Will Trump get impeached?

Plaffelvohfen

I highly doubt it...  But Congress has to do its job anyway and open the procedure. 

CYDdharta

Probably, but partisan nature of the impeachment will guarantee Pres. Trump's reelection in 2020.

Dee

I doubt it and it looks like he’s going to remain prseident for a while to come yet , on the plus side it will give us Europeans more comedy gold to feast on 

TKDB

No.

The Impeachment Show, is a Liberal Publicity Show, that the Liberals have put themselves in charge of the writing, producing, directing, cinematography, the music score, and have some of the Liberal news media outlets, co assistance, with their production.

And this Impeachment Publicity Show will churn along, for as long as they can, depending upon how much Publicity juice that they can can squeeze out of it.

While not serving the American People as a whole, but rather their individual constituents, or fanbases.

At least the current POTUS is still working for the American Public, because a lot of people are asking what have some of the Socialist Liberals, and the Liberals themselves done for the American People, besides hounding Trump, for 3 plus years now?

If the Liberals and the Socialists Liberal really wanted to work for the country in a fair, and equal way, they wouldn't have come up with their unsightly and undemocratic Liberal Driven Distraction game, starring themselves, and Trump as their own collective sparring opponent?

The Liberals are using the U.S. Constitution as their own sweat towel?

So they can continue to berate the Constitution, and the rest of the Public, for the self convenience of their individual Liberal statuses, and for the self convenience, of using the news media, itself as a political tool of convenience, to pander to their like minded Liberal voters with? 

So NO, he won't be Impeached, because no matter how, much the Liberals talk themselves up, by down-talking the POTUS, they are selling themselves short, by sacrificing their future Liberal minded political careers to politically exist in the now, because its very likely, that those other VOTERS, who aren't Liberal like minded like their Liberal political counterparts are, are going to likely vote the current Liberal Politicians who have tried to create an "Anti Trump Impeachment Movement starring Themselves, by chronically trashing Trump, isn't going to work. 

If the Election cycle was to occur this upcoming Thursday, the day after the Impeachment hearing began, the POTUS, would still be the POTUS, by Friday morning, because the rest of the Non Liberal minded Public, has, and is, learning how to read between the lines of the, "Anti Trump Impeachment Movement.

And there's nothing that those same Liberals, can do about that, because of their Liberal fixation on Trump, because while they work very hard to control the Political messaging in the U.S., when it comes to their own individual constituent fan-bases, they can't control the rest of the VOTING public, that hasn't mindfully bought into their Anti Trump Impeachment Movement messaging. 

MayCaesar

There are no grounds for impeachment. Legally, for the procedure to be initiated, a major wrongdoing on the president's part must have been proven by an independent investigation. For example, in Bill Clinton's case, perjury was committed, which is a very serious offence in the eyes of the American system of justice.

What has Trump done that can be categorised as overstepping his constitutional powers, or as a major general offence? It seems that the basis for the whole proposal comes down to "We dislike his policies and rhetoric", which is not nearly good enough. "We dislike his policies and rhetoric" is what the election system for, so those who have this issue with him will have to wait for another year to hope for a change in the system.

Leaders of the Democratic Party, extremely experienced professionals, know this well, hence why everything they do with regards to impeachment comes down to threats and promises. I seriously doubt they are even remotely considering initiating the procedure.

MichaelElpers

What i dont understand is how they can possibly prove quid pro quo.

Just like the democrats were allowed to investigate russia collusion/corruption when it was in their self interest trump is allowed to investigate corruption even if it is in his self interest. I find it near impossible to prove that fighting corruption wasnt trumps primary interest with self interest as a secondary motivator.  I almost guarantee both played into his decision.

Happy_Killbot

After watching the impeachment hearings from Nov 13, I think it's likely, although it's early and anything could happen. The evidence against POTUS is definitely there, although the Republican party contests this evidence on grounds that the whistle blower has not and will not be named. The transcript from the Phone call is clearly incriminating. For those trying to impeach him, they still need to provide adequate evidence and convince congress and the American people that he should be impeached. Right now, I would give it 50-50 odds.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

After watching the impeachment hearings from Nov 13, I think it's likely, although it's early and anything could happen. The evidence against POTUS is definitely there, although the Republican party contests this evidence on grounds that the whistle blower has not and will not be named. The transcript from the Phone call is clearly incriminating. For those trying to impeach him, they still need to provide adequate evidence and convince congress and the American people that he should be impeached. Right now, I would give it 50-50 odds.

What evidence of an impeachable offense is there against Pres. Trump?  There is nothing in the transcript. 

Impeachment is a purely political, in this case partisan political, exercise that means nothing.  Pelosi gets to make the rules, the will of the American people holds only as much weight as she decides to give them.  If the House votes to impeach Pres. Trump, a trial will be held in the Senate.  There is no chance the Senate will vote to convict the President and remove him from office.

Something that would be interesting is that, if the House votes to impeach, the Senate trial will be going on during the peak of the 2020 campaign season.  Three of the Dems top tier candidates are senators; Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris.  Such a trial would preoccupy them at a time when they would normally be going after donors for their presidential campaigns.

Happy_Killbot

@Happy_Killbot The impeachable offense from the transcript is that he asked a foreign leader to investigate one of his political rivals, more specifically asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to initiate a criminal investigation of former Vice-President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. To ensure that this was accomplished, he withheld foreign aid to Ukraine, and asking for a campaign contribution.

Here is the TL;DR of what is wrong and potentially impeachable about all of that: Asking a foreign power for dirt on his political opponents undermines the US interests by giving an unfair advantage to the party in power. This could be thought of as an indirect way of rigging the election, although perhaps a more accurate analogy would be like asking someone on the opposing team to injure someone on your team, so that you can take their spot on the field for the rest of the season.

As for asking for campaign funds, that should all go without saying that no foreign government should have any say in our politics, either directly or monetarily. If a foreign power decided who ran for US offices, how can we guarantee that they support the US populace and not the foreign power? While the transcript alone doesn't prove this information, their may be sufficient evidence to prove that it occurred, of course Trump and his supporters could throw Rudy Giuliani under the bus to cover their tracks since he would be a critical link in this determination.

I'm not claiming to be an oracle here, I don't know nearly enough about US political proceedings and psychology to build any kind of accurate model for the purpose of predicting the outcome of these trials. The 50/50 figure I give is based on the public polls that show roughly half of the country favors impeachment while the other half is opposed, with a relatively small percentage undecided. I would anticipate that these numbers will change depending on what comes out of the hearings, but for now I give 50-50 odds.

Plaffelvohfen

@Happy_Killbot

To me, the very presence of Guiliani in Ukraine raises a lot of uncomfortable questions for Trump... Presidents have specific tools to deal with foreign powers, ambassadors, diplomatic services, etc... There are official channels for very good reasons, they are official, they speak for the Country... Involving a personal lawyer indicates a personal use, which is very odd and suspicious to say the least...

Still doubt Trump will be impeached in the Senate though, but there are a few more witness to hear, including Bolton and other high ranking officials... Who knows....

AlofRI

His crimes are FAR more serious than Nixon's or Clinton's, therefore, there should be no doubt! Bribery and Coercion are serious crimes, as is lying to Congress and Obstruction of Justice. He is guilty of ALL, …. no doubt!

Plaffelvohfen

@AlofRI

I do agree, but still I doubt the Senate has enough integrity or love of Country to recognize it...

Trump will be shown the exit on election day...  There is still a possibility that he'll resign before that though, if GOP senators feel the heat from their constituents, or that polls move steadily and consistently toward a GOP defeat in 2020, they may, and I stress "may", push Trump toward resignation...

But since integrity is not a GOP Senator characteristic, I'm far from being confident that he will be...  

MayCaesar

When Julius Caesar refused to step down as a Dictator, senators tried many different arguments to take him down.
First, they said, "The war is over. Step down". He retorted, "The war is never over, and just because I have returned home, does not mean our soldiers are not dying every day on the front lines".
Then, they said, "Your policies are ineffective, Julius. Instead of investing money in development of Rome, you are building statues of yourself and buy golden jewelry from Parthians". He retorted, "People love me, and I legally represent them. If they do not like my policies, they are free to rise up against me." People did not.
Finally, they said, "The truth is, Julius, we simply want our legally granted power back, and you stole it from us. Give it back, or you will suffer." Julius retorted, "Take action against me, and all the Rome will know just how corrupt you are, and you will not live to see tomorrow".
With nothing left to say, they killed Caesar. Several years later, Caesar's son, Octavius, was ruling a newly established totalitarian empire, and the senators trembled before him and did not dare to say anything.

All senators really needed to say was, "You are violating the law, Caesar. You are an illegitimate ruler of Rome, hence we are taking your assets and ordering the military to apprehend you". But they could not. They knew that, should they question legitimacy of Caesar's rule, people would just as much start questioning their own legitimacy, and there was a lot of skeletons in closets to unearth there...

This whole situations strongly reminds me of this story. Trump has made so many political blunders, it should not be hard for anyone with a Bachelor's degree in Political Sciences to utterly destroy him with criticism and to make his reelection impossible. However, those who are after him themselves are so deeply incompetent and corrupt, that they cannot offer a legitimate criticism of him, because they realise that that same criticism will immediately be applied to them, and they will go down along with Trump.

People truly never learn from history, do they?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@Happy_Killbot The impeachable offense from the transcript is that he asked a foreign leader to investigate one of his political rivals, more specifically asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to initiate a criminal investigation of former Vice-President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. To ensure that this was accomplished, he withheld foreign aid to Ukraine, and asking for a campaign contribution.

Wrong.  Pres. Trump was asking Pres. Zelensky  to have the Ukrainian government look into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. 

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Pres. Trump merely suggested that Ukraine look into the Bidens corruption based on Biden's own recorded words;

The President: Good because I’ve heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news, so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.

Pres. Trump NEVER asked for campaign contributions.  That is a complete lie.  US presidential campaigns are barred from accepting donations from foreign sources.

Ukrainian aid was not conditioned on them taking any action whatsoever.  Ukrainian foreign minister Vadym Prystaiko said Thursday that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland “never” linked aid to Ukrainian investigations into the 2016 elections or former Vice President Joe Biden.  There is no way to withhold aid to coerce the intended recipient to take some kind of action without them knowing the aid is being withheld.  Ukrainian officials were unaware that the U.S. had held up military aid to the country until late August, one month after a phone call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart.  And even Pres. Zelensky has stated unequivocally that "No one pushed him".

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Happy_Killbot

To me, the very presence of Guiliani in Ukraine raises a lot of uncomfortable questions for Trump... Presidents have specific tools to deal with foreign powers, ambassadors, diplomatic services, etc... There are official channels for very good reasons, they are official, they speak for the Country... Involving a personal lawyer indicates a personal use, which is very odd and suspicious to say the least...

Still doubt Trump will be impeached in the Senate though, but there are a few more witness to hear, including Bolton and other high ranking officials... Who knows....

They do NOT speak for the country.  The President is THE official, and he speaks for the country.  Period, full-stop.  Ambassadors, etc., serve at the pleasure of the President.  If the President suspects the diplomats are going to substitute their own policies instead of executing the official policies that the President has laid out, it makes perfect sense for him to bypass the diplomats and instead rely on a trusted advisor.

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

"Odd and suspicious" hardly constitutes grounds for impeachment. Presumption of innocence exists for a reason, and applies to everyone, including those a given person especially dislikes. Until it has been proven in court that the president actually had malicious and illegal intent in mind, there is nothing to impeach him for.

People so often confuse morality with legality. They think that just because a certain action is despicable in their eyes, suddenly the legal matters become secondary, and something needs to be done against the person. It is nothing else but mob justice advocacy, and there are strong safeguards in our system against mob justice for very good reasons.

I understand that in the majority of the countries in the world this is not the case, and there people can go down whenever someone strongly dislikes them. But the systems based on Common Law are a bit more civilised than that, and Lady Liberty frowns upon those who disrespect basic principles of justice.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

I agree that "Odd and suspicious" hardly constitutes grounds for impeachment. But as I mentioned, there are more testimony to come, who knows what's to come...

Would really like to see Trump as a witness though, would his lawyers recommend he plead the 5th?  

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

This is putting the cart before the horse. First the testimonies come, then, if they constitute a wrongdoing, investigation comes, and only then can we even start talking about the impeachment procedure.

Just as in science in the absence of strong evidence we always take the null hypothesis assuming the existence of nothing that we have no indication of, in the legal system in the absence of strong evidence we always take the null hypothesis assuming innocence of the suspected. That is, until proven otherwise, Donald is completely innocent.

As a witness, he will likely just say what he has already said: that he has done nothing wrong. I think actual officials from Ukraine would make better witnesses.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

Something to remember though is that the impeachment process is not a criminal trial... The standards are different,  the proceedings do not follow the same rules as criminal ones, by design... The idea that you need to break a law to commit an impeachable offense is wrong, the offense does not need to be a breach of criminal statute.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors (which may well be the only one the Dems can invoke) covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.  

Granted, it's vague and subjective, I did not write the Constitution, don't ask me what to do with this problem...  

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@MayCaesar

Something to remember though is that the impeachment process is not a criminal trial... The standards are different,  the proceedings do not follow the same rules as criminal ones, by design... The idea that you need to break a law to commit an impeachable offense is wrong, the offense does not need to be a breach of criminal statute.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors (which may well be the only one the Dems can invoke) covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.  

Granted, it's vague and subjective, I did not write the Constitution, don't ask me what to do with this problem...  

OTOH, impeachment, in and of itself, means nothing.  Nothing happens to the president when he is impeached.  It isn't unless and until the president is found guilty in a trial by the Senate that he is removed from office.  The Senate trial is a trial, with all of the protections and procedures afforded any defendant by our legal system.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

The trial is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation.

Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. That's all...

Of course, the removed official may still be liable to actual criminal prosecution under a subsequent but different criminal proceeding altogether.

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

There is no better source for this than Congressional Research Service, tasked with answering just this type of questions. Here is what it states in the official brochure:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44260

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
...
Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

It is true that impeachment does not require a crime to be committed, but it does require a very serious offence. Making a verbal request to a president of a nation allied with the US will not be found as such by any court in the world that is more or less unbiased.

The court will have to prove that Trump's words in themselves had serious consequences on the electoral process in the US strongly favoring Trump's chance of being reelected, for this to even begin being considered as an offence. And given how much noise the backlash from the Democratic party introduced into the system, that does not seem possible to do, and even if Trump did actually help himself a lot by making that request, it will now take years to unfold.

Democrats seem to have shot themselves in the foot by making a big deal out of the situation. A quiet, confidential investigation could go a long way, but the way it is done now does nothing but help Trump both withstand any possible legal backlash, and get reelected.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

The trial is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation.

Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. That's all...

Of course, the removed official may still be liable to actual criminal prosecution under a subsequent but different criminal proceeding altogether.

The Senate trial is separate from impeachment.  Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment by the House, nothing more.  It is not a finding of guilt and, as with any indictment, there are no penalties.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta From the transcript: president Trump: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
President Zelenskyy: "... I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.."

President Zelenskyy spills the beans right there.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

What he is saying here is that he needs information on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. The lot of people who want to find out about that are the American public, no doubt to run a smear campaign that would all but guarantee he would not be elected should he be the candidate for the democrats.

Trump did in fact get campaign finance from the Ukrainian president, because campaign finance law defines contribution as "Anything of aid or value" therefore asking for that investigation constitutes a violation of campaign finance law.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta By not using diplomats the process of foreign diplomacy can not function properly. A diplomat is supposed to be aware of any and all relations between the US and the foreign government for which they are assigned. By cutting them out of the loop through the use of your own trusted associates, you violate the sovereignty of your nation, because the diplomats can potentially no longer properly represent the nation for which they serve.

They are not there to serve the interests of any one particular person or office, they are there to serve the needs of the people of the nation they represent. This has the effect of them following the orders of the president because the president is an official democratically elected to serve the US, and therefore the people of the nation they represent.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta From the transcript: president Trump: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
President Zelenskyy: "... I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.."

President Zelenskyy spills the beans right there.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

What he is saying here is that he needs information on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. The lot of people who want to find out about that are the American public, no doubt to run a smear campaign that would all but guarantee he would not be elected should he be the candidate for the democrats.

Trump did in fact get campaign finance from the Ukrainian president, because campaign finance law defines contribution as "Anything of aid or value" therefore asking for that investigation constitutes a violation of campaign finance law.

No, absolutely not.  You're substitution what you wish Pres. Trump had said for what he actually said.  He asked Pres. Zelensky to look into corruption that occurred in Ukraine, full-stop.  There is nothing whatsoever wrong with Pres. Trump asking officials of another country to investigate corruption that happened over there.

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden are above the law.

According to your specious interpretation of campaign finance law, the Dems are Pres. Trump's biggest contributors.  They made sure everyone in the country learned about Biden's corruption.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta By not using diplomats the process of foreign diplomacy can not function properly. A diplomat is supposed to be aware of any and all relations between the US and the foreign government for which they are assigned. By cutting them out of the loop through the use of your own trusted associates, you violate the sovereignty of your nation, because the diplomats can potentially no longer properly represent the nation for which they serve.

They are not there to serve the interests of any one particular person or office, they are there to serve the needs of the people of the nation they represent. This has the effect of them following the orders of the president because the president is an official democratically elected to serve the US, and therefore the people of the nation they represent.

Where do you get this garbage? 

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it? 

President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasn’t operating “business as usual,” since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best. Trump rankled, contradicted and “embarrassed” them by operating outside the “regular” chain. 

But they seem to miss the fact that their desires are subordinate to the president’s. “Official foreign policy,” as they called it, is not an independent unmovable-force object that exists outside the president’s authority; it is what the president determines it to be. The diplomats must execute the president’s wishes or resign from their posts if they feel they cannot bring themselves to do so.

Kent and Taylor genuinely seem to believe Trump was acting for his own political benefit — though they acknowledged they never had spoken to him or met him. Obviously, President Trump would say he was acting in the national interest. But their testimony makes it pretty clear why President Trump would develop a communications chain that would attempt to minimize career diplomats who do not wish to execute his wishes and may be working to undermine them.

Trump’s enemies may cheer on the idea of diplomats and other officials choosing to oppose or undermine his wishes. But based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats are the ones who are at odds with “official foreign policy”— not the other way around. To the extent they are attempting to further policies that oppose or undermine the president’s wishes, they are the ones conducting the “shadow campaign.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/470420-the-president-not-diplomats-sets-official-foreign-policy

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

A president is a diplomat. He officially represents the American people both before themselves and foreign officials. He routinely meets with foreign leaders to negotiate on behalf of the US voters. He does not need any mediators when he wants to have a phone call with one of his partners. In virtually all presidents' offices around the world direct lines with most other presidents are installed, so they can call each other whenever they want, discuss whatever they want and make whatever requests they deem worthwhile.

Same goes for any other politician. Pelosi does not need anyone's approval, including Trump's, to, say, independently ask the Russian president to investigate the legality of Trump's business operations in Russia. She can do it at any moment with no repercussions. And if she does so, you bet nobody will speak of the possibility of impeaching her, and rightly so.

There is the category that draws the line between what is permissible to discuss with foreign leaders and what is not; that line is called "treason". Trump has not crossed that line by any stretch of imagination, and "treason" also is not on the table in the impeachment discussions. It is clear that a very different game here is at play, one that has little to do with any wrongdoing on the president's part, and everything to do with power struggles inside the US two-party system. People who genuinely believe that those seeking Trump's demotion have America's best interest in mind have been played.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar While I agree with you that the president has diplomatic options, one of which is direct communications with foreign leaders, that ignores the problem I stated, which is using channels other than the assigned diplomats when discussing things with another country. My point is that the foreign embassy should be informed of any and all dealings between the country they are assigned and their own country, because that is sort of required for them to do their job properly in the public interest.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@MayCaesar While I agree with you that the president has diplomatic options, one of which is direct communications with foreign leaders, that ignores the problem I stated, which is using channels other than the assigned diplomats when discussing things with another country. My point is that the foreign embassy should be informed of any and all dealings between the country they are assigned and their own country, because that is sort of required for them to do their job properly in the public interest.

Your point was wrong when you brought it up before, and that hasn't changed.  If there was any validity to the point you have tried to make, the diplomatic corps would be an independent branch of government.  They are not.  United States Foreign Service is part of the US State Department.  Who the the US Head of State?  That's right; the President, Donald J. Trump.  The president is the sole arbiter of US foreign policy.  If he wants to use official channels, he is free to do so.  If he wishes to use unofficial channels, that is his prerogative as well.  It is NOT an impeachable offense.

AlofRI

@CYDdharta ;

Donald Trumps bungling of America's Foreign Policy, his spreading distrust throughout our long time allies (as well as insulting them) while he holds secret meetings (of which there is no record), with our enemies, shows he IS NOT QUALIFIED to run this country! His disdain for this planet and humanity beyond his immediate family is …. what? There is NO word for it, except maybe "unexplainable". He has called EVERY friendly head of state unworthy names while praising every dictator and authoritarian leader … except the Venezuelan dic….. (who sits on more oil than the Saudi's). What he's thinking here I don't know. Frankly, no sane individual can figure out much of what he's thinking anyway!

He is childish in his rabid need to "get back at" Obama for roasting him …. after Trump called him a , a cheat and a non-citizen. Funny, the roast was largely NOT lying …. or even joking, just in a joking manner! 

There's nothing "conservative" about him, he's the biggest wasteful spender we've had in office …. a $Trillion in debt in his first term! Nothing to show for it! The military?? What good is a resupplied military when the military strategy is wrenched from the hands of Generals, who know what they are doing, and used as "sugar" to sweeten our relationship with dictators! The man … HE …. is treasonous with his decisions. There's no other word for it! A disaster walking! Putin is playing him like a puppet. We need to wake up. If we don't MAGA will never happen, we get weaker in the world every week, as the WORLD gets weaker …. every week. 

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

The role of embassies is to serve private citizens and do the diplomatic work outsourced by the executive branch to them. The executive branch does not have to, nor is expected to, to outsource every single diplomatic action to the embassy. That Trump's request was unethical given obvious conflict of interests is a valid concern, but it has no bearing on the mechanical side of the issue.

It is a broken institution; the president has far too much power and influence. In my opinion, president should not be the commander in chief, he should not be a diplomat, and he certainly should not have any influence on the work of the legislative and judicial branches. However, the system is what it is, and you cannot really blame Trump for abusing it, just as every single president before him did, and just as likely every single president after him will. Do not blame the players; blame the game.

There is a lot of things to say about Trump, and he certainly is not among the better presidents in our history. But I would prefer to see more rational criticism, and fewer attacks on his character and integrity. We all know well that he is a business snake; that is how he has been marketing himself for over 30 years now, and that is who he is at the core. 
But as a president, this is all irrelevant. It does not matter how controversial of a person Trump really is; what matters is how well he does his job. This is where the criticism should be directed, and not towards sex scandals, strange diplomatic requests, outrageous jokes and other irrelevant things.

all4actt

@AlofRI

We get it you don't like Trump.  

While I believe that the Presidents call may have been unadvisable and he should have deligated it to the DOJ to ask the questions this does not negate the fact that he is allowed to ask them.  The fact that one of the questions had to do with a political adversary is questionable but it is still a question he is allowed to ask if he believes there was an american puplic official involved in corrupt behavior.

Having said that I have been watching the impeachment inquiry and so far I haven't seen any there there.  So far they have brought in front of us 2 men who had no direct information and a former ambassador that wasn't even around when the phone call was made.  I question why she was even questioned.  I don't think in a trial, which lets not pretend that this is anything but, I don't believe any of the witnesses would be allowed to testify even in the indictment process.  

But the investigation goes on.  We shall see if Schiff is able to bring anybody with direct evidence to prove any of his allegations.  

So far I don't see any evidence of (What are they calling it now?) bribery.  

Like I said the inquiry goes forward and we will see if they can prove anything that warrants an impeachment.

sdevarya

@AlofRI

Your opinions about Trump seem highly immature to me. You are looking at him from a child's perspective. You need to analyse the political decisions which he made which benefitted America. He contested China off a Trade Battle (which eventually ended up in a stalemate as of now) but also how he increased the exports of America. He may be highly critisized, but that is a highly and cognitically flawed way of looking at him. You are ranting as if you can handle Presidency better than he can. He may not be the best, but certainly does not deserve such bias criticism. Also, in politics, the opposition parties seldom try to frame the other parties but the truth may not always be presented, the call in my opinion was immoraal and illegal but the Democrats aren' saints either.

AlofRI

@sdevarya ;

At 82 it's been a LONG time since I've been called "immature" ;-). 

You've a right to your opinion, at least for the time being. If we lose our democracy under Trump, well, your opinion better still align with HIS.

Trade IS important. Most of our traders are hurting more than we are. MOST of them are (were) our allies. Trumps friends …. Hmmm ..... does he have any, around the world, that is? Putin, Kim, Erdogan, etc. smile with him now and then, but, anyone with any ability to read people can see there's no "respect". They are playing him like a trout.

Do you believe that the "new" financial support for our "wonderful farmers" is coming from tariffs placed on China??
Do you believe Trump did NOT bribe the President of Ukraine?
Do you believe "the phone call record" was placed in a highly secured server because it was "perfect"?

If you do, I'll gladly agree that there is some "immaturity" here but it's not 82.  

Plaffelvohfen

One thing is certain, Trump just had a very bad weekend!  And now he appears to be thinking about testifying?? Please YES!!!       

I can now say that he'll definitely be impeached, but removed is still very much uncertain considering the Senate complete lack of principles and honesty...  

sdevarya

@AlofRI
"Trump may not be the best,but certainly does not deserve such bias criticism"- clearly you haven't read my answer well enough
Also, I believe that the people should be given the opportunity to cast a vote for his impeachment, because it is a DEMOCRACY. Also, are you saying that subsidizing farmers is bad? If so, you seem to have certainly proven my point. I personally do not support Trump, however, I also will not go biasly against him for the sake of it.
"the call in my opinion was immoraal and illegal"- again you seemed to have missed reading my answer. 
The RIGHT TO OPINIONS is not being objectified by me, but there has to be a limit to irrational thinking.
I personally also think that he may even lose his Presidency next year. 

Do you support biased voting?

If so, I would be more than happy to see another persona of ill-political intellectual.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Whether the corruption happened in Ukraine, the US or on the moon is irrelevant, because it involved Joe Biden and his son, and therefore involves US interests because Joe Biden is a US public official. What's wrong with it is that he is leveraging it for his own political gain.

Ask yourself: Why should the US president be privy to the results of a foreign investigation?

Besides that clarification, it doesn't matter anyways because your assumption that President Zelenskyy was investigating Hunter Biden is false. There is no evidence of any corruption in Ukraine on the Biden's behalf, as Trump claims.
https://www.axios.com/joe-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-trump-1b031c30-3173-4a45-a6a7-2e551759063c.html

As far as the Democrats exposing the Biden's shady dealings, it doesn't violate campaign finance law because it came from within the US. The violation comes from the fact that he is dealing with an external power.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Whether the corruption happened in Ukraine, the US or on the moon is irrelevant, because it involved Joe Biden and his son, and therefore involves US interests because Joe Biden is a US public official. What's wrong with it is that he is leveraging it for his own political gain.

Ask yourself: Why should the US president be privy to the results of a foreign investigation?

Besides that clarification, it doesn't matter anyways because your assumption that President Zelenskyy was investigating Hunter Biden is false. There is no evidence of any corruption in Ukraine on the Biden's behalf, as Trump claims.
https://www.axios.com/joe-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-trump-1b031c30-3173-4a45-a6a7-2e551759063c.html

As far as the Democrats exposing the Biden's shady dealings, it doesn't violate campaign finance law because it came from within the US. The violation comes from the fact that he is dealing with an external power.

AlofRI

It is very scary to me to see what the last 30 or so years have done to many of the young (immature? ;-) minds of Americans. They seem to be unable to see what is happening to this country. Allowing Putin to manipulate thinking, and make this democracy seem unimportant. MAGA as is being played out is a joke. This "great economy" is a joke. A great economy is NOT what is being sold as a great economy today. I've lived through a great economy. It's one where people can have a job that pays the bills, the mortgage, food, health care, education, a vacation and STILL leaves some to be put away for later. Those who can do that today are in the minority, not the majority as it would be in a "great economy". It wouldn't entail two or more in a family to work just to makes ends meet. It doesn't require working 10-20 years to pay off the education needed to make those ends meet. Much of America appears to be blind to what is happening. It's not likely I'll see the result of the mistaken ideas that have come out of the twisted philosophy that has been seeded into so many younger minds. As it is going, I hope I don't.

Sdevarya: That sounds like a Russian word to me, maybe not. I think much of your opinion above would be taken with a smile from some on the internet that are. People WILL be given an opportunity to vote on this impeachment, of course. That is the democratic way. I also do not go against Trump in a "biased way". I go against Trump in a democratic (small d) way. I hate seeing our Constitution torn apart, our State Department, our legal system …. by him and the 6 (7?) cohorts who are already headed to or are IN prison. The swamp is being drained by our Judicial System, not the fellow who promised to drain it! Our security and legal organizations have been under attack since the last Presidential election. As I'm writing this an American hero is being denigrated by the party that professes to "support our troops" (when it's convenient)!


No, I'm not saying subsidizing farmers is bad, but let's be honest about just WHO is doing it … Not China, the American taxpayer …. due to an egotistical, authoritarian leader who does not resemble an American President. I personally think he SHOULD lose his "position" next year. Otherwise I MAY see the result I don't WANT to see. The right to opinions is an important right. We lose that right if people think we should support nationalism and "uncontrolled capitalism" (oligarchy). In my righteous opinion.

sdevarya

@AlofRI

Hold up. 'Russian Word'' please explain WHAT you EXACTLY mean when you use that phrase. Also, according to you a taxpayer should not pay taxes if farmers are being subsidised? You seem very unclear to me. 
Here Are some things about Trump you may WANT TO look at (I personally don't think you will beacuse of your stubbornness)

He created almost 4 million jobs since election, almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election, youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century, signed Right-To-Try legislation, confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.

John_C_87

Is congress making a written claim Executive officer Trump is their representation before United States Constitution and violate their Constitutional trust?

AlofRI

@sdevarya ;

No. It's the lying to the American people to make it LOOK like China is paying. The taxpayer is paying, he's taking money from other places where we need it to make himself look good and pay for his mistakes.
He does have some good numbers, not NEARLY as good as his predecessor. Problem is, many of those jobs are filled with folks that already have a job. Many have to work two, or have another family member work to make ends meet. Much of that comes from rising health care costs that he promised to reduce and the rising cost of everything else. The people helped most by him are those who didn't NEED help. In a good economy millions of Americans wouldn't NEED food stamps.

You can pick out a very few "good things", but, can you take pride in the fact that he gave Syria to Russia? He gave the Kurds (our friends) to a Turkish murderer? He covered up for a Saudi murderer? He's destroyed our trust of allies around the world? He's made several more billionaires with his "tax cut for the middle class" ("My rich friends are going to hate me!" ;-). Kim is "going away"? Six (and counting ;-) of his closest "associates" are in prison … or going there? He promised his tax returns asap … what's he hiding?? Do YOU want a President that doesn't want records of what he says to foreign leaders? (Especially authoritarian enemies?) Secure, yes. Non-existent NO! A woman abuser? A man who is "credited" with 1300 lies?? A man who can't be trusted …. in anything. A narrow view of this man is dangerous. He needs to go, and that's not stubbornness. 

AlofRI

Oh. I forgot the "Russian word". I'm NOT accusing, but, there are obviously a LOT of Russian "bots" on "the net". Hard to tell who's a REAL friend to America any more. Just sayin'

MayCaesar

@AlofRI

Trump is in the position where, no matter what he does, he will be criticised by his political rivals. He gave Syria to Russia, and people criticise him for that. While just months before they were criticising him for keeping troops in Kurdistan, "destabilising the region". 
This just once more demonstrates how morally corrupt politics is. People do not judge each other for actions; they judge each other for camps they are in. Had Trump been a Democrat, he would similarly be praised for everything he does by Democrats, and criticised by Republicans.

I have little love for Trump, but almost all mainstream discussion about him has devolved into camp wars, and I end up inadvertently defending him again and again, not because I support him, but because I support civilised and logical political discourse.

As for the food stamps, you are a bit off the mark here:



As you can see, the SNAP participation had been rising for a very long time, up until the year 2013, and then started dropping, continuing dropping at about the same rate after Trump was elected. Trump absolutely cannot be blamed for the number of food stamps in the US, and if anything, Obama is the one who seems to have contributed to it the most.
But Obama is never criticised in the left-leaning media, is he? 

Like I said, this whole discussion has nothing to do with objectivity. You are just there to speak against Trump, and your opponents are just there to speak against Obama or current Democratic runners. Very few people actually care about such things as facts and statistics.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

2 things can be true at once.  He could be trying to investigate corruption and it could be in his political interests. You cant say someone cant investigate legitimate corruption just because it is in their political interest.  If they can prove somehow that he solely did it to effect a political rival that would be impeachable, but thays going to be near impossible.  Investigating legitimate corruption should always be allowed.

Quid pro quo is not illegal.  They have biden on tape successfully performing it with ukraine.  If that is illegal trump wouldnt have even had to try and investigate him... hed already be out of the race.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers The folly of this assumption is that it ignores the fact that President Zelensky and Trump are different people. While it is well within the rights of President Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, when Trump is withholding congressionaly approved foreign aid in order to guarantee the investigation happens, then we are firmly in impeachable territory.  This is the quid pro quo, Latin for "this for that" that we are talking about.

On top of this, Trump attacked the witnesses on twitter during the hearing, which could be said to be witness intimidation and only adds to the list of highly questionable list of Trump's wrongdoings.

So far all the witnesses have said that this happened, so it is a matter of if congress decides that it 

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

Thats not true morrison and voulker said no quid pro quo.

Also saying bad things about a witness and threatening/intimidating them is different.

Trump has every right to investigate corruption that involves American interests.  We are allowed to ask favors before aiding countries, it would be dumb not to.  Also why would we give money to a potentially corrupt nation?  Again it is only illegal if he solely wanted an investigation into biden solely for political gain.  There were other investigations other than bidens that were wanted.

Again if straight quid pro quo is illegal then why isnt biden being taken off the democratic ticket.  He withheld aid until a prosecuter got fired.  In this instance the bribe was actually taken

Ukraine didnt even know Trump was withholding aid until the politco article came out.  So apparently it wasnt obvious. also they received the aid and an investigation never took place.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Ukraine didnt even know Trump was withholding aid until the politco article came out. 

You missed Laura Cooper's testimony today? The deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, testified Ukrainian officials knew as early as July 25th (day of the call) there was an issue... "What is going on with Ukrainian security assistance?" one Ukrainian contact asked in an email to a member of her staff... The emails describing Ukrainian questions about the aid came in the mid-afternoon, just hours after Trump's 9 a.m. phone call with Zelensky. 

Not that it would matter but still, this needed to be corrected...

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers I assume you are getting your information from fox new because they seem to be the only group claiming this, because if you go to left biased new sources they say exactly the opposite. 

Just to reiterate, President Zelensky would be doing the investigation into the Biden's dealing in Ukraine, not Trump. If they wanted to do the investigation or turn a blind eye is their business, not Trump's, it is just convenient for him, enough so that he might illegally withhold military aid to Ukraine, Which would potentially open them up to attack from Russia. On the world political stage, this could have the repercussion of weakening the Euro zone, costing us critical allies and strengthening our long standing rival.

I am not arguing that quid pro quo is illegal, because it is not, but it may entail illegal doings.

The problem with withholding the aid is that it was already approved. If it wasn't approved, then what the US would get in exchange would be part of the deal from the start.

If the CEO of your ISP told you today that your service you had already paid for would be cut in half until you asked all your neighbors to switch to their service, that would be illegal. But for some reason, when the POTUS does substantially the same thing, he is "setting foreign policy" and "operating within his rights"

If he committed a crime or not is irrelevant for impeachment proceedings anyways, as stated elsewhere in this debate. Abuse of power is enough for impeachment.