The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming | The American Conservative

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump’s own Chief of Staff, Mulvany, ON NATIONAL TV, published to the American people that there was a quid pro quo. And that America should get over it.
No fact could be more plain. Or fact more clear. America deserves to hear from Mulvany, Bolton , or others, but Trump has uniformly blocked their testimony and documentary evidence.The witnesses testified CONSISTANTLY with Mulvany regarding these core facts. The facts are plain:
Trump did expressly ask for an investigation into his political opponent, Joe Biden and his son. ( In the phone call).
He expressed his request as " a favor".
He did condition the WHITE HOUSE meeting with the president of the UKRAINE upon a TV announcement that UKRAINE was investigating the Biden’s. Sondland testified that he received this call from Trump. It’s content was overheard independantly and confirmed.
The Aid that UKRAINE required was held up. There is no direct evidence as to why before the Whistleblower report was known to Trump.
Ukraine did know about the withholding on July 25th. It is beyond Cavil to suggest the Ukraine president did not. THIS WAS MONEY NECESSARY TO FIGHT A HOT WAR waged by a larger aggressor who had already done the equivilent of, let’s say, a foreign nation taking territory like FLORIDA. And continuing an attack against a USA desperate to obtain money to maintain existence.
The assertion that the circumstances were anything but COERCIVE at the July 25th meeting is preposterous.
These CORE FACTS are not disputed by substantial credible evidence.
The GOP offers no real defense to what happened.
The nation will have it’s answer today whether a president can, or cannot, engage in curruption because he can DO WHATEVER HE WANT. ( Trump’s own words). Is there a mechanism capable of stopping him. Trump, or any future president. You can’t Indict. You can’t even bring charges. CAN ANYTHING BE DONE? The answer will determine whether there is rule of law governing the presidency or has Trump established an imperial presidency
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Trump’s own Chief of Staff, Mulvany, ON NATIONAL TV, published to the American people that there was a quid pro quo. And that America should get over it.
Click to expand...
Every single dollar that the U.S. gives to another country is either directly or indirectly quid pro quo. We give the country money to influence it to act a certain way. For the president to give our money to another country without any expectations would be a misuse of those funds.
 
MikeInVA said:
Every single dollar that the U.S. gives to another country is either directly or indirectly quid pro quo. We give the country money to influence it to act a certain way. For the president to give our money to another country without any expectations would be a misuse of those funds
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is true. Sometimes we give aid to keep a certain balance of power in a region, not to expect certain conduct. Sometimes it’s to prevent something, like immigration to the US, by strengthening the local economy.

However, holding up military to get an announcement of an investigation into a political rival’s son is not normal. Not normal at all. That’s why there are no examples of it happening before.
 
Last edited:
Problem with your analysis is it represents a nice after the fact set of facts and defense. A world class pretense.
Strings attached to money is in fact standard. Those strings are substantive law within the Constitutional preview of Congress, not the president.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE the Congress expressly wrote those strings into the law.
We then heard testimony of the extensive the DOD undertook rigorous steps to determine and verify progress on Curruption issues. After done, the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT created price of assessment and confirmation took place in May 2019. All investigation authorized and mandated by Congress IN LAW was completed awaiting disbursement.
After, not a single witness or piece of evidence exists until after the WHISLEBLOWER REPORT regarding ANY substantive steps or acts to meet the requirements of Congress. Obviously the most basic of Constitutional truths, that Congress makes the law and controls the purse strings prevails. So Trump could not legally create additional requirements. But of course Trump did not. Until he got caught he simply froze the funds without a verifiable ground that exists, generated at the time he froze the funds. After he got caught, pretense, is inadequate to explain his action. But the quid pro quo Mulvany stated on TV is 100% adequate to fully explain Trump’s actions
 
PaulinVA said:
Sometimes we give aid to keep a certain balance of power in a region, not to expect certain conduct. Sometimes it’s to prevent something, like immigration to the US, by strengthening the local economy.
Click to expand...
Those are all perfect examples of how we use money to influence other countries.
PaulinVA said:
That’s why there are no examples of it happening before.
Click to expand...
Nor is there any evidence of it here. Only a lot of people who seem to believe that they can read the president’s mind.
I think I have as much chance of winning the Democratic nomination as Biden does, and that he is running for office should not make him immune from criminal investigations.
 
I’ve always found it best to ask my boss what he wants, not trying to read his mind. That includes asking what his intent is for a given action. In can be difficult, especially when my boss thinks my questions are a challenge to his authority, but I’ve found it a better solution in the long run.
 
MikeInVA said:
Every single dollar that the U.S. gives to another country is either directly or indirectly quid pro quo. We give the country money to influence it to act a certain way. For the president to give our money to another country without any expectations would be a misuse of those funds.
Click to expand...
This is true. And this is why, for example, the deflection to Biden, is so preposterous.

This also fails to characterize what Trump did. In his case the quid pro quo was not grounded in the interested of the US, but in his personal interest. Trump, according to facts and testimony, was not interested in rooting out corruption in Ukraine - for which the US has a process in which Ukraine had passed muster - but in obtaining the announcement of an investigation of his political opponent. The withholding of funds for personal gain is a corrupt act. The solicitation of the involvement of a foreign government in our electoral process an impeachable violation of the public trust.
 
Last edited:
I would say your error is primarily factual. I see no value in devising an exotic theory if it completely belies every reasonable interpretation of fact.
 
Maximus1 said:
I would say your error is primarily factual. I see no value in devising an exotic theory if it completely belies every reasonable interpretation of fact.
Click to expand...
I stated that the US uses money it gives to other nations to influence their actions. What is the factual error in that? How is it an “exotic theory”?
 
It is to imprecise and general. It can only conceal or confuse.
Congress determines any and all issues of influence you refer to. Not a president. We wouldn’t want to be influenced by the confused propaganda that Trump had any right whatsoever, to add his own strings as a condition to reciept. Trump can show proof if there is any, that he " actually" exercised his legal authority for proper purpose. By exercised, I would require actual actions and steps duly taken.
Also
Congress can enable the giving of money, in its sole purview, absent conditions if it chooses
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
We wouldn’t want to be influenced by the confused propaganda that Trump had any right whatsoever, to add his own strings as a condition to reciept.
Click to expand...
Except that he is the president.
Congress funds the executive branch. Then the executive branch executes. Unless there is a purpose violation, e.g. giving aid destined for Ukraine to Russia, the president does in fact have latitude in how he executes. He is in charge of an independent branch of the government, not a subsidiary branch of Congress.
 
The Congress set the conditions. In this case, toward eliminating Curruption. The Department of the Defense in fact rigorously conducted the investigation and determined compliance. TRUMP DID NOTHING. Then after he got caught he invented a fiction about him doing something. But the testimony was nothing done.
Just another fraud.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
I am saying that we should learn the lessons from other times when fascist governments came to power, and that dismantling systems of checks and balances for a populist leader is a no-no.
Click to expand...
These comments are out of touch with reality,
  • the checks and balances haven’t been adjusted. Congress just needs to find actual crimes. Making stuff up isn’t a check nor is it constitutional,
  • I don’t think progressives understand what “fascist” actually means, but they like how it sounds when hurled at their opponent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top