The debate "Impeachment will pass in the House" was started by
December 5, 2019, 9:26 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 11 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 15 arguments, marky posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
historybuff, Nemiroff and 5 visitors agree.
marky and 2 visitors disagree.
Yeah, go ahead and investigate Trump. As for obstruction, as far as I remember 4 or 5 people testified. Also Trump released a transcript he didn't have to.
Conflict of Interest can be getting special favors from a vice president because his son is on the board of your company. Especially a corrupt company.
so then there is nothing wrong with investigating trump. if he has nothing to fear then he won't be affected.
... although obstructing an investigation is still a crime
it does depend on a conflict of interest. a conflict of interest in getting dirt on a rival, is extremely obvious.
It depends if there is conflict of interest or not.
dear god, that is sad. So joe biden, a man whose son may have peddled influence to make money would "compromise the country". But Trump, whose son, son in law and daughter (as well as trump personally) have all peddled influence to make money is somehow the solution to this?
Trump supporters really do tie themselves in knots to try to explain away all that nasty reality.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with investigating Hunter Biden. If he did nothing wrong then it will not affect the election. If he did wrong the we don't want Joe Biden as president because it could compromise our country.
i disagree, i don't think it was bad for Trump to have Ukraine investigate Biden.
He used his position to get Ukraine to investigate Biden. That is proven. He would directly benefit if Biden were being investigated by ukraine, that is also proven.
So what exactly do you feel hasn't been proven?
No one has proven that he used his position for personal gain.
This is just getting sad. Things like that have sent other people to prison for years. But because it's trump, you refuse to acknowledge reality.
not the words anyone would use lol.
he used the seat of the presidency for personal gain. that's what impeachment is for.
Again, not the words you would use or I would use, but it's not impeachable.
I never said it didn't. I said tweeting threats to keep witnesses from testifying is witness tampering. Saying that someone who talks about trump's crimes should be killed while trump is being investigated is witness tampering.
imagine a mob boss who is on trial saying something like that in front of a witness against him. That is how criminals threaten people. You don't say "i'll kill your family if you talk", they say things like “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart?". You heavily imply you will kill them without coming out and saying it.
Trump never offered or gained anything. No bribe and no attempt.
Trump went above and beyond his rights by releasing the transcript.
So he ordered them not to testify, yet they testified anyway and they still have their jobs!
Marie Yovanovitch still is working in the government last I checked. Plus how can he fire someone from being an ambassador when they have already been fired?
Well America did actually kill people who committed treason or spied. Actually it's still on the books.
The threatened the whistle blower by implying they should be killed:
“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.”
He attacked a woman while she was testifying and implied that he could fire at will whoever he wanted. Which, since he had already ordered people not to testify, was intended to keep people from testifying.
"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors. They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.”
Ordering people not comply with an impeachment inquiry is obstructing justice. I mean it is really straight forward. It is "a crime consisting of obstructing prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials." When he ordered people not to comply with investigators or provide documents, he obstructed justice. I don't see how you could argue against this one.
Offering to use the power of your public office in order to gain something of value for yourself constitutes bribery. When trump offered either/or a white house visit and the US aid money in exchange for slander against his political opponent, trump committed the crime of bribery.
He hasn't threatened any witnesses, he hasn't obstructed justice and he hasn't bribed anyone.
That statement makes no sense.
You don't think threatening a witness is a crime?
You don't think using the office of the president to obstruct an investigation is a crime? (it was one of the charges against nixon)
You don't think accepting a thing of value that would help in an election from a foreigner is a crime?
You don't think using the power of the president to get something of personal value (in this case slander against a political rival) is a crime?
I guarantee you all of those thing are crimes. And we know trump did all of those.
But they are not a crime. Sorry, it's your interpretation it's a crime, but it is not a crime.
I have explained to you multiple times now the minimum of 4 crimes we know for a fact he committed. I have described what they are and why we know he committed them. Repeating over and over and over, "there are no crimes" just makes you look brainwashed. You are ignoring what i am writing, you are ignoring reality.
There are no crimes.
Voting against impeachment is a HUGE risk for any democrat. They will likely get primaried and removed if they do.
What are you talking about? The transcript shows 1 crime. Trump tweeted threats to witnesses which is 2. They have announced they ordered people not testify or provide documents, that's 3.
We don't even need people to testify to know he committed multiple crimes. And we have lots of witnesses that say he committed a 4th crime too.
I bet many swing district representatives will vote against Impeachment.
There are no witnesses that say there was a crime, just presumptions of one. What about the witnesses that said there was no crime? Do we throw out their testimony?
To be clear, i meant on day 1 of the inquiry.
How could it not? We knew on day 1 trump was guilty. His transcript shows he committed 1 crime. We now have multiple whitnesses confirming crimes #2. We also have his tweets and statements as proof of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
I don't see how he could avoid being impeached in the house.