...And another Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[GoldenBoy89]

But as you know, if you are vocal against Trump at any time, that makes you "biased", "partisan", and not credible. We need only "unbiased" people, who never said anything bad about him.

Boy, that's not loading the deck at all. I hear Trump casinos are hiring.

Right and let’s remember that the Republicans defending the Republican president aren’t acting out of political bias or partisan tribalism. Why, it’s offensive to even suggest they’re acting out of political necessity! It’s not like they have a rabid and angry base to appease and answer to next election.

 

[usexpat97]

Of course their was....associating Barron with a royalty title....how disingenuous....

Do you know what a baron is?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nothing’s stopping Fox or any other outlet not limited by the House majority from bringing in a whole panel of Trump loving Constitutional scholars to debate the other side of the argument. Curious they haven’t found any.

They would just be preaching to the choir; no one on the left would bother to listen which is who needs to be convinced of this charade.

 

[Ricky M]

Don't try changing the subject after I've answered your question.

The question was about Republicans apologizing, backtracking, and etc. It was not about when the issues in question first happened.

Try answering the question instead of changing it to match your answer.

(A typical present-day republican ploy)

And of course nothing changes. The morals and attitudes expressed today are exactly the same as they were back then.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Well, don't let it keep you awake at night since it ain't likely to happen.....

Right. Not when he’s fixing it in his favor.

 

[Albion]

This is absurd that Watergate is worthy of impeachment, yet somehow going to the Ukraine and threatening to aid the U.S.' enemies unless they snoop on the Democrats is not.

Well, it might be...if that scenario you described had actually happened.

I really think we need to strive for the truth of these matters instead of simply talking about how an ALLEGATION, once made but not proven is good enough for impeachment.

We are on the edge of destroying our system of government, and people seem oblivious to the harm that is being done. Do you, for example, imagine that once this impeachment of Trump thing is over, all will return to normal? I surely hope not, since that is not going to be the outcome. We possibly will have created a sort of hybrid system of government that incorporates a version of the "vote of no confidence" provision that exists in Britain and other parliamentary governments, and the presidential elections every four years will determine only the maximum time the winner can stay in office, not the actual term.

 

[cow451]

And Prince called himself that because he thought he was royalty and Master Teague was named that because his parents thought he should be master, etc..... Your thorough reasoning behind names to justify her 'joke'/comment is simply underwhelming....

I did not justify it. I thought my post was very clear.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's not partisanship to object to the Executive branch abusing it's power.

It is when they cannot provide evidence of it.

Republicans who are faithful to their constitutional duty are missing in action.

Nope, they want evidence....something that is sorely lacking.

All four professors were in agreement that the Ukraine situation warrants an impeachment inquiry and the Executive branch must cooperate. It clearly has not.

This is no longer about an inquiry. Pelosi wants articles of impeachment written and Turley strongly rebutted the democrats claim on sufficient evidence to proceed.

 

[usexpat97]

We are on the edge of destroying our system of government,

Sorry, you're not on the edge. Your "democracy" is done. The U.S.' fate is decided by which country has the best hackers.

If Trump is impeached, he will be replaced by another Republican. So I really don't see what the whole "partisan" thing is all about.

 

[Albion]

THAT GROUP OF REPUBS WHO BROKE DOWN THE DOORS OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS!

DID they "break down the doors?"

I think the answer is actually "no," but in a time when accuracy in the case of charges leading to a presidential impeachment isn't held to be very important, what else would be?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you know what a baron is?

a. A British nobleman of the lowest rank.
b. A nobleman of continental Europe, ranked differently in various countries.
c. A Japanese nobleman of the lowest rank.
d. Used as the title for such a nobleman.

 

[Albion]

If Trump is impeached, he will be replaced by another Republican. So I really don't see what the whole "partisan" thing is all about.

Yeh, I picked up that fact a few posts back.

 

[A Realist]

Democrats' Star Impeachment "Witness" Mocks 13-year-old Barron Trump in Hearings UPDATE/S: FLOTUS Responds
Jason Howerton on Twitter

Great witness democrats....really supports your impeachment case.

 

[usexpat97]

It is when they cannot provide evidence of it.

Nope, they want evidence....something that is sorely lacking.

AFTER you find a way to dismiss every single witness and whistleblower that you JUST HEARD.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not partisanship to object to the Executive branch abusing it's power. Congress has clear constitutional duties to check the power of the executive branch. Republicans who are faithful to their constitutional duty are missing in action. The House has sole authority to investigate and impeach. All four professors were in agreement that the Ukraine situation warrants an impeachment inquiry and the Executive branch must cooperate. It clearly has not.

I don't think I was clear in my last post. The partisan language used by the 3 lawyers called by Nadler have been verbally critical of President Trump outside the halls of Congress. They just could not help themselves yesterday showing it in front of the American people. When lawyers are applying the law they must be sterile and not partisan hacks.

Also, Turley was not in agreement over how Congress was handling "obstruction" with Trump. He said the President has every Constitutional right as any American does to appeal subpoenas for executive privilege to the federal courts even up to SCOTUS. Nancy Pelosi today said that she would not be a part of what she called executive obstruction. Turley made the point yesterday that Congress not recognizing the President's legal rights to appeal in the courts is actually the abuse of power they claim against Trump. He made it quite clear there are three branches to our government and Congress does not get to define obstruction any way they think it should be.

 

[redleghunter]

AFTER you find a way to dismiss every single witness and whistleblower that you JUST HEARD.

Did the whistleblower testify? When did I miss that?

 

[usexpat97]

a. A British nobleman of the lowest rank.
b. A nobleman of continental Europe, ranked differently in various countries.
c. A Japanese nobleman of the lowest rank.
d. Used as the title for such a nobleman.

I don't know which dictionary you are quoting from, but I trust the Democrats didn't write that, too? And that the term "baron" actually predates the United States itself? The Democrats didn't name him "Barron". That all his own parents' doing. I'm pretty sure there was zero partisanship in picking the kid's name.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course their was....associating Barron with a royalty title....how disingenuous....

You certainly are.

 

[civilwarbuff]

AFTER you find a way to dismiss every single witness and whistleblower that you JUST HEARD.

Then please list for me 3 pieces of substantiated evidence that Trump told someone or was overheard by someone that 'he expected an investigation by Ukraine before he releases their military aid' or words to that effect. Just 3. Out of the volumes of testimony, if what the dems claim is true, that should be very easy to do.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know which dictionary you are quoting from, but I trust the Democrats didn't write that, too? And that the term "baron" actually predates the United States itself? The Democrats didn't name him "Barron". That all his own parents' doing. I'm pretty sure there was zero partisanship in picking the kid's name.

It wasn't about what name the parents picked it was the joke that was made about it....attempting to equate Barron with a royal title.....Maybe you missed that poor attempt at humor?