The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming | The American Conservative

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dvdjs

Guest
www.theamericanconservative.com

The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming

It is clear that he used the powers of his office in an attempt to extract a corrupt favor for his personal benefit, and this is precisely the sort of offense that impeachment was designed to keep in check.
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com

The American Conservative
The president doesn’t have a credible line of defense left. That is why his apologists in Congress and elsewhere have been reduced to making increasingly absurd and desperate claims. The president’s defenders want to distract attention from the fact that the president abused his power, violated the public’s trust, and broke his oath of office, but these distractions are irrelevant.

The central question at the heart of this matter has always been whether we will tolerate the president corruptly using the powers of his office for personal benefit. The president’s defenders have answered loudly that they will tolerate corruption of the presidency. If we have any respect left for the Constitution and the rule of law, it is imperative that the president is not allowed to escape without facing serious consequences for his abuses. This is important not only to hold the current president in check, but it is also necessary to warn future presidents that such corruption will not be permitted to flourish.

Members of the House have been given a simple test of their fidelity to the Constitution. Are they enablers of presidential abuse of power and corruption, or will they do what their oaths of office require of them and hold a corrupt president in check?
Click to expand...
 
From the article:
The president’s abuse of power is not in dispute. It is clear that he used the powers of his office in an attempt to extract a corrupt favor for his personal benefit,
Click to expand...
In legal terms, this is called “assuming a fact that has not yet been established”. It makes me wonder if the author of the headline knows what “overwhelming” actually means.
 
The case for Trump’s impeachment seemed quite strong more than two months ago, and the evidence provided to the House’s impeachment inquiry has strengthened it further. The president’s abuse of power is not in dispute. It is clear that he used the powers of his office in an attempt to extract a corrupt favor for his personal benefit, and this is precisely the sort of offense that impeachment was designed to keep in check.
Click to expand...
 
Yes. It’s unlawful to fight corruption if the corrupt person is a Democrat, especially if that Democrat brags about his obstruction of justice on TV. And the corrupt Dem leaders in congress “don’t need no stinkin’ facts” to enforce that prohibition.
Guinness said:
“NeverTrump conservatives” have developed their own cottage industry of opposing things they used to stand for. I tend not to take them too seriously.
Click to expand...
Many of them are more libertarian than they are conservative.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Democrat brags about his obstruction of justice on TV.
Click to expand...
Baseless contention.
Ridgerunner said:
“don’t need no stinkin’ facts”
Click to expand...
Larison at The American Conservative Sees it otherwise.
He also has this nailed:
The president doesn’t have a credible line of defense left. That is why his apologists in Congress and elsewhere have been reduced to making increasingly absurd and desperate claims.
Click to expand...
Hence the inflammed rhetoric of about “corrupt Dems” ironically in responding to a post about standards of evidence
The president’s defenders have answered loudly that they will tolerate corruption of the presidency
Click to expand...
Sad.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
The case for Trump’s impeachment seemed quite strong more than two months ago,
Click to expand...
The case for Trump’s impeachment never seemed particularly strong.
dvdjs said:
The president’s abuse of power is not in dispute.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
dvdjs said:
It is clear that he used the powers of his office in an attempt to extract a corrupt favor for his personal benefit, and this is precisely the sort of offense that impeachment was designed to keep in check.
Click to expand...
It’s not clear at all.
 
Well, we all know where I stand.

I find the President’s apologists on TV and Twitter are increasingly making things up and saying things that straight up aren’t true.

I think that Trump is conducting business the way he always did, but as President that runs up against ethics rules and laws.

Once again , I don’t think his supporters care. It will take a big shift of public opinion to obtain a conviction in the Senate.
 
PaulinVA said:
I find the President’s apologists on TV and Twitter are increasingly making things up and saying things that straight up aren’t true.
Click to expand...
You mean like when Schiff described Trump’s call to the Ukraine President?
 
You may disagree with this Conservative writer at TAC, but I think it is of note the this conservative, who holds little in common with Democrats, =has offered the assessment that I have quoted.

This expressed opinion, along with similar ones from other conservatives and Republicans undercuts the " increasingly absurd and desperate claims" that this the impeachment is strictly partisan, let alone corrupt.
 
dvdjs said:
You may disagree with this Conservative writer at TAC, but I think it is of note the this conservative, who holds little in common with Democrats, =has offered the assessment that I have quoted.

This expressed opinion, along with similar ones from other conservatives and Republicans undercuts the " increasingly absurd and desperate claims" that this the impeachment is strictly partisan, let alone corrupt.
Click to expand...
“NeverTrump conservatives” have developed their own cottage industry of opposing things they used to stand for. I tend not to take them too seriously.
 
Guinness said:
I’d never heard of Larison before this. Why should I accept his opinion as authoritative?
Click to expand...
Too bad that you never heard of him. There is a wealth of information out there beyond Breitbart et al. And the issues is not that he is authoritative, but, if you read him, informative.
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
You mean like when Schiff described Trump’s call to the Ukraine President?
Click to expand...
I think everyone knows it was a rhetorical flourish and he was not reading from the verbatim transcript.

That’s different from saying that the IG report found corruption in the FBI or that the FBI “spied” on the Trump campaign, which are lies the President and his supporters are continuing to tell.
 
dvdjs said:
What makes you associate this man that you have never heard of is a Never Trump conservative?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that he is or not, I was replying to the assertion that it’s meaningful that he writes at the “American Conservative” or some other ostensibly conservative publication.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
I think everyone knows it was a rhetorical flourish and he was not reading from the verbatim transcript.
Click to expand...
Of course. But when the facts are against you and the law is against you, you try to whip up faux stories like this.
 
PaulinVA said:
I think everyone knows it was a rhetorical flourish and he was not reading from the verbatim transcript.
Click to expand...
No, it was a complete mischaracterization of the actual call, IOW, a lie…I mean, I get it. You hate Trump so the ends of getting rid of him justifies looking the other way when your guys do exactly what you accuse Trump of doing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top