The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Joey D]

I suggest the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, and should be taken to trial at the Supreme Court.

Wasn't it under Train v. The City of New York?

 

[TexRex]

Wasn't it under Train v. The City of New York?

If memory serves, it was upheld. What Dotini obviously means is it should be again while SCOTUS is in a position to favor Trump.

 

[Danoff]

On the grounds it fetters the constitutionally mandated conduct of foreign policy by the Executive branch.

That's a legal argument?

 

[Dotini]

That's a legal argument?

No, it's a fecal argument.

 

[ryzno]

I honestly don't even care anymore...
I'm just glad Biden/Son got exposed and the Democrats showed their true colors.
This was NEVER about him violating the Constitution... It was about them trying to find ANYTHING to impeach him. They loved him and his money till switched parties

And I honestly can't take some of y'all seriously anymore. A number of y'all were running with every story the MSM threw against the wall about how he's gonna destroy America...

If you're too blind to see it, don't bother quoting me.

Trump 2020

 

[Chrunch Houston]

i didn't watch that far. I watched through the defense's layout of their key points. Again, he admitted it on national television. Do you think Trump was lying? And Bolton? And everyone who testified at the Senate? And the whistleblower?

I assume you mean the house. That video is very long and hard to link to exactly the right spot.

If you can bother yourself to watch 3 minutes from this spot, you will hear four house witnesses say the Ukranians didn't know about the hold on aid until over a month after the phone call.

 

[Danoff]

I assume you mean the house. That video is very long and hard to link to exactly the right spot.

If you can bother yourself to watch 3 minutes from this spot, you will hear four house witnesses say the Ukranians didn't know about the hold on aid until over a month after the phone call.

I watched it. Which is more courtesy than you ever give me on any of my posts. I ask questions, they get ignored. I make points, they get ignored. You ask me to spend 3 minutes watching your youtube video, I watched it.

Ok so I take it you agree with Trump's attorney's characterization here, which is that unless the Ukrainians know that the money has been determined not to be released (a hold), there is no quid pro quo. NYTimes disagrees with this characterization.

So let me ask you this: why was there a hold?

Let me ask you another question.

What does a "hold" mean?

The answer to the first question is obviously that it's because Ukraine didn't announce investigations into the Bidens. Still doesn't sound like a quid pro quo? You think Ukraine had zero inkling what the issue was when they found out? The answer to the first question is that it's an official determination not to release the money. Ukraine (and others in the US) were wondering what was up, but they didn't know it had been officially held until it started being explicitly stated that they were not going to get their money. And why? Because they hadn't announced the investigation Trump had demanded.

Did you stop thinking about this the moment you heard something you liked? Because honestly, if you just keep thinking about the scenario like 1 step further you'll realize that yes, it is still a quid pro quo, and yes, it's still a problem. It's like you allowed your brain to stop pursuing the issue just at the moment you were happy with the answers you were getting.

 

[huskeR32]

ou will hear four house witnesses say the Ukranians didn't know about the hold on aid until over a month after the phone call

Can you find the part of the Impoundment Control Act that says it's okay to violate it if the intended recipient of the money isn't aware it's being illegally withheld from them?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I watched it. Which is more courtesy than you ever give me on any of my posts. I ask questions, they get ignored. I make points, they get ignored. You ask me to spend 3 minutes watching your youtube video, I watched it.

Ok so I take it you agree with Trump's attorney's characterization here, which is that unless the Ukrainians know that the money has been determined not to be released (a hold), there is no quid pro quo. NYTimes disagrees with this characterization.

So let me ask you this: why was there a hold?

Let me ask you another question.

What does a "hold" mean?

The answer to the first question is obviously that it's because Ukraine didn't announce investigations into the Bidens. Still doesn't sound like a quid pro quo? You think Ukraine had zero inkling what the issue was when they found out? The answer to the first question is that it's an official determination not to release the money. Ukraine (and others in the US) were wondering what was up, but they didn't know it had been officially held until it started being explicitly stated that they were not going to get their money. And why? Because they hadn't announced the investigation Trump had demanded.

Did you stop thinking about this the moment you heard something you liked? Because honestly, if you just keep thinking about the scenario like 1 step further you'll realize that yes, it is still a quid pro quo, and yes, it's still a problem. It's like you allowed your brain to stop pursuing the issue just at the moment you were happy with the answers you were getting.

I read your Times article, and meh. They have been lying about Trump since he came down the escalator, so forgive me if I believe four career diplomats, who are under oath, over the NYT.

I am not sure why the money was withheld, I can only assume it had to do with corruption. Trump hates giving away foreign aid. My guess is that he wanted make sure that Zelensky was the real deal and serious cleaning up Ukrainian corruption. But I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it was to stop Sleepy Joe.

Can you find the part of the Impoundment Control Act that says it's okay to violate it if the intended recipient of the money isn't aware it's being illegally withheld from them?

You know the same alphabet agency that said the Trump administration broke the law, also said that the Obama administration broke the law in 2011. I don't seem to remember that impeachment.

 

[huskeR32]

You know the same alphabet agency that said the Trump administration broke the law, also said that the Obama administration broke the law in 2011. I don't seem to remember that impeachment.

I don't know what this nonsense is, but I asked which part of the ICA says that Ukraine being unaware of Trump violating magically means he was in the clear. Paragraph and line number will do, thanks.

 

[Imari]

No actually the below quote out of the article I linked seems to be a legitimate reason for Trump to raise the questions he did with Ukraine.

No, it's a legitimate reason to investigate appropriately. There is no legitimate reason to use Ukraine to investigate what should be a matter for a native investigation.

If Trump somehow thinks that the US investigative bodies are so corrupt that a foreign country would be more a reliable investigator, then maybe as the president he should look into that first. Because that sounds like a way bigger systemic problem than Hunter Biden getting paid for being born into riches.

I am not sure why the money was withheld, I can only assume it had to do with corruption. Trump hates giving away foreign aid. My guess is that he wanted make sure that Zelensky was the real deal and serious cleaning up Ukrainian corruption. But I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it was to stop Sleepy Joe.

Trump doesn't get to make that choice though, right? Even if his motive was purely to make sure that the money was going to be well used by Ukraine and everything was on the up and up, he still went about it in the wrong way. One can argue that the President should be able to withhold such funds in order to further foreign policy, but the legal reality is that it was very much not legal when he did it.

Being President is not a blank cheque to avoid the rules you don't like. If the rules are wrong or damaging to the country, the President is arguably in one of the strongest positions to be able to work to change them. But just straight up ignoring rules that you don't like, that's very dangerous when you're supposed to be the example that an entire country looks up to. Also, illegal.

It's possible to be doing the right thing and go about it in a way that is profoundly wrong, and potentially illegal. The more of this fiasco I see, the more I feel that's the most charitable interpretation I could put on it. The least charitable is that Trump is a crook and everything was purely for his own gain. I suspect that there's still a lot more to know that will narrow down just where on the spectrum between the two the truth actually lies.

 

[Danoff]

I read your Times article, and meh.

Facts... meh

They have been lying about Trump since he came down the escalator,

Who? You mean the New York Times? Fake nooz, don't listen to anyone but Trump. I just listened to, and took seriously, Trump's lawyer, a person who is paid explicitly to be biased. Give me a break.

so forgive me if I believe four career diplomats, who are under oath, over the NYT.

But only when they say that one particular thing, and not anything else. I knew that you would disregard the NYT, because you're carefully filtering who you're listening to and who you are not, instead of filtering fact vs. fiction. That's why it was barely even part of my post, it was practically a footnote. You've decided to base the bulk of your response on it, though, which is not particularly surprising, because you don't have a real response to my actual point.

I am not sure why the money was withheld, I can only assume it had to do with corruption.

Who knows? Oh right, Trump knows. In fact he said exactly why, because they did not announce an investigation into the Bidens. He said that on national TV. He then asked China to do the same. How far do you have to have your fingers in your ears to make a statement like this. You don't know? Everyone knows.

But it's still not a quid pro quo is it? Because they didn't know that they were being penalized until after they failed to deliver on the promise. So it goes like this:

Mob Boss: Look, Vinny (sorry for the stereotypes but you know... mob boss), I need you to do me a favor.
Vinny: Ok Boss, whatever you want.
Boss: I need you to uh... pay a visit to these folks who are bothering me. Capice?
Vinny: Sure boss.

2 weeks later

Mob Boss: Listen, Bobby, I need you to take Vinny for a swim.
Bobby: Why?
Boss: I asked him for a favor and he's been... less than responsive.
Bobby: You got it boss.

No quid pro quo. Vinny was not already dead when the Mob Boss told him to do the favor, therefore, there cannot be a quid pro quo. He wasn't aware that his boss had asked for him to be killed until after he failed to do the favor. It's clear then that the killing had nothing to do with the favor.

Capice?

Trump hates giving away foreign aid.

Not always up to him. We don't live in a monarchy.

My guess is that he wanted make sure that Zelensky was the real deal and serious cleaning up Ukrainian corruption.

Then why would he release the money later when he got caught?

But I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it was to stop Sleepy Joe.

You're right, it's too soon. It would be better if we waited until we had testimony, documented records, a book, and an admission of that on camera.... oh wait!

 

[Biggles]

I honestly don't even care anymore...
I'm just glad Biden/Son got exposed and the Democrats showed their true colors.
This was NEVER about him violating the Constitution... It was about them trying to find ANYTHING to impeach him. They loved him and his money till switched parties

C'mon rynzo. NOBODY much "loved" Trump. That's because he's always been a creep, a bully, a philanderer, a lier, a cheat, a self-important blowhard & the king of all narcissists. If you mean they liked his MONEY ... then yes.

Biden/son have not been "exposed". A lot of the "dirt" on Hunter Biden is complete BS, just like it was on HRC. However, I grant you Hunter Biden having a seat on Burisma's board was highly questionable & an example of the fundamental corruption involved in entrenched crony capitalism. The problem is, there is no indication Trump has ever exhibited ANY interest in rooting out crony capitalism corruption, in fact his career has been an object lesson in milking the system for his own benefit - something he has frequently bragged about in the past.

I don't think you'll get much argument about the hypocrisy of the Democrats saying the exact opposite of what they said at the time of the Clinton impeachment ... & the same with the Republican's similar about-face in positions. For better or worse, that's the nature of partisan politics in the US. But the reason non-"leftists" & non-Democrats are concerned about Trump is he has stepped across a line. He seems to believe he has the right to undermine all the constitutional norms of the American political system, ignore the checks & balances of the separate-but-equal branches of government, ignore the stabilizing institutions of the State Department, the intelligence services & the military, & conduct foreign policy for his own benefit through the actions of his own "personal lawyer". Do you really not see how this represents a problem?

 

[Touring Mars]

Trump resolves Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

/thread

Interesting timing.

 

[Rallywagon]

C'mon rynzo. NOBODY much "loved" Trump. That's because he's always been a creep, a bully, a philanderer, a lier, a cheat, a self-important blowhard & the king of all narcissists. If you mean they liked his MONEY ... then yes.

Biden/son have not been "exposed". A lot of the "dirt" on Hunter Biden is complete BS, just like it was on HRC. However, I grant you Hunter Biden having a seat on Burisma's board was highly questionable & an example of the fundamental corruption involved in entrenched crony capitalism. The problem is, there is no indication Trump has ever exhibited ANY interest in rooting out crony capitalism corruption, in fact his career has been an object lesson in milking the system for his own benefit - something he has frequently bragged about in the past.

I don't think you'll get much argument about the hypocrisy of the Democrats saying the exact opposite of what they said at the time of the Clinton impeachment ... & the same with the Republican's similar about-face in positions. For better or worse, that's the nature of partisan politics in the US. But the reason non-"leftists" & non-Democrats are concerned about Trump is he has stepped across a line. He seems to believe he has the right to undermine all the constitutional norms of the American political system, ignore the checks & balances of the separate-but-equal branches of government, ignore the stabilizing institutions of the State Department, the intelligence services & the military, & conduct foreign policy for his own benefit through the actions of his own "personal lawyer". Do you really not see how this represents a problem?

I know it's a sort of "whataboutism" but man, could you imagine the **** storm if this was HRC in this scenario rather than Trump? I am quite certain all of this gets to fly with Trump supporters solely for the fact that its Trump. Replace Trump with a democrat and I am equally as certain all of these trump supports would be running around like Chicken Little.

 

[UKMikey]

Trump resolves Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

/thread

Interesting timing.

Whether anything has actually been resolved or the US plan to end the conflict has simply been unveiled, I think it'd be grossly unfair to say this was intended only as a distraction from Trump's domestic worries.

After all, it's also a distraction from Netenyahu's domestic worries.

 

[Touring Mars]

Whether anything has actually been resolved or the US plan to end the conflict has simply been unveiled, I think it'd be grossly unfair to say this was intended only as a distraction from Trump's domestic worries.

After all, it's also a distraction from Netenyahu's domestic worries.

I was half-expecting Prince Andrew to show up at some point too.

-

I think the highlight of the speech(es) was when Trump thanked “the United Arab Emitters”... to be fair, the UAE are one of the biggest emitters of CO2 per capita in the world.

 

[huskeR32]

Can you find the part of the Impoundment Control Act that says it's okay to violate it if the intended recipient of the money isn't aware it's being illegally withheld from them?

Ya know, @Chrunch Houston, for this thread to ever approach anything resembling productive conversation between differing opinions, it'll take answers to questions like this. Intellectual cowardice gets us nowhere.

There's a lot going on with the impeachment saga, lots of baggage that both sides saddle it with. Accusations, counter-accusations, endless whataboutism.

But there's one thing at the core of it all that's pretty cut-and-dried. Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the money. There's no nuance about it. The act is clear about what the president cannot do, and Trump did it.

Whatever Trump's intentions or thinking was, Trump violated the ICA. Whatever the Bidens did or didn't do, Trump violated the ICA. Whatever your or anybody else may think about the wisdom of the ICA, it exists nonetheless, and Trump violated it.

Conversations can be had about the merits of the law. They can be had about whether the behavior of the Bidens or anybody else should be investigated through legal and appropriate channels. That's all fine and good. But none of it changes what the ICA says, that it is currently very much a law, and that Trump very clearly violated it.

When things this fundamentally evident get denied, written off as witch hunts, dismissed as liberal lunacy, there is no foundation from which to have productive conversation and debate.

So, for once, set aside your snarky mudslinging (something I've been guilty of myself in the past, just so we don't have to go down a path of our own whataboutism), and be straight. Find the exact line of the ICA that we've all missed that says Trump can violate it if his intentions are good, or if he doesn't notify Ukraine that he's withholding the money, or if any of your other gripes are present. Find the line and share it with us all so that we can modify our thoughts appropriately, please. If you can't, if the ICA does not in fact allow a president to violate it for your reasons or for any other, then admit that the president committed a crime, and start adjusting your posting accordingly.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Ya know, @Chrunch Houston, for this thread to ever approach anything resembling productive conversation between differing opinions, it'll take answers to questions like this. Intellectual cowardice gets us nowhere.

There's a lot going on with the impeachment saga, lots of baggage that both sides saddle it with. Accusations, counter-accusations, endless whataboutism.

But there's one thing at the core of it all that's pretty cut-and-dried. Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the money. There's no nuance about it. The act is clear about what the president cannot do, and Trump did it.

Whatever Trump's intentions or thinking was, Trump violated the ICA. Whatever the Bidens did or didn't do, Trump violated the ICA. Whatever your or anybody else may think about the wisdom of the ICA, it exists nonetheless, and Trump violated it.

Conversations can be had about the merits of the law. They can be had about whether the behavior of the Bidens or anybody else should be investigated through legal and appropriate channels. That's all fine and good. But none of it changes what the ICA says, that it is currently very much a law, and that Trump very clearly violated it.

When things this fundamentally evident get denied, written off as witch hunts, dismissed as liberal lunacy, there is no foundation from which to have productive conversation and debate.

So, for once, set aside your snarky mudslinging (something I've been guilty of myself in the past, just so we don't have to go down a path of our own whataboutism), and be straight. Find the exact line of the ICA that we've all missed that says Trump can violate it if his intentions are good, or if he doesn't notify Ukraine that he's withholding the money, or if any of your other gripes are present. Find the line and share it with us all so that we can modify our thoughts appropriately, please. If you can't, if the ICA does not in fact allow a president to violate it for your reasons or for any other, then admit that the president committed a crime, and start adjusting your posting accordingly.

Sadly, I believe you'll wait in vain for a response.

No Trump supporter can bring themselves to utter the only reasonable (or at least intellectually consistent) defense Trump has: The laws do not apply to Trump. It's an internal battle of the conservative bulwark "law and order" and their guy.

To cede that the laws are not applicable violates one aspect of a conservatives self image
To cede that the democrats were right violates another

So the result is to not acknowledge that either is true and keep the delusion train going.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Ya know, @Chrunch Houston, for this thread to ever approach anything resembling productive conversation between differing opinions, it'll take answers to questions like this. Intellectual cowardice gets us nowhere.

There's a lot going on with the impeachment saga, lots of baggage that both sides saddle it with. Accusations, counter-accusations, endless whataboutism.

But there's one thing at the core of it all that's pretty cut-and-dried. Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the money. There's no nuance about it. The act is clear about what the president cannot do, and Trump did it.

Whatever Trump's intentions or thinking was, Trump violated the ICA. Whatever the Bidens did or didn't do, Trump violated the ICA. Whatever your or anybody else may think about the wisdom of the ICA, it exists nonetheless, and Trump violated it.

Conversations can be had about the merits of the law. They can be had about whether the behavior of the Bidens or anybody else should be investigated through legal and appropriate channels. That's all fine and good. But none of it changes what the ICA says, that it is currently very much a law, and that Trump very clearly violated it.

When things this fundamentally evident get denied, written off as witch hunts, dismissed as liberal lunacy, there is no foundation from which to have productive conversation and debate.

So, for once, set aside your snarky mudslinging (something I've been guilty of myself in the past, just so we don't have to go down a path of our own whataboutism), and be straight. Find the exact line of the ICA that we've all missed that says Trump can violate it if his intentions are good, or if he doesn't notify Ukraine that he's withholding the money, or if any of your other gripes are present. Find the line and share it with us all so that we can modify our thoughts appropriately, please. If you can't, if the ICA does not in fact allow a president to violate it for your reasons or for any other, then admit that the president committed a crime, and start adjusting your posting accordingly.

Wow that's a lot of words.

Don't lecture me on decorom. The last thing I said to you, you called nonsense.

Obama broke the law.

Bush broke the law.

The constitution says "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Trump missed a deadline so yes he may have broken the law, but that comes nowhere close to an impeachable offence.

I am sure you must have heard Alan Dershowitz last night. The president does not serve at the pleasure of the congress. We do not have a parliamentary system.

Watch again as Dershowitz explains how the constitution destroys these articles of impeachment.

 

[huskeR32]

Wow that's a lot of words.

Don't lecture me on decorom. The last thing I said to you, you called nonsense.

*sigh*

So, for once, set aside your snarky mudslinging (something I've been guilty of myself in the past, just so we don't have to go down a path of our own whataboutism), and be straight.

What part of that didn't register? And I'm not lecturing you on decorum. I'm lecturing you (or, rather, asking you) to stop denying the basic facts at play here.

I fully expect disagreement to continue to happen, but it shouldn't be over the foundational facts. Trump broke the law, that is not up for debate. We can and should debate whether it should be against the law to do what he did. We can and should debate what powers we the people feel comfortable grating our elected leaders. Debates over such things ensure the healthy functioning of our democracy.

Instead, we're stuck in a very stupid loop where facts are presented, then shot down as "leftist" fantasy, and we never get anywhere. This is the very real damage that results from a leader constantly spewing hate about the media and denouncing everything as "fake news." It encourages discarding of facts. It encourages people to jam their fingers in their ears and turn off their brains.

Obama broke the law.

Does that mean that Trump didn't? Does the ICA have a provision saying that any president can violate it as long as other presidents broke some laws too?

Bush broke the law.

Does that mean that Trump didn't? Does the ICA have a provision saying that any president can violate it as long as other presidents broke some laws too?

The constitution says "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Indeed it does. It's pretty vague, isn't it? I reckon that's on purpose, giving the people, through Congress, a little flexibility in deciding when their elected representatives have shown themselves unfit for service.

Trump missed a deadline so yes he may have broken the law, but that comes nowhere close to an impeachable offence.

What part of the extremely vague constitutional wording above makes you so sure that this doesn't qualify as impeachable?

And just so it's clear: Clinton broke the law for his personal benefit, and I agree with the House's decision to impeach him. I believe that when the founders wrote those words, they intended it to be used to deter behavior like Clinton's.

What Trump did concerns me even more. Not only did he break a law for his own personal benefit, but he did so in a way that affected international relations. That's very worrying to me, and to many others.

I am sure you must have heard Alan Dershowitz last night. The president does not serve at the pleasure of the congress. We do not have a parliamentary system.

If Congress has the constitutional authority to remove the president from office, then in a very real way, he does in fact serve at their pleasure, does he not?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Indeed it does. It's pretty vague, isn't it? I reckon that's on purpose, giving the people, through Congress, a little flexibility in deciding when their elected representatives have shown themselves unfit for service.

It is not really that vague. The founders could not list laws that when broken would be impeachable. There were no federal laws, there was no federal government. What they did do is equate impeachable offences to bribery and treason ("or other high crimes and misdemeanors").

If Congress has the constitutional authority to remove the president from office, then in a very real way, he does in fact serve at their pleasure, does he not?

This is exactly what the founders did not want. That is why they set the bar for impeachment so high.

I would encourage anyone here to watch the Dershowitz video I posted. It is an hour long but it is very educational.

 

[huskeR32]

It is not really that vague. The founders could not list laws that when broken would be impeachable.

Isn't that, by definition, vague?

There were no federal laws, there was no federal government.

There weren't laws until there were. There wasn't a government until there was. What's your point?

What they did do is equate impeachable offences to bribery and treason ("or other high crimes and misdemeanors").

Okay, then when crimes "equate" to bribery and treason then?

Again, it reads to me like they're leaving it open so that it can be exercised when needed.

This is exactly what the founders did not want. That is why they set the bar for impeachment so high.

Oh? How do you know that? You have any writings to backup your claims to know what the founders did and did not want?

Yes, the bar was set high to prevent abuse. If that high bar is met, then it must be a serious situation, no?

I would encourage anyone here to watch the Dershowitz video I posted. It is an hour long but it is very educational.

I've become adequately familiar with Dershowitz over the years. I don't need to sit through an hour of it. The summaries I read were more than enough.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Isn't that, by definition, vague?



There weren't laws until there were. There wasn't a government until there was. What's your point?



Okay, then when crimes "equate" to bribery and treason then?

Again, it reads to me like they're leaving it open so that it can be exercised when needed.



Oh? How do you know that? You have any writings to backup your claims to know what the founders did and did not want?

Yes, the bar was set high to prevent abuse. If that high bar is met, then it must be a serious situation, no?



I've become adequately familiar with Dershowitz over the years. I don't need to sit through an hour of it. The summaries I read were more than enough.

Dershowitz explains it all very clearly. He is my source.

You will spend all your time writing, but can't take an hour to listen to one of the most experienced constitutional experts in the world explain why this impeachment is unconstitutional.

How many decades of experience do you have studying constitutional law? Yeah, that's about what I thought.

I will listen to Dershowitz.

 

[huskeR32]

Dershowitz explains it all very clearly. He is my source.

You will spend all your time writing, but can't take an hour to listen to one of the most experienced constitutional experts in the world explain why this impeachment is unconstitutional.

How many decades of experience do you have studying constitutional law? Yeah, that's about what I thought.

I will listen to Dershowitz.

You considered no other sources, yet are accusing me of being unwilling to listen?

As I stated, I read summaries of his testimony. Reading summaries and analysis from several different sources strikes me as at least as good of a method of being informed as listening to one source and declaring the case closed.

I know that his argument boils down to what you already said: the framers only intended for crimes "equal" to bribery and treason to be impeachable. And pursuing impeachment on grounds of abuse of power is a dangerous precedent that will make it far too easy to impeach in the future.

It's not an overly difficult concept to grasp, and I still feel adequately informed, despite your insinuations otherwise.

It all leaves me wanting to ask him the same question I asked you, which you ignored:

Okay, then when crimes "equate" to bribery and treason then?

If they meant for bribery and treason to be the only impeachable offenses, why didn't they write it that way?

If they meant for other crimes to also be impeachable, then what are those crimes? Since the crux of your argument is that Trump's actions don't qualify as impeachable, you'd damn well better be able to answer when asked what crimes are impeachable.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

As I stated, I read summaries of his testimony. Reading summaries and analysis from several different sources strikes me as at least as good of a method of being informed as listening to one source and declaring the case closed.

One source? My source was the source. I didn't need someone, who may be biased, tell me what he said.

If they meant for bribery and treason to be the only impeachable offenses, why didn't they write it that way?

They are not the only impeachable offenses. The constitution says "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That is, crimes that rise to the level of treason or bribery. Again at the time that was written, there was no federal government - there were no laws. The colonists used British common law.

If they meant for other crimes to also be impeachable, then what are those crimes?

I don't know, but I know missing the deadline of distributing foreign aid isn't one.

 

[huskeR32]

One source? My source was the source. I didn't need someone, who may be biased, tell me what he said.

That you think a member of Trump's defense team represents the source of truth is pretty telling about how you go about assessing "bias." Surely you must admit that his position in this affair calls into question his credibility?

They are not the only impeachable offenses. The constitution says "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That is, crimes that rise to the level of treason or bribery. Again at the time that was written, there was no federal government - there were no laws. The colonists used British common law.

Jesus Henry Christ. WHAT other crimes qualify then? List them!

I don't know, but I know missing the deadline of distributing foreign aid isn't one.

How do you know that? If you don't know which crimes do qualify, how do you know which ones don't?

 

[eran0004]

Dershowitz explains it all very clearly. He is my source.

You will spend all your time writing, but can't take an hour to listen to one of the most experienced constitutional experts in the world explain why this impeachment is unconstitutional.

How many decades of experience do you have studying constitutional law? Yeah, that's about what I thought.

I will listen to Dershowitz.

He is Trump’s defence attorney though and it’s his job to say it’s unconstitutional.

It would be more interesting to hear someone who is not hired by Trump to defend him.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

That you think a member of Trump's defense team represents the source of truth is pretty telling about how you go about assessing "bias." Surely you must admit that his position in this affair calls into question his credibility?

OMG My source was the source of your sources.

As I stated, I read summaries of his testimony. Reading summaries and analysis from several different sources strikes me as at least as good of a method of being informed as listening to one source and declaring the case closed.

If you had your way, every time the president loses the house, and that is very common, then they can impeach over anything they don't like. Is that what you want? That is not what the founder wanted.

Why don't you just watch the damn video.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

He is Trump’s defence attorney though and it’s his job to say it’s unconstitutional.

It would be more interesting to hear someone who is not hired by Trump to defend him.

Alan Dershowitz is probably the most respected constitutional scholar in America. He was hired to testify, but he was against impeachment long before the impeachment. He has been a famous lawyer for decades. He was not only around for the Clinton impeachment, but also for Nixon's.

He is a democrat.

He wrote a book about this impeachment before it even happened.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/151074228X/?tag=gtplanet-20