Is your opinion:
1. Trump did something wrong here, but should not be impeached for it.
2. Trump did something wrong here, and should be impeached for it.
3. Trump did nothing wrong here.
I am between 1 and 2. I'd need to hear cogent arguments from each side, and such arguments are in short supply.
(no message)
The investigation was stopped due to American' interference and pressure. It's American's responsibility to tell them they can continue their own investigation.
Consider all the potential and speculative wrongdoing afoot on the planet on July 25th.
Trump just happens to pick up the phone and dial Ukraine? Couldn’t think of any bothersome cases elsewhere ... like Russia?
Trump just happens to flag Hunter and Joe Biden as Planet Enemy #1?
Trump just happens to suggest that Ukraine look into the Biden caper? Because Ukraine wasn’t already aware of the story? That Ukraine dismissed as a Nothingburger?
And Trump just happened to dispatch his personal lawyer to conduct the deep dive into the Biden wrongdoing?
And that the wrongdoing was so horrible, that it justified freezing US pre-approved military aid to Ukraine, until the Biden caper was exposed in the Ukraine courts?
(no message)
Anyone who does not see what the 7/25 phone call was all about (given the full context) is either a rube or just a blind partisan loyalist.
Trump is a transactional guy, and has no ethical boundaries. Not even clear whether he understands that Barr is not his personal lawyer, or that Guliani is not a government lawyer.
In the wake of what happened in 2016 and the subsequent Mueller investigation, it is beyond the pale that Trump would even think of treading into "collusion" waters, especially given the ongoing concerns by the nation of election tampering or hacking in 2020.
Obviously, Trump believes he is bullet proof, especially with Barr running DOJ, and the fiercely loyal GOP majority in the Senate.
Ukraine is a vulnerable country, frightened of Putin (next door), and very dependent upon the US. Zelinsky is newly elected. He is vulnerable to pressure. Trump knew all that.
Trump dangled Congressional approved military aid as leverage to get Ukraine to stir up a criminal investigation against Biden. [Putin does this all the time in Russia, to eliminate challengers]. Even assuming arguendo some of you do not see a direct quid pro quo, the "do me a favor" pitch coupled with "the United States is very good to Ukraine" is an implied threat, at a minimum. And don't for a second think that Trump was speaking on behalf of the United States. He was using his presidential powers to secure a personal favor.
There is a reason why red flags went up immediately in the West Wing, causing a cover up. No one would have known of this phone call, but for the whistleblower -- someone who actually understands what an oath means.
When the WB complaint surfaced, the West Wing and Barr endeavored to block it. It backfired. Trump's story changed hourly.
We cannot have a President asking a foreign sovereign to cook up an investigation against a political rival (using his personal lawyer as the "bag man"), and worse, using military aid (earmarked by Congress as part of our national security) as additional pressure to "play ball."
Witnesses need to be vetted. Of course.
But, it goes to the Senate. I do not care if Trump is acquitted. He stands trial, and he understands he is not immune from these type of shenanigans. Let the GOP vote to acquit. Show us your true colors.
Edits: Typos and poor writing
(no message)
Stick to the actual facts. It is a trial. Not a Nunes circle jerk.
(no message)
to protect his son? I don't think you can be for Biden and against Trump...which makes me think this is intended to take both of them down.
I would suggest that without that premise, the notion that Biden did something wrong cannot get off the ground.
And, he bragged about threatening to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was fired.
If someone would vote Biden into office while supporting removal of Trump from office, they are exposing themselves as pure partisans.
Who was he protecting Hunter from? That prosecutor wasn’t investigating him or anyone else.
Everyone wanted the prosecutor removed due to his corruptness. Biden got it done. That’s why he’s bragging.
No 3's.
It's all politics.
But I would say that the Dems through this process probably find a way to either:
A. Fail to remove Trump and get him re-elected in the process.
B. Succeed in removing him and lose to a stronger candidate.
If Trump does not get impeached, then we are stuck with the choice of Trump or one of the crazies (or Biden, I guess).
If Trump gets impeached, then there is a chance of a sane choice.
(no message)
Just on appearance it looks bad, but I don't think it is impeachable. You have to be an idiot to not acknowledge why he is trying to get more dirt on Biden. Biden is the only conceivable candidate that can beat him based on the current Dem field.
I would say he can't be successfully convicted by the Senate for this. A couple days ago I thought he was a goner but the transcript is not enough to get him gone, IMO.
He really is a scumbag, though.
(no message)
I've heard conflicting reports about Biden, and it doesn't seem terribly parallel. Biden pressured the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was known to be corrupt. Biden did not pressure the Ukraine to have the investigation of his son's company stopped. Firstly, by credible accounts it was not being investigated at the time, and secondly, firing a prosecutor does not mean the next prosecutor wouldn't pick up (or even revive) the same investigation. I guess I don't see how Biden connected aid to dropping the investigation. The facts do not support the inference.
In Trump's case, there is nothing really to disagree about, with respect to the facts. The transcript is what it is. I've not heard anyone dispute the facts in the complaint.
I think we have similar rational on the parallel, but we have different conclusions.
You said, "Biden did not pressure the Ukraine to have the investigation of his son's company stopped". But here from the phone call, Trump didn't pressure, even didn't ask the Ukraine, to start the investigation of Hunter Biden's company. We all agree, there was the investigation on Hunter Biden, started by Ukraine, not by Trump admin, not by Obama admin. It is just that because of interference of Obama admin on the related Ukraine officials, the investigation was stopped. What Trump said to Ukraine is, you can continue your previous investigation on Hunter Biden, which, let me make it very clear again, was originally started by Ukraine itself a few years ago, not by the pressure of Trump who wasn't president then.
That was about Trump. My answer about Trump has nothing to do with Biden. I don't have an answer about Biden because that is a different set of facts and no one can seem to agree on those facts.
(no message)
(no message)
Let's make it a record.
Trump's actions related to Ukraine discussed today in Congress were wrong, regardless of whether Biden has done something wrong somewhere in his life.
(no message)
(no message)
using strong-arm tactics on Ukraine president?
Right after Biden's spearheading the Obama admin's Ukraine affairs, his son was hired by Ukraine's largest gas company, creating a conflict of interest on Bidens.
The question still remains - is Trump soliciting via strong arm Ukraine president using US arms aid to unearth information on a political rival grounds for impeachment?
(no message)
Have to see the evidence before deciding whether impeachment is warranted. We always jump the gun in these things. I would say that if there is any conceivable way to avoid it, we should. It will tear apart this nation.
(no message)
(no message)
We were able to weather that storm in 1998 just fine.
Watch the Democrat debates. All they want is to give away more free shit. How do you think that makes the have nots who worked their whole lives with nothing to show for and little future. The problems in this country are more troubling and while I hope it won’t happen I don’t preclude civil unrest.
You aren't kidding - they stink on ice.
(no message)
(no message)
way, notwithstanding my feeling toward Slick.
I really think it depends on where the evidence goes. If it ends up like 98, no. If on the other hand it’s 73, cover up and all, there may be no choice.
I need a lot more to convince me though.
Trump did something wrong here - and he knew it, it was intentional seeing he had set this up. He withheld scheduled aid to Ukraine with intent. He recalled the ambassador from Ukraine who objected to Giuliani being sent to question the new premier. In his dialogue in the one
phone call we have seen he sets up a pay for play with Giuliani and Bill Barr. He's admitted to his perfect conversation
This is the second time he's solicited help from a foreign gov't to dirty another opponent in a US election - the first one got a pass from Mueller investigation - he doesn't get a second shot at performing the same trick.
All of this without discussing his other treasonous acts as in Helsinki and so on,.
I don’t see anyone from either party that cares about how to fix the real issues that everyday Americans care about.
Healthcare
Education
Jobs
Infrastructure
We will spend the next year arguing about impeachment like the last two years arguing about Russia. Great for posters on this board but it sucks for America.
And it’s not just America. Look at Britain and most of Europe. Look at China with Hong Kong. People are pissed of.
shouldn't be grounds for impeachment.
(no message)
I cannot believe this fat stooge would invite the interference of another country in our elections again. He has learned nothing. Ever.
This is one of about 50 things that should be on the articles of impeachment, which together will make it clear to history - if not to today's hicks - that he was a manifestly unfit president.
and partisanship aside, I don't believe he has committed an offense.
from Ukranians.
Hillary "invite[d] the interference of another country" when she bought Russian disinformation as contained in the salacious and unverified dossier.
Sen. Mark Warner "invite[d] the interference of another country" when he texted with a Russian oligarch in effort to verify the salacious and unverified dossier.
The Senate Judiciary Committee "invite[d] the interference of another country" when it wrote to the Ukranians to get them to cooperate into their investigation into Trump.
My statements are irrefutably true.
Do you support the investigation and/or impeachment of any one of them?
1973, (46 years), 3 prez’s have faced impeachment. That’s like once every 15 years. Not supposed to work that way.
First - it suggests that the electoral college represents the "will of the people". It doesn't. I would suggest the popular vote represents the will of the people.
Second - Even assuming the 2016 election indicates that the will of the people is to have Trump be president, impeachment is part of the Constitution. It's there for a reason - to get rid of a President guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. We cannot toss out the Constitution simply to prop up a three-year old "mandate" that Trump be president. The election does not override the Constitution.
The election is the manner that the will of the people is expressed in choosing the chief magistrate. While it’s not a direct popular election, it is the only vehicle that provides the citizens a say in who will govern them. Impeachment and removal does overturn that. Secondly, I’m not saying there aren’t circumstances where that will shouldn’t be overridden. I am saying that it should be used very sparingly and only as a last resort in the clearest of cases. In other words, if it can be avoided it should be even if leaves us with a clown like Orange in the Oval. Said the same thing when the current defense posse was out to hang Slickster in 98.
Actually, I disagree with you, but those are reasonable answers.
(no message)
But oddly I thought the impeachment thing was ridiculous.
Clinton should have stepped down. The Republicans should not have impeached. It looked petty.
Still, this seems different. Conor lays out a good argument for impeaching Trump. I don't know if I buy it, but I'd hate to dismiss just because it would be unpleasant.
(no message)
(no message)
end used by D's.
You have found a new whataboutism to answer a simple question of which do you find more true.
So, this is about Trump impeachment and whether or not you agree this episode reaches that level.
We could ask about your thoughts on Clinton impeachment but we already know the answer.
(no message)
(no message)