Pages: 1 ... 139 140 [141] 142 143 ... 196   Go Down

Author Topic: Impeaching Donald Trump  (Read 120935 times)

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4452
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2800 on: January 06, 2020, 03:38:06 pm »

Nope!

Say, ya dont think the lack of even mentioning the impeachment in the House's opening yearly statement means they know impeachment has been a loosing battle?

Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15906
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2801 on: January 06, 2020, 03:40:54 pm »

Thank you also :)

I guess I feel like I've mentioned it all before - my background info is no secret, but if it really helps everyone to have it listed I'll update my profile when I get a moment.   I'm a 47 YO white guy living in Austin TX.

I loved Austin. I was stationed there for a couple years right at the end of my military career. That was in 1955 through early 57. It was a relatively small town then. Not any more.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15906
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2802 on: January 06, 2020, 03:42:08 pm »

Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.

You could hardly call what went on in the House a battle, Peter. But if it was, the Democrats won a battle and lost the war.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4997
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2803 on: January 06, 2020, 03:46:35 pm »

Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.

Not according to Noah Feldman, the law professor the Dems called.  He is not impeached until the articles are sent.  Remember, this is your guy's point of view, not mine. 

But anyway, battle won, really?  Not according to the polls and campaign money that has been raised.  I have to agree with Russ here, battle won but the war has been lost.  Penny wise but dollar foolish, to put it another way. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3264
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2804 on: January 06, 2020, 03:52:48 pm »

No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.

Doesn't this still leave us with someone needing to prove that the request for a favor was actually for Trumps personal gain and not something that might be in the national interest.
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4845
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2805 on: January 06, 2020, 05:20:47 pm »

Not according to Noah Feldman, the law professor the Dems called.  He is not impeached until the articles are sent.  Remember, this is your guy's point of view, not mine.
You are cherry picking. The two other lawyers called by Democrats and the lawyer called by the Republicans (Tribe) disagreed with Feldman's interpretation. Lindsay Graham has threatened to amend the Senate rules and begin the impeachment trial even if Pelosi doesn't deliver the impeachment articles, so at least some Republicans lawmakers as well believe that delivery of the impeachment articles to the Senate is not required by the Constitution.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2020, 06:13:32 pm by faberryman »
Logged

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1994
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2806 on: January 06, 2020, 05:38:07 pm »

[Referring to 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."]

Doesn't this still leave us with someone needing to prove that the request for a favor was actually for Trumps personal gain and not something that might be in the national interest.

In a proceeding before the Federal Election Commission, or a subsequent appeal of an adverse FEC decision to a federal court, probably not.  It is sufficient that the contribution or donation or other thing of value came from a foreign national and would have conferred a political benefit.

However, in a Senate trial of the impeachment, some of President Trump's more ardent defenders might try to argue that.  It's a weak argument, in my opinion, especially since every senator is aware that U.S. presidents don't ask foreign heads of state or government to initiate investigations of U.S. citizens.  (In those rare instances where federal agencies require assistance of that kind―almost always involving intelligence or counterintelligence matters―there are established channels for U.S. agency officials to submit official requests to their international partner agencies.)

If I were defending Trump, I would stipulate that, yes, he violated the federal election law, but argue that the violation does not rise to the level of an abuse of power (i.e., high crime and misdemeanor) sufficient to justify removal from office.

Of course, if the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives can establish that Trump withheld congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine improperly―either to apply leverage on the Ukrainian president or in violation of federal law―the 52 USC §30121 violation would be rather trivial by comparison.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2020, 10:48:51 pm by Chris Kern »
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2807 on: January 06, 2020, 05:46:19 pm »

Let's see what Bolton has to say...
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4845
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2808 on: January 06, 2020, 05:53:39 pm »

Let's see what Bolton has to say...
about the "drug deal".
« Last Edit: January 06, 2020, 06:12:47 pm by faberryman »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18001
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2809 on: January 06, 2020, 06:08:43 pm »

No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.

That distinction doesn’t make any sense to me. So, Trump should have offered Zelensky $1 and all is good? Or Putin need to find a single US citizen willing to pay him $1 and all meddling would be legal?

You initially argued that such a paid service (opposition research) would serve as a proxy that unpaid favor is a “thing of value.” Perhaps, but by the same token, one can not argue that paid is cool, but unpaid is illegal, no?

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1994
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2810 on: January 06, 2020, 06:58:26 pm »

Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?

No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.

That distinction doesn’t make any sense to me. So, Trump should have offered Zelensky $1 and all is good? Or Putin need to find a single US citizen willing to pay him $1 and all meddling would be legal?

Contact the members of your congressional delegation and tell them you want them to change the law.

I know you have relocated to Belgrade, but as long as you remain a U.S. citizen and continue to pay taxes―thank you for your contribution to mitigating the federal budget deficit, by the way―I believe you are still represented by your Florida congressional representative (24th district?) and senators.

And make certain you're registered to vote: the Republicans are going to need you in November.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2020, 07:05:02 pm by Chris Kern »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4997
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2811 on: January 06, 2020, 07:47:16 pm »

Finally, we're starting to some reason from the Dems. 

"President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats."  Joe Lieberman 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15851
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2812 on: January 06, 2020, 10:26:03 pm »

[Referring to 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."]

In a proceeding before the Federal Election Commission, or a subsequent appeal of an adverse FEC decision to a federal court, probably not.  It is sufficient that the contribution or donation or other thing of value came from a foreign national and would have conferred a political benefit.

However, in a Senate trial of the impeachment, some of President Trump's more ardent defenders might try to argue that.  It's a weak argument, in my opinion, especially since every senator is aware that U.S. presidents don't ask foreign heads of state or government to initiate investigations of U.S. citizens.  (In those rare instances where federal agencies require assistance of that kind―almost always involving intelligence or counterintelligence matters―there are established channels for U.S. agency officials to submit official requests to their international partner agencies.)

If I were defending Trump, I would stipulate that, yes, he violated the federal election law, but the violation does not rise to the level of an abuse of power (i.e., high crime and misdemeanor) sufficient to justify removal from office.

Of course, if the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives can establish that Trump withheld congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine improperly―either to apply leverage on the Ukrainian president or in violation of federal law―the 52 USC §30121 violation would be rather trivial by comparison.

As long as the Bidens appear to have violated US law, a presidential request to a foreign government to assist in investigating those violations is perfectly legal.  If there is coincidental political fallout that the president gains something, that does not make it illegal.  Otherwise, if a Senator from the opposition party kills his wife and flees to France let's say, then the American president couldn't ask the French president to prosecute and send the senator back here to be held for murder because people could claim the president is doing it for political purposes and should be impeached.  That would make the murderer above the law as people are saying Biden should be - above the law. 

A similar example is the Federal Election law regarding payments Trump made women he had affairs with to keep quiet.  As long as the candidate would have paid for hush money  for private, none political reasons, then there is no election law violation even if he got an additional political benefit for the election. 


The fact is nearly every decision a politician makes has political consequences that affects his re-election.  However, if the basis for the decision is legally his to make, then we don;t second guess.  Otherwise,no decision could ever be legally made.  The Muslim ban presidential order comes to mind.  The SCOTUS allowed the law to stand in all areas the president had authority to decide even though he may have mainly done it for political reasons.  Scotus didn't get into his mind to figure out what his real intent was.  They looked at the law and the constitution.  As long as it's legal, the rest is beside the point. 


These things should be left for the election for the people to decide when they vote.  Using impeachment to prosecute political acts is dangerous for the country.  It opens us up to government breakdown every time the executive and House are from opposite parties.  We're going down a bad path.  We've already spent the first three years of a president's term fighting about impeachment instead of getting on with the country's business.We should be fighting over policy and government action regarding running the country.  All we're doing now is shooting ourselves in the foot. 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8911
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2813 on: January 07, 2020, 05:46:38 am »

As long as the Bidens appear to have violated US law, [...]

What on earth are you talking about?
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2814 on: January 07, 2020, 07:34:07 am »

Alleged businessman, President Trump proves he cannot read a balance sheet (I guess he didn't take the right course at Wharton).  Yesterday he tweeted about the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment.  This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D.  Time for the President to go back and retake Finance 101.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4997
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2815 on: January 07, 2020, 07:54:01 am »

Alleged businessman, President Trump proves he cannot read a balance sheet (I guess he didn't take the right course at Wharton).  Yesterday he tweeted about the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment.  This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D.  Time for the President to go back and retake Finance 101.

Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it.  That is how you make it effective. 

It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works.  My God. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18001
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2816 on: January 07, 2020, 08:09:37 am »

... the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment.  This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D...

And what exactly is the practical value of that equipment without said “personnel, maintenance, and R&D”?

What is the cost of your car? Just the price you paid? Many websites these days will add a “true cost of ownership” that includes, gas, maintenance, repairs, etc. Don't forget the cost of driving school, taxes, parking, tolls, etc. This all adds up to the true cost of owning a car. So, the $2 trillion spent on military equipment is the true cost of ownership of the $420 hardware alone.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15851
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2817 on: January 07, 2020, 08:11:13 am »

Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it.  That is how you make it effective. 

It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works.  My God. 
My wife tells me she's the happiest woman in the world. :)

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4600
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2818 on: January 07, 2020, 08:50:19 am »

Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.


This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?
Logged
--
Robert

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4997
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2819 on: January 07, 2020, 09:12:10 am »

Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.


This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?

First off, Twitter has always been a swamp fest.  It is how it works.  Being outrageous on the platform was a thing long before Trump. 

Second, to take out the head of a major state funded terrorist organization (whom can not be easily replaced) and to reestablish deterrents lost under the feckless Obama administration. 

Iran is has grown bold in it actions because they got the impression that no one would really do anything.  This was mainly Obama's fault with his appeasement strategy, but partly Trumps fault by continuing it (partially) in the beginning of his term.  However, just like Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis, it does not work.  Sometimes action is needed to prevent worse situations from arising.  Plus, Trump drew a line in the sand, and, unlike Obama, he kept to it. 
« Last Edit: January 07, 2020, 09:15:11 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 139 140 [141] 142 143 ... 196   Go Up