Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Meadmaker]

What about if Congress wants military aid paid to another country, but the president won't do it - unless that country agrees to dig up/manufacture dirt on his political enemies?

You left out an important part of his post.

In my opinion, doing what you said would be worthy of impeachment, but the missing part of the post really does matter.

 

[Stacyhs]

Schiff is doing an excellent rebuttal of Trump's lawyers' closing argument. Not that it will matter. Republican senators don't care.

 

[Upchurch]

You left out an important part of his post.

In my opinion, doing what you said would be worthy of impeachment, but the missing part of the post really does matter.

The missing part being "...as long as the President's gang has enough control, whatever the President does is legal"?

 

[Meadmaker]

The missing part being "...as long as the President's gang has enough control, whatever the President does is legal"?

Legality is a separate issue.

 

[Upchurch]

Legality is a separate issue.

I was paraphrasing Nixon.

If the President's party is in power, the President is unrestricted. Has no checks. Has no balance. Is that missing part of the post that really does matter?

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump committed a crime. He extorted, he bribed a foreign power for his PERSONAL gain. That is CRIMINAL. It fits the textbook definitions of both bribery and extortion. To say otherwise is a LIE.

You need an elementary course in reading comprehension. I didn't say Trump didn't commit a crime. I said the GAO has not alleged any crime. Do you understand the difference?

No, sadly, you probably do not.

 

[Minoosh]

Technically? Sure. Personally it'd have to be a lot worse and a lot more urgent than that, before I'd prefer removal to just letting the voters decide.

It already is worse, because delaying that aid helped Putin who in this context is our enemy in a shooting war. And I really don't understand why GOP senators are letting this sail over their heads. Maybe they've bought into the Ukraine conspiracy but I don't think they are that stupid.

 

[Upchurch]

You need an elementary course in reading comprehension. I didn't say Trump didn't commit a crime. I said the GAO has not alleged any crime. Do you understand the difference?

No, sadly, you probably do not.

Could you clarify: Did Trump commit a crime?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Regardless this question won't go without an answer for long. Basically being told "Nothing you do can be wrong" isn't the kind of thing that is going to make Trump less impulsive so I'm sure he's going to push his limits even further now.

I await what the next excuse will be.

 

[theprestige]

If the President's party is in power, the President is unrestricted. Has no checks. Has no balance.

Not true.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not true.

Until this week, it wasn't.

 

[Upchurch]

Not true.

I mean, sure, it's not Wednesday, yet. I could be wrong.

....buuuuut, it's looking pretty true.

(eta: Moreover, I'm just clarifying with Meadmaker what the important bit that really does matter.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's the same old semantics game.

If Trump was doing something wrong, then someone would stop him. Since nobody has stopped him he, by definition, hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

It's the same old semantics game.

If Trump was doing something wrong, then someone would stop him. Since nobody has stopped him he, by definition, hasn't done anything wrong.

If Democrats try to stop him, it's partisan. If Republicans try to stop him, they're RINOs (poor Mitt Romney). So, by a sort of property of distribution, we have:

If Trump was doing something wrong, then Republicans would stop him. Since Republicans can't, by definition, stop him, he, by definition, hasn't done anything wrong.​

 

[Shalamar]

I'd love an example what Trump could do that would be a crime worthy of impeachment, but I know I will get no answer.

Having a (D) next to his name.

 

[Upchurch]

Having a (D) next to his name.

Worked for B. Clinton, but not Obama, although not for a lack of trying.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was paraphrasing Nixon.

If the President's party is in power, the President is unrestricted. Has no checks. Has no balance. Is that missing part of the post that really does matter?

Sort of. But as Nixon found out, party loyalty only goes so far.

Popular support is even more important though. If you think that the American people were demanding Trump's ouster, and only the republican party was standing against the will of the people, you really need to step out of your bubble.

 

[Lurch]

I'll assume you mean removal.

Most of my examples are examples of omission:

Not execute a treaty that Congress wants to ratify.

Not wage a war that Congress wants waged.

Basically, anything that Congress wants done, that the president won't do; or anything that Congress doesn't want done, that the president is doing, is sufficient grounds for removal...

... Assuming there's broad public agreement, and substantial consensus in Congress to carry it through. That is clearly not the case here.

Funny how you latch onto what Congress wants done but is not done. No room for doing what is not wanted done? Anyway, two examples that should meet your limited criterion...

Congress (and DoD, who became alarmed) wanted aid to go to Ukraine, but Trumpy held it up, releasing it only when caught in his perfidy.

Congress wants documentation, but Trumpy witholds *everything* in his stonewalling.

Or does your litmus test only apply to the really big, important stuff, like treaties and war?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sort of. But as Nixon found out, party loyalty only goes so far.

It used to, yes.

 

[Lurch]

Technically? Sure. Personally it'd have to be a lot worse and a lot more urgent than that, before I'd prefer removal to just letting the voters decide.

What if the action improperly influences the voters' decisions by means of a manufactured scandal? The most powerful office in the land bringing about and pushing such falsehoods is injurious to the electoral process, not least because of the weight given by the public to that office.