Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What Exact Crime Is Trump Guilty Of?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Interesting and balanced:

    Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

    Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

    Democrats seem to assume the answer is no, that this kind of request could never be proper, given the implications for our electoral system. “Smoking gun” is what they say about Trump’s urging Ukraine—and now also China—to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country
    .


    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-rival-229341
    From the article:

    From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.
    (emphasis added)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Fischer believes that "the fact that the president used the power of his public office for his personal political gain is a matter that should be of immense concern to Congress regardless of whether campaign finance laws might be implicated."

      That's not a fact, that's an unproven assumption about the President's motives.

      The short version is that the Ukrainian government was so troubled by Biden's dirty deal that they spent almost two-years trying to get the US to look into it, but they were repeatedly stonewalled, first by the US Embassy in Kiev, and later by Federal prosecutors in New York who were given evidence hand delivered by a US attorney who was hired by Ukrainian officials. When that effort failed, the Ukrainian government had concerns about its relationship with the US, so they finally contacted the US State Department who contacted Rudy Giuliani who-- well, you know the rest. (Here's the long version, if you're interested.)

      So Trump's motives very well could have simply been a desire to show the Ukrainian government that we are still on good terms and that the US takes their concerns seriously and is showing its good will by supporting and cooperating with the Ukraine's investigative efforts.

      But of course it's in liberals' best interests to always assume the worst about Trump, so that's what they're instinctively going to do.
      And it's in conservative's best interests to always assume the best about Trump and the worst about liberals, etc., and to only believe sources that confirm their already existing biases. It's heartening to know that Trump is suddenly such a crusader to root out corruption, but it is a bit odd that his obsession with corruption seems to be restricted to his political rivals.

      Comment


      • Hamilton discussed impeachment in Federalist Paper 65:

        http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../a1_2_5s9.html

        The first paragraph:


        A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
        The word "POLITICAL" is all in caps in the original text. Impeachment has to do, Hamilton argues, with a violation of the public trust, not wit a criminal offense. That's why an official who's convicted isn't fined or imprisoned as they would be for a criminal or civil offense but removed from political office. The US Criminal Code hadn't been written when the US Constitution was written so an impeachable offense doesn't have to violate an offense in this book.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Hamilton discussed impeachment in Federalist Paper 65:

          http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../a1_2_5s9.html

          The first paragraph:




          The word "POLITICAL" is all in caps in the original text. Impeachment has to do, Hamilton argues, with a violation of the public trust, not wit a criminal offense. That's why an official who's convicted isn't fined or imprisoned as they would be for a criminal or civil offense but removed from political office. The US Criminal Code hadn't been written when the US Constitution was written so an impeachable offense doesn't have to violate an offense in this book.
          While impeachment is a political process, the Constitution explicitly reserves it as a remedy for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

          "Violating the public trust", like "maladministration", is far too vague and subjective to offer a meaningful guideline.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            While impeachment is a political process, the Constitution explicitly reserves it as a remedy for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

            "Violating the public trust", like "maladministration", is far too vague and subjective to offer a meaningful guideline.
            No, though maladministration itself is vague in definition, but the definitions encompassed by the term are impeachable offences. For instance, "violating the public trust," depending upon the trust violated is an impeachable offense. The violation needn't be a criminal act, but a violation of the obligation of the office.

            http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
            Last edited by JimL; 10-07-2019, 06:33 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
              No, though maladministration itself is vague in definition, but the definitions encompassed by the term are impeachable offences. For instance, "violating the public trust," depending upon the trust violated is an impeachable offense. The violation needn't be a criminal act, but a violation of the obligation of the office.

              http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
              That's not what the Constitution says. If it's not bribery or treason or other similarly serious crime, then it's not impeachable.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                That's not what the Constitution says. If it's not bribery or treason or other similarly serious crime, then it's not impeachable.
                The Dems will make up the rules as they go, so it doesn't really matter what the actual intent of the impeachment language is.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  That's not what the Constitution says. If it's not bribery or treason or other similarly serious crime, then it's not impeachable.
                  Well, not that it would matter to you, you probably didn't read the link. But, regardless, Trump is guilty of criminal acts anyway. He is guilty of extortion of a foriegn government, and yes, there was a quid pro quo, and it's in writing and signed by Zelensky. There are also witnesses to that fact. He also put national security at risk in doing so, by withholding nearly 400 mil in military aid for which he has now made 3 or 4 different excuses for doing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    The Dems will make up the rules as they go, so it doesn't really matter what the actual intent of the impeachment language is.
                    Still valiantly defending at every turn the guy you are not a supporter of I see, CP.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      The Dems will make up the rules as they go, so it doesn't really matter what the actual intent of the impeachment language is.
                      After all the Constitution is a "living document" meant to say whatever they want it to say at any given moment regardless of the resulting contradictions and inconsistencies.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                        ...there was a quid pro quo, and it's in writing and signed by Zelensky. There are also witnesses to that fact.
                        Source?
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          After all the Constitution is a "living document" meant to say whatever they want it to say at any given moment regardless of the resulting contradictions and inconsistencies.
                          “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

                          ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’"
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

                            ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’"
                            Hillary providing a quote about where she stands:






                            Imagine the reaction if Trump talked about shredding the Constitution.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • If the law doesn't say what you want, then destroy the law. It's the Democrat way.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Imagine the reaction if Trump talked about shredding the Constitution.
                                Good for me but not for thee...
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Whateverman, Today, 07:17 PM
                                1 response
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, Today, 04:39 PM
                                1 response
                                17 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Maranatha  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 03:30 PM
                                7 responses
                                69 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 08:11 PM
                                4 responses
                                42 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 07:16 PM
                                28 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X