The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[KLB]

Evidence of a crime....conspiring with Giuliani to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival. That seems sufficient grounds for a congressional inquiry.

Is it unlawful? On the surface, it would seem to be. If the president had acted in the interests of the United States, I think he would be within the law and within the scope of his executive authority. Using Giuliani rather than normal channels raises the stinkiness of the president's actions and motives.

An inquiry is appropriate. Whether that results in a formal impeachment remains to be seen.

How would that seem to be unlawful? Stinky does not equal illegal.

It is amazing how far some people are willing to go to get Trump. This impeachment attempt is even worse than the Clinton impeachment.

Basically it all comes down to, "we don't like him, so we must impeach him!"

 

[ghitch75]

Whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House

Whelp.

Another few months of deep state garbage

can we even believe any of this?......it is NYT....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but investigating whether a former US vice-president pressured a foreign government in order to protect his son's investment would seem to be in the interest of the United States. JMO

Oh now hush you. Democrats have a permanent "Get out of Jail Free" card.

 

[BugI02]

I don't think that passage says what you think it says.

The impeachment would not be a result of the pardon. The impeachment would be for haboring a fugitive, or some version of what we would today call accomplice liability.

It would not be a policy action that would trigger the impeachment, but something criminal.

(Notice, it would still leave it to the Senate to convict.)

The point is that there would still need to be a suspicion of a crime for impeachment. Not a "we don't like what you did."

Look at it this way, if the bar for impeachment is really that low, then elections will always be subject to a veto by both houses of Congress. That can't be right.

Virtue would seem to be a much more important characteristic in a legislator than in a president, else how shall any president be held to the straight and narrow when needed. Another lesson in the dangers of rampant partisanship

 

[jamil]

Impeachment is a political process. It IS essentially because "we don't like what he did." And that those actions maybe perfectly legal for a president, but still justify impeachment. I think impeachment is completely justified in this instance, and I'm enjoying seeing the WH squirm.

It IS because we don't like HIM. Just like Clinton's impeachment WAS because THEY didn't like HIM. They just wanted to impeach him at any cost. Pretty much the same deal here. Except they had actual evidence of a crime. Clinton lied under oath. There's no evidence Trump did anything that rises above the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. And what we have evidence for now? If they really want to make that the standard, ain't no way in hell the next Democratic President will survive an impeachment if Republicans are in control. And maybe that's what needs to happen.

So what I'm saying, if this were the cold war, the US and USSR would have nuked each other by now because mutually assured destruction wouldn't mean **** to ideologues. It's why Harry Reid went nuclear. It's why they're impeaching trump. Mutually assured destruction don't mean ****.

 

[jamil]

Kut - you know I love you in every manly sense of the word - but that's just not right.

Again, read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment. The process is political - as anything conducted by a legislative body inevitably is. But the triggers should not be. It should not include things that are legal for a POTUS to do, because then it elevates the political above the electoral.

As Obama succinctly put it, elections have consequences. Not just for those other people who happen to get elected, but for the people who do the electing.

For impeachment to be applied to policy decisions is for Congress to proclaim that they know better than the voters who should (or should not) be president.

That's just wrong. And unconstitutional. Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. That's it. "Bad policy" is not listed.

Well, is and ought are two different things. What IS: Congress can impeach the president for farting during a speech if they have the votes to do it. Can the get away with it? Not usually, because usually sane congressmen have that fear I talked about called mutually assured destruction. The bat **** crazies don't fear that Republicans can do it to them. Of course, they're probably right.

And of course, what you said is what ought to be, what it was intended to be.

 

[Alpo]

I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but investigating whether a former US vice-president pressured a foreign government in order to protect his son's investment would seem to be in the interest of the United States. JMO

His son had an investment in the Ukraine? That's something I didn't know. He sat on the board of directors of a petroleum company, but I hadn't heard your claim before. Are you sure?

I think any politician's kid benefitting from the coattails of an active employee of our government is wrong. However, it isn't against the law afaik.

If there was to be an investigation and since Giuliani is not a special envoy, independent counsel or State Dept employee, it really doesn't fit within the apparati available to the president to investigate anyone on behalf of the USA for any reason.

In these circumstances, further inquiry by Congress is warranted. Whether that results in an impeachment proceeding awaits additional information and testimony.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Evidence of a crime....conspiring with Giuliani to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival. That seems sufficient grounds for a congressional inquiry.

Is it unlawful? On the surface, it would seem to be. If the president had acted in the interests of the United States, I think he would be within the law and within the scope of his executive authority. Using Giuliani rather than normal channels raises the stinkiness of the president's actions and motives.

An inquiry is appropriate. Whether that results in a formal impeachment remains to be seen.

You mean like when the ex president tapped a opposing candidates phone line?

 

[jamil]

His son had an investment in the Ukraine? That's something I didn't know. He sat on the board of directors of a petroleum company, but I hadn't heard your claim before. Are you sure?

I think any politician's kid benefitting from the coattails of an active employee of our government is wrong. However, it isn't against the law afaik.

If there was to be an investigation and since Giuliani is not a special envoy, independent counsel or State Dept employee, it really doesn't fit within the apparati available to the president to investigate anyone on behalf of the USA for any reason.

In these circumstances, further inquiry by Congress is warranted. Whether that results in an impeachment proceeding awaits additional information and testimony.

What would be against the law is quid pro quo with a foreign government. The apparent conflict of interest with Joe stepping in to get the guy who was investigating the company his son had a directorship with implies a more obvious nefarious motive than if his son weren't involved at all. and It sounds like the guy Biden demanded to be fired was a bad dude anyway, and his firing was likely justified. However, it's reasonable enough to believe that the situation should be investigated to see if there was a quid pro quo to stop the investigation on his son's behalf. I mean. Trump was investigated for two+ years on less real evidence.

 

[KG1]

Evidence of a crime....conspiring with Giuliani to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival. That seems sufficient grounds for a congressional inquiry.

Is it unlawful? On the surface, it would seem to be. If the president had acted in the interests of the United States, I think he would be within the law and within the scope of his executive authority. Using Giuliani rather than normal channels raises the stinkiness of the president's actions and motives.

An inquiry is appropriate. Whether that results in a formal impeachment remains to be seen.

i guess it could be said that Guliani was Trumps special envoy delegated by Trump to get to the bottom of all the alleged shenanigans going on over in the Ukraine of which Guliani was supposedly well researched on.

Not only in the stinky Biden allegations of a improprieties as VP but Trump also wanted to get to the bottom of this “Crowdstike” referenced thing that had something to do with the Hillary email scandal and quite possibly may have been connected with the origins of the Mueller Russian collusion investigation of which there were reports that the Ukraine had knowledge of.

Soooo....What’s the problem?

 

[Tombs]

Impeachment is a political process. It IS essentially because "we don't like what he did." And that those actions maybe perfectly legal for a president, but still justify impeachment. I think impeachment is completely justified in this instance, and I'm enjoying seeing the WH squirm.

Impeachment is for when a president has grossly violated the laws of this country. Even though his position does absolve him of criminal conviction, impeachment is the alternative route to remove him from power.

It has nothing to do with whether someone likes or dislikes the actions.

For instance, a president could not be criminally convicted for shooting someone in the street. But he could be impeached for it.

It's also not something to be applied lightly. Once you reduce the meaning of impeachment, it will be used every time the side in power decides they don't like the result of an election. *coughs* Kind of like right now *coughs*

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Impeachment does not require the House point to any law. They literally get to write their own articles of impeachment.

Impeachable conduct is not limited to misbehavior covered by the criminal code; the founders wanted it that way.


They're doing it outside of moral and integrity reasons... but there's technically nothing wrong with it. They'll be the ones to pay the price for this gamble, though I'm sure it'll hurt some on the GOP-side, as well, with the spurious fishing for extraneous info

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Hmm... Without looking at it, I'm going to guess sensationalized and inaccurate.

https://twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey/status/1177370086182551552

BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine.

Download and start digging

 

[actaeon277]

I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but investigating whether a former US vice-president pressured a foreign government in order to protect his son's investment would seem to be in the interest of the United States. JMO

yup

 

[actaeon277]

It IS because we don't like HIM. Just like Clinton's impeachment WAS because THEY didn't like HIM. They just wanted to impeach him at any cost. Pretty much the same deal here. Except they had actual evidence of a crime. Clinton lied under oath. There's no evidence Trump did anything that rises above the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. And what we have evidence for now? If they really want to make that the standard, ain't no way in hell the next Democratic President will survive an impeachment if Republicans are in control. And maybe that's what needs to happen.

So what I'm saying, if this were the cold war, the US and USSR would have nuked each other by now because mutually assured destruction wouldn't mean **** to ideologues. It's why Harry Reid went nuclear. It's why they're impeaching trump. Mutually assured destruction don't mean ****.

MAD only works against sane opponents.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm, not too sure this farce of impeachment will hurt the dumocraps too much. Their fan-base seems to eat it up.


With all of their anti-semitism, mother****ing, fake news, obstruction, general stupidity and now this - the dumocraps are turning congress into a verbal version of pro-wrestling.

 

[Phase2]

Hmm... Without looking at it, I'm going to guess sensationalized and inaccurate.

https://twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey/status/1177370086182551552

I'm starting to look at them. Don't see anything sensational about them. They are various formal statements by witnesses, e-mails, FBI reports, etc.

 

[jbombelli]

This impeachment is not about anything other than next year's election. They're going to try and drag it out until then in an effort to destroy Trump's chances of winning. Again.

That's what this is all really about. Seriously, does anyone really believe they finally found their magic unicorn bullet, and does anyone really trust what they claim they have? Maybe they can put it in another dossier.

 

[jamil]

MAD only works against sane opponents.

A little reciprocity should help them figure it out.

 

[KG1]

Ukraine(with hat in hand): those missiles you're sending us will help out a lot
Trump "The Don": Yeah, I need you to do me a favor.

Was Trump just ignoring Ukraine, or was there something implied?

I find your implied paraphrasing interpretation to be a biased embellishment.

Meet the master of embellishment for effect Kut. Adam Schiff the Democrat chairman of the House Intelligence committee went far past implied paraphrasing interpretive biased embellishment straight to outright making up his own transcript interpretation using his own words which he got busted on and then admitted it was made up parody.

I find it a pretty reprehensible tactic that made your embellishment look like small potatoes.

We don't need this kind of biased embellishment designed for pollitical effect to sway public opinion. Howbout just sticking to what was actually transcribed and letting the public decide without biased inferences?

What say you?

https://www.newsweek.com/adam-schif...-whistleblower-complaint-ukraine-call-1461579