Democrats' impeachment report cites Trump obstruction and withholding aid

[KCfromNC]

The courts can decide who must testify.

Nah, Donald can just tell them not to, no harm, no foul. Or at least that's what the theme seems to be for subpoenas from one of the other branches of government.

 

[mark46]

I agree with everything that you say. However, 6 months for an investigation and trial is not too much within our judicial and political system. There basic documents have not been provided, and a court would give the Congress most of those documents, including lots of transcripts of meetings and phone conversations.

The US simply is not set up for immediate trials, without checks and balances.

....however, that process would take months and would most likely extend the impeachment process through the election. The McGahn ruling took the better part of 3 months and is still under appeal.

Meanwhile, we have a President who has clearly demonstrated his willingness to do anything to support his political campaign. He will continue to act this way, further undermining our democracy and the 2020 election. The Executive branch has interfered with the power of the House to investigate and impeach the President (a power reserved solely for the House).

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree with everything that you say. However, 6 months for an investigation and trial is not too much within our judicial and political system. There basic documents have not been provided, and a court would give the Congress most of those documents, including lots of transcripts of meetings and phone conversations.

The thing is, though, they're not needed to put together a coherent, consistent, well-backed case showing that Donald abused the power of the office. So asking to wait for them just reads like an attempt to drag out the process.

If there's anything in there which exonerates the accused, he'd more than welcome to stop withholding it from investigators. But he's not doing that, so I'm not sure what is served by waiting.

 

[iluvatar5150]

December 15, 2016
Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump

They had it planned from the beginning that whatever he does would be something they could use.

Perhaps he should've thought of that before giving them so much ammunition.

 

[Aldebaran]

If the Democrats must impeach at this point, I believe that there should be only one article: Abuse Of Power. Trump abused power when he requested that Ukraine help him in his election campaign.

Can you quote any part of the transcript or anywhere else where Trump said anything about getting help from Ukraine of his election campaign?

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps he should've thought of that before giving them so much ammunition.

I see how you're trying to shift attention away from the original plan of the democrat leadership over to the president that they were attacking. Still doesn't change the fact that they were setting this up from the beginning--even before he took office.

 

[Belk]

I see how you're trying to shift attention away from the original plan of the democrat leadership over to the president that they were attacking. Still doesn't change the fact that they were setting this up from the beginning--even before he took office.

How is that relevant? If the police announce they are setting up a speed trap then the people who get caught in it can claim they should not get tickets? Is that the logic here?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I see how you're trying to shift attention away from the original plan of the democrat leadership over to the president that they were attacking. Still doesn't change the fact that they were setting this up from the beginning--even before he took office.

The article you linked to was about his obvious conflicts of interest, which are still there and still reasons to question his motives on a lot of things. I don't really care what the Democratic leadership was planning. If Trump wasn't so obviously corrupt, they wouldn't have had anything to go after him with. They would've made the usual bluster and that would've been the end of it. We saw the same thing with Obama - Republicans were looking for any dirt on him they could find, but there wasn't much there to find.

 

[Aldebaran]

How is that relevant? If the police announce they are setting up a speed trap then the people who get caught in it can claim they should not get tickets? Is that the logic here?

A speed trap for speeding motorists is hardly equal to deciding in advance that the president needs to be impeached before he even takes office. A more accurate analogy would be a federal agency arresting and charging someone with dealing drugs out of a home before the tenants ever came into possession of any drugs or even moved into the home yet, and just because they don't like the person.

 

[Aldebaran]

The article you linked to was about his obvious conflicts of interest, which are still there and still reasons to question his motives on a lot of things.

Are motives really what's important? Because....

I don't really care what the Democratic leadership was planning.

.....as you say, you don't really care about the motives of those attacking Trump. Then why care about what Trump's motives were in anything he did?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Are motives really what's important?

.....as you say, you don't really care about the motives of those attacking Trump. Then why care about what Trump's motives were in anything he did?

Well yeah, if you edit my post like that and also ignore the content of the link you posted, it certainly seems like I contradicted myself.

Yes, motives matter. Your link didn't say anything about Democrats chasing impeachment in order to line their own pockets; it talked about laying the groundwork for impeachment because of Trump's ongoing conflicts of interest. That their was troublesome behavior on his part 3 years ago says nothing about any improper motivations on their part. Rather, it just shows that your guy has been doing crooked (or at least crooked-looking) stuff for his entire tenure while you and the rest of your party have happily looked the other way.

 

[iluvatar5150]

A speed trap for speeding motorists is hardly equal to deciding in advance that the president needs to be impeached before he even takes office. A more accurate analogy would be a federal agency arresting and charging someone with dealing drugs out of a home before the tenants ever came into possession of any drugs or even moved into the home yet, and just because they don't like the person.

No, that's a pretty good analogy. If people aren't speeding, there's nothing for the cops to write a ticket for. Likewise, if Trump wasn't doing anything crooked, there would be nothing to impeach him over. If you don't want your guy to be impeached, maybe try to get him to act less crooked.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, motives matter. Your link didn't say anything about Democrats chasing impeachment in order to line their own pockets; it talked about laying the groundwork for impeachment because of Trump's ongoing conflicts of interest. That their was troublesome behavior on his part 3 years ago says nothing about any improper motivations on their part. Rather, it just shows that your guy has been doing crooked (or at least crooked-looking) stuff for his entire tenure while you and the rest of your party have happily looked the other way.

You're inventing your own facts.
Again, they were setting up to impeach him before he even took office. Therefore, whatever he did for "his entire tenure" is irrelevant, unless they used their democrat time machine to journey to January of 2021 to know what Trump would do "for his entire tenure", and then went back to 2016 and decided right then and there that Trump needed to be impeached.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, that's a pretty good analogy. If people aren't speeding, there's nothing for the cops to write a ticket for. Likewise, if Trump wasn't doing anything crooked, there would be nothing to impeach him over. If you don't want your guy to be impeached, maybe try to get him to act less crooked.

Then why would the cop already have written a ticket before the car even passed by?
The dems already decided Trump needed to be impeached before he ever took office.

 

[Belk]

A speed trap for speeding motorists is hardly equal to deciding in advance that the president needs to be impeached before he even takes office. A more accurate analogy would be a federal agency arresting and charging someone with dealing drugs out of a home before the tenants ever came into possession of any drugs or even moved into the home yet, and just because they don't like the person.

No, the Democrats did not have articles of impeachment drafted and ready to go. They waited for Trump to actually do something they could no longer ignore. You keep trying to claim things that are not in evidence.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, the Democrats did not have articles of impeachment drafted and ready to go. They waited for Trump to actually do something they could no longer ignore. You keep trying to claim things that are not in evidence.

They had their minds made up to do it. It was already determined by them that Trump could not be allowed to stay in office even before he was inaugurated. Doesn't matter at all what was drafted.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You're inventing your own facts.

I'm not inventing anything.

Again, they were setting up to impeach him before he even took office. Therefore, whatever he did for "his entire tenure" is irrelevant, unless they used their democrat time machine to journey to January of 2021 to know what Trump would do "for his entire tenure", and then went back to 2016 and decided right then and there that Trump needed to be impeached.

What are you talking about? It's as if you didn't even read the article that you posted.

The article that you posted was about Trump's violation of the lease with the old postal building (now a Trump hotel) and about his failure to divest himself of his business holdings. At the time, some Democrats were trying to introduce legislation that was make it clear that violating certain conflict-of-interest rules would be grounds for impeachment. IOW, Trump was already doing shady things by the time he took office and they tried to make it more explicit that his shady activities were improper.

Yes, Democrats were digging for dirt on him 3 years ago - because he already looked shady. It's Trump's fault that there was so much for them to find.

Then why would the cop already have written a ticket before the car even passed by?

Your analogy is terrible.

Cops get a tip that people were speeding on a certain road, so they set up a speed trap and caught speeders. Democrats saw that Trump was doing things that looked fishy, so they went looking and found a bunch of bad stuff.

That's how investigations are supposed to work. Every politician is going to look for dirt on their opponent, particularly when they engage in corrupt-looking behavior as openly as Trump has. When the guy making $30k/yr starts wearing custom suits and driving a Rolls Royce, don't you think that's going to attract the attention of some folks who might want to see if he's up to no good? You're complaining about Democrats trying to find dirt on Trump, but have you ever thought of holding your own side accountable?

 

[Belk]

They had their minds made up to do it. It was already determined by them that Trump could not be allowed to stay in office even before he was inaugurated. Doesn't matter at all what was drafted.

Yes. And the cops had their minds made up to give tickets to people speeding. They then waited for an appropriate reason. So what?

 

[mark46]

You believe that investigating the Biden's has no effect on 2020 election?

Can you quote any part of the transcript or anywhere else where Trump said anything about getting help from Ukraine of his election campaign?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes. And the cops had their minds made up to give tickets to people speeding.

Actually, a particular individual who they decided to ticket based on who he was.

They then waited for an appropriate reason. So what?

Such as to help them win the 2020 election?