Impeaching Donald Trump

[Peter McLennan]

Non sequitur. You are flailing around.

Todally.

[ah693973]

Hi Chris,

It appears that it’s a felony to order federal government workers to further a partisan political campaign. So the effort with Sundland and the others would seem to count.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/29/president-trump-may-have-violated-criminal-provisions-hatch-act/

I'm from Oregon.

Slobodan,

My name is Andy. Pleased to meet you.

You appear to shrink away from engaging in debate and instead avoid answering questions or change the subject. You have not addressed any points in my original post and you have not come up with a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests. I know it is easier to just lay down quips and dodge the tough stuff but this is the point of this thread after all. No thoughts?

Sorry for misrepresenting your view and background. I tried to go from memory and must not have done a good job.

[ah693973]

Hi Kent,

Let's start with the first one:

1. Earlier this year Putin decided to test Trump's resolve in Syria.  He sent a mechanized column of about 500 Russians across the agreed upon boundary, the Euphrates River.  In what became known as the Battle of Kasham, Trump gave the OK to smoke the column first with Marine artillery and then with helicopter gunships and fighter bombers.  Reports were that 200-300 of the 500 troops were wiped out.  Putin was so humiliated that he ordered the bodies of the Russians to be incinerated and buried in the desert rather than that huge number be sent back to Russia.  Reports from inside Russia were that families were told the loss was from fighting terrorists if they were told at all.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/battle-syria-us-russian-mercenaries-commandos-islamic-state-a8370781.html

You make it sound like there was an artillery and air battle between the US and a real Russian army column under Putin's orders. Not true. It was a Syrian column that had some Russian mercenaries in the mix. Read the story that you posted.

Some soldiers protecting themselves from an advancing column is not a calculated move by Trump to against Russia. If Trump is so eager to take on Putin militarily, why did he back down on Venezuela?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Slobodan,

My name is Andy. Pleased to meet you.

You appear to shrink away from engaging in debate and instead avoid answering questions or change the subject. You have not addressed any points in my original post and you have not come up with a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests. I know it is easier to just lay down quips and dodge the tough stuff but this is the point of this thread after all. No thoughts?..

Hi Andy, pleased to meet you too.

No, I am not shrinking away from engaging in debate or dodging anything. After 15,000 posts, and making my stances clear so many times in the past, I am trying to avoid repeating myself. Or perhaps I am just bored with the same old, same old arguments from both sides. Now, your posts were at 6 when we engaged, so you can be forgiven for not knowing where I stand, or the arguments I provided at some point in the past. I realize it is possible that you've been a passive reader of our debates until now, and that you are well familiar with my prior posts, but as you said, our memories often betray us.

I have no intention to go point by point with your list, not out of lack of respect for you, but simply because I do not see a real reason for impeachment, I do no see a crime committed, I do not see corruption in this case, and as I said many times in the past, it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

As for asking me to list "a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests," I thought I provided the answer? How can you expect him to go against Russia when his electoral platform was to improve the relationship, the intention that I support, and apparently a great deal of Americans, directly or indirectly, supported by voting for him. By the way, i am an American citizen, currently in Florida, before that Illinois and Indiana.

[Alan Klein]

Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.

Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:

1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)

This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.

Hi Andy  Nice to meet you.  Some clarifications.  First off Ukraine is not an ally of the US.  We have bi-lateral relationships but I'm not aware of any military guarantees we made to them.  They're also not a member of NATO.

Concerning your five points, I'm not sure what bribery you're talking about.  America gives aid, military and other, to many countries for a purpose.  We wish to influence them to do things we want and get their support when we need it.  If they're not doing what we ask them to do, the president can hold up aid.  If the recipient country wants to dance, they have to pay the piper.  It's not the recipient country's power to control the situation. After all it's our money. 


Second, while it appears to be true that Trump wanted Biden and his son investigated for apparent corruption, Trump asked for investigation and elimination of corruption in general in the Ukraine.  This has been a big problem predating Trump's term.  Obama also tried to influence the Ukraine to clean up their act.  While there may be a political fallout advantage from investigating Biden for Trump, his basic request for investigating possible US violation of the law by Biden and his son and others falls squarely in the responsibility of the President.  Are you suggesting that VP Biden is above the law and should not be investigated because the president may get a political benefit?  That varies little from the Obama's administration investigation of Trump when they thought there was some collusion going on with the Russians.  In that case, the Democrats gained political advantage.  But it is argued by Democrats that there was apparent collusion so the investigation was legitimate.  Same with Biden's apparent corruption investigation. 

[ah693973]

Slobodan,

Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.

What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.

[Alan Klein]

Slobodan,

Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.

What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.

Slobodan explained that Trump wanted to establish a better relation with Russia before his election.  You may not agree with that policy.  But policies of presidents aren't impeachable offenses.  That's what elections are for.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'll let the moderator answer you.

That is lame.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.

Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:

1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)

This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.

+1

[Alan Klein]

That is lame.

Tipping your toe in the water, are you Bart?

[ah693973]

Hi Alan,

If you don't see a country on Russia's border trying to become a democracy with Western values as an ally, you are running in a different universe/value system than most people. Would they be an enemy? Would you rather have Russia as an ally?

If you withhold duly apportioned aid, to coerce a foreign country into providing (real or made up) dirt on your political rival, you are guilty of bribery and using your office for personal gain. Remember the "deliverable" they talked about was a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and HRC.

Your other arguments are not so hot Alan.

It was not a general corruption "ask" by Trump. It was specific, Bidens and HRC with a public announcement of the investigation.

You know that the whole argument hinges on intent. Did Trump have a corrupt intent when he asked for the investigation? A cop has the right to arrest someone for smoking a joint (well used to anyway) but if they arrest the joint smoker only because they didn't give him a bribe then the cop committed a crime.

How did the Democrats gain an advantage when Trump and his confidants were being investigated? Did it leak? Did the public know anything before the election? FYI, the investigation that did leak before the election was about HRC's emails.

Hi Andy  Nice to meet you.  Some clarifications.  First off Ukraine is not an ally of the US.  We have bi-lateral relationships but I'm not aware of any military guarantees we made to them.  They're also not a member of NATO.

Concerning your five points, I'm not sure what bribery you're talking about.  America gives aid, military and other, to many countries for a purpose.  We wish to influence them to do things we want and get their support when we need it.  If they're not doing what we ask them to do, the president can hold up aid.  If the recipient country wants to dance, they have to pay the piper.  It's not the recipient country's power to control the situation. After all it's our money. 


Second, while it appears to be true that Trump wanted Biden and his son investigated for apparent corruption, Trump asked for investigation and elimination of corruption in general in the Ukraine.  This has been a big problem predating Trump's term.  Obama also tried to influence the Ukraine to clean up their act.  While there may be a political fallout advantage from investigating Biden for Trump, his basic request for investigating possible US violation of the law by Biden and his son and others falls squarely in the responsibility of the President.  Are you suggesting that VP Biden is above the law and should not be investigated because the president may get a political benefit?  That varies little from the Obama's administration investigation of Trump when they thought there was some collusion going on with the Russians.  In that case, the Democrats gained political advantage.  But it is argued by Democrats that there was apparent collusion so the investigation was legitimate.  Same with Biden's apparent corruption investigation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,

Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.

What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.

Andy, I think we are going in circles or you are not reading my replies.

1. How do you expect me to engage in the debate? You provided a list of five personal opinions or yours, and I said I disagree with each of them. Am I supposed to prove that there is no crime committed, for instance? Your opinion that there was, is just that, your opinion, and I have no intention of debating personal opinions. You think he is guilty, I think he is not. End of story. When the SCOTUS determines that Trump committed a crime, I'll accept that. Not your opinion (no offense). If Senate impeaches Trump and removes him from office, I'll accept that (though I do not have to agree, as Senate is political, but I will, as a law abiding citizen, respect that).

2. Ukraine. It has been pointed out that Obama sent sleeping bags (how ironic!) to the Ukrainian army. Trump sent actual arms. I am sorry for having to ask, but do you actually understand what is going on in Ukraine? I have the impression that you see the whole Ukraine as an innocent, pro-Western democracy that is just a victim of Russian aggression and territory grab. Right? I hate to disappoint you, but Ukraine is a deeply divided country between the Catholic West and (Christian) Orthodox East. Between ethnic Ukrainians in the West and ethnic Russians in the East. Between Ukrainian language and Russian language. That Ukraine has a long fascist history to this day and was allied with Nazy Germany. That a legitimately elected president was driven out by the same mostly pro-fascist mob in a classic coup d'etat. That the first order of business of the new rulers was to eliminate Russian as the second official language of Ukraine. No wonder that the Ukrainian East, ethnic Russians living there for centuries, didn't like it and rebelled. The solution, as I see it, is to provide a political autonomy to the East. And guess what? That is exactly what is happening right now, with a ceasefire in place and promises of the autonomy by the new president.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?

Correct, some folks are more into avoiding and suggesting, but yes, such vague 'arguments', have led to many threads being closed.
Some folks mistakenly think that this is intelligent.

Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.

Russia, or any form of Sociaism, or Muslims, ...

Hateful people are potentially Negatively intelligent....

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... such vague 'arguments', have led to many threads being closed...

No, Bart, threads have been closed for obnoxious behavior and calling people names, as it has been increasingly practiced by only one side in this debate (and you, among others).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

We need them to fight the common enemy: Islamic extremism. He was sabotaged all the way in that respect, to the point that the relationship is now worse than ever after the cold war, instead of improving.

So, what has Trump done to improve that?

[Alan Klein]

Hi Alan,

If you don't see a country on Russia's border trying to become a democracy with Western values as an ally, you are running in a different universe/value system than most people. Would they be an enemy? Would you rather have Russia as an ally?

If you withhold duly apportioned aid, to coerce a foreign country into providing (real or made up) dirt on your political rival, you are guilty of bribery and using your office for personal gain. Remember the "deliverable" they talked about was a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and HRC.

Your other arguments are not so hot Alan.

It was not a general corruption "ask" by Trump. It was specific, Bidens and HRC with a public announcement of the investigation.

You know that the whole argument hinges on intent. Did Trump have a corrupt intent when he asked for the investigation? A cop has the right to arrest someone for smoking a joint (well used to anyway) but if they arrest the joint smoker only because they didn't give him a bribe then the cop committed a crime.

How did the Democrats gain an advantage when Trump and his confidants were being investigated? Did it leak? Did the public know anything before the election? FYI, the investigation that did leak before the election was about HRC's emails.

But Biden and his sons look like crooks.  His son used his father's position as VP to get a $50,000 a month ($600,000/ a year) job from a Ukrainian oil company.  Biden's son never ever worked in the oil field.  What a lucky guy.    How do you think that happened?  When the Ukraine began to investigate the company Biden's son worked for because of corruption, the VP got the investigator fired.  How convenient.  So we should let the VP be above the law because it might look like the president is going after him for political reasons.  Maybe so.  But he could be going after him because Biden and his son are crooks.  Same deal in CHina where Biden's kid got a deal with a Chinese corp worth 1 1/2 billion.    Wow, His son was lucky again.  Some people got all the luck.  Stuff like that never happened to me.   Well, my father wasn't a politician. 

[Alan Klein]

So, what has Trump done to improve that?

Trump destroyed ISIS for one, and its leader, al Baghdadi and his #2 were just killed.  Russia has been killing terrorists as well.  They're no friend of Russia either.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Are you off your meds?

Not acceptable. Behave or be gone.

Jeremy

[ah693973]

Alan,

None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example). It will always be the case that fathers help their sons get ahead (you can probably figure out the proper example to insert here).

Again, it is motivation. Did Trump ask China to look into Ivanka? Does he have a history of being concerned about corruption other than when it benefits him? Why was a crucial part of the "ask" a public announcement of the investigation by Ukraine? Can you imagine what that would do to Biden's campaign if that announcement came out of "nowhere"? Why did they release the money 2 days after things became public?

 

But Biden and his sons look like crooks.  His son used his father's position as VP to get a $50,000 a month ($600,000/ a year) job from a Ukrainian oil company.  Biden's son never ever worked in the oil field.  What a lucky guy.    How do you think that happened?  When the Ukraine began to investigate the company Biden's son worked for because of corruption, the VP got the investigator fired.  How convenient.  So we should let the VP be above the law because it might look like the president is going after him for political reasons.  Maybe so.  But he could be going after him because Biden and his son are crooks.  Same deal in CHina where Biden's kid got a deal with a Chinese corp worth 1 1/2 billion.    Wow, His son was lucky again.  Some people got all the luck.  Stuff like that never happened to me.   Well, my father wasn't a politician.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Alan,

None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example).

They were copyrights and not patents.  I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.