The Trump Impeachment Thread

[baldgye]

PS: I like the new yorker much more than Breitbart, it was just an example.

Good to know

 

[eran0004]

There is video of Biden bragging about blackmailing the Ukrainian government

You can call it blackmailing if you want, but nothing of what he says in the video is illegal.

If he did it for personal gain (i.e. to stop an investigation into Burisma) then it would probably be a case of misconduct, but (A) that remains to be proven and (B) it doesn’t give carte blanche for Trump to abuse the powers of his office.

 

[TexRex]

I think this bears repeating.

Where the notion that the solicitation was regarding investigation of corruption bumps for me--and this is temporarily disregarding that the solicitation itself was an abuse of power--is the funds being released when it came out that they'd been withheld. Also temporarily disregarding the fact that the investigation wasn't ventured through appropriate channels, why were the funds released so promptly upon discovery rather than sticking to the "rooting out corruption" angle?

"Biden" is just a distraction. It joins obfuscation as the only defenses the Republicans have of their guy, because the acts that he actually perpetrated can't be defended without them showing how morally and constitutionally bankrupt they are.

 

[huskeR32]

If they wanted more witnesses they should have called them. They should have subpoenaed who they wanted to hear from and enforced those subpoenas through the courts.

Republicans violate law, but the blame lies with the Democrats for not enforcing that law?

Setting aside the laughable bias you're displaying here (I'm sure if Hillary had ignored subpoenas during the Benghazi nonsense, you'd have similarly defended her...), you understand that the Democrats successfully prosecuting anybody here would require the cooperation of the DoJ, which is under the control of Trump, right? It would be a fool's errand.

 

[Scaff]

There is video of Biden bragging about blackmailing the Ukrainian government, Trump asks Zelenski to look into it

Then you clearly didn't watch that video or actually bother with the context behind it.

First the action taken against the Ukraine to remove the prosecutor was bipartisan, and supported by the EU and a lot of other countries and bodies.

Secondly the prosecutor in question had already closed the case on the company Biden's son worked for, as such removing him would increase the chance of an investigation, not remove it.

Third, it wasn't for personal gain, so is clearly different.

Forth, this has been pointed out to you before (with sources) and you continue to pedal it, clearly illustrating your confirmation bias.

 

[Keef]

I quite liked Schiff's narrative today. That's the only part I've been able to listen to in whole. It was really descriptive.

 

[TexRex]

I quite liked Schiff's narrative today. That's the only part I've been able to listen to in whole. It was really descriptive.

What would that be? However much you've caught, it's surely more than I have.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You can call it blackmailing if you want, but nothing of what he says in the video is illegal.

If he did it for personal gain (i.e. to stop an investigation into Burisma) then it would probably be a case of misconduct, but (A) that remains to be proven and (B) it doesn’t give carte blanche for Trump to abuse the powers of his office.

Hmm, how would one prove such a thing. Perhaps with an investigation?

Republicans violate law, but...

Setting aside the laughable bias you're displaying here

No laughable bias detected here[/s]. Maybe laughable irony.

Then you clearly didn't watch that video or actually bother with the context behind it.

First the action taken against the Ukraine to remove the prosecutor was bipartisan, and supported by the EU and a lot of other countries and bodies.

Secondly the prosecutor in question had already closed the case on the company Biden's son worked for, as such removing him would increase the chance of an investigation, not remove it.

Third, it wasn't for personal gain, so is clearly different.

Forth, this has been pointed out to you before (with sources) and you continue to pedal it, clearly illustrating your confirmation bias.

I watched the video, in fact, here it is.



Let's see what Shokin had to say about getting fired.



This boils down to who/what you believe. Or more importantly what did the president believe when he asked for the investigation on that phone call.

 

[Joey D]

Here's the thing, Biden isn't the President of the United States. Could he or his son be guilty of something? I mean probably, Biden looks like the sort of creepy person that would be into some shady stuff. But he's not the President and thus doesn't have the same guidelines to follow. If he does become President, then he will need to follow those guidelines laid out by the Constitution, but for now? Not so much. Also, if Biden did do any of those things while VP, then it's a slightly different story but at the same time, he's not in the position anymore so you can't really put him on trial as the VP.

Where Trump differs is that he is the President and there are guidelines he has to follow. Trump deserves to be removed from office for abuse of power. He won't though because no one in Congress seems to want to do their Constitutional duty and be an impartial juror. All that's going to happen is every Democrat will say guilty and every Republican will say innocent. The process needs to be done, but it's a huge waste of time and money since no one is going to bother to pay any attention and do the right thing at the end of the day based on the evidence presented.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This boils down to who/what you believe. Or more importantly what did the president believe when he asked for the investigation on that phone call.

No, the case against Biden was investigated. As he isn't POTUS the investigation was different, the alleged crime was committed in Ukraine and was thus investigated in Ukraine. Trump's alleged anti-Constitutional activities were committed in the USA and in the name of the USA. I can't believe that you have so much disrespect for Trump that you're deliberately ignoring the seal he carries.

 

[TexRex]

Okay, so...investigation of corruption abroad falls to the State Department--specifically to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)--not the president. That said, the president may get involved to bolster the State Department's efforts. Should the president wish to bolster those efforts by, say, withholding congressionally appropriated funds, he/she is required to go to Congress (probably not personally and/or physically, mind) and appeal the appropriation, at which point the appeal is subject to 45 active days of congressional session for deliberation. If Congress does not grant the appeal by the end of those 45 days of session, funds must be delivered as appropriated. Failure to appeal Congress and/or see that appropriated funds are delivered is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and an abuse of power as it deprives Congress of control over the purse established in the Constitution.

"But Biden..."--in addition to being a distraction--is a false equivalence. Joe Biden did not withhold congressionally appropriated funds. What Joe Biden threatened to withhold was loan guarantees secured with the assistance of the United States. It wasn't taxpayer money and it wasn't subject to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

I ask again...if the aim of withholding congressionally appropriated funds pending investigation of the Bidens by Ukraine really was about rooting out corruption, why release the funds so promptly once word of the impoundment got out?

 

[Dotini]

There have been rumors of a deal in the works, with Democrats getting John Bolton as a witness in return for Republicans getting a Biden.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

 

[Chrunch Houston]

There have been rumors of a deal in the works, with Democrats getting John Bolton as a witness in return for Republicans getting a Biden.

 

[Keef]

What would that be? However much you've caught, it's surely more than I have.

 

[eran0004]

Hmm, how would one prove such a thing. Perhaps with an investigation?

So investigate it. Don’t call Ukraine and try to buy an announcement from them.

 

[TexRex]

I mean...is there any chance you could summarize? What did you like about it?

I [broadly] support Schiff through this process, but I'm not about to watch him talk for 140 minutes.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So investigate it. Don’t call Ukraine and try to buy an announcement from them.

Show me where this came from. I seem to remember that this was a someone told someone, we were all in on it, but no no one told me that, kind of moment.

 

[eran0004]

Show me where this came from. I seem to remember that this was a someone told someone, we were all in on it, but no no one told me that, kind of moment.

From about a dozen witnesses in the impeachment inquiry and the record from the phone call.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump

 

[Chrunch Houston]

From about a dozen witnesses in the impeachment inquiry and the record from the phone call.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump

Yes, I am all over reading that whole thing.

 

[Scaff]

Hmm, how would one prove such a thing. Perhaps with an investigation?



No laughable bias detected here[/s]. Maybe laughable irony.
I watched the video, in fact, here it is.



Let's see what Shokin had to say about getting fired.



This boils down to who/what you believe. Or more importantly what did the president believe when he asked for the investigation on that phone call.

So Biden forced the EU, Republicans, the World Bank and numerous others to back his play?

The points I've put forward, and you have once again ignored, are all part of the public record. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that and parrot the 'but Biden...' line?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.

 

[baldgye]

So Biden forced the EU, Republicans, the World Bank and numerous others to back his play?

Sounds like we need this lad in the UK to help us with Brexit

 

[eran0004]

Yes, I am all over reading that whole thing.

Just thought you might be asking for sources next.

 

[TexRex]

Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that and parrot the 'but Biden...' line?

Trump card.

 

[Keef]

So Biden forced the EU, Republicans, the World Bank and numerous others to back his play?

The points I've put forward, and you have once again ignored, are all part of the public record. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that and parrot the 'but Biden...' line?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Odd that I read these comments right as the lady is talking about Shokin at the trial.

I just listened to that and the whole story about Biden corruptly removing him sounds like a complete fabrication.

 

[Dotini]

The points I've put forward, and you have once again ignored, are all part of the public record. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that and parrot the 'but Biden...' line?

You are unquestionably a first rate authority of the public record. But the public record is not made of stone, but keeps on going. Just now, the US Senate is in session generating that public record. One of the issues they are grappling with is witnesses, including John Bolton and the Bidens. As much as you might wish for your narrative to be swallowed whole and put to bed as gospel by one and all, I'm afraid you must wait while the undecided follow unfolding events.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Just now, the US Senate is in session generating that public record.

You do understand the concept of past, present, and future right? There are things in the past that are public record that are in fact set in stone. Because they happened and are documented. Sometimes I just...

 

[TexRex]

You do understand the concept of past, present, and future right?

Do you hate us? Of all the people to ask such a thing...

 

[DesertPenguin]

I just can't stand the constant moving of goalposts to defend a defenseless argument.

Edit: And "Of all the people..."? Let's not make personal attacks on people's past. This topic is about people's opinions of things. My personal history has nothing to do with that.

 

[Scaff]

You are unquestionably a first rate authority of the public record. But the public record is not made of stone, but keeps on going. Just now, the US Senate is in session generating that public record. One of the issues they are grappling with is witnesses, including John Bolton and the Bidens. As much as you might wish for your narrative to be swallowed whole and put to bed as gospel by one and all, I'm afraid you must wait while the undecided follow unfolding events.

So Republican's didn't vote for the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor?

The EU, World Bank and numerous others didn't publically call for his removal and also pressure the Ukraine?

Documents released didn't show that the investigation against Biden's sons company had ended?

I get that you're a closet Trumper, but these things actually happened, and Trump and the GOP pretending they didn't will not change that at all.