Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could someone from the Democrat camp tell me exactly what crime or misdemeanor Trump supposedly committed ?
 
BannedinBoston said:
Neither held official office, but both spoke for the President in foreign affairs.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example after the Presidential Records Act? Were the discussion of hte president with these advisors properly preserved and archived. And with Giulliani?
Theo520 said:
Once again you proof-texted a sentence and missed the message of the article.
Click to expand...
I addressed the message of the article. It is in the part of my post that you neglected to quote.

The inference that you drew from the part that you quotes misses the mark. First. It is important to get off that square - inasmuch as came people here still think that grounds or impeachment must invovle a violation of some part of the US criminal code. That perspective is rare and is not held by either the expert that the republicans brought in to testify in Congress or the person whose article you posted. Second, there is a great range of gravity that of offenses that belong under the rubric of :abuse of power". To suggest that it the articles as crafted open the door to no standard at all is a false binary.
CradleRC58 said:
Could someone from the Democrat camp tell me exactly what crime or misdemeanor Trump supposedly committed ?
Click to expand...
They are spelled out in the articles of impeachment and the breif of the House managers.
 
Last edited:
[Democrats Accidentally Proved Trump Is INNOCENT With LEAKED Audio Tape, Impeachment Collapsing. As the impeachment trial for Donald Trump drones on with no new information the Democrats allies in media seemed to have made a tactical error in bringing on Lev Parnas to give his account of what was going on with Trump in Ukraine.

In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow Parnas claimed that Trump ordered the firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch, the only problem? This dinner was in April 2018, a full year before Joe Biden would ever announce he was running for office.

We now have direct confirmation of that meeting with leaked audio tapes that not only prove Trump’s Ukraine actions had absolutely nothing to do with Biden but that the real reason for firing Yovanovitch was that she was bad mouthing him to officials in Ukraine and undermining his foreign policy.

Democrats like Adam Schiff keep asserting without evidence that Trump was trying to dig up dirt on joe Biden, but now we know that timeline makes absolutely no sense as Biden hadn’t even announced his plan for the presidency yet. To argue that Trump was predicting the future would be an absurd leap and an attempt at mind reading.

The simple solution is that once again Democrats are wrong and impeachment is collapsing in front of our eyes.](
)

 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
But even the Constitutional law expert brought in by House Republicans to testify said, as noted by @HarryStolte:
Click to expand...
A lot of Constitutional experts say a lot of different things. I’m not sure which one on Trumps team you are referring to since they are arguing differently. In 1867, the House rejected a broad attempt to impeach Johnson for abuse of power because they said it was not crime and believed you need a crime for impeachment as the Constitution says specifically treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. If you can’t allege a violation of a crime you don’t have treason, bribery or high crimes or misdemeanors.
 
Last edited:
So, let’s take obstruction of Congress.

Just what did Trump obstruct ? An investigation ?

If so, what was being investigated ? A crime ? Ethics ? Integrity ?
 
The Democrats proved Trump did exactly what they set out to prove.
Everyone knows it.
The rest is tribal talk
 
drcube said:
Nope, not completely contrived and a clear attempt to demonize his political enemies by his lack of transparency and strong desire for an announcement of the investigation.
Click to expand...
Lack of transparency, read the transcript. Desire for an announcement, hearsay.
drcube said:
Except the investigation into Burisma was dormant under Shokin (likely because Shokin was corrupt and just used the threat of ‘investigations’ to elicit bribes), so the firing of Shokin opens up the possibility of a legitimate investigation. It would actually be in Biden’s best interest (if your theory is true) to keep the corrupt but easily bribed prosecutor in place than to risk a legitimate investigation if the company were truly corrupt.
Click to expand...
The investigation wasn’t dormant. Posts in this thread and documents prove otherwise.
 
Maximus1 said:
Rudy was handling his private clients private business. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Rudy was Trump’s personal lawyer, personal lawyers handle their client’s business. That has nothing to do with anything here.
 
Sorry, that is the majority view in history. The fact the GOP BLOCKED ALL WITNESSES in something called " a trial" will be a Fixo in history. It would have been 50,60,70,100 years ago and it will be 50 years from now.
 
Maximus1 said:
Sorry, that is the majority view in history. The fact the GOP BLOCKED ALL WITNESSES in something called " a trial" will be a Fixo in history. It would have been 50,60,70,100 years ago and it will be 50 years from now.
Click to expand...
As usual, it seems you are missing a few facts.

What is a Fixo? @Maximus1
 
Last edited:
There are no facts when the president’s party decided there will be no witnesses in a trial. The only time ever.
There are only excuses. That is the story the GOP chose when they protect Trump and vote no witnesses.
Can’t have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top