Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[theprestige]

If the president is acting in a corrupt manner (as we know he is), and you are a congress-critter who chooses not to remove him, then you are tainted by the same corruption.

I disagree with your logic.

---

I know you believe that Trump is especially, unprecedently corrupt; and that politics were not particularly corrupt before this administration took office. I wonder how many voters share that belief, and how well your message of "these politicians are tainted with corruption" will actually play in swing states.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay.

"Some democrats let a Republican get away with something once therefore Trump can do whatever he wants." then, it's the same argument.

Let me save you the trouble, the next hypothetical you make will be the same argument. "We have to let Trump do whatever he wants because of (insert excuse here.)"

Come on, Joe. Upchurch asked a question. Was I not supposed to answer? By the way, I'm case you missed it, my answer was that Ronald Reagan committed an impeachable offense. I'm saying Reagan should have been removed from office. Yes, that's right. I said it in 1987, I'm saying it now.

So, your rantings don't really make much sense. They certainly don't address anything I said.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Jesus Christ. It's perfectly cromulent to compare two historical events and analyze why they happened as they did. Every such comparison is not done for the purpose of passing judgment on current events, current political figures, or current arguments being made in an internet message board.

 

[Meadmaker]

Segnosaur and Tragic Monkey both offered good answers to why Reagan wasn't impeached, much less convicted. I want to address them.

I would say that all of their points fall under a general heading of there was no political will to impeach the president at the time.

For those of us old enough to remember, let's go down memory lane. There were hearings going on, and it was a steamroller heading toward impeachment. Then, Oliver North took the stand, was completely unapologetic, and the will to impeach evaporated. The hearings were wrapped up and impeachment was shoved aside.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Jesus Christ. It's perfectly cromulent to compare two historical events and analyze why they happened as they did. Every such comparison is not done for the purpose of passing judgment on current events, current political figures, or current arguments being made in an internet message board.

Not every one, no.

But short of some more plausible explanation surfacing, this one feels like the exact same "whatsboutism" that many Trump apologist narratives rely on.

 

[fishbob]

Unsupported assertion.

Did you miss both the impeachment hearings and the senate trial?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I disagree with your logic.

---

I know you believe that Trump is especially, unprecedently corrupt; and that politics were not particularly corrupt before this administration took office. I wonder how many voters share that belief, and how well your message of "these politicians are tainted with corruption" will actually play in swing states.

How many trucks did you rent to import the amount of straw needed to build this argument?

 

[fishbob]

You are absolutely correct.

And yet, people keep talking about crimes.

While abuse of power is not specifically a crime:
Extortion is a crime.
Soliciting foreign election assistance is a crime.
Money laundering is a crime.
Sexual assault is a crime.
Tax fraud is a crime.
Dodging subpoenas is a crime.

There is lots and lots of crime stuff to talk about while looking into abuse of power (which is impeachable).

 

[DetectedMotion]

Segnosaur and Tragic Monkey both offered good answers to why Reagan wasn't impeached, much less convicted. I want to address them.

I would say that all of their points fall under a general heading of there was no political will to impeach the president at the time.

For those of us old enough to remember, let's go down memory lane. There were hearings going on, and it was a steamroller heading toward impeachment. Then, Oliver North took the stand, was completely unapologetic, and the will to impeach evaporated. The hearings were wrapped up and impeachment was shoved aside.

I do remember the Iran-Contra affair and that certainly was an impeachable offense, but Oliver North played upon the fact that many people had animosity toward Iranians: Their revolution resulted in the taking of American hostages in 1980, so North's testimony was viewed as getting even with Iran.

 

[theprestige]

How many trucks did you rent to import the amount of straw needed to build this argument?

None at all. Trump's special, unprecedented corruption has been a longstanding premise of the pro-impeachment faction on this board for a long time.

 

[Segnosaur]

If the president is acting in a corrupt manner (as we know he is), and you are a congress-critter who chooses not to remove him, then you are tainted by the same corruption.

I disagree with your logic.

Well bully for you.

I know you believe that Trump is especially, unprecedently corrupt

Actually 'belief' implies that a person holds some opinion or idea without proof.

I think there is more than enough evidence to show Trump is more corrupt than any other president in living memory. The proportion of lies to 'accurate' statements, the number of scandals, the number of people associated with his administration whom have been convicted of crimes.

The Ukrainian scandal is but one of many such incidents.

and that politics were not particularly corrupt before this administration took office.

I never claimed that politics was "not particularly corrupt" prior to Trump. Only that compared to others, Trump and his actions rise far above the level of corruption when compared to Obama, Bill Clinton, even Bush.

 

[acbytesla]

There are actually multiple cases where the GAO said the Obama administration broke the law. Some of them Obama himself probably had little role in, but one of them, the terrorist prisoner release in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, he definitely did play a role in, and the GAO concluded that it was a violation of the law.



But that's just it: in both Obama's case and Trump's case, neither violation is a crime, and neither violation is actually punishable. I'm not picking Obama as the example because I'm claiming Obama is particularly bad. I bet you can find similar examples with every president for the last 50+ years. If you find something wrong with this, well, I don't blame you. But again, Trump isn't the first, this is the way government has operated for a long time now, and if you want anything to actually change, then Congress has to act to change the law and impose actual penalties. But as of now, it's not a crime and there is no punishment. And Trump isn't the reason that it's not a crime and there is no punishment.

Oh, what a load of crap. How many totally false equivalences must we suffer? What Trump did was not only illegal, it was criminal. It was bribery, it was collusion, it was extortion and poses a threat to the legitimacy of our elections and government forever.

What the Senate and the GOP is doing is like Chamberlain appeasing Hitler in Munich. You can't allow leaders to run roughshod over not only the law but the democracy without consequences.

 

[fishbob]

None at all. Trump's special, unprecedented corruption has been a longstanding premise of the pro-impeachment faction on this board for a long time.

What is that thing called when you have great big piles of evidence supporting a hypothesis and no evidence falsifying it?
I don't think 'premise' means what you think it means.

You might as well stop trying to justify Trump's actions.
Partisanship above country is not acceptable.

 

[TragicMonkey]

None at all. Trump's special, unprecedented corruption has been a longstanding premise of the pro-impeachment faction on this board for a long time.

The difference between Reagan's Iran-Contra shenanigans and Trump's Ukrainian shenanigans is that Reagan's shenanigans, however wrong they were, were done for the perceived benefit of the nation. Trump's attempted shenanigans in the Ukraine were done for Trump's personal benefit.

Trump's actions are more like Nixon's than Reagan's. Skullduggery to gain advantage over the nation's foreign enemies is far more forgivable than skullduggery to gain advantage over one's personal domestic rivals.

 

[Meadmaker]

The difference between Reagan's Iran-Contra shenanigans and Trump's Ukrainian shenanigans is that Reagan's shenanigans, however wrong they were, were done for the perceived benefit of the nation. Trump's attempted shenanigans in the Ukraine were done for Trump's personal benefit.

Trump's actions are more like Nixon's than Reagan's. Skullduggery to gain advantage over the nation's foreign enemies is far more forgivable than skullduggery to gain advantage over one's personal domestic rivals.

For what it's worth, I agree.

 

[Venom]

The difference between Reagan's Iran-Contra shenanigans and Trump's Ukrainian shenanigans is that Reagan's shenanigans, however wrong they were, were done for the perceived benefit of the nation. Trump's attempted shenanigans in the Ukraine were done for Trump's personal benefit.

Trump's actions are more like Nixon's than Reagan's. Skullduggery to gain advantage over the nation's foreign enemies is far more forgivable than skullduggery to gain advantage over one's personal domestic rivals.

Patrick Philbin argued that since we aren't mind readers as long as there was a plausible mixed motive; personal benefit + any effort for the benefit of the nation, the President can't be guilty of doing it for his personal benefit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, what a load of crap. How many totally false equivalences must we suffer? What Trump did was not only illegal, it was criminal.

That isn't a claim that the GAO makes, and that's what I'm addressing. If you want to argue that it was a crime, go ahead, but the GAO letter referenced earlier doesn't provide any support for that position.

What the Senate and the GOP is doing is like Chamberlain appeasing Hitler in Munich.

Of course. Can't have a Trump thread without comparing him to Hitler.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

For what it's worth, I agree.

You think Trump's actions are less forgivable than Reagan's, yet you think Reagan should have been impeached but are, at best, unsure about Trump? Can you clarify, please?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Patrick Philbin argued that since we aren't mind readers as long as there was a plausible mixed motive; personal benefit + any effort for the benefit of the nation, the President can't be guilty of doing it for his personal benefit.

I feel comfortable dismissing that argument as just plain idiotic.

 

[acbytesla]

That isn't a claim that the GAO makes, and that's what I'm addressing. If you want to argue that it was a crime, go ahead, but the GAO letter referenced earlier doesn't provide any support for that position.

The GAO was talking about the impoundment of funds earmarked for the Ukraine, not the act of extortion

Of course. Can't have a Trump thread without comparing him to Hitler.

Nevertheless the comparison is accurate. Trump may not be interested in gassing Jews, but that wasn't the point. The point was appeasement. That you cannot allow someone to think they can get away with such acts. Because, you're just inviting them to do it again.