It’s telling that there’s no Impeachment thread on VS...

[lumpy]

I guess Trump is in good company:

Seven Times the GAO Found Former President Obama Broke the Law [List]

That article in the Federalist Papers that you link to reads: "The report did not say what laws had been broken and the timing, the day the Senate opened President Trump’s impeachment trial, seems very, very suspicious."

Right at the top of the GAO's report it says: "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."

The Federalist Papers really counts on its readership not checking the sources, doesn't it?

[Corso]

your habit of whataboutisms and false equivalences are at least consistent...

you have completely missed the point.

Again, you seem to be missing my point as well.

You can call it whatever "ism" you want, I call it "it's old when a Democrat does it, but a mortal sin when the name Trump is attached. In any case, you'll be the first one to bring up Trump when the next person in office who isn't him is accused of anything. Feel free to call my postings anything you choose, and I'll call your one-sided rants a clear case of Trump hatred syndrome. Fair enough?

So breaking the law is only truly breaking the law if you can prove a personal benefit?

Bottom line: This entire impeachment is a political stunt to put a Dem in the Whitehouse. The draft of this plan was created the day Trump took office.

So if the personal point of Trump holding the funds was ultimately to get re-elected, WTF do you call this entire circus? I call it the Democrats using US taxpayer dollars to better position themselves for the next election.

Ok Ok, back to the topic at hand. How do you think the proceedings are going? I don't think they are moving the ball anywhere near the objectives you are hoping for.

[theflashunc]

At least this trial showed that Ken Starr can stand in public and claim that America has weaponized impeachment for political gain and not immediately burst into flame.

We've got that going for us.

[HorsCat]

Bottom line: This entire impeachment is a political stunt to put a Dem in the Whitehouse. The draft of this plan was created the day Trump took office.

Balderdash.

[Matthew Strongin]

Again, you seem to be missing my point as well.

You can call it whatever "ism" you want, I call it "it's old when a Democrat does it, but a mortal sin when the name Trump is attached. In any case, you'll be the first one to bring up Trump when the next person in office who isn't him is accused of anything. Feel free to call my postings anything you choose, and I'll call your one-sided rants a clear case of Trump hatred syndrome. Fair enough?

So breaking the law is only truly breaking the law if you can prove a personal benefit?

Bottom line: This entire impeachment is a political stunt to put a Dem in the Whitehouse. The draft of this plan was created the day Trump took office.

So if the personal point of Trump holding the funds was ultimately to get re-elected, WTF do you call this entire circus? I call it the Democrats using US taxpayer dollars to better position themselves for the next election.

Ok Ok, back to the topic at hand. How do you think the proceedings are going? I don't think they are moving the ball anywhere near the objectives you are hoping for.

Dude. The article you posted listed 7 things not done by Obama. The impeachment is about something that Trump himself was involved in. Breaking the law is breaking the law, but the examples you posted weren't of Obama breaking the law. They were of people in the government during his time in office breaking the law. I'm sure many people in government break many laws, mostly likely unknowingly or accidentally most of the time, and do so under all presidents. That's not what's going on with Trump and the impeachment.

[Doug Fattic]

Bottom line: This entire impeachment is a political stunt to put a Dem in the Whitehouse. The draft of this plan was created the day Trump took office.

In reality it puts another Republican in the White House - just somebody that is not as amoral or incompetent (although when Pence was governor of Indiana he showed plenty of governing incompetence). Because Trump is guided only by his own self interests and not by any moral values or ethical standards, he is a threat to our democracy. It truly is a mystery to me why anybody except those whose self interests are aligned with Trump's think he is a good president. He scares the crap out of me!

[Corso]

Balderdash.

Trump Inauguration: Impeachment Campaign Launch | Time

Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump | Vanity Fair

and there are many other if you choose to search. as Biden would say "C'mon man" this talk has been around since day one.

[gregl]

Bottom line: This entire impeachment is a political stunt to put a Dem in the Whitehouse. The draft of this plan was created the day Trump took office.

Nope. To paraphrase other contributors, the purpose of this impeachment is to determine if Mr. Trump is guilty of impeachable crimes. If he is guilty, his removal from office will put another Republican in the office. This is not an attempt to hold the 2016 election again. That ship has sailed. As for the 2020 presidential election, perhaps the removal of Trump from office would pave the way for other Republican candidates that would be more appealing to members of that party. I for one would welcome a different Republican candidate as the party's nominee later this year. Not all Republicans are Trump supporters.

Greg

[monadnocky]

Bottom line: This entire impeachment is a political stunt to put a Dem in the Whitehouse. The draft of this plan was created the day Trump took office.

I can think of no stupider or more roundabout way to put a Democrat in the White House. First of all, they would have to impeach Pence (whom I happen to think is in many ways more frightening than the current occupant). I cannot imagine there would be any political will for that. And Pence would have to be impeached within a few months.
All so that Pelosi could be president for.... a few weeks? And it would certainly generate enough backlash that it would absolutely guarantee a Republican win in 2020?

man, it doesn't even make sense.

[lumpy]

I can think of no stupider or more roundabout way to put a Democrat in the White House. First of all, they would have to impeach Pence (whom I happen to think is in many ways more frightening than the current occupant). I cannot imagine there would be any political will for that. And Pence would have to be impeached within a few months.
All so that Pelosi could be president for.... a few weeks? And it would certainly generate enough backlash that it would absolutely guarantee a Republican win in 2020?

man, it doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, well, it's not you that they are trying to convince. Their intended audience really wants to believe.

[theflashunc]

I can think of no stupider or more roundabout way to put a Democrat in the White House. First of all, they would have to impeach Pence (whom I happen to think is in many ways more frightening than the current occupant). I cannot imagine there would be any political will for that. And Pence would have to be impeached within a few months.
All so that Pelosi could be president for.... a few weeks? And it would certainly generate enough backlash that it would absolutely guarantee a Republican win in 2020?

man, it doesn't even make sense.

Also telling the Senate GOP is clinging to Trump so desperately when they have a dyed in the wool, true believer like Pence waiting in the wings. I mean, the guy was about to lose his Indiana governor seat when this hail mary showed up, so maybe it isn't so telling. The alternative, of course, is that by opening Pandora's box you find out the entire administration including Pence is in on it (which seems more likely by the day) and then you are left with President Pelosi.

[monadnocky]

Also telling the Senate GOP is clinging to Trump so desperately when they have a dyed in the wool, true believer like Pence waiting in the wings. I mean, the guy was about to lose his Indiana governor seat when this hail mary showed up, so maybe it isn't so telling. The alternative, of course, is that by opening Pandora's box you find out the entire administration including Pence is in on it (which seems more likely by the day) and then you are left with President Pelosi.

Curious how this would work.... clearly, the Constitution stipulates line of succession- I would imagine that Pence would become President (unless he refused), and then separate impeachment for him as well? Certainly would be an interesting constitutional crisis.

[Corso]

I can think of no stupider or more roundabout way to put a Democrat in the White House.

man, it doesn't even make sense.

I can't believe none of you see the long game here. Or more likely, you all know what's going on, but refuse to admit it.

Nothing to do with Pence at all. It's about running and losing (again) to Trump in the next election. And as I see it, Bernie, Biden or Warren won't get that job done.

[monadnocky]

I can't believe none of you see the long game here. Or more likely, you all know what's going on, but refuse to admit it.

Nothing to do with Pence at all. It's about running and losing (again) to Trump in the next election. And as I see it, Bernie, Biden or Warren won't get that job done.

OK, I see, I think, but even this doesn't make sense to me. The Democrats knew all along that he would not be found guilty in the senate, right? Add to that the significant (and very likely) political risk that would ensue in terms of energizing his base (as well as perhaps engendering some sympathy with moderates?)
So that's the long game Democrats had to get a Democrat in office? Still doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

[gregl]

I can't believe none of you see the long game here. Or more likely, you all know what's going on, but refuse to admit it.

Nothing to do with Pence at all. It's about running and losing (again) to Trump in the next election. And as I see it, Bernie, Biden or Warren won't get that job done.

Or perhaps you may be the one who doesn't see what's happening. This isn't about liking Trump. It's about the law. I've identified as a Republican since I was eight years old. I wouldn't talk with my mom for a week when she told me that she voted for McGovern. I want smaller government. I support the second amendment. But above all else, I prize truth, honesty, and integrity. The current administration does not embody any of these values. If a fair, impartial trial (with witnesses under oath) determines Trump to be guilty of impeachable offenses, he needs to be removed from office in accordance with the law.

Greg

[theflashunc]

Curious how this would work.... clearly, the Constitution stipulates line of succession- I would imagine that Pence would become President (unless he refused), and then separate impeachment for him as well? Certainly would be an interesting constitutional crisis.

I think in a functioning government where a wide-ranging conspiracy like this was exposed, you'd have Trump impeached and others implicated resign lest they face further embarassment. But that assumes a functioning government or people with any concept of shame.

[bigbill]

This is simple. You embed some outright lies with the data trove you are sharing.
The NYT is so excited, they report on everything.

You then highlight the outright lies which are in bundled with the data to discredit all the true data. This is a classic tactic.

Exactly.

[Corso]

OK, I see, I think, but even this doesn't make sense to me. The Democrats knew all along that he would not be found guilty in the senate, right? Add to that the significant (and very likely) political risk that would ensue in terms of energizing his base (as well as perhaps engendering some sympathy with moderates?)
So that's the long game Democrats had to get a Democrat in office? Still doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

All you have to do is listen to Pelosi & Co. brag like children. Getting Trump impeached and smearing his legacy (Yeah I know, I know, he's done plenty to himself, no argument there) was the goal. Mission accomplished. Whoever runs against him can keep repeating "impeached" over and over and the brain dead voters will follow suit and equate this as "bad-don't vote for him".

I think it will and has backfired, as you stated. His base is amped, his contributions have increased significantly.

If he broke he law, then yes, he deserves what he deserves. Removal from office seems extreme due to:

The investigations wasn't opened as suggested, funds were held up, but delivered within the timeframe- so in fact not held up, and the Ukrainians didn't even know it was held up. So where exactly is the "quid pro quo?"

Slight diversion: Let's look at say, Senator Susan Collins. A wildcard Republican, don't you think she's being lobbied heavily by her Democratic friends for her vote? She does this on every major vote. Ever wonder why? Thinks she's the only one who votes with her conscience?

The back & forth "quid pro quo" that occurs within our government is daily. "You vote for my bill, I'll support your funding request. Don't support me, I'm squatting your highway project."

So these are the people judging the President for doing what they do routinely.

As far as the new Republicans not being the same as the old...Do you think JFK would believe a socialist may be headed for the Dem nomination? Neither party is what they once were.

[theflashunc]

All you have to do is listen to Pelosi & Co. brag like children. Getting Trump impeached and smearing his legacy (Yeah I know, I know, he's done plenty to himself, no argument there) was the goal. Mission accomplished. Whoever runs against him can keep repeating "impeached" over and over and the brain dead voters will follow suit and equate this as "bad-don't vote for him".

I think it will and has backfired, as you stated. His base is amped, his contributions have increased significantly.

If he broke he law, then yes, he deserves what he deserves. Removal from office seems extreme due to:

The investigations wasn't opened as suggested, funds were held up, but delivered within the timeframe- so in fact not held up, and the Ukrainians didn't even know it was held up. So where exactly is the "quid pro quo?"

Slight diversion: Let's look at say, Senator Susan Collins. A wildcard Republican, don't you think she's being lobbied heavily by her Democratic friends for her vote? She does this on every major vote. Ever wonder why? Thinks she's the only one who votes with her conscience?

The back & forth "quid pro quo" that occurs within our government is daily. "You vote for my bill, I'll support your funding request. Don't support me, I'm squatting your highway project."

So these are the people judging the President for doing what they do routinely.

As far as the new Republicans not being the same as the old...Do you think JFK would believe a socialist may be headed for the Dem nomination? Neither party is what they once were.

The President solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election with the aim of weakening his likely opponent. He did so by withholding taxpayer allocated aid and official meetings showcasing US support to an ally at war with an adversary for the last 75 years or so. His appointed ambassador to the EU testified that an investigation didn't need to actually happen, they just needed to announce one had happened. And the aid was not released until it became public there was a whistleblower complaint about the withheld aid. And we've been given no credible explanation from the administration for why the aid was withheld, with their only reasoning being "well they got the aid in the end, so no harm no foul." Whole lotta harm, whole lotta foul.

And last night one of the jurors in the case decided to tell the media they hope the baseless conspiracy theory the administration has been propagating will weigh on primary voters' minds in Iowa, putting to sword the idea this was not politically motivated from the jump.

[Corso]

The President solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election with the aim of weakening his likely opponent.

Yup, guilty until proven innocent.

That's how it works in the USA, right?