18 minutes ago, Paul Henry said:

The Democrats did the right thing. Win or lose history will show and record TRUMP was impeached.

Good honest people do not get impeached.

 

Incorrect. They did not do the "right thing", they lied and falsely accused the President of something he clearly did not do, and the evidence supports that. History may record that he was impeached, but it will also record that he was impeached for political reasons by a partisan House with a very small majority. Technically, he was not impeached by the House, he was impeached by Democrats in the House. Your last statement is very naive, that might only be true if the impeaching was done by "good honest people" which clearly it was not. 

"Technically, he was not impeached by the House, he was impeached by Democrats in the House."

Whaaaa?

 

31 minutes ago, johnpetersen said:

"Technically, he was not impeached by the House, he was impeached by Democrats in the House."

Whaaaa?

 

And was not let off by the Senate but by Republicans, technically

7 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Impeach, impeach, impeach...to change the government!  

 

What ever happened to coming up with fresh and viable ideas to defeat your opponent in the polls?

 Impeachment is the remedy under the U.S. Constitution (you know, the one elected officials swear to uphold) when a president commits treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors while in office. The founders provided for that remedy, specifically to allow the dealing with criminals in office like Trump prior to the next election cycle.

 

Let's see how many of the following check boxes we think Trump has checked during his time in office:

 

 

Quote

 

Congress has, however, identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:^[1]

1. Improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office.^[1]
2. Behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office.^[1]
3. Misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.^[1]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_impeachment

 

I'd say he's batting 100%, three for three... And there probably are arguments to be made on the treason (remember Trump, Putin in Helsinki) and bribery (the list is probably long and illustrious) counts as well.

 

10 hours ago, johnpetersen said:

So that would go for Trump being interviewed by a typical Fox host as well?

What part of the origininal post was difficult to understand?

4 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

What part of the origininal post was difficult to understand?

So would Trump being interviewed by a CNN host also be pointless?

Would Adam Schiff being interviewed by a Fox host be useless?

2 minutes ago, johnpetersen said:

So would Trump being interviewed by a CNN host also be pointless?

Would Adam Schiff being interviewed by a Fox host be useless?

There you go again trying to put words in my mouth.   I'll dumb it down.  The media is biased on both sides.   At least those on the right have the capacity to realise.

5 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

Incorrect. They did not do the "right thing", they lied and falsely accused the President of something he clearly did not do, and the evidence supports that. History may record that he was impeached, but it will also record that he was impeached for political reasons by a partisan House with a very small majority. Technically, he was not impeached by the House, he was impeached by Democrats in the House. Your last statement is very naive, that might only be true if the impeaching was done by "good honest people" which clearly it was not. 

Absolutely sick. See post #34 as these points are total lies. Sad you took the time to spew this out. Not an honest word in the entire paragraph.

Edited June 23, 20206 yr by earlinclaifornia

57 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

There you go again trying to put words in my mouth.   I'll dumb it down.  The media is biased on both sides.   At least those on the right have the capacity to realise.

Oh really. So most of the people who follow Fox and Breitbart are skeptical of what they see and hear? Really?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/

Edited June 23, 20206 yr by johnpetersen

A post altering politicians names to suit own agenda has been removed.

6 hours ago, Masterton said:

They did not do the "right thing", they lied and falsely accused the President of something he clearly did not do, and the evidence supports that

Which evidence? Trump has not allowed his mates to testify. No contradictory evidence has been produced during the impeachment investigation.

3 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Absolutely sick. See post #34 as these points are total lies. Sad you took the time to spew this out. Not an honest word in the entire paragraph.

 

Incorrect. Whilst you are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you wish, the facts do not match your reality. According to the constitution, a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The Democrats in the House impeached him for something which was denied by everyone involved, including the person on the call with him. They had zero evidence to back up their accusations either, just 3rd hand information based on opinion and hearsay. Sad that you still don't understand these facts, although not surprising based on your past posts.

8 hours ago, johnpetersen said:

"Technically, he was not impeached by the House, he was impeached by Democrats in the House."

Whaaaa?

 

 

Look, it's really not that difficult to understand. The impeachment was not bipartisan, zero Republicans voted in favour of it, and in fact a few Democrats voted against it. Put simply, he was impeached solely by Democrats in the House for political reasons, and this was only possible due to them having a small majority. Therefore it is disingenuous to simply state that Trump was impeached by "the House" without that context. Impeachment is a serious matter and should not be used as a partisan tool to remove presidents they disagree with politically. That is what an election is for. 

40 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

Look, it's really not that difficult to understand. The impeachment was not bipartisan, zero Republicans voted in favour of it, and in fact a few Democrats voted against it. Put simply, he was impeached solely by Democrats in the House for political reasons, and this was only possible due to them having a small majority. Therefore it is disingenuous to simply state that Trump was impeached by "the House" without that context. Impeachment is a serious matter and should not be used as a partisan tool to remove presidents they disagree with politically. That is what an election is for. 

So how, according to your reasoning was the senate vote for acquital also "technically" (to use your misnomer) not a "Republican" vote? In fact one Republican Senator voted to convict. Which means a greater percentage of the Republican vote in the Senate was to convict than the percentage in the House of 3 Democratic votes to acquit.

6 minutes ago, johnpetersen said:

So how, according to your reasoning was the senate vote for acquital also "technically" (to use your misnomer) not a "Republican" vote? In fact one Republican Senator voted to convict. Which means a greater percentage of the Republican vote in the Senate was to convict than the percentage in the House of 3 Democratic votes to acquit.

 

You are missing the point. The impeachment farce should never have made it to the Senate in the first place. The Democrats had no case and no evidence, just 3rd hand hearsay from a fake whistle blower. The whole thing was a setup orchestrated by Adam Schiff. But they still voted to impeach and convict based on abusing the power of their (small) majority in the House. This is not what the framers had in mind when the impeachment clause was created. The Senate really should have thrown the case out but for whatever reason they chose to proceed with it, likely knowing nothing would come from it and it would make the Democrats look stupid. Which is what happened. As for Romney, I think it is clear that Romney did what he did for Romney and nobody else. He certainly didn't do it for the people who elected him. The guy is a joke, everything he does is always about him and he and his dumb vote in the Senate trial should not be taken seriously.

On 6/22/2020 at 11:26 AM, Tug said:

I agree it’s a needless distraction he’s out on his fanny in 5 months at the very least billey Barr will go down in history as the most corrupt ag in history totally sulleyed by his association with trump 

 

The lady AG that had the airport runway with Bill Clinton will give him a fair run for that title.

5 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Absolutely sick. See post #34 as these points are total lies. Sad you took the time to spew this out. Not an honest word in the entire paragraph.

 

You must be either very naive or politically motivated.

 

1 hour ago, Masterton said:

 

Incorrect. Whilst you are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you wish, the facts do not match your reality. According to the constitution, a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The Democrats in the House impeached him for something which was denied by everyone involved, including the person on the call with him. They had zero evidence to back up their accusations either, just 3rd hand information based on opinion and hearsay. Sad that you still don't understand these facts, although not surprising based on your past posts.

 

As a non American observer. It seemed fairly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that the desire by the Democrats was to impeach Trump for anything. They were clutching at any straws. Presumably in the hope that if the evidence didn't prove their accusations, something else could be unearthed or identified in the process.

 

Which is what they did. They couldn't prove Russian collusion but tried to get him for something in the process instead.

 

And all the while previously protecting Hilary over her emails and Libya fiasco. 

 

They never murmured when Bill Clinton had a private chat with the then AG on an airport runway in the midst of it. Nor when, and highly unusually, the FBI and not prosecutors decided there was no criminality. 

 

Double standards and hypocrisy. Now they support anarchist, neo Marxists and criminals pretending to care about black lives.

 

God help America if these clowns get power.

Upset Trump - you get fired.

 

Upset the Democrats - you get publicly vilified, loose your job, harassed, denounced and maybe worse.

 

Upset Hilary - you might in strange circumstances.

 

Bit of a difference in approaches.

22 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

As a non American observer. It seemed fairly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that the desire by the Democrats was to impeach Trump for anything. They were clutching at any straws. Presumably in the hope that if the evidence didn't prove their accusations, something else could be unearthed or identified in the process.

 

Which is what they did. They couldn't prove Russian collusion but tried to get him for something in the process instead.

 

And all the while previously protecting Hilary over her emails and Libya fiasco. 

 

They never murmured when Bill Clinton had a private chat with the then AG on an airport runway in the midst of it. Nor when, and highly unusually, the FBI and not prosecutors decided there was no criminality. 

 

Double standards and hypocrisy. Now they support anarchist, neo Marxists and criminals pretending to care about black lives.

 

God help America if these clowns get power.

I'm not sure if you think being a non-American observer makes your opinions more or less valuable. It's certainly possible to be a foreigner and be far more knowledgeable about what's going on in the USA than American citizens. Don't think you qualify for that status, though.

Who protected Hillary over her emails and Libyan Fiasco? James Comey decided not to prosecute. The same James Comey who just before the election announced he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's email. How were Democrats involved? As for Libya, the Republicans held 7 separate inquiries in the House and the Senate and came up with nothing.

And no it was not highly unusual for investigators (not prosecutors) to decide there was no criminality in the meeting between Bill Clinton and the A.G. In fact, given that Clinton made no attempt to conceal the rendezvous with the A.G., (the media knew all about it as it happened) it's ridiculous to think that there was something nefarious in their meeting. Since you're not an American, you may not know that in the USA there are such  as phones and that it's even possible to arrange a  clandestine rendezvous in a venue not populated by various members of the media.

Your remark about anarchists, etc. is typical right wing tripe. in fact, congratulations are in order. It reads exactly like something that could have been written by an extreme right wing American.

 

Edited June 23, 20206 yr by johnpetersen

18 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Impeach, impeach, impeach...to change the government!  

 

What ever happened to coming up with fresh and viable ideas to defeat your opponent in the polls?

I think it has  got the point of being  soiled underwear and nobody really minds  why or  where the  smell has  gone just so long as it  is  gone !

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Upset Trump - you get fired.

That's all? Really? Tell that to:

Jeff Sessions

Rex Tillerson

Jim Mattis

Etc, etc etc

And that's how he treats his own people. 

Edited June 23, 20206 yr by johnpetersen