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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    https://www.businessinsider.com/laws...er-case-2019-9

    Also a good case for witness intimidation, from his tweets. Not established, but a credible case. That's why you conduct an inquiry.
    The article gets off to a poor start. This is the fifth paragraph:

    While the White House's publicly-released notes of the call show the US president made no direct mention of offering aid in exchange for Zelensky's assistance in probing former Vice President Joe Biden, they confirm Trump brought up how the US does "a lot for Ukraine" right before asking Zelensky to do him a "favor" by investigating Biden and discrediting the former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

    Um... no, that wasn't the favor; Trump asked about CrowdStrike, not Biden. And Trump never asked Zelinsky to discredit the already discreditable Robert "Dirty Cop" Mueller. Trump referred to Mueller's testimony, accurately describing it as "an incompetent performance" and then said, "They say a lot of started with the Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important you do it if that's possible."

    So that paragraph is wrong from beginning to end. Do they do any better with the facts in the rest of the article? I don't know, because with such a poor start, I didn't bother to read any further.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      The article gets off to a poor start. This is the fifth paragraph:

      While the White House's publicly-released notes of the call show the US president made no direct mention of offering aid in exchange for Zelensky's assistance in probing former Vice President Joe Biden, they confirm Trump brought up how the US does "a lot for Ukraine" right before asking Zelensky to do him a "favor" by investigating Biden and discrediting the former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

      Um... no, that wasn't the favor; Trump asked about CrowdStrike, not Biden. And Trump never asked Zelinsky to discredit the already discreditable Robert "Dirty Cop" Mueller. Trump referred to Mueller's testimony, accurately describing it as "an incompetent performance" and then said, "They say a lot of started with the Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important you do it if that's possible."

      So that paragraph is wrong from beginning to end. Do they do any better with the facts in the rest of the article? I don't know, because with such a poor start, I didn't bother to read any further.
      If one reads what President Zelenskyy says after Trump asks for the favor, it goes like this:

      Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine.
      And further down the line, Trump says:

      The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • #48
        Your "further down the line" skips over a lot of important context.
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          https://www.businessinsider.com/laws...er-case-2019-9

          Also a good case for witness intimidation, from his tweets. Not established, but a credible case. That's why you conduct an inquiry.
          Good to see you back, Jim#3
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Your "further down the line" skips over a lot of important context.
            And yet you are seemingly unable ot explain why it is important or what kind of difference it makes to how the following statement should be interpreted:

            The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Good to see you back, Jim#3
              Jim did yeoman's work in his recent debate with Carp...
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                No he didn't Jim, and you can not show that to be the case.
                He made sure not to make it explicit, seer, and being a staunch supporter of the dictator I know that you don't want to see it, but yes he did. He first put a hold on the monies that Congress appropriated for Ukraine to defend themselves against our common adversary, okay. That is itself a breach of national security. And then, after Zelensky asked about that aid, Trump said 'I need a favor from you though." That's a quid pro quo. Then he went on about how good the U.S. has been to them, how they haven't necessarily reciprocated in kind, suggesting that they need reciprocate if they want the finacial aid. So, quid pro quo's are normal practices between countries, you know, we help you, you help us, but Trump wasn't asking for Ukraine to do something for the U.S, he was asking Zelensky to do something first and foremost for him personally, get dirt on his political foe, Joe Biden, and secondly for Russia, implicate Cloudstrike and clear Russia from the 2016 election interference so that he can lift the Obama sanctions on them.

                I certainly understand that you will disagree with that, but you were all blind to the collusion and obstruction in the Mueller report as well, and I think I can safely assume that there is probably nothing that you won't defend when it comes to the actions of your beloved corrupt leader. Perhaps his shooting someone in broad daylight on 5th ave would do it.
                Last edited by JimL; 10-01-2019, 05:37 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                  He made sure not to make it explicit...
                  That's probably as close as you'll come to conceding that Trump never said what you accused him of saying, but I'll take it!
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    That's probably as close as you'll come to conceding that Trump never said what you accused him of saying, but I'll take it!
                    Doesn't even matter, MM. Trump used the power of his office and taxpayer money to pressure a foriegn government to interfere in the U.S. 2020 election, in other words for his own personal gain. You don't need a quid pro quo to be explicit. The whole scheme was corrupt at any rate which you will find out if these traitors, Barr, Pompeo, Gulianni, et. al. are forced to testify. Something I'm sure you don't want to see.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Doesn't even matter, MM. Trump used the power of his office and taxpayer money to pressure a foriegn government to interfere in the U.S. 2020 election, in other words for his own personal gain. You don't need a quid pro quo to be explicit. The whole scheme was corrupt at any rate which you will find out if these traitors, Barr, Pompeo, Gulianni, et. al. are forced to testify. Something I'm sure you don't want to see.
                      No he didn’t, but keep that tin foil hat square on your head. It’s quite revealing how democrats could care less about possible criminal conduct of their candidates...
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Except the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" which imply proven violations of the law and not something vague and highly subjective like "conduct unbecoming of a president".
                        My understanding is the term has roots in English common law that imply an unfitness to government without necessarily including criminal actions:

                        The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
                        https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/...demeanors.html

                        The vast majority are crimes, which is all well and good in light of concerns (even aired at the time the Bill of Rights were written) of giving the legislature carte blance to remove any executive they wanted.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          My understanding is the term has roots in English common law that imply an unfitness to government without necessarily including criminal actions:



                          https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/...demeanors.html

                          The vast majority are crimes, which is all well and good in light of concerns (even aired at the time the Bill of Rights were written) of giving the legislature carte blance to remove any executive they wanted.
                          The Founding Fathers listed two crimes -- bribery and treason -- to illustrate the nature of conduct that would warrent impeachment and removal from office. "Maladministration" was explicitly rejected, so I think it's a misreading of the Constitution to say that a president can be impeached without committing a crime.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            The Founding Fathers listed two crimes -- bribery and treason -- to illustrate the nature of conduct that would warrent impeachment and removal from office. "Maladministration" was explicitly rejected, so I think it's a misreading of the Constitution to say that a president can be impeached without committing a crime.
                            And other high crimes or misdemeaners which could include anything such as lying, dishonesty, abuse of power, emoluments, unfit behavior for office, and many other such things, which are not necessarily criminal, should the Congress deem his removal necessary.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              And other high crimes or misdemeaners which could include anything such as....
                              ...spitting on the sidewalk, burping, wearing the wrong color tie, breathing...
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                The Founding Fathers listed two crimes -- bribery and treason -- to illustrate the nature of conduct that would warrent impeachment and removal from office. "Maladministration" was explicitly rejected, so I think it's a misreading of the Constitution to say that a president can be impeached without committing a crime.
                                00000000000000ab000-00aaaa1.jpg

                                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)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X