Are you a Trump supporter? Or a Bernie Sanders supporter?
Are you a Trump supporter? Or a Bernie Sanders supporter?
Judgement refers to the Senate vote. The senate can vote to remove him from offie and disqualify him from further office, but the impeachment itself cannot.
Ah damn that's too bad, I didn't realize that til just now. Hopefully this will still deal a fatal blow to the Trump campaign.That's only when it's also confirmed by Senate, so unlikely to have any relevance for the 2020 election
So say republicans try to make the argument that there is no direct evidence of any sort of quid pro quo exchange here. I think there is clear evidence of that but I think I have already seen republicans saying there is no direct evidence of that. Is asking a forgeign government to investigate a US citizen/political opponent inherently illegal?
Basically, assume that Trump did not do anything in regards to withholding aid to Ukraine (even though I think he definitely did), would the act of asking a foreign government to investigate Biden alone be considered illegal and if so by what law.
I just really want to stress that I do not believe Trump to be innocent at all, I just want to anticipate how Republicans will try to argue against all this (saying there is no quid pro quo) and then see if you can still easily point to the asking for Biden to be investigated as illegal, thus necessitating impeachment.
Then again, based on what others have answered, impeachment does not seem to require an overtly illegal act, just whatever congress deems as something unfit for office. The only reason I am asking about what is considered legal/illegal is I cannot imagine republicans would ever support impeachment based on something being considered "not proper." I think for any republicans to actually switch sides it has to be something overtly illegal, which is incredibly stupid but that is where we are.
Thanks, now it is all clear in my head. Just wanted to be sure before talking out of my ass.it's illegal for a campaign to solicit help from a foreign government. Quid pro quo doesn't matter.
I dont think anything will come out of this and this seems to me more like the democratic party doing it for publicity and PR but hey, make the fucker sweat
The bigger point is that no one has to demonstrate he broke a law. The standard in the Constitution is "high crimes and misdemeanors" which means precisely nothing more or less than what Congress wants it to mean.Thanks.
As a Canadian I was curious about this too but didn't want to ask in this thread due to the hostility. We could use less knee jerk posts calling people nazis or assuming there is ill-intent for asking legitimate questions on this forum. It's not unusual to want to be made aware of the actual laws we are discussing when we say someone "broke the law".
The obvious answer is that he just likes access. He'll do anything for it.
There's a really revealing interview where the interviewer just straight up asks him why he changed and his answer is basically "He's the president, so I want to be the guy the president counts on."
Here's the original but you need an account: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/magazine/lindsey-graham-what-happened-trump.html
I dont think anything will come out of this and this seems to me more like the democratic party doing it for publicity and PR but hey, make the fucker sweat
it's illegal for a campaign to solicit help from a foreign government. Quid pro quo doesn't matter.
Congressional Dems have a constitutional DUTY to impeach here. It's nothing to do with publicity or PR and everything to do with upholding the law and trying to protect this democracy and its future elections.I dont think anything will come out of this and this seems to me more like the democratic party doing it for publicity and PR but hey, make the fucker sweat
as someone overwhelmed by the amount of news coverage, how do we know this is a redacted transcript?
Thanks.
As a Canadian I was curious about this too but didn't want to ask in this thread due to the hostility. We could use less knee jerk posts calling people nazis or assuming there is ill-intent for asking legitimate questions on this forum. It's not unusual to want to be made aware of the actual laws we are discussing when we say someone "broke the law".
Well if by nothing will happen means he won't be removed from office, true. But this is a pretty easily to follow example of illegal activity by the president and we are just at the opening here. Moderates are not going to favor the president come election time.I dont think anything will come out of this and this seems to me more like the democratic party doing it for publicity and PR but hey, make the fucker sweat
I dont think anything will come out of this and this seems to me more like the democratic party doing it for publicity and PR but hey, make the fucker sweat
You do this now because it's easier to make people understand this than the Mueller business. Although still not easy enough for some people to grasp, apparently.Look good in election season. Otherwise why not start impeachment proceedings oh, I dont know, anytime the last 3 years for the myriad of horrible shit hes done?
Please stop ascribing strategy to this collection of idiots they call an admin.Why do I get the feeling they did this on purpose?
Because they knew it would get tweeted out...and readers would read what the White House wants them to believe.
Because nothing else presented has been in plain view, current, easily explainable to the public, etc. This is a perfect storm scandal to actually make the attempt to take him down with because it's all right there.Look good in election season. Otherwise why not start impeachment proceedings oh, I dont know, anytime the last 3 years for the myriad of horrible shit hes done?
According to Article I of the Constitution, yes. "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States;"
To be honest, I'm not sure how much that document matters anymore, though.
You have way more faith in moderates than I doWell if by nothing will happen means he won't be removed from office, true. But this is a pretty easily to follow example of illegal activity by the president and we are just at the opening here. Moderates are not going to favor the president come election time.
Impeachment and conviction.Wait - is this impeachment *and* conviction? Or just being impeached disqualifies him?
Thanks.
As a Canadian I was curious about this too but didn't want to ask in this thread due to the hostility. We could use less knee jerk posts calling people nazis or assuming there is ill-intent for asking legitimate questions on this forum. It's not unusual to want to be made aware of the actual laws we are discussing when we say someone "broke the law".
Why bother releasing a rough transcript when it's incriminating. Either release the verbatim one so you can at least say you did it or have the rough summary not include the actual crime.
Dumbasses.
Look good in election season. Otherwise why not start impeachment proceedings oh, I dont know, anytime the last 3 years for the myriad of horrible shit hes done?
I dont think anything will come out of this and this seems to me more like the democratic party doing it for publicity and PR but hey, make the fucker sweat
Sen. David Perdue tells CNN that he was among a small group of House and Senate Republicans who reviewed the rough transcript at the White House before it was released
Perdue said White House Counsel Pat Cippolone was in the room, and that the President called in and said everything was fine about his conduct.
When asked if any Republicans raise concerns, Perdue said "no."
In 1998, she helped write a law protecting intelligence community whistle-blowers — the same law that Democrats argue that Mr. Trump is flouting.
Really would have been great if Mueller didn't affirm the precedent of a sitting president not being allowed to be indited.
Enough won't. I mean 100,000 in three states is all we need if it's 2016 all over again. Moderates at least pretend to be enlightened thinkers that value the constitution. At least a few of them no doubt actually are.
Explainable to the public is key here. You can explain exactly what was done wrong in one sentence. "Trump withheld 400 million dollars in aid (with no reason given) to the Ukraine, and when discussing the matter, directly asked the Ukrainian leader to dig up dirt on a political opponent." Very straightforward.Because nothing else presented has been in plain view, current, easily explainable to the public, etc. This is a perfect storm scandal to actually make the attempt to take him down with because it's all right there.
Also that Clinton is unpopular and Biden isn't unfortunately plays into how people reacted in 2016 vs 2020.
I'll be preeetty damn happy to be wrong about this and for Trump to be kicked to the curb, trust me
Look good in election season. Otherwise why not start impeachment proceedings oh, I dont know, anytime the last 3 years for the myriad of horrible shit hes done?