Trump Acquittal Thoughts?

My thought is I am following through with job seeking in Europe. This country is headed towered something dangerous. Elections and law no longer matter. You have an Emperor who WILL find reasons to stay in 2020 and beyond and his cult will accept it.

Good chance I can work in Ghent Belgium apparently so yeah I'm leaning Dutch or Flemish I guess which is a regional dialect of Dutch. So much to learn but it's worth it. This is what the cult wants. Let's leave them wallow in their own shit. I can not help that.

 

If we compare the three impeachment efforts since 1970, Nixon was breaking and entering, Clinton was mildly scandalous behavior and Trump was armed robbery, extortion and racketeering, and treason. Who do you think did more damage to this nation?

 

well it happened pretty much exactly like everyone knew it would all along, so really this doesn't mean much more than giving us the opportunity to move onto the next political shit show.

it's nice that someone praised him for it anyway. i got on facebook after it happened and all i saw were people saying that he needed to be fired/imprisoned/tortured/etc.

he was already elected once, pretty much because of those facts. i don't see why it wouldn't happen again.

 

Which is probably in the "bombshell" hopper already. We're all being played by lofty advertising executives.

 

I'm not astonished at the results. Now I'm looking forward to the election results. I expect 4 more years of Trump, and given the behavior of dems, I still wouldn't be astonished if another Republican got in after that, but definitely not a centrist waffler like Romney, McCain, or Boehner. Any attempt to put someone like them in again will result in the same kind of rejection McCain faced. By the way....I still don't believe McCain lost because of Palin. He lost because of his own self, and other centrists can expect similar rejection.

 

What a ridiculous response- are you under some sort of illusion that you were making a point worth considering? You didn't address the issue at- simply context, mindless disparagement. Well it's about what I would expect of you.

 

Now I think what he's implying here is that Dershowitz isn't exactly normal. The idea that Richard Nixon shouldn't be impeached is preposterous. Trump's lawyers are trying to undermine the foundation of impeachment by suggesting that Nixon shouldn't have been investigated for Watergate

 

Oh, well, if he's not "normal", I guess that settles it. No need to consider the issue. Sheesh!

 

He's not. He's kind of a delinquent in that most from his field disagree.

 

You would be a lot more convincing if you dissected and refuted his argument. As it is, it seems to me that you have little say.

I also don't know that disagreeing with conventional wisdom in a field makes someone "a delinquent". I'm not going to look for it now, he did go back to what the framers of the Constitution wrote- and put it in the context of the meaning the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" had in the day. He concluded that a crime needed to be committed in order for the House to impeach POTUS. Since Trump had a legal right to delay the aid, however unwise it may have been, no crime was committed.

As the link below shows, Obama/Biden did something quite similar to Ukraine- not a peep out of the Dems on that one. The motives may have been different, although given Hunter's financial involvement, I would not assume Biden's motives were pure, but a similar, but even more explicit, conditioning of aid was involved. Here's some of what the Tyler O'Neil said:

<<
"Joe Biden is seen on video, not just admitting, but bragging that he told the president of Ukraine he would personally block a billion dollars in foreign aid loan guarantees unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, the company paying his son $1 million a year," Cruz said. He noted Biden's quip, "Well, son of a bit--, they fired him!"

"Now that, on its face, raises significant issues of potential corruption. We don't know for sure if there was in fact corruption, but when President Trump asked that it be investigated," he had that authority, Cruz argued.

"And, of course, if the House managers are right that it is somehow illegitimate, it is somehow inappropriate, it is, in fact, impeachable, to seek the investigation of your political rival, we know for a fact that the Obama administration not only sought the investigation but aggressively led an investigation marred by abuse of power going after then-candidate Trump, including wiretaps... >>


As for the obstruction of Congress charge, that was even more absurd. They couldn't go to court to obtain the documents they wanted, because impeachment was so urgent. Then, trying to tell the Senate how to proceed, Pelosi didn't forward the articles to the Senate for a month. Pure Washington fun and games.


Ted Cruz Rips Impeachment Case to Shreds: Obama Actually Did What Trump Was Impeached For

 

Right. The "different" part here is significant. Obama did withhold funds, but not in exchange for investigating a political opponent. I don't know when he did that either, but please rest assured it wasn't an attack on republicans or their candidacy.

 

still in office, still gonna be your prez for 4 more years

 

No, telling a foreign government to back off of an investigation into one of their own corporations, where the Veep's son just happens to have a dodgy financial interest- nothing to investigate there. Move along.

Oh, and coming up with a phony "Russia conspiracy" so you could (ab)use FISA tools to investigate the Trump campaign- and so expose Carter Page to death threats-, that's not attacking Republicans. Baloney.

 

I feel like that's sort of the red herring though.

So, what Donald Trump did was ok? How so?

 

'burned-

Despite what people here have claimed about me, I am not a fan of Trump whatsoever. I quite dislike his style, and think he is very much over his head. But given the front runners in the Democrat field, I hope you are right!

 

so...

You don't like Pete's leadership?

I think he's ok. I like Bernie Better.

 

No, conditioning aid for domestic political reasons is not "ok", and nothing I have said suggests that it was. I even think censure by the House and Senate might have been appropriate. But I do not think it rose to the level of impeachment and I think Dems made a hash of presenting the case that it was.

As for "red herring"- let's just say you have a highly selective view of what constitutes political corruption.

 

So you're a true believer in the Russian propaganda line that, contrary to U.S. intelligence, it was Ukraine instead of Russia that interfered with our elections. Hopeless!

 

Oh, you again. No, I made no effort to deny the Russian efforts to compromise American elections (hardly anything new in that). I simply deny there is evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with them in that effort.

Do you even know how to read with a scintilla of discernment, sir?