Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s not forget most recently,Obama telling Medivided that after the election he would have more flexibility.He said this on a hot mic,thinking no one else would here.Did the republicans talk of impeachment? How about DACA he took that one upon himself too,impeachment worthy? Under the criteria of what has became just cause,I’d say most certainly 🤨
 
Aquinas11 said:
Defines subjective term using other subjective terms

Under that definition countless Democrat heroes are guilty of abuse of power (Woodrow Wilson who racially resegregated government, FDR locked up Japanese in internment camps, JFK/LBJ who used IRS and FBI against political opponents, Obama who used FBI to spy on journalists …)

So let’s try again: what is the definition of abuse of power?
Click to expand...
It is subjective because it is up to the Congress to judge whether the President has abused his power or not. Judging by history, the Congress is actually very responsible with that power. They definitely do have it, though.

Having said that, using the power of the Presidency or the position of the Presidency to accomplish unlawful or unethical ends is an abuse of power. When President Clinton carried on a sexual relationship with an intern, that was an abuse of power. His office was a position of trust; he does not have carte blanche to use it to procur sexual favors for himself, not even if willingly provided by someone working for him. (I am not referring to the matter about which he was impeached, but rather to Mrs. Clinton’s preposterous defense of her husband’s actions with Ms. Lewinsky, which were without a doubt an abuse of power, not to mention a gross violation of the public trust.)

In President Trump’s case, the Congress had voted to give funding to Ukraine. Using his office to hold up that funding in order to secure favors beneficial to himself personally was an abuse of power, particularly considering that time did matter to the Ukrainian President. The Congress did not vote that money for the President to use it as leverage to get the Ukraine or its President to do the bidding of Trump’s private attorney or Trump’s personal goals.

As you well know, misconduct does not magically become ethical because someone else got away with it. I also don’t know why you believe that someone who wants to see Donald Trump held to account must be a Democrat. I always thought that respect for the law without consideration for poltical alliances was a conservative value, personally.
 
Last edited:
I keep telling you it requires no definition.
Over and over.
I gave examples of why it does not. . . .
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
particularly considering that time did matter to the Ukrainian President.
Click to expand...
Limited comment if I can do that. I’m not sure there was all that urgency in terms of days or weeks. Russia had already taken Crimea and was arguably bogged down in eastern Ukraine. Obama gave Ukraine zero weaponry when it was arguably needed most. By last summer, the fight in eastern Ukraine was very much slowed down from what it had been, into a sort of uneasy stalemate.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Let’s not forget most recently,Obama telling Medivided that after the

election he would have more flexibility.He said this on a hot mic,thinking no one else would here.Did the republicans talk of impeachment? How about DACA he took that one upon himself too,impeachment worthy? Under the criteria of what has became just cause,I’d say most certainly 🤨
Click to expand...
If you don’t think any Republicans ever suggested that Obama ought to have been impeached (with or without grounds for it), you need to do a cursory search of the record. (Answer: of course they did: H. Con. Res. 107, 2012)

The difference is that, as Ted Cruz once pointed out, a great many people in Congress see no point in starting impeachment proceedings when there aren’t votes in the Senate to convict. The Senate, in turn, tends to not want to say they’ll vote to impeach unless they believe their constituents clearly want it. That to me has always been the real litmus test, if you want me to be honest.
 
PetraG said:
It is subjective because it is up to the Congress to judge whether the President has abused his power or not.
Click to expand...
No since “abuse of power” appears nowhere in impeachment clause

Congress can’t rewrite the constitution to add “abuse of power”, especially if it has no definition
 
PetraG said:
using the power of the Presidency or the position of the Presidency to accomplish unlawful or unethical ends is an abuse of power
Click to expand...
so every President should be impeached under that definition

“Unethical”? Good luck defining that
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
No since “abuse of power” appears nowhere in impeachment clause

Congress can’t rewrite the constitution to add “abuse of power”, especially if it has no definition
Click to expand...
What constitutional lawyer told you that? Abuse of power is just using the powers of the Presidency to do things that are illegal or unethical. Of course that is impeachable. It is just a very broad category.

It is pointless to argue this; no one is voting you or me into Congress any time soon.
Aquinas11 said:
so every President should be impeached under that definition

“Unethical”? Good luck defining that
Click to expand...
I think you need to scroll up and read the post where I made a very clear distinction about when Congress could impeach or remove a President and when they ought to do it.

You will find I wrote that for the good of the country and in spite of having committed serious offenses, I believe it is in the best interest of the nation for the Senate to decline to remove President Trump from office.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Using his office to hold up that funding in order to secure favors beneficial to himself personally was an abuse of power,
Click to expand...
The funding was paid within the statutory deadline (set by Congress), so if that’s “abuse of power”, anything is
 
This happened within the time frame of negotiation over Crimea.
A WH meeting would have substantially increased Zelinski’s status. It is just a fact about WH meetings.
Instead, Trump gave one to the Russian Diplomat/spy.
 
It’s just a political theatre .Point being ,the Republicans during Obama’s tenure has the self control to not indulge in their desire to do him damage n this way.The Dems clearly only care about their own political arses .
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Abuse of power is just using the powers of the Presidency to do things that are illegal or unethical.
Click to expand...
Cite me the statute saying that

You’re inventing a definition that is entirely subjective (unethical? According to who?) and can be used to impeach ANY president
 
If a president can say I am not giving you anything. Period. To Congress!
There is no oversight any more. That is the outcome to be expected.
 
Jeanne_S said:
It’s just a political theatre .Pont being the Republicans during Obama’s tenure has the self control to not indulge in their desire to do him damage n this way.The Dems clearly only care about their own political arses .
Click to expand...
It is far more serious than political theatre, and I think everybody (or nearly everybody) in Congress gets that.

If the Democrats really had their own political welfare in mind, I don’t think they would have done this. Maybe they are just bad at calculating? Gingrich certainly was; they ought to have learned from him.
 
Maximus1 said:
If a president can say I am not giving you anything. Period. To Congress!
There is no oversight any more. That is the outcome to be expected.
Click to expand...
When the voters will have none of it any more, he’s cooked. He seems to realize that everything in Washington swings on public opinion. It’s pretty cynical, but I don’t think he’s miscalculated yet. (Well, except in some of his tweeting and in inexplicably not having fired Rudy Giuliani yet. Good grief, that guy is a public relations disaster when he gets a microphone. Truth isn’t truth is a defense? Get a new attorney.)
 
The day newt impeached, Clinton shot up to 73% in the polls.( Trump’s 33-35% reduced to 27%).
The public by 70+% want witnesses.
This is entierly different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top