The debate "Is there legimitate ground for impeaching Trump" was started by
December 22, 2019, 9:53 pm.
By the way, Light is disagreeing with this statement.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 9 arguments, Light posted 2 arguments, StrangeTime posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, historybuff, Helloguys, Dij748, rainbowsocked, eli and 19 visitors agree.
Light, jrardin12, pompom and 17 visitors disagree.
I mean impeachable
In that case yes, if it was the abuse of power that would be used then its a unimpeachable offence. Yet only now was the articles voted in. So it is from now on an impeachable offence.
Can you tell them to me?
I can't tell you that answer. Cause its uncertain that anyone did abuse their power. Is it fair to impeach someone if someone else did the same thing. No, since the senate hasn't received the documents or whatever to follow through the impeachment thanks to Martha. The impeachment isn't actually done yet. Therefore; he's still in office.
to that question. He shouldn't be impeached if everyone else does the same thing and gets away with it. He should however get impeached if in fact he has been doing something wrong that he knows he should not have been doing. Remember, documents we're not sent to the Senate, so he's still in Office. So the Impeachment didn't happen to follow all the way through.
That "Russian asset" was Carter Page, a navy veteran, who was cleared by the IG of being a "Russian asset". Also the FBI lied and used false information to spy on him.
the fbi was spying on a russian asset who snuck into the trump campaign
we have investigative bodies that root out bad actors. for a politician to be the one sounding the alarm about his rival, and no other corruption anywhere, is beyond suspicous.
Well, if we find that Obama used the FBI to trip up his political opponent would that have been an impeachable offense. Also who said that that is an impeachable offense. What if that political opponent would be a danger to the country?
other presidents didnt use their office to trip up political opponents. thats how dictators start.
yes, we have the transcripts of his phone calls, and numerous witnesses citing him hiding the phone calls and ordering the withholding of aid.
Maybe there is. But if he should get impeached for what he supposedly did, why haven't prior presidents been impeached for war crimes, corruption, attacking their own people, etc?
So no proof of the president abusing his power?
Durham is working at it. Also having the IRS target tea party members is abuse of power.
Have they proven it yet? Have they seen him abuse his power. Was he caught doing it is the question.
As others have said: Every President has abused power, but none like phone and pen President Obama.
he has yet to abuse power
depends, what we're they impeaching on and was there proof of it. Sense it was abuse of power, have they really caught him doing that.
Yeah, not Trump's fault that Hunter Biden is involved in corruption.
he was asking Ukraine to look into corruption, just because it's related to his opponent doesn't mean he's trying to smear them he's doing his job as president
It benefits the country by not having to deal with a corrupt president dolling out money to corrupt businesses.
I stand corrected (I was citing registered voters polls).
It is 52% in favor of impeachment and 43% who disapprove.
How does coercing an allied country into holding a press conference to smear a former Vice President benefit the country?
If your issue is giving Ukraine money, they still did that. They gave the money to the Ukrainians as soon as Trump's crimes came out in the whistle blower report.
And I'm pretty sure I have explained this to you before. Quid pro quo just means "this for that". If you have ever bought anything you have engaged in a quid pro quo. The reason why trump committed a crime when he did this is that he was trading something with his elected office (US aid money and a white house visit) in exchange for something of personal value to him (smearing his political rival). This is a crime. Government officials are not allowed to use the powers of their public office to personally benefit themselves. And doubly so if it is to interfere in an election to benefit them self, as trump attempted to do.
I will add that he acted to benefit the country. He, nor I believe we should give money to corrupt governments. Also, if Biden becomes president he should be impeached for quid pro quoing the Ukrainians.
Actually it is now 51% that don't believe Trump should be impeached.
i dont see any of that changing with the other issues you suggested.
I'm not saying that the ukraine scandal isn't an impeachable offense. I am saying that it is very easy for republicans to distract from the issue. And so far the republicans are getting what they wanted. The half of the country that hates trump wants him impeached. The 40ish % that like trump don't. and the people in between kind of split on both sides.
It hasn't moved public opinion at all. He won't actually get convicted in the senate. Ultimately, whatever their goal for impeachment was, it doesn't look like it is really working.
the worst thing a person in power can do is unfairly maintain his grip on power. profiting is small potatoes in comparison.
unlike previous charges, which were done in the name of aquiring the power of the presidency, this offence was committed using the power of the presidency.
the shake down was clearly for his benefit, and its easy to make it about his corruption because he doesnt seem to be interested in any other corruption anywhere else. the difference of whether the shakedown is for the nation or for him personally is not a small difference but the entire point.
diverting money from the military is a policy disagreement that can be easily argued is for the nations benefit, and not personal gain.
the profiteering is simply and easy, and should be added on, but is small potatoes compared to undercutting a political rival to maintain power.
That should read "only interested in corruption" not "only interested in obstruction.
I agree that keeping it simple is an advantage. But they went with the wrong case because the abuse is not something most people are going to care about. America shakes down foreign countries all the time. That is normal diplomatic procedure. The only difference is whether that shake down benefits america or Trump personally. All trump has to do is obfuscate about whether they knew about the shake down, whether the information was in america's best interest, saying he was only interested in obstruction etc.
People who already dislike trump will see that as corruption, people who liked trump will see it as fighting corruption, or as not that serious. They ensured that this would break down along partisan lines. I think his abuse of declaring a national emergency to steal money from the military might have been the better case. Or his profiteering off the presidency by diverting the military, pence, foreign governments to his hotels.
Because getting him removed isn't about whether he deserves to be removed. The senate trial is not a legal trial, it's a popular vote. So the only way he can possibly be removed from office is if supporting him becomes a political liability. To do that democrats need to demonstrate Trump did wrong to as many voters as possible. A simpler case is easier to understand and more difficult, although not impossible, to distort. So more voters are likely to be swayed with a clear cut case. This also appeals to nationalists
That's kind of just the tip of the potential impeachment iceberg. There is also violations of the emoluments clause, violations of the elections act, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, abuse of power when he tried to steal money from the military for his wall, etc
There are many things he could be impeached for. I kind of wish Pelosi hadn't been so afraid to draw attention to all his other crimes. But I don't think she wanted to go down this road at all. I think other people forced her hand and she is trying to get it over with.
did he act to benefit the nation or himself?
Did he ask Ukraine to investigate Biden's son in exhange for displays of military support?