Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Ziggurat]

The GAO was talking about the impoundment of funds earmarked for the Ukraine

Yes. And it was claimed that this was proof of a crime. But it isn't, and I'm correct to point out that it isn't.

Nevertheless the comparison is accurate.

Everyone who Godwins a thread says that.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

This says it all. Reagan was not trying to subvert the upcoming elections by extorting a foreign power. I hated Reagan's policies. But I never hated the man. I hate Trump the man and his policies. Trump is truly devoid of any quality attributes.

Clinton was a horn dog and he lied about it. He was impeached because of it. Trump is a horn dog and lies about everything. But that's not why he was impeached. No, Trump was impeached for selling his office to a foreign power to be reelected.

If what Trump did is not impeachable and qualifies for removal, nothing does.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. And it was claimed that this was proof of a crime. But it isn't, and I'm correct to point out that it isn't.

You can repeat a lie all day, but it doesn't make it true.

Everyone who Godwins a thread says that.

And every Trump supporter is lacking in integrity and character.
Oh well.

 

[fishbob]

Yes. And it was claimed that this was proof of a crime. But it isn't, and I'm correct to point out that it isn't.

The impoundment of funds is the crime. So you are quite correct that it isn't proof of a crime.
Tricky.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can repeat a lie all day, but it doesn't make it true.

Nothing I said was a lie. You can call it a lie all day, but it doesn't make it a lie. You can't actually argue against anything I said.

 

[theprestige]

Well bully for you.

It's possible to agree that a corrupt action was taken, and also believe that it's better not to remove the president over it. A Senator is not tainted by the corrupt act, just because he doesn't agree with you about the appropriate remedy.

 

[Ziggurat]

The impoundment of funds is the crime.

Squeegee claimed that not only was the impoundment a crime, but that the GAO stated that it was a crime. But this is false. The GAO made no such claim. If you want to make the argument that it was a crime, you cannot rely on the GAO to do it.

 

[acbytesla]

Nothing I said was a lie. You can call it a lie all day, but it doesn't make it a lie. You can't actually argue against anything I said.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Ooh, careful with that kind of talk. You could be un-person'd, like I was!

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I don't think you want an answer. You would prefer to whine about not getting an answer. In fact, you have already received answers. I'll remind you of one. I earlier said that defiance of a supreme Court order, or a lower court order without an appeal, would be an act worthy of impeachment and conviction.

So, you have an example that you would love to get.

So not only did you get an answer, it is simply a reminder of an answer you already had.

 

[theprestige]

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.

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.

 

[Armitage72]

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.

Switching parties?

 

[Belz...]

I don't think you want an answer.

Oh, I think he would. The problem is theory vs reality. Plenty of posters have said that they'd agree that Trump would be X if he did A, but when A occurs they give plenty of weak reasons as to why it doesn't count.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, I think he would. The problem is theory vs reality. Plenty of posters have said that they'd agree that Trump would be X if he did A, but when A occurs they give plenty of weak reasons as to why it doesn't count.

Prestige is a perfect example.

 

[theprestige]

Prestige is a perfect example.

Fascinating. Tell me more.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

I would say giving Russia military secrets, but since he can declassify any information he wants, even that wouldn't be a crime. If the president does it, it's not treason.

 

[Pixel42]

Basically, anything that Congress wants done, that the president won't do

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?

 

[Upchurch]

Interesting statement of the case there, but I'll skip that and go to the last question.

Interesting dodge.

 

[theprestige]

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?

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.