Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Skeptic Ginger said:
Actually, they showed videos of Trump saying outright that he wanted the Bidens investigated. It appears he said it on multiple occasions.

He can't help himself. He doesn't get it you can't ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents. Which is especially insane given he claimed it was wrong for Obama to investigate his campaign.



There was an interesting comment on BBC news tonight. When the Constitution was written, there was no criminal code. So Dershy's claim the Founders meant for Impeachment to be for an actual crime was impossible.
Dershy's going to be laughed at by his peers.
Of course when gaslighting is as successful as it is for Trump and his minions, I suppose they don't care.
Click to expand...

Many Constitutional scholars disagree with Dershowitz...including Turley, the GOP's witness during the hearings.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Actually, they showed videos of Trump saying outright that he wanted the Bidens investigated. It appears he said it on multiple occasions.

He can't help himself. He doesn't get it you can't ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents. Which is especially insane given he claimed it was wrong for Obama to investigate his campaign.

There was an interesting comment on BBC news tonight. When the Constitution was written, there was no criminal code. So Dershy's claim the Founders meant for Impeachment to be for an actual crime was impossible.

Dershy's going to be laughed at by his peers.
Of course when gaslighting is as successful as it is for Trump and his minions, I suppose they don't care.
Click to expand...

His peers have been laughing at him for years. Long before Trump.

But you misunderstand Dershowitz and his values. He doesn't consider himself to be a Constitutional scholar. He views himself as a defense attorney. He lies on TV for his clients as he views that as a full throated defense of his clients. That's his job. Anything less and he thinks that would be a dereliction of his duty. He sees that as his overriding ethical principle.
 
Stacyhs said:
Many Constitutional scholars disagree with Dershowitz...including Turley, the GOP's witness during the hearings.
Click to expand...

Dershowitz is even disagreeing with himself from the Clinton impeachment. Back then, he said a crime wasn't required to move forward, now he's saying it is. Of course, he refuses to acknowledge the contradiction.

He isn't adding anything to the conversation except his dubious reputation and desire to see himself on TV.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Dershowitz is even disagreeing with himself from the Clinton impeachment. Back then, he said a crime wasn't required to move forward, now he's saying it is. Of course, he refuses to acknowledge the contradiction.

He isn't adding anything to the conversation except his dubious reputation and desire to see himself on TV.
Click to expand...

The whole "it has to be a crime to be an impeachable offense" Is deserving of detision.
Never mind the fact there wasn't a Federal criminal code in 1789.
Never mind the comments of Madison and Hamilton who explicitly said that impeachment articles needn't be a criminal offense.
Never mind that there were very few crimes in any the articles of impeachment levied against the14 other government officials previously impeached.

Anyone prsenting the argument should be embarrassed. But my guess is that most of those presenting the argument know that it's absurd. This is all misdirection directed at the uninformed and lazy members of the electorate.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Dershowitz is even disagreeing with himself from the Clinton impeachment. Back then, he said a crime wasn't required to move forward, now he's saying it is. Of course, he refuses to acknowledge the contradiction.

He isn't adding anything to the conversation except his dubious reputation and desire to see himself on TV.
Click to expand...

He wrote that off with the lie he knows more now. :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
He doesn't get it you can't ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why do people keep saying that?

Do I think it is a quite awful thing to do? Yes. Do I think it's a crime? No.

Withholding the aid is pretty bad. Bad enough to throw an elected president out of office? Take a poll and find out.




ETA: Let me elaborate slightly, although it's really just repeating what has already been said. I think it makes the President look bad. Petty. Childish. About half sane. Everything we know about Trump. Politically, it could be a winner. But impeachable? That's really a matter of opinion, and the opinions aren't there to throw him out.

The only question is whether this campaign commercial will play out well for the Democrats or for the Republicans. To me, it seems like the Republicans are going to get the upper hand, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Why not? Why do people keep saying that?

Do I think it is a quite awful thing to do? Yes. Do I think it's a crime? No.

Withholding the aid is pretty bad. Bad enough to throw an elected president out of office? Take a poll and find out.

ETA: Let me elaborate slightly, although it's really just repeating what has already been said. I think it makes the President look bad. Petty. Childish. About half sane. Everything we know about Trump. Politically, it could be a winner. But impeachable? That's really a matter of opinion, and the opinions aren't there to throw him out.

The only question is whether this campaign commercial will play out well for the Democrats or for the Republicans. To me, it seems like the Republicans are going to get the upper hand, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Did it just go over your head how corrupt Trump is? :boggled:
 
Meadmaker said:
Why not? Why do people keep saying that?

Do I think it is a quite awful thing to do? Yes. Do I think it's a crime? No.

Withholding the aid is pretty bad. Bad enough to throw an elected president out of office? Take a poll and find out.

ETA: Let me elaborate slightly, although it's really just repeating what has already been said. I think it makes the President look bad. Petty. Childish. About half sane. Everything we know about Trump. Politically, it could be a winner. But impeachable? That's really a matter of opinion, and the opinions aren't there to throw him out.

The only question is whether this campaign commercial will play out well for the Democrats or for the Republicans. To me, it seems like the Republicans are going to get the upper hand, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I wonder what it takes for someone to sell out like you do with this post.

People in government wield a great deal of power. But that power doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the American people. Not to the government officials themselves. They are working on our behalf, not their own. But obviously you and Trump don't care given that he violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution even before he became President and continues to violate it to this day.

By asking a foreign power to do this, Trump is stealing what doesn't belong to him. It's no different than a hired clerk tapping the till. In this case it is more than 400 million dollars. It constitutes defrauding the American people and elections.

I know you care about the integity of our elections. :rolleyes:

It is also bribery and extortion.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Skeptic Ginger said:
He doesn't get it you can't ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents.
Click to expand...
Why not? Why do people keep saying that?
Click to expand...
This is why, apparently.

52 U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
 
Meadmaker said:
Why not? Why do people keep saying that?

Do I think it is a quite awful thing to do? Yes. Do I think it's a crime? No.
.....
Click to expand...


You're not a lawyer, are you?

Bribery, extortion and soliciting foreign assistance in political campaigns are crimes.

Former CIA and DOD Chief Of Staff Jeremy Bash outlined three felony crimes that Trump committed when he tried to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Bash said on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, “Assuming the reports are true, I see three crimes here. One is extortion by the president, using a threat of withholding aid to obtain something of value. The second crime is conspiracy to engage in extortion between the president and Rudy Giuliani. And third crime is conspiracy to violate election law, given there may be three underlying crimes, I think we’re beyond the issue of the whistleblower.
Click to expand...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/20/trump-crimes-ukraine.html

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

“So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime,” Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.
Click to expand...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-trump-admitted-crime
 
Meadmaker said:
Why not? Why do people keep saying that?

Do I think it is a quite awful thing to do? Yes. Do I think it's a crime? No.

Withholding the aid is pretty bad. Bad enough to throw an elected president out of office? Take a poll and find out.




ETA: Let me elaborate slightly, although it's really just repeating what has already been said. I think it makes the President look bad. Petty. Childish. About half sane. Everything we know about Trump. Politically, it could be a winner. But impeachable? That's really a matter of opinion, and the opinions aren't there to throw him out.

The only question is whether this campaign commercial will play out well for the Democrats or for the Republicans. To me, it seems like the Republicans are going to get the upper hand, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

As a matter of your opinion, do you think it is impeachable?
 
Meadmaker said:
Why not? Why do people keep saying that?

Do I think it is a quite awful thing to do? Yes. Do I think it's a crime? No.

Withholding the aid is pretty bad. Bad enough to throw an elected president out of office? Take a poll and find out.




ETA: Let me elaborate slightly, although it's really just repeating what has already been said. I think it makes the President look bad. Petty. Childish. About half sane. Everything we know about Trump. Politically, it could be a winner. But impeachable? That's really a matter of opinion, and the opinions aren't there to throw him out.

The only question is whether this campaign commercial will play out well for the Democrats or for the Republicans. To me, it seems like the Republicans are going to get the upper hand, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

He used the Office of the President of the United States to involve the leader of an allied foreign government in a scheme to smear the reputation of a political opponent... that is using the Office for personal gain... and you don't think that is an impeachable offence?

Furthermore, the methodology he used in an attempt to get a foreign leader to announce bogus investigations of that political opponent, was to withhold financial aid to that allied foreign government which had been duly authorised by Congress. This in itself was an illegal act, a violation of 2 USC§681-8 (the Impoundment Control act), a piece of legislation that was passed specifically to prevent a POTUS doing what Trump did. That's not to mention that doing so was an act of extortion or bribery, both criminal acts. I guess you think its OK for POTUS to outright, deliberately break the Law and commit criminal acts.

I promise you, if any other western leader or politician had done what Trump had done, he/she would resign or be thrown out by their own party.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Dershowitz is even disagreeing with himself from the Clinton impeachment. Back then, he said a crime wasn't required to move forward, now he's saying it is.
Click to expand...

Actually, he tried to correct himself by saying the same thing again, that it doesn't require a 'technical crime' but that it requires a crime-like thing.

It must really suck to have to be so partisan all the time.
 
Stacyhs said:
At this point, Trump could tweet a confession admitting he did exactly what the Dems have shown he did and the GOP would claim he was just kidding or the media is misrepresenting what the confession said.
Click to expand...

He bragged, on camera, about obstructing justice just the other day. It really doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom