Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[lilpixieofterror]

He didn't ask if you would listen, Lilpix, he asked if want to hear. Your evasion makes obvious the fact that you would rather not hear. There are none so deaf.......

What a ridiculous analogy! One has to wonder why you're trying so hard to defend the President for his obstructing an inquiry into his actions. Well, we're not really wondering why, we know why, and so do you. The presidents obstruction is not protected by the Constitution, it's a violation of the Constitution. An alleged murderer doesn't have the power to determine what the admissable evidence will be or will not be. He doesn't have the power to order witnesses not to testify or to block direct evidence from being seen. The President is using his power to violate the Constitution, not to adhere to it.

The White House is not the Presidents House, it's the peoples house and it is the peoples prerogative to have it searched, if you will, not the guests.

Go ahead and try this theory and see where it gets you.

[lilpixieofterror]

If I can be frank I think you are extremely trusting of the current government. I doubt very many conservatives on this forum would be similarly dispassionate about significantly lesser allegations about Obama's administration. I bet if I search for "Clinton emails" I would find a rabid mob ready to tear her limb from limb. And I am not unsympathetic to those who felt that way for legitimate reasons (I was one of them) for reasons I will lay out below.

I do not feel they had that right. There's a reason we recognize human rights which transcend borders, governments, and constitutions.

This is a category error. I am private citizen who doesn't report to The People. I don't have any special public trust or public authority. I can't act in a significant way against The People due to blackmail or conflicts of interest. I've felt this way my whole life (see my above comment re: Clinton). I felt she violated the public trust by acting in a way to hide communications from FOIA and did so in a reckless manner. Not trying to shift the discussion but I assure you I try to be consistent in this expectation.

We know Clinton committed a crime, what actual crime, did Trump commit?

[seanD]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?

Mr. Bolton declined to say on Monday precisely what he would be willing to tell Congress. But former White House officials and people close to Mr. Bolton have indicated that his testimony would likely be damning to Mr. Trump and put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him.

Source

Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

[DivineOb]

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion. My point is that I apply the same standards to the person I ultimately voted for as for the person I ultimately voted against. And when I was assured from voices "on the left" that this was a nothingburger I was totally unconvinced because I know that there is no legitimate justification (not necessarily criminal) for managing her emails the way she did.

Of course. The government has to keep secrets in some cases to prevent greater harm from befalling us. Trump gave a the readout (not a transcript!) from the call so obviously this is not that.

We know Clinton committed a crime, what actual crime, did Trump commit?

Impeachment does not require an underlying crime, full stop. If you're unconvinced let me know what you think of a couple of examples and then we can get more specific about Trump if you want.

Say I was elected president. On day 1 I announce my intent to do nothing but play Minecraft all day and that's what I do. Memos go unread. Briefings ignored. Phone is disconnected from the wall. I refuse to meet with lawmakers or advisors. Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

What if I just start announcing every government secret we have on Twitter. No doubt you're aware that the president can declassify anything and everything she wants. Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

What if Canada invades and I order the military to stand down and not return fire under any conditions? Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

I don't claim that Trump did any of these things. But surely you agree that impeachment and removal is essential in all these cases.

[Watermelon]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?



Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion. My point is that I apply the same standards to the person I ultimately voted for as for the person I ultimately voted against. And when I was assured from voices "on the left" that this was a nothingburger I was totally unconvinced because I know that there is no legitimate justification (not necessarily criminal) for managing her emails the way she did.

Of course. The government has to keep secrets in some cases to prevent greater harm from befalling us. Trump gave a the readout (not a transcript!) from the call so obviously this is not that.

Impeachment does not require an underlying crime, full stop. If you're unconvinced let me know what you think of a couple of examples and then we can get more specific about Trump if you want.

High crimes and misdemeanors, is the standard laid out in the constitution. Is there evidence high crimes and misdemeanors, took place?

Say I was elected president. On day 1 I announce my intent to do nothing but play Minecraft all day and that's what I do. Memos go unread. Briefings ignored. Phone is disconnected from the wall. I refuse to meet with lawmakers or advisors. Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

A president that will just let congress and the administration state, run things? Sounds like congress and the administration states dream come true. I think they would be pleased and might even try to appeal the 22nd amendment to let you stay in, for life.

What if I just start announcing every government secret we have on Twitter. No doubt you're aware that the president can declassify anything and everything she wants. Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

What if Canada invades and I order the military to stand down and not return fire under any conditions? Did I break a law? Or have I acted in a way so contrary to the expectations of my office that I must be removed for the sake of the republic?

I don't claim that Trump did any of these things. But surely you agree that impeachment and removal is essential in all these cases.

What if a frog had wings?

[Mountain Man]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?



Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

It's curious that he would refuse to testify before the House, but seems geared up to testify before the Senate.

But then the Senate, using the rules that were in place during the Clinton impeachment (thank you, Chuck Schumer), may be prohibited from calling witnesses that were not part of the House inquiry, so who knows what Bolton's game is.

[rogue06]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?



Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

I seriously doubt he is bluffing. There would be nothing to gain.

[DivineOb]

I don't need to ask BtC. I followed that case closely *and wanted her charged*. I also understand why she wasn't charged and it wasn't because Comey hoped she would win.

My point is that the readout was released so there is no claim that this is a case where secrecy is required, contra your absolute question about secrecy.

High crimes and misdemeanors, is the standard laid out in the constitution. Is there evidence high crimes and misdemeanors, took place?

Yes, there is clear evidence that high crimes took place.

I asked you three questions and you answered none of them. One might infer that you didn't because you know that none of those cases are criminal yet all are examples of "high crimes". If there is a criminal statue associated with failing to 'support and defend the constitution' (I don't think there is but whatever) then go ahead and ignore that example.

[JimL]

I wonder what folks think about this? This seems to be a new development, or is Bolton bluffing (emphasis mine)?



Wasn't this the guy that was adamant about attacking Iran, which was a reason Trump gave him the boot?

According to Bolton he offered his resignation, the president said let's talk about it, and he apparently resigned anyway. The reason for the resignation though was not about Iran, it was about what Bolton dubbed the "drug deal", i.e. the Ukraine scandel that Trump has now been impeached for and that Bolton is apparently willing to testify about.

[Mountain Man]

It still leaves the question of why he was unwilling to testify before the House.

[JimL]

It still leaves the question of why he was unwilling to testify before the House.

Who knows. If one wants to be cynical about it, he's supposedly writing a book. Perhaps he didn't want to give away the reason, and has since changed his mind, prior to the book coming out. But nobody knows why but himself.

[seanD]

It still leaves the question of why he was unwilling to testify before the House.

Politics is a dirty game.

[lilpixieofterror]

It still leaves the question of why he was unwilling to testify before the House.

[Sam]

So you are in favor of Bolton testifying before the Senate or, if it subpoenas him, the House?

--Sam