The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Trump

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...485 486 487 488 489 ...614 615 616 · >>
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7291New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 16:14:43
@Cpat92 Said

What I'm saying is, he's not the only one in the wrong here. Some of them on that end have filthy hands as well. Some may be overshadowed by the accusations, whining, crying and attention-seeking behavior (this goes for every side). They are pursuing this and even have some on their side telling them they may be going too far. Watching dirty people rat out dirty people does nothing for me. Even at a high level like that, I'm more worried of the risks than benefits.



So is the "argument" that Trump should get a pass because others did bad stuff also?

That doesn't made sense to me.

Sure, others have done "bad" things also. However, there is no investigation until there is an allegation of wrong doing. And there is no real punishment until an investigation is finished. Trump is not being punished. In fact, the is the one that feeds the fires against him with his never ending tweeting.

Anyway, let's take a look at a comparison:


Clinton: Impeached for lying about having consensual sex with an adult. Note: The lying was under oath, but found by a Judge to not actually be the crime of perjury ( can explain how that works if you like). So, Clinton was impeached for something that was not a crime (either misdemeanor or felony).

The impeachment was being run by Republicans, many who probably had extra marital sex, and if asked would likely have lied about it...

Maybe maybe not....


Trump: Under impeachment investigation for allegedly trying to bribe (or extort) a foreign country into investigating one of Trump's political competition. If true, Trump's actions could actually be a federal felony offense.

The impeachment investigation is being run by Democrats, and there is literally no evidence nor other suggestion that any of them committed any federal crimes, and certainly not trying to get a foreign country to investigate Trump.

So the argument that Trump should get a pass because others did bad things... or because Democrats aren't being fair, but are just being "political"... etc... just doesn't seem to fit the situation to me.

What is the answer? For me it is: Whenever there is a substantive allegation against any of "them", investigate it to the fullest and let the facts dictate whether or not they get punished. Only then will "they" start thinking about maybe not committing "high crimes and misdemeanors". Zero tolerance for all elected officials... Congressmen & Presidents.

BTW: The USA survived the impeachment of Clinton. The USA survived the Nixon scandal. Why wouldn't the USA survive Trump?
Cpat92 On May 16, 2021
It's all or nothing





Lauderhill, Florida
#7292New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 17:53:39
@chaski Said

So is the "argument" that Trump should get a pass because others did bad stuff also?

That doesn't made sense to me.

Sure, others have done "bad" things also. However, there is no investigation until there is an allegation of wrong doing. And there is no real punishment until an investigation is finished. Trump is not being punished. In fact, the is the one that feeds the fires against him with his never ending tweeting.

Anyway, let's take a look at a comparison:


Clinton: Impeached for lying about having consensual sex with an adult. Note: The lying was under oath, but found by a Judge to not actually be the crime of perjury ( can explain how that works if you like). So, Clinton was impeached for something that was not a crime (either misdemeanor or felony).

The impeachment was being run by Republicans, many who probably had extra marital sex, and if asked would likely have lied about it...

Maybe maybe not....


Trump: Under impeachment investigation for allegedly trying to bribe (or extort) a foreign country into investigating one of Trump's political competition. If true, Trump's actions could actually be a federal felony offense.

The impeachment investigation is being run by Democrats, and there is literally no evidence nor other suggestion that any of them committed any federal crimes, and certainly not trying to get a foreign country to investigate Trump.

So the argument that Trump should get a pass because others did bad things... or because Democrats aren't being fair, but are just being "political"... etc... just doesn't seem to fit the situation to me.

What is the answer? For me it is: Whenever there is a substantive allegation against any of "them", investigate it to the fullest and let the facts dictate whether or not they get punished. Only then will "they" start thinking about maybe not committing "high crimes and misdemeanors". Zero tolerance for all elected officials... Congressmen & Presidents.

BTW: The USA survived the impeachment of Clinton. The USA survived the Nixon scandal. Why wouldn't the USA survive Trump?



It should make sense, but then again we are in a nation where the blind leads the blind. The question is why the Hell should I listen to those attempting to persecute the president, accusing them of dirty hands when their hands aren't clean? It's like a thief accuses another thief of stealing what they stole earlier.

You may go for the substantiative allegations, but I prefer actual proof. I don't and cannot agree with them as they have barely found anything. Allegations do nothing without actual proof.
Cpat92 On May 16, 2021
It's all or nothing





Lauderhill, Florida
#7293New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 18:05:16
@mrmhead Said

Maybe that's why GOPers are trying to get out of testifying.
Who knew what when?

"They should check out Pence" .. does that tell you anything about the integrity of the person that less than half of the nation voted for?

Why did they try to bury the transcripts AFTER the call. As I've read, usually the prep work to tightly secure a high-stakes call is done BEFORE the call is made. This was not about national security secrets regarding troop positions or covert operations against Russia. The transcripts were published. And maybe we'll even get a cozy fireside reading of the transcripts in full!

Maybe it's not at the level of "the cover up is worse than the crime" - but is sure does look suspicious.
AND - there were a number of people on the call that were alarmed by it as well.

Why weren't Vindmans corrections included?

Notice that most of the GOPers defense lies in process and procedure.

Do YOU think it's OK for someone in office to use the weight of said office to influence a foreign power for personal gain?

This is one instance that's been caught. How many more times and ways has Trump played this game?



Trump is playing the same game many Presidents in the past have played. The difference is that with him he sticks out like a sore thumb. He's not a 'fan favorite.' He's hated more than other presidents and more than the one before him by the public. Not just the politicians who believe he's wrong. With all information given, it's not as suspicious as individuals make it out to be. Is it worth looking into? Yeah, sure, but it's not something strong enough to start a witch hunt.

Do I think it's okay for someone in office to flex their power to influence a foreign power? That is something I'm indifferent on and I would expect it from the type of man Trump is. He went from a well-established business man with power and influence to the most powerful man in the country. It should have been expected.
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7294New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 18:10:35
@Cpat92 Said

It should make sense, but then again we are in a nation where the blind leads the blind. The question is why the Hell should I listen to those attempting to persecute the president, accusing them of dirty hands when their hands aren't clean? It's like a thief accuses another thief of stealing what they stole earlier.

You may go for the substantiative allegations, but I prefer actual proof. I don't and cannot agree with them as they have barely found anything. Allegations do nothing without actual proof.



Substantive allegations lead to the investigation.

Facts, aka “actual proof”, lead to exoneration or removal.

You say “they have barely found anything”. Where is your proof of that statement? The impeachment inquiry has just begun. If they already had the “act proof” the investigation would be completed and the next phase would be on going.

You are putting the cart before the horse.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#7295New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 18:34:19
@Cpat92 Said

Trump is playing the same game many Presidents in the past have played.


Can you give me an example of a past president that has used the power of the office to pressure a foreign country for his personal gain?
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7296New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 20:05:09
@mrmhead Said

Can you give me an example of a past president that has used the power of the office to pressure a foreign country for his personal gain?


OH.... me!!!! Can I answer!?!?!?!


Here is a list:

> Anastasio Somoza Debayle (Nicaraguan)
> Manuel Noriega (Panama)
> Augusto Pinochet (Chile)
> .....

Oh... wait a second... you meant a U.S. President who used the power of the office to pressure a foreign country for his personal gain...

Um....

Got me...

I'm stumped...

mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#7297New Post! Nov 13, 2019 @ 21:14:25
@Cpat92 Said
Allegations do nothing without actual proof.


#RTFT
4d4m On December 23, 2022




4dforum.org,
#7298New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 00:11:06
Wouldn't an successful impeachment of Trump mean the CIA is implicated in his crime or at the very least negligent in not having brought it to the attention of Congress earlier?
If it turns out he is guilty Pence should relieve everyone in the CIA in the chain of command down to the whistle blower for dereliction of duty.
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7299New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 00:33:10
@4d4m Said

Wouldn't an successful impeachment of Trump mean the CIA is implicated in his crime...



No.

@4d4m Said

Wouldn't an successful impeachment of Trump mean the CIA...negligent in not having brought it to the attention of Congress earlier?


1. No. The mission of the CIA is not to keep tabs on a president.

2. We don't yet know who the "whistleblower" is. It could be someone from the CIA... if they participated in the phone call(s) between Trump and Ukraine...

@4d4m Said

dereliction of duty.


In what way was the CIA "derelict" in their duty?


@4d4m Said

relieve... the whistle blower for dereliction of duty.


1. It is illegal in the USA to punish a whistle blower.

2. In what way was the whistle blower "derelict" in his/her duties?
4d4m On December 23, 2022




4dforum.org,
#7300New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 03:57:29
I don't mean the whistle blower should be relieved of duty, but those on up the chain of command from his position. What I'm saying here is the alleged offense started some time ago. The money earmarked for Ukraine having not been dispersed would have put their security at risk. The protection of our allies is part of the CIA mission ( although you wouldn't know it). Presumably the whistle blower would have reported his or her suspicions up the chain of command before becoming a whistle blower.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#7301New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 12:50:34
@4d4m Said

I don't mean the whistle blower should be relieved of duty, but those on up the chain of command from his position. What I'm saying here is the alleged offense started some time ago. The money earmarked for Ukraine having not been dispersed would have put their security at risk. The protection of our allies is part of the CIA mission ( although you wouldn't know it). Presumably the whistle blower would have reported his or her suspicions up the chain of command before becoming a whistle blower.


If you report something to your superior, and your superior stops it there, the higher-ups in the chain don't know about it.

It does sound like there were a number of people concerned with the call, but apparently there were enough Trump-ass-kissers to keep it under wraps ... for awhile.

Yes, there were probably some negligent in their duty.
Possibly a number of those aware were waiting for someone else to call him out.
gakINGKONG On October 18, 2022




, Florida
#7302New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 13:50:55
Ladies and gentlemen boys and girls of all ages welcome. Feast your eyes on the mysterious and magical idiot box—aka tv . Today is the day we race to the bottom on the greatest show on earth: The Spectacular Show-Trial of Donald J Trump!!! My monkey. My circus.
bobbimay On February 11, 2024




Tucson, Arizona
#7303New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 14:27:29
@Cpat92 Said

Am I the only one who thinks no good will come if he gets impeached?



Let me see if I can make some sense of this to you...

they might be able to get through the house with only hearsay...but not in the senate...In the senate the whole thing gets turned into court room...hearsay is not allowed in a court setting...

The senators then becomes the Jury..the senate prosecutors and defense can then call anyone they want...the whistle blower hunter biden joe biden..etc..and their subpoena would have teeth unlike those in the house because they are backed by the DOJ...

but the bigger problem the left is going to have....the left has 6 senators running for President..and they would have to leave to campaign trail to go and sit on the "jury"...and the right side of the senate can drag this Trial for months..running well into the primary season voting..with no campaigning...if you don't stay for the trial you don't get a vote..

but then all this can blow up on them when AG Barr and company drop the MOAB in the middle of their ranks...
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#7304New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 15:32:42
@bobbimay Said

Let me see if I can make some sense of this to you...

they might be able to get through the house with only hearsay...but not in the senate...In the senate the whole thing gets turned into court room...hearsay is not allowed in a court setting...

The senators then becomes the Jury..the senate prosecutors and defense can then call anyone they want...the whistle blower hunter biden joe biden..etc..and their subpoena would have teeth unlike those in the house because they are backed by the DOJ...

but the bigger problem the left is going to have....the left has 6 senators running for President..and they would have to leave to campaign trail to go and sit on the "jury"...and the right side of the senate can drag this Trial for months..running well into the primary season voting..with no campaigning...if you don't stay for the trial you don't get a vote..

but then all this can blow up on them when AG Barr and company drop the MOAB in the middle of their ranks...


Transcripts are hearsay?

So it's OK for GOPers to ignore subpoenas from the House, but unnecessary "witnesses" can't play the same game with the Senate?

I don't think there was ever much hope of the Trumpsterf***s in the Senate to vote for removal.
As many of them have been saying - and apparently agreed with by the lemming base -
"Coercion of a foreign country for personal gain is acceptable"


I tend to disagree, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7305New Post! Nov 14, 2019 @ 15:39:42
@bobbimay Said


..but the bigger problem the left is going to have....the left has 6 senators running for President..and they would have to leave to campaign trail to go and sit on the "jury"...and the right side of the senate can drag this Trial for months..running well into the primary season voting..with no campaigning...if you don't stay for the trial you don't get a vote..



I think if you do some research you will find that you are wrong on this point.

The Senate began using "Impeachment Trial Committees" pursuant to Senate Rule XI.[19] These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit."

That is the 6 Demoractic senators running for President, would not have to leave to campaign trail. They could wait out the "trial" and come back to review the findings and vote.


@bobbimay Said


AG Barr and company drop the MOAB in the middle of their ranks...



What would that "MOAB" happen to be? Feel free to be specific and use links to facts if you have any.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...485 486 487 488 489 ...614 615 616 · >>

2 browsing (0 members - 2 guests)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Random
Fri Sep 23, 2011 @ 01:57
4 2160
New posts   Poetry
Sat Dec 16, 2006 @ 02:11
0 384
New posts   Entertainment
Sat Feb 16, 2008 @ 05:54
4 882
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Sun Feb 18, 2018 @ 04:33
15 4102
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Mon Feb 26, 2018 @ 21:14
56 5785