Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I think President Trump probably broke the law at some point, but...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I think President Trump probably broke the law at some point, but...

    ...I doubt he committed "Treason". However, a "Misdemeanor" is enough to get kicked out of office.

    I don't think they'll get enough votes to kick him out of office, even if he did do something worthy of getting kicked out of office, because they have no tangible evidence. This proceeding is going to come down to word of mouth vs word of mouth, which is just not going to be sufficient to remove the President from office.

    I don't think it's a waste of money to try, but the Impeachment process is really intended to remove Presidents and Justices who commit High Treason, not bonehead phone call conversations about rigging an election, and I don't consider rigging an election as "Treason" even if it turns out he in fact did that. That would be a Misdemeanor or Felony, depending on exactly what he did, but I don't think that constitutes treason, and I doubt they'll actually get the votes to remove him without something substantive suggesting High Treason...which again I'm pretty sure they are never going to prove actual Treason to anyone's satisfaction.

    #2
    Originally posted by Wade View Post
    ...I doubt he committed "Treason". However, a "Misdemeanor" is enough to get kicked out of office.

    I don't think they'll get enough votes to kick him out of office, even if he did do something worthy of getting kicked out of office, because they have no tangible evidence. This proceeding is going to come down to word of mouth vs word of mouth, which is just not going to be sufficient to remove the President from office.

    I don't think it's a waste of money to try, but the Impeachment process is really intended to remove Presidents and Justices who commit High Treason, not bonehead phone call conversations about rigging an election, and I don't consider rigging an election as "Treason" even if it turns out he in fact did that. That would be a Misdemeanor or Felony, depending on exactly what he did, but I don't think that constitutes treason, and I doubt they'll actually get the votes to remove him without something substantive suggesting High Treason...which again I'm pretty sure they are never going to prove actual Treason to anyone's satisfaction.

    Sorry what? If Obama did this.. wait if Hilary did this.... you would be perfectly ok with it?

    Comment


      #3
      Just imagine being a Republican and knowing that the very same party protecting Trump's treasonous ass from impeachment is the one that impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Wade View Post
        the Impeachment process is really intended to remove Presidents and Justices who commit High Treason
        No--it was expressly because the Founder's anticipated the voters might elect an amoral demagogue. Who would then ignore his oath-of-office, and use the power of the presidency for his own illicit purposes.

        Alexander Hamilton (i think was Hamilton--it may have been one of his contemporaries) had some writings on-point.

        I'll do some research and find the relevant bits. Like---actually read what the drafters of the Constitution thought about the necessity of impeachment powers, and the manner of man they were afraid might one day be attain the presidency.

        They were describing Trump to the letter.

        Comment


          #5
          Here it is: https://www.congress.gov/resources/d...alistPapers-66

          Federalist Papers #65-66
          By Alexander Hamilton

          March, 1788
          On Impeachment of a Sitting President


          "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

          AND


          "The security essentially intended by the Constitution against corruption and treachery in the formation of treaties, is to be sought for in the numbers and characters of those who are to make them. The JOINT AGENCY of the Chief Magistrate of the Union, and of two thirds of the members of a body selected by the collective wisdom of the legislatures of the several States, is designed to be the pledge for the fidelity of the national councils in this particular. The convention might with propriety have meditated the punishment of the Executive, for a deviation from the instructions of the Senate, or a want of integrity in the conduct of the negotiations committed to him; they might also have had in view the punishment of a few leading individuals in the Senate, who should have prostituted their influence in that body as the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption: but they could not, with more or with equal propriety, have contemplated the impeachment and punishment of two thirds of the Senate, consenting to an improper treaty, than of a majority of that or of the other branch of the national legislature, consenting to a pernicious or unconstitutional law, a principle which, I believe, has never been admitted into any government. How, in fact, could a majority in the House of Representatives impeach themselves? Not better, it is evident, than two thirds of the Senate might try themselves. And yet what reason is there, that a majority of the House of Representatives, sacrificing the interests of the society by an unjust and tyrannical act of legislation, should escape with impunity, more than two thirds of the Senate, sacrificing the same interests in an injurious treaty with a foreign power? The truth is, that in all such cases it is essential to the freedom and to the necessary independence of the deliberations of the body, that the members of it should be exempt from punishment for acts done in a collective capacity; and the security to the society must depend on the care which is taken to confide the trust to proper hands, to make it their interest to execute it with fidelity, and to make it as difficult as possible for them to combine in any interest opposite to that of the public good.


          (bolded for emphasis)




          Comment


            #6
            oh btw...also Alexander Hamilton...


            "A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

            -General Introduction to the Federalist Papers-


            AND


            "Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character."

            -Federalist #70; The Executive Department further considered-


            AND


            "An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory; though the same man, probably, with a different prospect before him, might content himself with the regular perquisites of his situation, and might even be unwilling to risk the consequences of an abuse of his opportunities. His avarice might be a guard upon his avarice. Add to this that the same man might be vain or ambitious, as well as avaricious. And if he could expect to prolong his honors by his good conduct, he might hesitate to sacrifice his appetite for them to his appetite for gain. But with the prospect before him of approaching an inevitable annihilation, his avarice would be likely to get the victory over his caution, his vanity, or his ambition."

            -Federalist #72; Re-eligibility of the Executive Considered

            _________





            Comment


              #7
              So to recap--The Framers that drafted the impeachment process did so for the removal of presidents who betrayed the public trust.

              They warned of the danger of impeachment being regulated more by the comparative strength of political parties than by the character and conduct of the president.

              And in setting forth their vision of what a man who would seek the presidency for all the wrong reasons + betray the public trust might look like, they envisioned:

              ...an ambitious demagogue...
              ...a man of vanity, conceit, and self-love...
              ...a man who negotiates without integrity...
              ...an instrument of foreign corruption...
              ...an extremely greedy man looking for opportunities to make 'abundant harvest' of government business...






              ^^^

              They knew.

              There were men like Trump back in the 1700's too.

              They knew exactly what would happen if one of them won the White House.

              That was what impeachment was supposed to guard against.
              Last edited by Post-Crisis Shob; November 4th, 2019, 10:28 AM.

              Comment


                #8
                Faced with a demagogue, a horrible man of epic proportions, the very thing the founders were scared of...the Democrats will obviously do the only sensible thing.

                Bring up his Tweets when arguing for his impeachment. (The “go back” Tweet was specifically referenced, lol).

                What will Trump even be able to do against such a ferocious case as that?


                For real tho, busting Trump for this Ukraine stuff while completely letting off Biden (their front runner BTW) for this juicy bit (11:00) makes me question just how much they actually care about Trump’s offenses going into this...

                Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 4th, 2019, 04:27 PM.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                  For real tho, busting Trump for this Ukraine stuff while completely letting off Biden (their front runner BTW) for this juicy bit (11:00) makes me question just how much they actually care about Trump’s offenses going into this...
                  Really? Your take away from all of this is how Biden gets off free?

                  Not the abuse of power? Not it giving us flashbacks of the Russia scandal all over again. Not of the traditions broken, promises broken, flip flopping, back peddling, shaming of America to everyone in the world and god knows of a million other things... None of that matters.... It doesn't matter if Trump actually committed a crime.

                  All you care about is that Biden gets off scott free? That's it?


                  This is not about us vs them. This is about a guy who committed a crime in the highest office of this country. If he gets away with it he will set a precedence that any president after him can follow. ("If Trump can do it so can I!") Imagine a future democrat president doing the same things, getting a foreign country to meddle in our elections, make the rich get richer, etc etc...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    guilty of making america great again

                    Comment


                      #11
                      So after seeing the impeachment hearing, we can all agree with is one of the biggest shams in American history right?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by King John View Post
                        So after seeing the impeachment hearing, we can all agree with is one of the biggest shams in American history right?
                        lol

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Cid View Post

                          lol
                          Oh god, please tell me your TDS isn't so bad that you actually believe the impeachment hearings have any validity to them....

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by King John View Post

                            Oh god, please tell me your TDS isn't so bad that you actually believe the impeachment hearings have any validity to them....
                            What makes them invalid? His talk with Zelensky was incredibly sus, you can't tell me it's not even worth looking into.
                            Last edited by OrganizationXV; November 14th, 2019, 09:25 PM.
                            Originally posted by Wade
                            Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by King John View Post

                              Oh god, please tell me your TDS isn't so bad that you actually believe the impeachment hearings have any validity to them....
                              There is literally a video of Trump admitting to a reporter that he did exactly what the democrats are accusing him of. Lmao

                              In fact, here's a list of his excuses on the subject.

                              "I didn't discuss Biden with Zelensky"

                              "We talked about Biden, but there was no quid pro quo"

                              "So what if there was some quid pro quo? I'm the president, I can do whatever I want."

                              ​​

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                                What makes them invalid? His talk with Zelensky was incredibly sus, you can't tell me it's not even worth looking into.
                                What's to look into?

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  ay—What’s a little bit of extortion between friends??? Nothing to it

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Cid View Post

                                    There is literally a video of Trump admitting to a reporter that he did exactly what the democrats are accusing him of. Lmao

                                    In fact, here's a list of his excuses on the subject.

                                    "I didn't discuss Biden with Zelensky"

                                    "We talked about Biden, but there was no quid pro quo"

                                    "So what if there was some quid pro quo? I'm the president, I can do whatever I want."

                                    ​​
                                    So let me get this straight, the sitting president of the United States is dealing with an impeachment inquiry for withholding military aid to Ukraine for information on Hunter Biden. The Ukrainian president not only said was he not aware of the reason for the military aid being withheld, he wasn't even aware that military aid was being withheld. The reported "demands" Trump allegedly levied against Ukraine for military aid were never met and military aid was ultimately provided to Ukraine. Nowhere in the transcripts of the conversation did Trump ever say give me information or military aid will be cut off, the star witness never heard Trump say give me information or military aid will be cut off, at best he says he heard from a 3rd party that was Trump's intentions. So the sitting President of the United States should be impeached for, on the word of a 3rd party, an "allegedly" attempted quid pro quo? Even though the actions he allegedly demanded from the Ukrainian President were never met and military aid was in the end sent.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                      ay—What’s a little bit of extortion between friends??? Nothing to it
                                      Pretty sure to extort somebody they would need to know the reason for extortion,or at the very least that they are being extorted. Ukrainian President said he didn't even know aid was being withheld and when he did find out, he had no idea why it was being held, and aid was granted without any of the alleged reasons for the withholding being met, so where's the extortion?

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by King John View Post

                                        So let me get this straight, the sitting president of the United States is dealing with an impeachment inquiry for withholding military aid to Ukraine for information on Hunter Biden. The Ukrainian president not only said was he not aware of the reason for the military aid being withheld, he wasn't even aware that military aid was being withheld. The reported "demands" Trump allegedly levied against Ukraine for military aid were never met and military aid was ultimately provided to Ukraine. Nowhere in the transcripts of the conversation did Trump ever say give me information or military aid will be cut off, the star witness never heard Trump say give me information or military aid will be cut off, at best he says he heard from a 3rd party that was Trump's intentions. So the sitting President of the United States should be impeached for, on the word of a 3rd party, an "allegedly" attempted quid pro quo? Even though the actions he allegedly demanded from the Ukrainian President were never met and military aid was in the end sent.
                                        The interesting part there is "military aid was IN THE END sent". You know, after the recording got out and Trump was effectively caught with his pants down. After it would've been a guaranteed impeachment for him to carry out the implied threat of withholding aid.

                                        You know why Trump referred to his phone call as "perfect"? Because it was phrased in such a way that it wasn't literally extortion, but he got his message across. Tell me, if it was a completely innocuous conversation, why was it then squirreled away onto a server made for national security interests? What were they hiding, exactly?

                                        Just as an aside, if you were Zelensky, would you poke that hornet's nest when you got what you wanted out of the deal? For what possible reason would he have to out Trump?
                                        Originally posted by Wade
                                        Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X