The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming | The American Conservative

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Guinness said:
40.png
OneSheep:
Not concerning political rivals of a president, by the president.
Click to expand...
How do you know? Have you looked through them all?
OneSheep said:
If you aren’t going to answer the question, let’s just leave it at that.
Click to expand...
This question:
OneSheep said:
Is our constitution to allow that our relations with other nations should have an element by which a sitting president can ask for “favors” from foreign leaders that contribute to his own political gain?
Click to expand...
Everything a 1st term President does is designed to contribute to his political gain so he can get re-elected. For example:

Here, Obama asked the Russian leader for the favor of having discussion of contentious issues, like missile defense, delayed until after he was safely re-elected.
Click to expand...
No, I haven’t looked through them all, but it does look like you at found an example of a president putting his election, at least temporarily, over what is best for our nation.

But now that you have identified another case where there was a “favor” asked of a foreign nation, do you agree that our constitution should not allow that our relations with other nations should have an element by which a sitting president can ask for “favors” from foreign leaders that contribute to his own political gain? Or, do you disagree with Mitt Romney’s reaction to what Obama did?
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Yes, it’d be nice to see a lawful citation as to laws broken.
Click to expand...
It’d be nice to see people do their own research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cles-impeachment-dont-include-bribery-charge/

Under the federal bribery statute, a federal official commits bribery if he corruptly seeks or demands anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. The first article of impeachment charges Trump engaged in a scheme to solicit the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would damage his political opponent. It alleges that he acted “for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.” And it alleges that he corruptly “conditioned two official acts on the public announcement he had requested” — release of the Congress-approved military aid to Ukraine, and agreeing to a meeting at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

This is clearly the language of bribery. The article alleges that Trump corruptly solicited a thing of value — announcement of the investigations — in exchange for influence in the performance of two official acts. Bribery is singled out in the Constitution as a basis for impeachment. If Congress is going to allege conduct that amounts to bribery, why not expressly make that charge?

The likely strategy is to avoid lawyerly squabbles over whether the precise elements of the federal bribery statute have been satisfied. Throughout the impeachment hearings, various witnesses and members of Congress have suggested that a White House meeting might not qualify as an “official act” under the statute in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McDonnell v. United States . Others have questioned whether Ukraine announcing the investigations would qualify as a thing of value under that statute. There’s no doubt that if there were a separate article of impeachment alleging bribery, such arguments would become a primary focus of the president’s defense.
 
No. He did not collude with Russia. He did not pressure Ukraine. Hillary clearly paid for the fake Russia dossier. Biden clearly pressured Russia.

Trump can be rude and while I usually agree with him, I wish he wouldn’t take the bait on silly nonsense. Comparative to Democrat behaviour, however, he doesn’t come close to the crass, rude, unethical behaviour we see played out daily.

The Democrats have painted themselves in a corner, grossly wasting resources and neglecting the business of the country. To watch Schiff’s performance art, Nadler ignoring every possible rule of procedure and due process…sickening.
 
OneSheep said:
But now that you have identified another case where there was a “favor” asked of a foreign nation, do you agree that our constitution should not allow that our relations with other nations should have an element by which a sitting president can ask for “favors” from foreign leaders that contribute to his own political gain?
Click to expand...
You don’t have that other than in your own mind. All you have is an assumption of bad faith on the part of the President, as if the only reason Trump might have asked to investigate millions of foreign dollars going into the personal accounts of a sitting Vice President’s family is to advantage himself politically.
 
I see little proof. Based on assumptions. Also, consider any of us in criminal proceedings. There must be a chain of custody of evidence, the right to face our accusers and not hearsay. In this proceeding, there is little per evidentiary rules, it seems it is just political. That’s why I think the Senate, if they wanted to, could toss out a trial immediately.
 
Guinness said:
as if the only reason Trump might have asked to investigate millions of foreign dollars going into the personal accounts of a sitting Vice President’s family
Click to expand...
There are normal avenues for pursuing anti-corruption agendas, and those avenues were deliberately circumvented:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197592320394313729

The republican-led intelligence panel investigated the Ukranian corruption story and found nothing:
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/senate-panel-look-into-ukraine-interference-comes-up-short

The FBI has never endorsed the Ukranian conspiracy theory:


His advisors all told him that was a fake conspiracy theory.
George Kent:
n a briefing call with the national security staff in the Office of the Vice President, in February 2015, I raised my concern that Hunter Biden’s status as board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest. Let me be clear; however, I did not witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny. In fact, I and other U.S.officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account.
Click to expand...

So the only two explanations I can come up with are 1) corruption is just a pretext or 2) Trump is literally (not colloquially) delusional.
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
You don’t have that other than in your own mind. All you have is an assumption of bad faith on the part of the President…
Click to expand...
It sounds, again, like you have avoided the question. Here it is:

Is our constitution to allow that our relations with other nations should have an element by which a sitting president can ask for “favors” from foreign leaders that contribute to his own political gain?

Guinness, can you see the problem that so many people have with the mentality of support for Trump in this matter? Here I have posed the question, and many have posed the question, yet there is an inablility to respond from many of those who support Trump’s actions. Do you understand that “inability to respond” is the definition of “irresponsible”? Trump himself behaved irresponsibly because he thought, and continues to think, that what he did was right. Upon further questioning, including concerning precedent and ramifications of his behavior, he will not be able to respond, he will only able to repeat “I was right, this was perfect” etc, etc. because he is avoiding the reality that asking foreign governments to investigate your political rivals is extremely imprudent.

Non-answers are an inability to respond, irresponsible behavior. I even agreed that what Obama did applied, the example you put forth, yet now is that behavior “right” also?

A simple “yes” or “no” would do, or say “It’s okay as long as…” or something like that.

@Victoria33, feel free to answer the question too. 🙂
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
There are normal avenues for pursuing anti-corruption agendas, and those avenues were deliberately circumvented:
Click to expand...
Maybe because they were leaking like sieves, and the President has the authority to circumvent “normal channels”. See Harry Hopkins and Colonel House for examples.
JapaneseKappa said:
The FBI has never endorsed the Ukranian conspiracy theory:
Click to expand...
Considering how badly they botched the Russian investigation, as highlighted in the IG report, I’m not sure they can be considered a reliable source.
OneSheep said:
Is our constitution to allow that our relations with other nations should have an element by which a sitting president can ask for “favors” from foreign leaders that contribute to his own political gain?
Click to expand...
Yes, a President is allowed to benefit politically from foreign affairs, and domestic affairs, but not extra-marital affairs.
 
Last edited:
The treaty doesn’t say “the parties have to investigate anyone the other party wants.” There have to be criminal proceedings. There are no criminal proceedings against Hunter Biden. Bill Barr could create such proceedings. He hasn’t because there was no criminal activity.
 
Last edited:
Using foreign aid to do personal arm-twisting is absolutely usurping the power of Congress. Actually, trying to accomplish anything on the sly that way is pretty sketchy.

Of course members of Congress who agree with what you’re doing are going to be fine with it and members who oppose it are going to go ballistic.

He deserves to be censured over it. There is no way on earth he wil be removed.

The only important question is whether or not undecided voters believe this has a single thing to do with whether he ought to continue as President or be replaced by whomever the Democrats nominate.

Those are the choices we get. I don’t think this thing will have a single thing to do with the outcome of that election, even if Joe Biden is his opponent. The way Biden and Trump respond will reflect on them, that could be very significant, but what Congress does from here on out? It will only matter if some representative or senator loses their personal constituency over it in a future election.

The American justice system is only tangentially connected with Justice. The impeachment process, even less so. It is totally political. That probably cannot be helped. Oh, well. It beats the alternatives that we as an electorate are likely to come up with and probably far better than we ought to feel entitled to have.

In other words: As a nation, we are blessed, and we make very bad use of it.
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
No they weren’t. That is simply false.
Click to expand...
Irregardless, a President is not confined to operating within “normal channels”.
OneSheep said:
So it is okay for a president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
Click to expand...
Yes, he is allowed, and there are circumstances where it is appropriate.
PetraG said:
He deserves to be censured over it. There is no way on earth he wil be removed.
Click to expand...
It’s not clear that Congress has the authority to censure members of the Executive branch.
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
Yes, he is allowed, and there are circumstances where it is appropriate.
Click to expand...
Could you describe a circumstance where it would be appropriate, especially while asking the foreign leaders to publicly announce that they are doing such investigation before any crime has been discovered?
 
Last edited:
It would seem to me that if Joe or Hunter has committed any illegal acts, they’d be investigated by the US justice department instead of Ukraine. Would they be extradited there?

What was the necessity of Giuliani? He is not part of the justice department , he’s not part of the state department . He’s got no security clearance. He hasn’t been vetted.

Trump cares so much about corruption, he needed a second irregular channel?

Same guy who ran a pyramid scheme and called it a University? Same guy who just paid a 2 million dollar settlement because his foundation was running corruptly? Same guy who didn’t pay for $100,000 worth of pianos ?

Same guy who yawned after the murder and dismembering if Kashogghi? Because Saudi Arabia promised to buy arms and military equipment.

That seems plausible?

Why “work with Rudy?”
 
Guinness said:
It’s not clear that Congress has the authority to censure members of the Executive branch.
Click to expand...
They pass a resolution that says “we censure you.” It is a public “bad on you.”
Who’s going to stop them? I doubt they will, but they could.

But you’re right, it carries no weight and doesn’t really count as a “real” censure.
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
Irregardless, a President is not confined to operating within “normal channels”.
Click to expand...
So the president decided for no reason to create an irregular channel that was at cross purposes with the official channels to investigate a conspiracy theory that his advisors and intelligence agencies told him was a fools errand. When asked about it he repeatedly lied and refused to supply documents when ordered by congressional subpoena because… it was none of their business?

OR

The president wanted his political opponent to be under investigation, so he made an irregular channel to pressure Ukraine into launching an investigation without tipping off the ordinary channel. He then tried to cover this fact up by claiming he was concerned about corruption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top