Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The impeachment scandal began when Trump conditioned a WH meeting on a public statement about his political opponent.
Later, national security was furthur implicated when Trump illegally withheld funds to coerce the Ukraine leader.
Trump is not the only pro life candidate if you are a single issue voter.
 
Last edited:
I am convinced now. Your position about the impeachment facts has nothing to do with your impeachment position.
It is " liberals" on the loose, if we don’t circle the wagons. Do you deny this?
 
What are you going to do when Trump is acquitted ?
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
This is the guy Biden , on behalf of the Administration, wanted removed.
Click to expand...
Fine. Let’s see the quote from Obama saying he wanted Shokin removed. Shouldn’t be hard if that really was U.S. policy.
Maximus1 said:
Trump is not the only pro life candidate if you are a single issue voter.
Click to expand...
He’s the only prolife candidate who has any chance of winning. I realize it’s Democrat policy to encourage prolife people to throw their votes away so the abortionists can win, but I’m not buying that one.
 
I expect he will be found not guilty. By party vote.
It will vindicate his action of freely soliciting every world leader to defeat his opponent using the full faith, credit, might and power of the USA to do it
Why not. McConnel just said he can.
He need not ever respond to Congress again , based on count 2. This would be a Senate determination that oversight of the president does not exist.
He is well on his way to king.
We are well capable of tearing down the great self government experiment just this easily.
 
Last edited:
He is the only candidate running for the GOP.
Just saw another impeachment discussion cut off to inflect Trump going to the pro life rally today.
Yup! What I said. It is about him. I kind of knew when you raised it. Because it had nothing to do with Ukrainian aid.
Your post was the best evidence it was about him. A reminder.
Isn’t that what you are doing infusing abortion into this impeachment argument. With Trump grandstanding as an obvious impeachment defense?
Why stop at Obama.
Why not address the letter written by GOP SENATOR JOHNSON AND PORTMAN looking for Shokins ouster.
Biden acted 4 days later.
Those two are weaving their tangled web as we speak. Wonder if they will as for Biden to testify. Shouldn’t they testify?
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
He’s the only prolife candidate who has any chance of winning. I realize it’s Democrat policy to encourage prolife people to throw their votes away so the abortionists can win, but I’m not buying that one.
Click to expand...
Well, only because he made sure there would be no Republican primary.
Aquinas11 said:
Still no definition for “abuse of power”

Perjury has a definition
Bribery has a definition
Etc

Without a definition , any President can be said to be guilty of “abuse of power”
Click to expand...
The Framers purposefully chose not to strictly define what a high crime or misdemeanor is. They left recognition up to the discretion of all of the members of Congress. It is not as if the concept of “abuse of power” has had no meaning in legal history, though. That term is not pulled out of a hat. It does cover corrupt activity or mal-administration by those who hold public positions of trust. It had been in use at the time the Constitution was drafted. So, yes, it is up to the Senate to define what rises to an abuse of power by the Executive. Honestly, let’s not pretend that no such thing can possibly exist because there is no statutory definition for it. If the jury is going to be the Senate and not a jury of private persons, there does not need to be a technical definition for it. (Although the President is accused of violating written statutes concerning dispersal of foreign aid authorized by Congress.)

As I understand it, the Framers didn’t want anybody getting off on a technicality. An impeachable offense is whatever the House says, and an impeachable offense that is a high enough matter to warrant removal is whatever the Senate says it is.

For the length of our nation’s history, the Congress has been very responsible with that power. I don’t think they will abuse it this time.
Maximus1 said:
Trump is not the only pro life candidate if you are a single issue voter.
Click to expand...
Well, this is the other issue. Trump and the elites of the GOP have made certain that no other Republican had a chance at becoming the nominee in 2020.

We’re not going to give the President carte blanche to do whatever he wants provided he doesn’t directly participate in taking human life.

Are we?

That seems to be the “pro-life” argument. I’d argue that he can put us into the position of voting for a candidate with less chances of winning or even writing someone in. We don’t have a duty to win elections. We have a duty to vote for morally-acceptable candidates. I don’t think he passes that test.
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
Have no idea what you’re tryouts g to say
Click to expand...
Probably: Pence is also pro-life, so removing Trump does not constitute some kind of abortion victory or defeat. Therefore abortion is off-topic in a Trump removal thread.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Probably: Pence is also pro-life, so removing Trump does not constitute some kind of abortion victory or defeat. Therefore abortion is off-topic in a Trump removal thread.
Click to expand...
Had not thought of that. This is true, actually. (It is a good reason a pro-life candidate ought to have a pro-life running mate, as well.)
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Just saw another impeachment discussion cut off to inflect Trump going to the pro life rally today.
Click to expand...
Goodness me, counselor! The impeachment topic rolled on despite the one sentence in which I mentioned the prolife rally. But maybe expressing outrage at trifles is part of being lawyerly.
Maximus1 said:
Why stop at Obama.
Why not address the letter written by GOP SENATOR JOHNSON AND PORTMAN looking for Shokins ouster.
Click to expand...
Were they making policy for the administration at the time? No. Let’s see the Obama quote.
PetraG said:
We don’t have a duty to win elections. We have a duty to vote for morally-acceptable candidates. I don’t think he passes that test.
Click to expand...
He’s prolife. The Dem candidate will be pro-abortion because all of them are. So you’re going to help the aboritonists by voting for their candidate or throwing your vote away?
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Probably: Pence is also pro-life, so removing Trump does not constitute some kind of abortion victory or defeat. Therefore abortion is off-topic in a Trump removal thread.
Click to expand...
No, I think it’s valid to examine the Dem motives for impeaching Trump.
 
No what this is really about is Trump is not beholding to any special interest groups.Therefore he is free to follow through with his campaign promises.This is what scares the begetters out of all the status quo in Wa. They have to pander,Trump doesn’t.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
He’s prolife. The Dem candidate will be pro-abortion because all of them are. So you’re going to help the aboritonists by voting for their candidate or throwing your vote away?
Click to expand...
A) Abortion is illegal in Chile and they still have lots of abortions.
B) Achieving a good end does not justify any means to reach it.
C) Putting a pro-life plank in one’s platform and then proceeding to eliminate all competition with a pro-life plank should not guarantee a candidate that he or she will receive the votes of all the Catholics in this country.
D) Sorry, I’m not voting for Donald Trump on some theory that Providence has made him the Chosen One. It cannot be true. I know who the Father of Lies is. Donald Trump is a candidate who has a pro-life plank. That counts for a lot but it does not cover over every other offense he can think up to commit.

The “throw away your vote” theory just invites national parties to manipulate voters with a conscience into accepting that the choices that can win are both morally unacceptable and then positively supporting the one deemed the “lesser” as if it were a moral necessity to support them.

Nope. That is not washing with me. If none of the candidates leading in the polls are morally acceptable, then I’ll vote for someone not leading in the polls. That’s life. I can’t expect morality to be popular in this country.

The Articles of Impeachment are legitimate, the President really crossed a line with what he did, but the Senate will not make him the first President removed from office by Congress and that’s probably a good thing in the end.

This impeachment puts what he did in the history books. Probably only the A students will be learning it in 50 years, but it is right for Congress to formally and strenuously object to what he did, even if they don’t remove him for it. (And yes, I feel the same about the impeachment of President Clinton. I think in light of the #MeToo movement it becomes even more clear that his willingness to falsify what he’d done, even to the point of lying under oath, is something that belongs in the history books as a mark against him. Any CEO in the nation would be rightly charged with abuse of power for having a sexual relationship with an intern, too, but that is another matter on top of the rest of what he did.)
 
Last edited:
Without getting into the specifics of your candidates nor impeachment and what pertains to US, I totally agree with your explanation about voting and options.
It happens abroad too.
 
Last edited:
So, bottom line, you’re going to support abortion with your vote. Could have just said that.
 
graciew said:
Without getting into the specifics of your candidates nor impeachment and what pertains to US, I totally agree with your explanation about voting .
It happens abroad too.
Click to expand...
If a candidate thinks that overall morality doesn’t count as long as he or she covers the single moral question that is most important to me, that the candidate only has to get that one thing right in order to be certain I’ll turn out on election day with my support, I’d say that candidate is the one throwing away votes. That cynical calculation does not deserve the reward of my vote.
 
Not necessarily.
Here for example last elections, there was a candidate whose platform was based on no abortion.
But voting him, according to many, was a “ lost” vote because you would be giving the vote to such and such who has other very major problems.
Third parties are very prone to be stigmatized as its voters. That isn’t good.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top