Impeachment

Can anyone answer my question? Is there any action that Trump could do that you would accept Trump being impeached?

As a hypothetical, if what Democrats say was true, and Donald did threaten Ukraine with the withdrawal of military aid if they didn't investigate Biden's sons activities, I'm not saying that you think it's real, but if he hypothetically did it, would you consider that grounds to impeach him?
Provide some proof of your assertions, then we'll consider indulging your question.

Edit: And no, media snippets from 'anonymous sources' or 'officials familar with the matter/subjects thinking' do not count. Provide hard, court quality proof, not hearsay or rumors spread by a media that hates Trump.
 
Can anyone answer my question? Is there any action that Trump could do that you would accept Trump being impeached?

As a hypothetical, if what Democrats say was true, and Donald did threaten Ukraine with the withdrawal of military aid if they didn't investigate Biden's sons activities, I'm not saying that you think it's real, but if he hypothetically did it, would you consider that grounds to impeach him?
unless he was asking them to make shit up I consider a President telling someone receiving military aid "look into this specific, known, example of corruption and make sure it won't happen again" entirely legitimate. And if someone thinks that would be grounds to impeach the President because the "specific known example" involves a political rival what I'd ask is "Why the feth wasn't this getting investigated before?".

As for the actual question, ABSOLUTELY there are things Trump could do that if I had solid evidence of I'd support Impeachment. Good example, selling out America to win the election. If Russiagate had been real I'd want him Impeached.

But frankly Bill Clinton basically set the bar for "what you have to be worse than in order to actually be impeached", guess what, lying under oath ain't it. And I haven't heard of anything Trump's done that is even near that level of blatantly illegal and trust in system wrecking. Certainly not anything with any actually solid proof.
 
The actual formal term for that stuff is "PII" meaning "personally identifiable information". It is controlled, but because PII poses no risk to national security, it falls into the "Sensitive but Unclassified" category. Federal jobs that deal with PII usually require at least a Public Trust.
Huh, thats good to know.

We need a tribble with one of those graduation hats for informative posts.
 
Provide some proof of your assertions, then we'll consider indulging your question.

Edit: And no, media snippets from 'anonymous sources' or 'officials familar with the matter/subjects thinking' do not count. Provide hard, court quality proof, not hearsay or rumors spread by a media that hates Trump.
Honestly, the burden of proof has been raised so high, after over three years of false accusations levied against Trump; I'm not even sure it's possible to provide enough to support any more, at this point. Even if someone did give me hard evidence, my first instinct would probably be to assume it's some sort of trick.
 
As a hypothetical, if what Democrats say was true, and Donald did threaten Ukraine with the withdrawal of military aid if they didn't investigate Biden's sons activities, I'm not saying that you think it's real, but if he hypothetically did it, would you consider that grounds to impeach him?
Only if Biden dropped out completely and never returned to politics. As far as impeachment goes, once he actually does something impeachable possibly.
 
Firstly, because it was done while he was the VP and under the auspicious of that office under command from Obama as President. The President has near total power over the handling of international diplomacy, legally speaking, and there's very little Congress can legally do to limit how he and his agents pursue international diplomacy. Secondly, there's enough of a fig-leaf here given cooperation by European governments to label the Prosecutor in question corrupt that Biden has a legitimate government business excuse for his actions, and he can just say "well, shit, I didn't think of the optics at the time, but that wasn't my responsibility to do so", which is correct (Obama should have been concerned with the optics, not him) and a neat sidestep.

Yes, Biden’s obvious defence is that he was pursuing policy objectives of the Executive Branch, and that’s ironclad for a good reason.
 
Right... I see we have a serious difference of opinion here and we're clearly never going to agree, so let me ask you this. Is there anything Trump could do that would make Impeachment legitimate, or was he right when he said about his supporters "I could go into the middle of the street and kill someone with a gun and they'd still back me."

Because I don't doubt for a minute that if Obama had done even half of the corrupt and illegal things that Trump has done, then the Republicans would have impeached him already and many Democrats and their supporters would have agreed with it.

Trump's offenses thus far:

1. Being a jerk. Legitimate criticism, he can be a jerk.
2. Violating political correctness. This is a positive, not a negative.
3. Spending too much money. Serious problem, I'd like him to tone that down.

Trump's offenses according to the media:

1. Being a Russian puppet. Disproven.
2. Being a racist. Disproven.
3. Violating political correctness. Again, a positive, not a negative.
4. Beating Hillary Clinton. Positive, not a negative.
5. Supposed corruption with Ukraine dealings now. Disproven.

What would it take him doing for me to support impeachment? Any one of the following would do:
1. Actually being an agent of a foreign power.
2. Actually commit rape.
3. Massive, gross corruption.

Also, if he became authoritarian, that's not impeachable in and of itself, but I certainly wouldn't vote for him in 2020. I'm sure there's a few more, but they aren't coming to me off the top of my head.

Things that Obame did do, that he has never been held accountable for:
1. Lie about Obamacare. You don't get to keep your doctor, and it drove prices way up, instead of down by 2500 dollars per year.
2. Lied about Ben-Ghazi. This was a blatant lie to the general public of America, transparently because it was in the lead-up to the elections, and it's known that he lied.
3. The Fast and the Furious. His government ran a program that smuggled guns to Mexican criminal cartels. Why it happened in the first place has never been explained, but it is a known fact that there is at least one instance of said weapons being used to kill American citizens, much less what happened across the border with them.
4. Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal. The IRS under his administration blatantly and aggressively discriminated against conservative political organizations, particularly the Tea Party movement, and last I checked, some people being put on paid 'administrative leave' (vacation) is the most serious consequence faced.
5. Title IX memorandum. The kangaroo-courts in universities across America, and part of the general perversion of justice regarding accusations of sexual harassment or assault in large part were the result of a message his administration sent out to basically every college/university campus in the nation. This isn't rising to the level of impeachable, but it's still some serious BS.

Things Hillary Clinton did:
1. Also lied about Ben Ghazi, as Secretary of State rather than President.
2. Explicitly ordered classified information handled in ways that violate security procedure while Secretary of State. As Secretary of State, that was not something she had the authority to do. This also ties into:
3. The E-mail server scandal. By Federal statute, what she did in violation of handling government documents, especially once she left the State Department, made her legally ineligible for ever holding Federal Office again. Including elected office. This is whether it was done maliciously or negligently. She broke the rules, and she should have paid the price.
4. Helped cover up her husband's sexual misconduct throughout his entire career, something which almost certainly rose to the level of outright criminal rather than just shady and immoral behavior during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but we'll likely never know because the Dems refused to impeach Bill, even though he'd been held in contempt of court, and is known to have solicited others to help him obstruct justice in covering up what he did.



So yeah. I don't like the fact that Trump has something of a history of a womanizer. I don't like the fact that he's a jerk. But every nice guy that the Republicans nominated, the Democrats lied about and ran smear jobs on until they could run them out of town. Trump will punch back just as hard, and his insults against Democrat politicians tend to have the virtue of actually being true.

I'd rather have had another Ronald Reagan, who could rhetorically destroy his opponent with grace and tact, but we've got Trump instead, and since he fights, he's the one that gets to stay in the ring.
 
This is absolutely hilarious, Trump is outfoxing them yet again. And I don't think Trump is that smart, above average, to lower high level at most. They are just that dumb. Trump isn't playing 4D Chess, he is playing checkers, with his opponents playing Tictactoe- badly.


To be fair, they have had massive success over the last, I don't know, 20 years at crippling the Republicans using the same kind of tactics.

They only look inept and obvious because it HASN'T WORKED on trump because he doesn't play by the same rules and they don't have backup plans. So they keep flailing wildly hoping SOMETHING will finally work.

And in flailing, revealing what they actually are like, stripped of all pretense or subtlety.
 
To be fair, they have had massive success over the last, I don't know, 20 years at crippling the Republicans using the same kind of tactics.

They only look inept and obvious because it HASN'T WORKED on trump because he doesn't play by the same rules and they don't have backup plans. So they keep flailing wildly hoping SOMETHING will finally work.

And in flailing, revealing what they actually are like, stripped of all pretense or subtlety.

Well, I guess that would breed complacency when your opponent plays the same game, except even worse. And look inept? You don't stop being inept just because your opponents are being even more inept or not are just phoning it in. And yes, they are.
 
Seems like a very short-sighted approach to life.
We're talking about people who want to throw open the doors to our country to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to take advantage of the massively expanded welfare system they're also pushing for; as if we somehow have infinite money and resources to work with. That's not what someone capable of long-term planning does.
 
We're talking about people who want to throw open the doors to our country to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to take advantage of the massively expanded welfare system they're also pushing for; as if we somehow have infinite money and resources to work with. That's not what someone capable of long-term planning does.
That kind of person in any country would get me more angry than the usual.
 
Ok, IG report didn't indict Trump, it was on Democrats. So... Now it's all old information/disproven, Rudy made everything up, and Trump left out 20 minutes of Transcript.

And we have a year to look forward to of this. I'm thinking of cutting my Electronics and going into the woods.
 
This shit is only coming from 1 Senator (Angus King), who is a never-Trumper, and he has no facts to back it... but the media is running with it as if it were gospel.

The media doesn’t need little things like facts or the truth. Since when have those ever mattered? They have a moral duty to report that the orange man is very bad.

After all, the stupid American public can’t be expected to look out for their own best interests or make their own judgements. No, they must take the journalists word on everything. /s

Expecting the lying whores, and that’s being very unkind to whores, in the media to approach this story with anything even close to caution or tact is like expecting a bear to not shit in the woods.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top