The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming | The American Conservative

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeInVA said:
Speak for yourself Paul. I have had those conversations with my bosses before, and refused to do what was improper.
Click to expand...
Oh, me, too. We’re ethical. And, we do see evidence of some people in Trump’s orbit doing that.

Just not around the Ukraine shakedown.
 
PetraG said:
You mean the money Congress appropriated for foreign aid that the President withheld by putting personal conditions on it?
Click to expand...
Unless the appropriation law stated that the funds must be delivered by a specific date, then he was within his rights to deliver the funds when he wanted to. Unless he documented the reason(s) for the delay, all conclusions about his intent are pure speculation.
 
Maximus1 said:
Which if not challenged, is the equivilent of the Congress declaring they no longer serve any function under the Constitution. A declaration of monarchy
Click to expand...
This problem is recognized by some Republicans:

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | We Are Republicans, and We Want Trump Defeated (Published 2019)

The president and his enablers have replaced conservatism with an empty faith led by a bogus prophet.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
… this president’s actions are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans," they write. “They have done no less than abdicate their Article I responsibilities.”
Click to expand...
This is how democracies die.
Though the president will almost certainly be impeached for extorting Ukraine to aid his re-election, he is equally certain to be acquitted in the Senate, a tacit confirmation that he is, indeed, above the law. His attorney general is a shameless partisan enforcer. Professional civil servants are purged, replaced by apparatchiks. The courts are filling up with young, hard-right ideologues. One recently confirmed judge, 40-year-old Steven Menashi, has written approvingly of ethnonationalism.

In “How Democracies Die,” Professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard describe how, in failing democracies, “the referees of the democratic game were brought over to the government’s side, providing the incumbent with both a shield against constitutional challenges and a powerful — and ‘legal’ — weapon with which to assault its opponents.” This is happening before our eyes.
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Democracy Grief Is Real (Published 2019)

Seeing what Trump is doing to America, many find it hard to fight off despair.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

This piece (Language warning.) goes further. Maybe too far, but it is a viewpoint worth considering to see the depth of concern.
Are Republicans afraid of Trump? … no — he’s destroying democracy and they love it
the darker truth is that Republican voters, like Republican politicians, see clearly what Trump did — use the power of his office in an overt attempt to cheat in the 2020 election — and they love it. Like their leaders, Republican voters are feeling done with democracy and eager to follow Trump into a new world, where the majority of Americans who vote for Democrats are kept out of power, by any means necessary.
…
Trump’s law-breaking to undermine the 2020 election is seen only as a necessary corrective to the “problem” of a pluralistic democracy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Farcical is what the Dems made this impeachment Not the Republicans.The continued projection is getting tiresome.You have the Dems screeching about imoeachment for three years.They vote along party line to achieve this goal and you call the Senate standing n solidarity with their president farcical?No wonder we are so divided in this country. The truth i n plain site is just ignored by those intent on despising President Trump.
 
Jeanne_S said:
The truth i n plain site
Click to expand...
Yes. Trump corruptly abuised the powers of his office using his personal lawyer and personal appointees to withhold funding from an ally in need to gain a personal benefit against his political opponent, and to obstruct the investigation into this misconduct.
 
The cherry picking of comments and intentinally taking said comments out of context to prove one’s assertions is predictable and tiresome to say the least🙄
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
The cherry picking of comments and intentinally taking said comments out of context to prove one’s assertions
Click to expand...
I responded top your post.
I agree that the truth is in plain sight.
Strangely, we may disagree about what the truth is.
I have stated the truth that has emerged from the testimony before Congress.
It cannot in honesty simply be dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Facts are stubborn,.There is no
no there there.This impeachment was in the works from day one.How anybody can deny this is a farcical fabrication of the Dems is just out and out denial.
So yes your comments can be dismissed as the truth has been and continues to be exposed.At any rate,the fact that President Trump continues to get things done and realize success in addition to his support in an upward trajectory that i n spite of this nonsense speaks volumes. The voters are onto the shenanigans of the Dems.NP doesn’t know what to do next which is why she’s stalling.
 
Maximus1 said:
And he hides Mulvany who admitted the charges and said get over it.
Click to expand...
Actually Mulvaney didn’t say that specifically as to the phone call or the issue itself, but as a general thing; i.e. that the U.S. requires quid pro quos all the time which, of course, it do3es.
 
But he did say that one of the reasons for the delay in withholding aid was for the Ukrainians to hold an investigation into the DNC server that is allegedly in Ukraine somewhere. You can see it in the transcript of his comments.
 
Last edited:
I think at the time of the phone call, there was no intentional delay, though it might have been so. Regardless, I find nothing wrong with doing that. If the administration believed (and there is reason to believe there was Ukrainian interference) I find nothing amiss in holding up aid if needed to ensure their government would do what treaty obligations require them to do, which is investigate potential crimes of interest.
 
Maximus1 said:
There is no divide here on substance. Everyone knows what he did.
Not one Republican I the debate made an argument, " this presídent would ever do that." Not one argument based on character from 190+ members.
Click to expand...
Here is my feeling on the matter, and it is only my feeling:

The framers of the Constitution did not provide voters with a means to recall the President. They gave other elected officials the means to do it. Having said that, removing a President before the end of his term of office overturns the result of an election. No, the House should not be able to impeach a President who has not done anything seriously wrong. Having said that, I actually think it is right and in the best interest of the republic if the Senate does make their decision on whether or not to remove a President based on their sense of whether or not their constituents want to see the President removed. The will of the voters really should play a major role. I’m not going to criticize a senator for deciding to tolerate what it seems certain the voters in his or her district are willing to tolerate or to refuse to tolerate an impeachable offense that their voters do not want to be tolerated. The time I think a senator ought to decide against the sentiments of their constituents is if the senator judges that the impeachment concerns matters that did not in fact rise to the level that justly deserves removal from office.

I believe that probably the first thing we need to have preserved in an impeachment proceding is the sense of voters that their elected officials are voting according to the will of the voters. Could we have a scoundrel in office if we do that? Only if that is what the voters deserve. There is a reason, after all, that no impeached President has ever been removed from office. It is not as if we don’t all know that Presidents have indeed committed crimes and abuses of their office.

I think that is why it is right that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath–a very serious offense–and why it is right that Donald Trump has been impeached now. I think that is also why it is right that Clinton was not removed from office and Donald Trump won’t be, either.

There will be an election in 11 months. If he deserves to be removed, he will be…or perhaps I should say, if we really want him out of office, we will remove him ourselves.
 
Last edited:
That’s a separate issue They have been screeching for over three years.NP didn’t really want this I get it.She has been overrun by the progressives in her party. They forced the issue,thus the flimsy and hurried event. Now Maxine Waters is screeching about going after Pence.You can draw your own conclusions,however it’s pretty clear all this bs is purely political theatre. That’s a shame and very self serving on the Dem’s part.
 
Jeanne_S said:
You can draw your own conclusions,however it’s pretty clear all this bs is purely political theatre. That’s a shame and very self serving on the Dem’s part.
Click to expand...
It is a mystery how someone who finds “political theatre” repugnant (and especially self-serving political theatre!!) could have ever supported Donald Trump for President.

I continue to be deeply disappointed that he managed to put a kibosh on any real primary challenge. The people high in the party have totally sold out and hitched their wagons to that man. “Disappointing” hardly starts to cover it.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
reluctance to send the Senate articles for a patently farcical trial
Click to expand...
A farcical impeachment hearing, resulting in farcical articles of impeachments demands a farcical trial. Even Pelosi’s reluctance is farcical. This whole thing is farcical.

Note to self… word of the day… FARCICAL!
 
They take an oath that goes beyond following a poll. Which if they did seems to be hovering around 50-50. Roughly.
Clinton was at 73% the day he was impeached. So it isn’t exactly equivilent using your criteria.
I don’t disagree with you OTHERWIZE. Only to add that a genuine trial should take place. Where the conclusion is published before trial begins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top