Amendment to Formalize Impeachment

[blackangst1]

^lol

Whats so LOL? The transcript shows likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

 

[fskimospy]

Whats so LOL? The transcript shows likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

He asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor and investigate his political opponent.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm as shocked as you are.

Not sure what youre shocked about. Other than realizing the only ones saying there WAS quid pro quo is the Democrats and anyone who hates Trump. Even Zelensky denied there was.

As I said, the transcripts show likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

 

[blackangst1]

He asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor and investigate his political opponent.

That is NOT quid pro quo. And Ive commented on that.

 

[ivwshane]

Whats so LOL? The transcript shows likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

Hmm... good thing an abuse of power isn’t a high crime and an impeachable offense. /eye roll

 

[blackangst1]

Hmm... good thing an abuse of power isn’t a high crime and an impeachable offense. /eye roll

Did I say that?

 

[JD50]

The hostage with a gun to his head says he isn't a hostage, pack it up boys nothing to see here.

 

[fskimospy]

That is NOT quid pro quo. And Ive commented on that.

First, he said it in a response to a request for military help so of course it is a quid pro quo.

Second, that is 100% meaningless. The request in and of itself is an impeachable offense.

To show you how obvious this is, imagine if it were a city mayor and his chief of police:

scenario 1:

Chief of police: I need new police cruisers.
Mayor: okay I’ll give them to you if you investigate my political opponents.

scenario 2:
mayor: hey chief of police, investigate my political opponents.

Both of those scenarios land the mayor in prison. The difference as to the mayor’s guilt is zero.

 

[woolfe9998]

That is NOT quid pro quo. And Ive commented on that.

Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine while asking them to investigate the Bidens. If you think the withholding of aid was for some other reason, then say what you think the reason is.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure what youre shocked about. Other than realizing the only ones saying there WAS quid pro quo is the Democrats and anyone who hates Trump. Even Zelensky denied there was.

As I said, the transcripts show likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

If Trump directly said to Zelensky that he would only give him aid if he personally shot Joe Biden exactly how stupid would Zelensky have to be to say so.

Think about it. If Zelensky dimes Trump out and Trump survives the US will surely take revenge on Ukraine for a minimum of one year and perhaps for five. If Trump is removed from office he then faces Pence and an implacably hostile Republican Party. Still terrible. Even if a Democrat wins in 2020 good luck getting any more aid through the Republican senate.

Zelensky would have had to be a complete moron to admit to that so I’m not sure why you are clinging to that as an excuse. Regardless the testimony of US staff directly interfacing with the Ukrainian government testified under oath that the Ukrainians understood aid was contingent on investigations.

 

[woolfe9998]

If Trump directly said to Zelensky that he would only give him aid if he personally shot Joe Biden exactly how stupid would Zelensky have to be to say so.

Think about it. If Zelensky dimes Trump out and Trump survives the US will surely take revenge on Ukraine for a minimum of one year and perhaps for five. If Trump is removed from office he then faces Pence and an implacably hostile Republican Party. Still terrible. Even if a Democrat wins in 2020 good luck getting any more aid through the Republican senate.

Zelensky would have had to be a complete moron to admit to that so I’m not sure why you are clinging to that as an excuse. Regardless the testimony of US staff directly interfacing with the Ukrainian government testified under oath that the Ukrainians understood aid was contingent on investigations.

Yes, and there's also a domestic political concern for Zelensky. If he admits he felt pressured and that he was going to comply because of the pressure, which, for a time he was, it makes him look weak in Ukraine. What head of state would publicly admit to caving to pressure from a foreign leader to open an investigation that had to do with foreign politics and was no benefit to the nation?

 

[fskimospy]

Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine while asking them to investigate the Bidens. If you think the withholding of aid was for some other reason, then say what you think the reason is.

I’m not sure why you don’t believe Trump was genuinely concerned about corruption. He took corruption so seriously that he tasked his personal attorney to liaise with two people currently under indictment who were funded by a Russian mob connected oligarch also currently under indictment.

Wait why are you laughing.

 

[woolfe9998]

I’m not sure why you don’t believe Trump was genuinely concerned about corruption. He took corruption so seriously that he tasked his personal attorney to liaise with two people currently under indictment who were funded by a Russian mob connected oligarch also currently under indictment.

Wait why are you laughing.

Oh, he was concerned about it all right. Concerned they weren't corrupt enough to do what he asked.

In all seriousness, have they even attempted to explain why the aid was suddenly reinstated just days after the DNI delivered the whistleblower complaint to the White House? What concessions does Trump claim Zelensky made in regards to fighting corruption in Ukraine?

And why wasn't this aid withheld the year before or the year before that?

And why did they smear and fire an ambassador who was trying to fight corruption in Urkaine?

Perhaps Blackangst can answer these nagging questions. We all know Trump won't.

 

[JD50]

I'm guessing we're going to get some variation of "Who me?"

 

[NWRMidnight]

Not sure what youre shocked about. Other than realizing the only ones saying there WAS quid pro quo is the Democrats and anyone who hates Trump. Even Zelensky denied there was.

As I said, the transcripts show likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

What transcript? Are you talking about the condensed memo of the phone call the White House released that states at the very top "Not a transcript"? It would be nice if the full actual transcript was released, which multiple people have testified is much, much worse. But even the "Not a transcript" includes him asking for an investigation into Biden. So, yeah....

 

[ivwshane]

Did I say that?

No, you raised some other pointless issue.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I Googled this and all I could find was impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice Do you have a link to support your claim?

Wow lying about a blowjob. Yeah it's the Democrats who are handling this unconstitutionally when Trump refuses their authority to issue subpeonas. I would love to see how many times our Dear Leader would perjure himself testifying to the house, and same for his swamp. And I didn't hear one Trumptard complain when Sessions was AG and he perjured himself about meeting with Russians.

 

[kage69]

I'm getting pretty tired of hearing of Zelensky's assurances brought up as some kind of silver bullet retort. Of course he is not going to anger the petulant brat that is still in office, he is compelled to be polite out of national need. Why the hell would he burn a bridge with this clusterfuck of an admin when it's still going to be around for another year? The republican penchant for shitty posterboard props makes me wonder if they just need to draw Doug Collins a picture.

Should probably add to it: this narrative of Dems trying to invalidate the votes of 63 million voters is utterly bogus. The reality is the leaders of 63 million voters are trying to tell 66 million voters that republicans are above the law. Oh they're angry? Well that's just a shame, probably time to blame the mentally ill traitor and conman you voted for, then maybe look in a mirror and re-evaluate your lack of principles.

Go Nadler curbstomping the 'do nothing Dems wasting time and money' horseshit the GOP is still trying to sell. House has been industrious, chewing that gum and walking the whole time. And the Senate under Moscow Mitch? Fuck all.

 

[cirrrocco]

Before we get into the crazy left vs right debate. I am curious what the ramifications are when Trump is impeached.
I stopped following news and was not very involved during the Clinton years
Can trump be disbarred from elections? What's the worst that can happen to him.

Thanks in ahead for your time.

 

[fskimospy]

Before we get into the crazy left vs right debate. I am curious what the ramifications are when Trump is impeached.
I stopped following news and was not very involved during the Clinton years
Can trump be disbarred from elections? What's the worst that can happen to him.

Thanks in ahead for your time.

If Trump were somehow convicted he can also be barred from holding future office, yes.

 

[ivwshane]

Before we get into the crazy left vs right debate. I am curious what the ramifications are when Trump is impeached.
I stopped following news and was not very involved during the Clinton years
Can trump be disbarred from elections? What's the worst that can happen to him.

Thanks in ahead for your time.

Impeachment simply removes the person from office. I’m not aware of any other ramifications unless the senate ALSO bars the president from holding office again.

 

[interchange]

Can y'all move it to the other thread on Impeachment? This one is for discussing potential changes to codify an Impeachment process.

 

[ivwshane]

Can y'all move it to the other thread on Impeachment? This one is for discussing potential changes to codify an Impeachment process.

I prefer not to have this generation of congress people make such drastic changes to the constitution as an amendment. I doubt any of them have the foresight to draft such an article that does any better than what the fathers of the constitution did with regards to impeachment.

 

[interchange]

I prefer not to have this generation of congress people make such drastic changes to the constitution as an amendment. I doubt any of them have the foresight to draft such an article that does any better than what the fathers of the constitution did with regards to impeachment.

Arguing practical productivity of a discussion like this seems to me missing the point. Unless any of us are congresspeople, even if we were to come up with the perfect ideas it seems pretty unlikely we'd have any influence to change people.

I dunno. I like the thought dream that a structural solution could exist which would greatly improve the hazards of the current shit show we have. Don't like it? You don't have to contribute.

 

[ivwshane]

Arguing practical productivity of a discussion like this seems to me missing the point. Unless any of us are congresspeople, even if we were to come up with the perfect ideas it seems pretty unlikely we'd have any influence to change people.

I dunno. I like the thought dream that a structural solution could exist which would greatly improve the hazards of the current shit show we have. Don't like it? You don't have to contribute.

I did contribute, ass.