERS have presented EVIDENCE, but yet it is discarded as fake....as for the "afraid"
part of your confusion,I was responding to SC, who lamented no one else posts on political
affairs, because of fear of being ridiculed or called out.....to which I responded, it is the nature of
boards such as this one.....lurkers and those who engage.
This claim is false, according to the unanimous assessment of the U.S. intelligence community and the former special counsel Robert Mueller, who spent two years investigating Russia's election interference effort.
Fake News - Ukraine admitted to interfering on behalf of Clinton
homeagain wrote:
FOR RICK.....who states I never offer my OWN thoughts,but only words of others....I do not
comprehend the confusion,as I was very succinct in statement.
OTHERS have presented EVIDENCE, but yet it is discarded as fake....as for the "afraid"
part of your confusion,I was responding to SC, who lamented no one else posts on political
affairs, because of fear of being ridiculed or called out.....to which I responded, it is the nature of
boards such as this one.....lurkers and those who engage.
