-->
@bmdrocks21
I disagree. Clinton should have been impeached
Judiciary Committee approves both articles of impeachment
Posts
Total:
91
-->
@David
Why should Clinton have been impeached?
I think it should only be used in super extreme circumstances.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury. You were against his impeachment.
he didn't obstruct justice. He went along with the impeachment inquiry. He did commit perjury. I don't think most people would say otherwise. But he lied about a blow job. Trump has lied about literally hundreds of topics including extorting foreign leaders to interfere in american elections. The 2 cases are in no way similar.
You keep mentioning how Trump dared to obstruct justice. You are for impeachment.
He abused the power of his office for personal gain and to interfere in an election. He then committed another crime by trying to cover it up. Of course I think he should be impeached.
Also, why do you keep complaining about Trump exposing Biden's corruption?
I don't. I have no issue with Biden's corruption being exposed. The problem is that Biden's corruption is totally legal. I really wish it weren't, but sadly it is. Trump's corruption, abuse of power and obstruction of justice are all very much illegal.
The American people should know if a presidential candidate is corrupt or not.
They should, but if fox news gets their way, about 45% of them will believe the trump's lies that he didn't commit the crimes that we have infinitive proof he committed.
I don't think Clinton should have been impeached and I don't think Trump should now.
lol so if someone lies about sex, they should be removed from office. If someone abuses the power of their office to smear a political opponent and interfere in an election, then engages in a cover up and obstructs justice, that shouldn't be punished?
You have insane priorities.
-->
@HistoryBuff
bmdrocks21 asked, "Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?"
My guess is that your crippling bias will find a rationalization for that question.
Or you will dodge it.
Clinton lied about sex. Trump abused the power of his office in an attempt to extort a foreign country to smear his political rival. Its like comparing a guy who jay walked to a rapist. They are not even remotely similar cases.
What do you know? You dodged the question. The question was not comparing cases, but asking about the inner state of democrats during the Clinton impeachment.
Perhaps you're only omniscient about republicans.
the constitution is EXTREMELY clear. There is no grounds for the supreme court to get involved.
Only SCOTUS can decide this.
I may have missed it, but as far as I know the house hasn't voted on impeachment yet.
And yet you're %100 certain already. Biased much?
The house hasn't voted on it yet. And even if none of the republicans have the spine to say out loud that they know he is guilty, that doesn't mean they don't wish they could vote for it.
Now, not only do you know what the republicans will not do and why, you even know what they wish they could do! Your TDS has made you incapable of rational thought.
They are just cowards who are trying to protect their own career by not doing their jobs.
That is just your TDS deluding you into bigotry.
47% for impeachment, 45% against.
Untrue. When the entire country is polled, independents, and libertarians gave those against impeachment the edge. 54% and growing.
Also, whether or not people want trump impeached is irrelevant.
Lol. The people are the ones who decide Adolph. America has a representative government of the people.
The facts are that he committed crimes. Whether or not his cultists want him punished for those crimes is irrelevant.
Those you call cultists are citizens Adolph. The Americans without TDS outnumber you, and they know your "crimes" are hate fueled delusions.
Lol the same men who are defending trump now called him all sorts of terrible names in 2016.
Irrelevant. Trump cannot be guilty of crimes because you don't like him. Rational people condemn a man when he is guilty, and defend the same man when he is innocent.
Those like you, suffering from TDS, condemn based on your irrational hate, not in the actual behavior of the man.
They hate him. They know he is a lying, asshole criminal. But none of them will say it in public now. They are afraid of him and his cultists.
Even if you were right that they hate him, (and you aren't) that doesn't make him guilty, or gave them the right to railroad him.
Hate should have nothing to do with this. But I'm glad you're here. We had TDS sufferers during the 2016 elections and they were tortured by their old biased posts showing how clueless they were.
If you don't run and hide in Nov 2020, I will be reminding you of how deluded you were today.
-->
@ethang5
bmdrocks21 asked, "Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?"
no. They knew that lying about a blowjob was a stupid thing to try to impeach someone for. Abusing the power of the presidency to interfere in a US election is a massive abuse of the office. The cover up is also seriously criminal.
What do you know? You dodged the question. The question was not comparing cases, but asking about the inner state of democrats during the Clinton impeachment.
I didn't dodge the question. The republicans went for impeachment over a lie that had nothing to do with the presidency. Democrats are impeaching over massive abuse of office. That very much has to do with the presidency.
Only SCOTUS can decide this.
no. the men who wrote the constitution decided this a very long time ago.
And yet you're %100 certain already. Biased much?
lol, the house hasn't voted. You are saying I am biased because I pointed out to you that you were, incorrectly, implying that they had.
Now, not only do you know what the republicans will not do and why, you even know what they wish they could do! Your TDS has made you incapable of rational thought.
I'm starting to remember why I usually don't respond to you. You are REALLY baised and kind of nuts. So i'm going to return to not answering you. there is nothing to be gained from it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
They knew that lying about a blowjob was a stupid thing to try to impeach someone for.
So you're omniscient about the democrats too. Lying under oath is an impeachable crime.
I didn't dodge the question.
Sure you did. You were asked what were the democrats thinking and you compared Clinton and Trump. That was a dodge. You answered after I pointed out your dodge tho.
the men who wrote the constitution decided this a very long time ago.
The men who wrote the constitution gave sole power to interpret the constitution to SCOTUS. A power they exercised in the Gore/Bush election.
You are saying I am biased because I pointed out to you that you were, incorrectly, implying that they had.
No, I'm saying you are biased because though you can point out that the vote is not yet in, you've already convicted Trump.
I'm starting to remember why I usually don't respond to you. You are REALLY baised and kind of nuts.
You're the one claiming to know the thoughts and intent of all republicans.
So i'm going to return to not answering you. there is nothing to be gained from it.
Certainly not for you. But I will keep your biased comments to playback when reality shows you to have been deluded by TDS.
That will be fun.
-->
@ethang5
But I will keep your biased comments to playback when reality shows you to have been deluded by TDS.
Your TDS makes it impossible for you to connect to reality. I think my new policy will just be to ignore you in all threads since there is no way to reach someone who is delusional.
-->@HistoryBuff
I'll live.
-->
@HistoryBuff
he didn't obstruct justice. He went along with the impeachment inquiry. He did commit perjury. I don't think most people would say otherwise. But he lied about a blow job. Trump has lied about literally hundreds of topics including extorting foreign leaders to interfere in american elections. The 2 cases are in no way similar.
The obstruction of justice charge was brought because he lied to subordinates and friends about the scandal, supposedly hoping they would also deny it at the hearings. https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/obstruction-of-justice
He abused the power of his office for personal gain and to interfere in an election. He then committed another crime by trying to cover it up. Of course I think he should be impeached.
He is making less money than before he took office, so personal gain is quite questionable. By interfering in an election, you are referring to him looking into corruption.
I don't. I have no issue with Biden's corruption being exposed. The problem is that Biden's corruption is totally legal. I really wish it weren't, but sadly it is. Trump's corruption, abuse of power and obstruction of justice are all very much illegal.
That isn't illegal? WTF?
They should, but if fox news gets their way, about 45% of them will believe the trump's lies that he didn't commit the crimes that we have infinitive proof he committed.
Well, the people should also know when Trump does corrupt things. I hate the bias among networks. I bet CNN under-reported on the Clinton Foundation corruption as well.
I don't think Clinton should have been impeached and I don't think Trump should now.lol so if someone lies about sex, they should be removed from office. If someone abuses the power of their office to smear a political opponent and interfere in an election, then engages in a cover up and obstructs justice, that shouldn't be punished?You have insane priorities.
No, I specifically said that neither should be impeached, as shown above. I set the bar very high for impeachable offenses.
-->
@bmdrocks21
He is making less money than before he took office, so personal gain is quite questionable.
Says who? We have no idea how much money he was making before he took office. We have no idea how much money he is making now. So you are just making that up. And personal gain doesn't only have to be monetary. Assistance in winning an election is personal gain.
By interfering in an election, you are referring to him looking into corruption.
If he had asked about corruption in general this wouldn't be an issue. He didn't. He only asked about 1 person, Biden. It was never about corruption, it was about smearing Biden. And if it had been about corruption, he would have gone to law enforcement. Trying to get a foreign government to do caused him to commit crimes.
That isn't illegal? WTF?
What exactly do you think Biden did that was illegal? I have never seen any evidence he committed any crimes.
Well, the people should also know when Trump does corrupt things. I hate the bias among networks. I bet CNN under-reported on the Clinton Foundation corruption as well.
I don't think corruption should be covered up. If Biden is corrupt, that should be reported. But we know Trump is corrupt and the news outlets you watch are actively working to cover it up.
No, I specifically said that neither should be impeached, as shown above. I set the bar very high for impeachable offenses.
So abusing the power of your office in order to steal an election isn't impeachable? I mean what worse things could you do in office than abuse it to undermine democracy?
Other than Biden and his son's actions in Ukraine, how was it an American president's business? Of course Trump mentioned Biden. That was where the issue concerned America.
So the dems say he did so for personal gain, but that is something they simply assume, and then pretend their assumption is fact.
The impeachment is total partisan nonsense.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Says who? We have no idea how much money he was making before he took office. We have no idea how much money he is making now. So you are just making that up. And personal gain doesn't only have to be monetary. Assistance in winning an election is personal gain.
According to Forbes estimates. We can go with personal gain being to help an election... so, Republicans cannot expose corruption in Democrats they are running against because that would help them, got it.
If he had asked about corruption in general this wouldn't be an issue. He didn't. He only asked about 1 person, Biden. It was never about corruption, it was about smearing Biden. And if it had been about corruption, he would have gone to law enforcement. Trying to get a foreign government to do caused him to commit crimes.
Biden was a very notable case. He bragged on video about getting someone fired form Ukraine. He had an ACTUAL quid pro quo by saying he wouldn't give them funding.
What exactly do you think Biden did that was illegal? I have never seen any evidence he committed any crimes.
The whole Ukraine thing with his son seems like some sort of corruption. His son worked some place that he knew nothing about and got big payments monthly. Seems like there are some big conflicts of interest there. He proceeded to keep money from them until they fired the man investigating the company that his son worked at.
I don't think corruption should be covered up. If Biden is corrupt, that should be reported. But we know Trump is corrupt and the news outlets you watch are actively working to cover it up.
Ok, but then you guys completely make sh** up like the whole Russian collusion crap, do you have a problem with it? How about you stop making up complete and utter lies and spreading them as truth, eh? Corruption shouldn't be covered up or projected.
So abusing the power of your office in order to steal an election isn't impeachable? I mean what worse things could you do in office than abuse it to undermine democracy?
Had he told the Ukranians to smear Biden or falsify evidence that would hurt him, I would completely agree with you. However, asking a country(in which we have no jurisdiction) to look into someone who may have done something bad and then giving back the results is in no way a bad thing. If bringing the truth to light undermines democracy, then your vision of the future is truly frightening.
The underlying reason for paying off Hunter Biden is probably illegal, but it's an impeachable offense to ask about that reason.The whole Ukraine thing with his son seems like some sort of corruption. His son worked some place that he knew nothing about and got big payments monthly. Seems like there are some big conflicts of interest there. He proceeded to keep money from them until they fired the man investigating the company that his son worked at.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Republicans cannot expose corruption in Democrats they are running against because that would help them, got it.
They cannot use foreign governments to do so. If they want to get the FBI to investigate that would be normal. Getting a foreign government to do it is a crime.
Biden was a very notable case. He bragged on video about getting someone fired form Ukraine. He had an ACTUAL quid pro quo by saying he wouldn't give them funding.
The whole quid pro quo is a right wing talking point. The problem isn't giving something and getting something. The circumstances matter. Biden used his office to get Ukraine to fight corruption in a way that didn't benefit himself or his family at all. Trump used his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political rival, by name. Not only was there no evidence his rival had committed a crime, he stood to personally profit (via an election) from doing so. There is a massive difference.
The whole Ukraine thing with his son seems like some sort of corruption.
agreed. this is the swampy kind of corruption that exists all over the place in Washington. Sadly it isn't illegal though. And I mean that genuinely, I want that to be illegal.
His son worked some place that he knew nothing about and got big payments monthly. Seems like there are some big conflicts of interest there.
I agree this kind of thing is shitty. But sadly both democrats and republicans (including trump and McConnell) do this stuff all the time.
He proceeded to keep money from them until they fired the man investigating the company that his son worked at.
Biden pushed for his firing because he wasn't investigating things. That triggered a new investigation of Burisma. But since hunter did work at burisma during the time the alleged crimes had been committed, there was literally no way he could be implicated. Therefore biden had nothing to gain.
It's also worth noting, pushing to have him fired wasn't Biden's idea either. People who also had nothing to personally gain also wanted the prosecutor fired. Biden was just the guy who got sent to carry it out. So pretending like it was this corrupt plan he hatched is all bullshit.
Ok, but then you guys completely make sh** up like the whole Russian collusion crap, do you have a problem with it?
What was made up? The trump campaign said they had no contact with any russians. We now know they had over 100 contacts with russians including meetings in trump tower and giving the russians polling data. There was collusion with russians. There doesn't appear to be evidence of a crime related to that collusion. But investigating those contacts that trump claimed never happened was a legitimate investigation. If they hadn't obstructed it and lied about it repeatedly maybe it wouldn't have had to become such a big thing.
Corruption shouldn't be covered up or projected.
And by projected, I assume you mean that legitimate concerns shouldn't be investigated.
Had he told the Ukranians to smear Biden or falsify evidence that would hurt him, I would completely agree with you. However, asking a country(in which we have no jurisdiction) to look into someone who may have done something bad and then giving back the results is in no way a bad thing.
lol he specifically asked them to investigate Biden, by name. That is not Ukraine's jurisdiction. That is the FBI's jurisdiction. When he asked ukraine to do it, he committed a crime.
If bringing the truth to light undermines democracy, then your vision of the future is truly frightening.
extorting a foreign country to smear your political rivals is "bringing the truth to light"? If there were truth to the accusations he would have sent it to the FBI, as he should have. He extorted Ukraine to do it because he knew there was no evidence Biden had done anything wrong. All he cared about was that press conference and getting the president of Ukraine to suggest Biden was corrupt. He could then run an election campaign pretending Biden is corrupt. It would have been a great strategy if he hadn't gotten caught committing crimes.
-->
@HistoryBuff
to smear your political rivals
Opening an investigation based on evidence of a stated quid pro quo is justice. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.
-->
@Greyparrot
Opening an investigation based on evidence of a stated quid pro quo is justice. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.
Again, a quid pro quo is not a crime. The circumstances matter. Asking for a prosecutor to be removed when you have nothing to gain (as biden did) and because lots of people want that prosecutor removed because he is corrupt is one thing. Asking the leader of a foreign country to publicly announce the investigation of your political rival (by name) is very, very different.
Biden engaged in rather standard diplomacy. Trump engaged in several crimes.
-->
@Greyparrot
doh!
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Obstruction of Congress was a bullshit charge anyway. Trump is not stopping Congress from blowing itself up.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That article is a bit misleading. The supreme court agreed to hear cases about whether congress can subpoena his financial records in entirely unrelated investigations into him. It has nothing to do with trumps attempts to block the impeachment inquiry with him.
-->
@Greyparrot
Obstruction of Congress was a bullshit charge anyway. Trump is not stopping Congress from blowing itself up.
he ordered witnesses not to testify and hid information in an impeachment inquiry. That is obstruction.
-->
@HistoryBuff
he ordered witnesses not to testify and hid information in an impeachment inquiry. That is obstruction.
It's separation of powers. If Congress wants to destroy a sitting president, they can collect facts outside of his administration.
-->
@HistoryBuff
That article is a bit misleading. The supreme court agreed to hear cases about whether congress can subpoena his financial records in entirely unrelated investigations into him. It has nothing to do with trumps attempts to block the impeachment inquiry with him.
Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
-->
@HistoryBuff
"That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch."
has nothing to do with tax records.
"President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation."
did you even read the article?
"It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment."
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
one is an impeachment inquiry, the other is not. these are 2 very different areas. And the supreme court has ruled in the past that a president has to comply in an impeachment inquiry.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's separation of powers. If Congress wants to destroy a sitting president, they can collect facts outside of his administration.
So everyone who knows what crimes were committed works for the government. Trump, according to you, has the power to order government employees not to testify. So under your view, a president should be allowed to order all witnesses to a crime not to testify and there should be no check on that power?
The power to prevent investigation into themselves is King territory.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Imagine if you could be thrown in jail for obstructing the President like Lincoln did.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So everyone who knows what crimes were committed works for the government.
Oh really, Trump is just keeping his "victims" in his administration from testifying about crimes perpetrated against them. What a load of horse shit.
Even if we were to take on face value the fucking retarded charge of Zelensky being a "battered housewife..."
In reality, if there is no victim of abuse and the housewife does refuses to press charges, then there can be no prosecution.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh really, Trump is just keeping his "victims" in his administration from testifying about crimes perpetrated against them. What a load of horse shit.
The victims are the american people, not the people in the government. He is preventing witnesses from testifying about his crimes.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The victims are the American people, not the people in the government. He is preventing witnesses from testifying about his crimes.
Then the Congress can call millions of witnesses to testify how Trump criminally violated them. Horseshit.
-->
@HistoryBuff
In fact, the very idea that a person could be thrown in jail for "obstructing Congress" proves how much Congress has abused their authority.
The Congress should never be above the law, above the courts, or above the SCOTUS.
Even the FBI can't demand these things without a writ from the courts, and even the FBI has abused that authority through the FISA court improprieties and ommissions as well.
There's definitely abuses of power, but it sure as hell aint Trump.