So implied corrupt intent is grounds for an impeachment in this case?There doesn't need to be a law that has been violated to justify impeachment. Corrupt intent is enough.
So implied corrupt intent is grounds for an impeachment in this case?There doesn't need to be a law that has been violated to justify impeachment. Corrupt intent is enough.
Actually, I was thinking about police when I made that post. Just not in the same way. If a police officer pulls over a woman going 5mph, which he is justified to do, but did so because he wanted to ask the woman out. That's corrupt intent, and I think he should lose his job, despite the action not being technically illegal. Agree or disagree?
There doesn't need to be a law that has been violated to justify impeachment. Corrupt intent is enough.
Agree or disagree?
I would need to see some pictures first because some chicks are worth losing a job over.
Oh.... And I was just curious.
How did it all work out? Did you at least get her number?
Personally, I prefer faster women myself but I've seen some attractive slow ones too.
Guess we should have impeached Obama. Impeaching Obama would have been a great idea.
i Have read everything that is available to the public on this, and I see no impeachable offense. I know some on this forum disagree, but I don’t see how they can say, with a straight face, that Trump should be impeached, and past offenses of the opposite party was okay. There is WAAYY more evidence of crimes committed by Hillary and, what he admitted to, Biden. I just don’t get it. I like to think I am impartial, I call a spade a spade, and if my guy committed a crime, then he/she/it should answer for it. As a whole I think conservatives adhere to this more. The left, not so much. I fear for the future of our Republic.
i Have read everything that is available to the public on this, and I see no impeachable offense. I know some on this forum disagree, but I don’t see how they can say, with a straight face, that Trump should be impeached, and past offenses of the opposite party was okay. There is WAAYY more evidence of crimes committed by Hillary and, what he admitted to, Biden. I just don’t get it. I like to think I am impartial, I call a spade a spade, and if my guy committed a crime, then he/she/it should answer for it. As a whole I think conservatives adhere to this more. The left, not so much. I fear for the future of our Republic.
If you have corrupt intent, and can apply it to the individual, and one thinks it's serious enough. Remove them.
Shouldn’t it be more than a hunch?If you have corrupt intent, and can apply it to the individual, and one thinks it's serious enough. Remove them.
Just hitting this point again. You seem much more certain than the facts allow. I don’t think a rorschach test is sufficient evidence to impeach someone.Impled? No. I don't think there's anything implied concerning this case.
Shouldn’t it be more than a hunch?
Note that while asking other nations about the wrongdoing of Democrats is an impeachable offense, asking other nations about the alleged wrongdoing of Republicans is considered our noble, patriotic duty—our higher loyalty.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign had no problem with investigating Trump in other nations and paying foreign operatives for dirt about Trump. After all, that’s what ex-British spy Christopher Steele was hired to do. And the media had no problem with spreading it.
The Obama Administration had no problem asking Ukraine about Paul Manafort and his financial transactions with government officials, which were soon mysteriously released. Nor did the Obama Administration have a problem surveilling the Trump campaign using foreigners and investigating Trump and his team internationally.
And many Democrats had no problem with impeaching the president based on what those foreigners said. When that turned out to be uncorroborated nonsense, they said he must be impeached because he tried to fight off the investigation based on such nonsense. Now they seek to impeach him for asking for an investigation into one of their own.
You got that?
It should.
Then it’s frivolous to impeach the president over THIS hunch. It is a hunch. Whether you care to admit it or not. You’re interpreting. Reading the tea leaves.
You read it and interpreted it as “the don”. That’s what you said. I read the whole thing and concluded it’s a rorschach test. There is enough to infer whatever motive trips your trigger, from looking out for America to “the don”. It all depends on your worldview, and you’re a TDS’er so it’s not a surprise that the ink blot looks so clearly like an impeachable offense to you. And as well, I suppose we could say the same of the other side. That’s why we shouldn’t leave it to your or anyone else’s whim.Apparently were calling the Ukraine telephone transcript a "hunch." I took it as factual since both the WH and congress have taken it as such.
Listen it's not like Trump approached the Ukrainians and said "hey I need a favor. See what kind of dirt you can dig up on my potential political opponent" There was already prior concern about a potential corrupt act by a former Vice President concerning Ukrainian affairs and his son that this President had cause to believe wasn't properly vetted and asked the Ukrainian Leader if they would consider re-examining the circumstances surrounding the controversy. This was a new request to re-examine an existing issue that Trump didn't originally initiate.Impled? No. I don't think there's anything implied concerning this case.