As it stands currently I'm on the fence on the whole impeachment issue and just want to hear arguments from both sides.
Trump Impeachment Discussion
Posts
Total:
134
There is no fence to sit on. He is a piece of trash who doesn't belong in the white house, in fact he belongs in prison.
I'm a little uneducated on impeachment, so bear with my stupidity for a while...
What happens if he is fully impeached and removed from office? Will there be a immediate re-election, or will the country be on standby waiting for the 2020 election?
Impeachment did nothing for America\
Republicans opposed 90%.Democrats supported 90%
The Vote was just like that.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah I figured
-->
@DynamicSquid
America has a presidential line of succession to take over a remaining term should a president become unable to complete the term. In this case, the vice president Pence would take over.
I hope Trump gets removed in the election, but not from impeachment. The impeachment is very partisan.
-->
@Alec
Yeah that's why for me it's pretty hard to tell
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I mean.. the democrats have laid out their case rather clearly. Was there anything you disagreed with or wanted clarification on?
Partisan impeachments are a detriment to society and its functions. Instead of focusing on improving a society to pass legislation, they sit there are argue about how one person is bad. Does nothing for America
-->
@dustryder
Was there anything you disagreed with or wanted clarification on?
what exactly was/were the crime(s) he committed? actual crimes, not he did a bad thing.
many republicans agreed what he did was in bad taste, wrong, whatever, but not criminal is my understanding anyway.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
To my understanding, the specific crimes that he is accused of committing in the articles of impeachment are
1) Soliciting foreign interference into US elections
2) Contempt of congress
-->
@dustryder
hmm yeah that's what I've heard, but again I have also heard that #1 is not a crime in this instance and "contempt of congress" is a charge, he actually hasn't been found guilty of it, he claimed executive privilege, they claimed he couldn't, a court would need to rule on that, congress does not make the laws nor interpret them like that.
So if anything only #1 MIGHT be an actual crime.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If I understand the impeachment process correctly, both crimes are only charges at this stage. It's essentially "Here's the evidence we have, we think you've done this based on the evidence, we'll charge you with these items and send you to trial". It's only at the senate that you are found to be guilty of any charges.
-->
@dustryder
gotcha, that makes sense which I think is why people just shrug their shoulders at it. Saying he's impeached just means charged, fancy word for "statement of charges". Given it was partisan, called for before he was sworn in, it just doesn't mean much of anything, bfd. I would now equate it with the word racist as far as the impact and affect it has. Imo this is because of Bill Clinton's impeachment. What he did was wrong, lied etc but I never thought it should have been investigated how it was etc, not for what he was accused of, but that's just my opinion.
-->
@RationalMadman
@dustryder
People have begun trying to impeach President Trump since January 21 2017, literally 1 day after he was put into office. http://archive.ph/m7PRp
I really want to know why that is, and what exactly Trump did that day that he should be impeached for and warrants impeachment.
He is a piece of trash who doesn't belong in the white house, in fact he belongs in prison.
What makes him a piece of trash? What makes him not belong in the white house? What makes him belong in prison?
To my understanding, the specific crimes that he is accused of committing in the articles of impeachment are1) Soliciting foreign interference into US elections
What foreign interference did he solicit, and which US election specifically did he solicit it into?
2) Contempt of congress
How did he contempt our congress?
-->
@Christen
What makes him a piece of trash? What makes him not belong in the white house? What makes him belong in prison?
How much do you know about his past? Do you know when some guys were beaten senseless with severe police brutality, even starving them within the jail until they admitted to comitting a gang rape that they never committed that Trump and with his friend being on the prosecution team it's not even a question that he had motive, pushed for that to happen? That's one of many examples of this piece of filth and what he has done to people who either got in his way or merely were an easy target for a friend of Trump's to further their career and owe Trump for helping out.
You don't know do you? Thought not. Do you know that 9/11 conspiracy theories, whether true or not, often involve noticing that barely a week after it all happened Trump is smiling on camera saying he's proud to build something on it that he'll be profiting from?
To understand how deep Trump's corruption and immorality go will take you hours of research, days of 'resarching which research is reliable or not' and even more to uncover conspiracy theories and dirty mysteries behidn this man and where he got, and has used, his wealth.
You don't know it though, so let me just start you off here:
-->
@Christen
People have begun trying to impeach President Trump since January 21 2017, literally 1 day after he was put into office. http://archive.ph/m7PRpI really want to know why that is, and what exactly Trump did that day that he should be impeached for and warrants impeachment.
Obviously I can't speak on the behalf of people who wanted him impeached from day one, but I suspect it's to do with them conflating suitability of office with actionable impeachment offenses. Personally I don't know why people care about the opinions of a minority with no actionable power in the first place.
What foreign interference did he solicit, and which US election specifically did he solicit it into?How did he contempt our congress?
This is very basic information that can be found out on the wikipedia page
I don't mind discussing the merits of this impeachment, but you should have at the very least some sort of your own baseline knowledge first
Impeachment is dead because the Democrats thought it would be polling better than it was. Support dropped ~20% among Democrats.
It was obvious partisan hackery from day one. If they really wanted to get him they would have gone after him for emoluments, but they won't because most of them are just as corrupt. Same reason Bush was never impeached for war crimes: most of the higher up people in Congress were complicit in the torture and lies.
-->
@dustryder
So according to your Wikipedia article...
The impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the incumbent president of the United States, was initiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on September 24, 2019,[1] after a whistleblower alleged that Donald Trump may have abused the power of the presidency
Well first of all, the whistleblower is not named, so this person could be literally anyone. It could be someone who is just going out of his or her way to spread lies about Trump to get him impeached. We don't know who this person is or what their political affiliation is so we have no way of knowing if they're even a reliable source. Secondly it says that he or she alleged that Donald Trump may have abused his power. It does not guarantee that he abused his power, so that means Trump can be found innocent, since all suspects of any crime are innocent until proven guilty.
by withholding military aid as a means of pressuring newly elected president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to perform two favors:
Is the president legally obligated to give any military aid to this country? If not, then it's not a crime or an impeachable offense to withhold aid to any other country for any reason.
to pursue investigations of Joe Biden and his son Hunter,[a] and to investigate a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.[3] More than a week after Trump had put a hold on the previously approved military aid,[4][b] he made the aforementioned requests in a July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president,[6]
Here is what Donald Trump said, copied and pasted from the [6] document:
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
Here's the thing: All Donald Trump was saying was that there were some people that wanted to know more about the situation regarding Biden's son, and that it would be great for them if they got more information about the issue. This can easily be misinterpret as Donald Trump asking the Ukrainian dude to pursue investigations into Biden, which I think a lot of people have done.
He was not asking for an investigation into Biden. If anything he was asking for an investigation into a situation that may have involved Biden. Investigating a person is different from investigating a situation. That Wikipedia article is being somewhat dishonest when it says that Trump was asking to pursue investigations into Biden.
In fact, the transcript shows that Trump simply said, "if you can look into it" and "it" could be anything, but "it" is being interpreted as Joe Biden's son.
which the whistleblower alleged was intended to help Trump's reelection bid.[3]
It's very difficult if not impossible to prove "intent" in a court of law. This could have been intended for that sure, but it could have also just as easily been intended for something else.
-->
@Christen
Well first of all, the whistleblower is not named, so this person could be literally anyone. It could be someone who is just going out of his or her way to spread lies about Trump to get him impeached. We don't know who this person is or what their political affiliation is so we have no way of knowing if they're even a reliable source. Secondly it says that he or she alleged that Donald Trump may have abused his power. It does not guarantee that he abused his power, so that means Trump can be found innocent, since all suspects of any crime are innocent until proven guilty.
The whistleblower identify is rather immaterial at this point. Additional sources and evidences have come out since then that have fleshed out the incident.
Is the president legally obligated to give any military aid to this country? If not, then it's not a crime or an impeachable offense to withhold aid to any other country for any reason.
So there are several points here that should be made clear.
1. The legislative branch directs the spending of funds. In general, if an allotment has been made, the president does not have the ability to prevent this except in the circumstances where there are concerns of "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." and/or a “democratic system based on principles of the rule of law, individual freedoms, and representative government.” is taken into account and/or the conditions of the aid are not being met.
So the concern here is whether Trump was lawfully in compliance with the allotment of funds in this case
2. It's illegal to solicit foreign interference into a domestic election
So the concern here is even if the freezing of aid was legal, if the motivation is corrupt then that law has been breached.
Finally this still leaves contempt of congress
Here's the thing: All Donald Trump was saying was that there were some people that wanted to know more about the situation regarding Biden's son, and that it would be great for them if they got more information about the issue. This can easily be misinterpret as Donald Trump asking the Ukrainian dude to pursue investigations into Biden, which I think a lot of people have done.
How would a government find more information about a particular issue?
He was not asking for an investigation into Biden. If anything he was asking for an investigation into a situation that may have involved Biden. Investigating a person is different from investigating a situation. That Wikipedia article is being somewhat dishonest when it says that Trump was asking to pursue investigations into Biden.
The distinction both meaningless and irrelevant. Investigating a situation with a person core to the situation is tantamount to investigating the person. And this doesn't change the motivation of the request.
In fact, the transcript shows that Trump simply said, "if you can look into it" and "it" could be anything, but "it" is being interpreted as Joe Biden's son.
The "it" refers to the event of the stopping of the prosecution that was directly mentioned before hand. It's conflated with being Joe Biden's son, because an investigation into that event would be tantamount to an investigation into Biden and his son.
It's very difficult if not impossible to prove "intent" in a court of law. This could have been intended for that sure, but it could have also just as easily been intended for something else.
I can't say whether or not if it is as difficult as you say to prove "intent" or what the threshold for proof is, but there is certainly sufficient circumstantial evidence that should give anyone pause as to his motivations.
@Pinkfreud08
Q. How to take the focus of impeachment?
A. Be a hero and blow up an Iranian general.
-->
@dustryder
The whistleblower identify is rather immaterial at this point.
The whistleblower should be identified so that he or she can be charged with defamation if what they say turns out to be incorrect.
Additional sources and evidences have come out since then that have fleshed out the incident.
In that case, your Wikipedia article should be updated to include this new information.
if an allotment has been made, the president does not have the ability to prevent this except in the circumstances where there are concerns of "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." and/or a “democratic system based on principles of the rule of law, individual freedoms, and representative government.” is taken into account and/or the conditions of the aid are not being met.
How could the president illegally prevent an allotment even though you just said he "does not have the ability to" do so?
if the freezing of aid was legal, if the motivation is corrupt then that law has been breached.
What does it mean for someone's motivation to be corrupt, and how can it be proven that Trump's motivation was a corrupt one?
How would a government find more information about a particular issue?
I suppose they would ask around and maybe also do some online research to see what others know? I'm not sure.
Investigating a situation with a person core to the situation is tantamount to investigating the person.
How does saying "if you could look into it" over the phone = soliciting interference with an election?
I can't say whether or not if it is as difficult as you say to prove "intent" or what the threshold for proof is,
If there is no objective threshold for what proof is that all sides can agree on, then I guess the courts and judges themselves would have to decide whether whatever evidence is presented against Trump is enough proof.
but there is certainly sufficient circumstantial evidence that should give anyone pause as to his motivations.
The people pushing for Trump's impeachment are fighting an uphill battle, since the burden of proof lies on them to prove that the whistleblower is a reliable source and not some random liar making things up, that Trump's motivation was corrupt, that he was specifically referring to Biden's son when he said if Ukraine could look into their situation, that he "contempted" the congress, and that his intent was corrupt.
In a court of law, it isn't enough for you to simply "give anyone pause" about something. You must actually prove that they are guilty. Until then, they are innocent.
They've already failed to prove that Trump colluded with Russia back in 2016. Now they're trying to prove he colluded with Ukraine, something that's probably going to be even more difficult to prove, since the transcript of the phone call does not show Trump directly asking for an investigation into Biden's son in exchange for foreign aid, and can easily be interpreted in different ways.
Stupid. Idiotic. Insane. Fallacious. Dems won't win 2020
-->
@RationalMadman
How much do you know about his past?
When you say "his past," how long ago are you talking about? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Or are you referring to his entire life since when he was born, which in that case, I don't know all that much since I was born in 1999.
I remember first hearing about him in 2015 when he said he would run for president in 2016.
If, by "his past" you mean the time he got elected, all the way up to today, then I know that he has fulfilled his promises to make our borders more secure, bring back some jobs, attack the terrorist group ISIS, and cut down on illegal immigration. So he has a track record of getting those kinds of things done.
Do you know when some guys were beaten senseless with severe police brutality, even starving them within the jail until they admitted to comitting a gang rape that they never committed that Trump and with his friend being on the prosecution team
First of all, the article you linked said "It was 1989" meaning that this took place over 30 years ago (2020 - 1989 = 31).
Secondly, this sounds like a violation of the eighth amendment which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," so the police should have been punished for beating them senseless and starving them.
it's not even a question that he had motive, pushed for that to happen? That's one of many examples of this piece of filth and what he has done to people who either got in his way or merely were an easy target for a friend of Trump's to further their career and owe Trump for helping out.
This isn't really Trump's fault. The article said that there was not enough DNA evidence to prove that they were guilty of the rape, so if you want to blame anyone for this, blame the investigators for not gathering enough evidence, and the police for being brutal and inflicting their cruel and unusual punishment.
Then again, this was in the 1980s, probably back when DNA testing was very new at the time and was not as advanced as it is today, so it would have been easy to make mistakes in DNA testing back then. Hopefully we don't have this situation again where people are wrongly convicted, due to improved DNA testing.
barely a week after it all happened Trump is smiling on camera saying he's proud to build something on it that he'll be profiting from?
Proud to build what on what exactly?
To understand how deep Trump's corruption and immorality go will take you hours of research, days of 'resarching which research is reliable or not' and even more to uncover conspiracy theories and dirty mysteries behidn this man and where he got, and has used, his wealth.
At this point, it sounds like people are just mad that Trump won and Hillary lost so they're trying to go out of their way to dig up literally every single random thing that Trump did decades ago in order to spoil his reputation and keep him from getting re-elected.
Either way, it's important to remember that nobody is perfect. You will find bad things about ANY celebrity's distant past if you dig long and hard enough. Every successful person in life, whether they're a democrat or republican, has had struggles and hardships. Every successful person in life, whether they're liberal or conservative, has failed at some things and has made some poor decisions in their lives. Every past president has done and/or said something controversial that people didn't like. It's inevitable. Being a governor, mayor, or president is a stressful job. It's easy to make terrible mistakes when you have to deal with the constant pressure of thousands of people depending on you.
The question is whether to keep dwelling on the past or just move on already and focus on the things Trump has done as president, and whether or not he has followed up on his campaign promises. When we vote for our favorite candidate, we don't vote based on what they said or did decades ago. We vote based on what they have done, or will do, as president, and how it will affect our lives for years to come.
This article is saying I need to pay like a dollar or something just to view it. https://i.imgur.com/QxW9CNm.png
-->
@Christen
In that case, your Wikipedia article should be updated to include this new information.
The wikipedia article already has this information.
How could the president illegally prevent an allotment even though you just said he "does not have the ability to" do so?
The subtext is the ability to lawfully do so.
What does it mean for someone's motivation to be corrupt, and how can it be proven that Trump's motivation was a corrupt one?
Corrupt motivation is just a dictionary definition, so I would refer you to one for that definition.
As for proving corrupt motivation, we can examine stated intent and desired outcome, and see if it is consistent with existing evidence.
I suppose they would ask around and maybe also do some online research to see what others know? I'm not sure.
So in otherwords... an investigation?
How does saying "if you could look into it" over the phone = soliciting interference with an election?
He's asking for the announcement of an investigation into Biden's Ukraine activities from Ukraine. Since this would impact his results in the democratic primaries, it follows that this is a solicitation of interference by a foreign body.
If there is no objective threshold for what proof is that all sides can agree on, then I guess the courts and judges themselves would have to decide whether whatever evidence is presented against Trump is enough proof.
Impeachment and removal belong to congress, and hence they decide whether the proof is sufficient.
In a court of law, it isn't enough for you to simply "give anyone pause" about something. You must actually prove that they are guilty. Until then, they are innocent.
I wasn't referring to a court of law in this case. I was referring to public opinion.
They've already failed to prove that Trump colluded with Russia back in 2016. Now they're trying to prove he colluded with Ukraine, something that's probably going to be even more difficult to prove, since the transcript of the phone call does not show Trump directly asking for an investigation into Biden's son in exchange for foreign aid, and can easily be interpreted in different ways.
Yeah... that interpretation is only viable if you're being incredibly generous and you've fundamentally missed or ignored how object pronouns function.
-->
@zedvictor4
@Pinkfreud08
Zedvictor you're supposed to type in their name in the "Receivers" box, not type in @Pinkfreud08 https://i.imgur.com/u9dYnK9.png
-->
@Christen
I would if I wasn't blocked.
-->
@Christen
Instead of asking me so many questions about him that I already proved I have depth and answers to, start doing research yourself. I am not hired by your nor do I need to convince you of anything. Trump is among the scummiest of what our species has to offer, he is immoral in almost every way one can be it and has consistently displayed this in public and private career moves, domestic moves and speeches in interviews. The only reason he hasn't 'walked out on his children' is that it would be bad for his public image and that he is sexually attracted to a certain family member (and it isn't his wife).
If you need me to elaborate on just how vile of a person he is, you are not worth the time of explaining it. Fact. Go and research a little and you would understand how brainwashed and biased you used to be (currently are but after the research your mind would change). Until then, stay in your bubble of delusion.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Basically it is good to hold authority accountable but that isn't how politics works. It is about who has the most favor to leverage that to get what they want. I don't think Trump will be impeached, mainly because I think independents are not really pro it. If this is true then swing states are literally going to go red which will secure a victory for Trump.
Will Trump be impeached?
No
Why?
Not enough favor (support) for it to happen.
But constitution and law
It doesn't matter. People have different standards and they won't admit it instead make excuses for their double standard and/or commit whataboutism.