IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.
A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.
Here's a taste of what the Republicans will push:you have become a full time Trump propagandist/conspiracist
congrats!
Nice rebuttal. This is what you have been reduced to.
I saw a clip of Shepard Smith on Fox declaring a lack of evidence against Biden. Lately I've discovered him taking a hard stance against Trump on a few issues. I wonder how FOX viewers respond to his show. Searched for the clip and found it in this article.
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.
A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.
Here's a taste of what the Republicans will push:you have become a full time Trump propagandist/conspiracist
congrats!
Nice rebuttal. This is what you have been reduced to.
Paul, what else would you expect someone to write, when you repeat Trump's false claim about, "Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company".
Michael McFaul, for one, has some advice (via the Twitter):
Journalists, you have to stop allowing guests to keep saying that Biden removed the Ukrainian prosecutor general investigating his son. That is not true! #FactsMatter.
Especially that last part.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.
A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company,"But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."
"The gist of Trump’s theory: Biden played a role in the removal of Ukraine’s top prosecutor in 2016; Trump, repeating a conspiracy theory popularized by his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, maintains the former vice president did so to protect his son. Biden and the Ukrainian prosecutor, Trump claims, is the “real story” — not a whistleblower’s complaint that Trump improperly used his influence over foreign policy to damage a political rival.
The evidence suggests Biden actually may have placed his son in legal danger by advocating for the prosecutor’s removal because he was widely accused of stymying anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine — replacing him could have led to further investigations into a company Hunter Biden had ties to."
- "Before Shokin was fired, he had been conducting an investigation of Burisma, and Hunter Biden allegedly was a subject. But the investigation had been inactive for over a year by the time Joe Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster."
This is all true.
But the fact remains that the investigation of Burisma was still open when Biden extorted the President of Ukraine to fire the AG handling the investigation. Biden's action was not illegal, but neither is Trump's use of his office to get information from Zelensky on Biden and on Ukraine's assistance to Hillary in 2016.
One of Mueller's legal conclusions was that there is no legal precedent on whether information from foreign sources constitutes "a thing of value" and is a violation of election law. Among other things he pointed out there are First Amendment concerns.
If one argues that information from foreigners for election purposes is illegal, then Hillary should be prosecuted for paying for the Steele Dossier, prepared by a British citizen based on information from Russians.
Ukrainegate is going to bring out all of these issues and more, which is why it is a Pandora's Box for the Dems.
paulsurovell said:
This is all true.
But the fact remains that the investigation of Burisma was still open when Biden extorted the President of Ukraine to fire the AG handling the investigation. Biden's action was not illegal, but neither is Trump's use of his office to get information from Zelensky on Biden and on Ukraine's assistance to Hillary in 2016.
One of Mueller's legal conclusions was that there is no legal precedent on whether information from foreign sources constitutes "a thing of value" and is a violation of election law. Among other things he pointed out there are First Amendment concerns.If one argues that information from foreigners for election purposes is illegal, then Hillary should be prosecuted for paying for the Steele Dossier, prepared by a British citizen based on information from Russians.
Ukrainegate is going to bring out all of these issues and more, which is why it is a Pandora's Box for the Dems.
we've had similar discussions in the past about the ethics of some of the things Trump has done. And it's still very sad to me that you don't think it's wrong for a POTUS to lean on another country to launch an investigation of a political rival. It doesn't have to be illegal, and the investigation doesn't have to be a "thing of value" for such actions to be deeply, deeply unethical and thus impeachable.
Think of your reaction if an audio recording surfaced today of Richard Nixon in 1971 calling the leader of a country that relied on U.S. aid to defend itself from invasion by the USSR, and telling them it would be a big favor to him if they'd start an investigation into Edmund Muskie. We'd all be saying it was horrifying, and one more impeachable offense by Tricky Dick.
Your defense of Trump is getting not just tiresome, but it's making me question what your ethical standards are for elected leaders.
paulsurovell said:
...
One of Mueller's legal conclusions was that there is no legal precedent on whether information from foreign sources constitutes "a thing of value" and is a violation of election law. Among other things he pointed out there are First Amendment concerns.
If one argues that information from foreigners for election purposes is illegal, then Hillary should be prosecuted for paying for the Steele Dossier, prepared by a British citizen based on information from Russians. ...
I "bolded" the "paying for" phrase. I'm commenting even though the argument about the Steele dossier is bull caca.
But assuming your point, there's a problem with it: If you pay for something then it's not a contribution, so not an election law violation. It's like MAGA hats made in China - not illegal if paid for.
At least double-check the wingnut talking points you're copying from, before reposting something so stupid.
nohero said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
The Dems should play it safe, move to censure Trump for using his office for political gain and then get out.
A major investigation, will give the Republican committee members a platform to pursue Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company, as well as efforts by the Ukraine government to help the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And most important, an impeachment investigation is going to divert attention from the Democratic Presidential candidates and vital issues like climate change, healthcare, gun control, immigration, etc.
Here's a taste of what the Republicans will push:you have become a full time Trump propagandist/conspiracist
congrats!
Nice rebuttal. This is what you have been reduced to.
Paul, what else would you expect someone to write, when you repeat Trump's false claim about, "Joe Biden's extortion of the President of Ukraine to fire his AG at a time when there was an open investigation of Hunter Biden's company".
Michael McFaul, for one, has some advice (via the Twitter):
Especially that last part.
McFaul is correct in that the prosecutor was not actively investigating Burisma when Biden demanded his firing. But the investigation was still open when Biden made his demand, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Also, THIS IS NOT TRUE:
paulsurovell said:
But the fact remains that the investigation of Burisma was still open when Biden extorted the President of Ukraine to fire the AG handling the investigation.
paulsurovell said:
McFaul is correct in that the prosecutor was not actively investigating Burisma when Biden demanded his firing. But the investigation was still open when Biden made his demand, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Okay, so it's going to be one of those "word games" things where the definition of "open" is going to be the key to the claim. The fact that the action taken involving the prosecutor had NOTHING to do with Biden and EVERYTHING to do with international opinion is beside the point for you.
nohero said:
Okay, so it's going to be one of those "word games" things where the definition of "open" is going to be the key to the claim. The fact that the action taken involving the prosecutor had NOTHING to do with Biden and EVERYTHING to do with international opinion is beside the point for you.
let's assume for a moment that Paul is correct, and Biden committed a major ethics violation by shutting down an investigation of his son's company. Even assuming that, the allegation that Trump attempted to extort Zelensky would still an impeachable offense if true.. Paul is engaging in a misdirection in the hopes that it will make people forget what an extreme ethics violation Trump is accused of.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
This is all true.
But the fact remains that the investigation of Burisma was still open when Biden extorted the President of Ukraine to fire the AG handling the investigation. Biden's action was not illegal, but neither is Trump's use of his office to get information from Zelensky on Biden and on Ukraine's assistance to Hillary in 2016.
One of Mueller's legal conclusions was that there is no legal precedent on whether information from foreign sources constitutes "a thing of value" and is a violation of election law. Among other things he pointed out there are First Amendment concerns.If one argues that information from foreigners for election purposes is illegal, then Hillary should be prosecuted for paying for the Steele Dossier, prepared by a British citizen based on information from Russians.
Ukrainegate is going to bring out all of these issues and more, which is why it is a Pandora's Box for the Dems.
we've had similar discussions in the past about the ethics of some of the things Trump has done. And it's still very sad to me that you don't think it's wrong for a POTUS to lean on another country to launch an investigation of a political rival. It doesn't have to be illegal, and the investigation doesn't have to be a "thing of value" for such actions to be deeply, deeply unethical and thus impeachable.
Think of your reaction if an audio recording surfaced today of Richard Nixon in 1971 calling the leader of a country that relied on U.S. aid to defend itself from invasion by the USSR, and telling them it would be a big favor to him if they'd start an investigation into Edmund Muskie. We'd all be saying it was horrifying, and one more impeachable offense by Tricky Dick.
Your defense of Trump is getting not just tiresome, but it's making me question what your ethical standards are for elected leaders.
Let me know when Edmund Muskie was doing business in Ukraine?
Or, when Edmund Muskie was attempting to get a prosecutor (or even a Ukrainian government official) fired?
Your analogy does not line up.
PS Back when Muskie was active in politics (I believe up until 1981), the Ukraine was still a satellite of the USSR.
A heads-up for Paul: You're going to see GOP arguments that Schiff and the Democrats had the whistleblower complaint back in August. That's based on the fact that it's addressed to Schiff and the Senate Committee chair. That claim ignores the fact that it wasn't forwarded by the IG and acting DNI, so they didn't actually get it.
But that argument is out there, so keep that in mind in case you're tempted to try using that one, also.
Schiff knew about the whistleblower complaint back in August... but he sat on it and didn't share it with the rest of the committee until they had already leaked it to the press. This is the exact same playbook Democrats ran against Kavanaugh. This is a shameful abuse of power. pic.twitter.com/POiKqFg6pK
RealityForAll said:
"It was January of 2018 when Biden let slip in front of an audience at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), with video rolling, that in March 2016 he threatened Ukraine President Poroshenko that the Obama administration would not come through with $1 billion in loan guarantees unless he immediately fired top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. If those loan guarantees were pulled, the country would become insolvent."
Other then a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform - who wished for Shokin to remain in his position?
RealityForAll said:
Let me know when Edmund Muskie was doing business in Ukraine?
Or, when Edmund Muskie was attempting to get a prosecutor (or even a Ukrainian government official) fired?
Your analogy does not line up.
PS Back when Muskie was active in politics (I believe up until 1981), the Ukraine was still a satellite of the USSR.
It was more of a thought experiment, and it's a good argument.
RealityForAll said:
Let me know when Edmund Muskie was doing business in Ukraine?
Or, when Edmund Muskie was attempting to get a prosecutor (or even a Ukrainian government official) fired?
Your analogy does not line up.
PS Back when Muskie was active in politics (I believe up until 1981), the Ukraine was still a satellite of the USSR.
sometimes I think you just want so much to disagree with me that you don't even think about what you're writing. It was an analogy, not just changing the names of the current circumstances from Trump and Biden to Nixon and Muskie. But if that makes the analogy easier for you to understand, go for it.
ml1 said:
Paul is engaging in a misdirection in the hopes that it will make people forget what an extreme ethics violation Trump is accused of.
You don’t understand. You, like the rest of us, are letting your attention to the facts that distinguish any two situations blind you to the moral and media hypocrisy that directs your attention.
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Okay, so it's going to be one of those "word games" things where the definition of "open" is going to be the key to the claim. The fact that the action taken involving the prosecutor had NOTHING to do with Biden and EVERYTHING to do with international opinion is beside the point for you.
let's assume for a moment that Paul is correct, and Biden committed a major ethics violation by shutting down an investigation of his son's company. Even assuming that, the allegation that Trump attempted to extort Zelensky would still an impeachable offense if true.. Paul is engaging in a misdirection in the hopes that it will make people forget what an extreme ethics violation Trump is accused of.
I said the House should censure Trump for abusing his office. How does that conflict with "an extreme ethics violation"?
Whether or not Trump extorted Zelensky does not determine the criteria for impeachment. The House can impeach for whatever criteria it chooses. It has total discretion on how it wants to define High Crimes and Misdemeanors. And if it chooses the Zelensky conversation, it's going to run up against the Biden statement and his son's involvement in Ukraine. Which is going to create a lot of opportunities for Trump and the Republicans.
Impeachment is a political process and the politics of Ukrainegate is a loser.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
Paul is engaging in a misdirection in the hopes that it will make people forget what an extreme ethics violation Trump is accused of.
You don’t understand. You, like the rest of us, are letting your attention to the facts that distinguish any two situations blind you to the moral and media hypocrisy that directs your attention.
Correction: Attention to some of the facts and ignoring others.
paulsurovell said:
I said the House should censure Trump for abusing his office. How does that conflict with "an extreme ethics violation"?
Whether or not Trump extorted Zelensky does not determine the criteria for impeachment. The House can impeach for whatever criteria it chooses. It has total discretion on how it wants to define High Crimes and Misdemeanors. And if it chooses the Zelensky conversation, it's going to run up against the Biden statement and his son's involvement in Ukraine. Which is going to create a lot of opportunities for Trump and the Republicans.
Impeachment is a political process and the politics of Ukrainegate are a loser.
ooh, a censure. That's going to go into his permanent file. I'll bet Trump is shaking over that possibility.
I don't personally think the politics should be a calculation. If presidential behavior is considered beyond the pale by the House, they should impeach. Sometimes the right thing to do is the right thing to do. But I also think you are completely misreading the politics. If the House does nothing (and a censure is nothing, realistically), Trump will use that to his advantage. He will claim total exoneration. And a big part of defeating Trump is going to entail pointing out to persuadable voters how corrupt he is. "Total exoneration" takes that away.
the best politics here is impeaching Trump and cutting bait on Biden.
paulsurovell said:
Correction: Attention to some of the facts and ignoring others.
which facts have we ignored? I've actually made my argument assuming that all of your so-called facts are true.
nohero said:
Okay, so it's going to be one of those "word games" things where the definition of "open" is going to be the key to the claim.
For a comparison, see: Assange, Sweden.
ml1 said:
ooh, a censure. That's going to go into his permanent file. I'll bet Trump is shaking over that possibility.
Paul the Concern Troll is ignoring that a "censure" would be even better for Trump than impeachment w/o a Senate conviction.
nohero said:
Paul the Concern Troll is ignoring that a "censure" would be even better for Trump than impeachment w/o a Senate conviction.
I had to look up presidential censure because I wasn't aware that it had ever been done. Turns out the one and only censure of a president was Andrew Jackson in 1834. Given that Jackson is apparently Trump's favorite president, he'd probably celebrate being censured. And he would also look hopefully toward it eventually being expunged:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
I said the House should censure Trump for abusing his office. How does that conflict with "an extreme ethics violation"?
Whether or not Trump extorted Zelensky does not determine the criteria for impeachment. The House can impeach for whatever criteria it chooses. It has total discretion on how it wants to define High Crimes and Misdemeanors. And if it chooses the Zelensky conversation, it's going to run up against the Biden statement and his son's involvement in Ukraine. Which is going to create a lot of opportunities for Trump and the Republicans.
Impeachment is a political process and the politics of Ukrainegate are a loser.
ooh, a censure. That's going to go into his permanent file. I'll bet Trump is shaking over that possibility.
I don't personally think the politics should be a calculation. If presidential behavior is considered beyond the pale by the House, they should impeach. Sometimes the right thing to do is the right thing to do. But I also think you are completely misreading the politics. If the House does nothing (and a censure is nothing, realistically), Trump will use that to his advantage. He will claim total exoneration. And a big part of defeating Trump is going to entail pointing out to persuadable voters how corrupt he is. "Total exoneration" takes that away.
the best politics here is impeaching Trump and cutting bait on Biden.
ooh an impeachment that dominates politics in the election season, excites the Republican base, turns off independents and fails in the Senate etc. I'll bet Trump is salivating at the thought.
paulsurovell said:
ooh an impeachment that dominates politics in the election season, excites the Republican base, turns off independents and fails in the Senate etc. I'll bet Trump is salivating at the thought.
He may not be, but you sure as he!! are.
paulsurovell said:
ooh an impeachment that dominates politics in the election season, excites the Republican base, turns off independents and fails in the Senate etc. I'll bet Trump is salivating at the thought.
Polling shows that as more facts come out, even among Independents there is growing support for an impeachment investigation.
paulsurovell said:
ooh an impeachment that dominates politics in the election season, excites the Republican base, turns off independents and fails in the Senate etc. I'll bet Trump is salivating at the thought.
which party won the White House in the next election after Clinton was impeached?
Paul, Tulsi flipped on impeachment.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/27/tulsi-gabbard-flips-backs-narrowly-focused-impeach/
Better check your emails for updates before posting further.
Featured Events
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
now I understand why I didn't get that joke. It requires thinking like Devin Nunes.