Impeaching President Trump

[Teppler]

Trump disassociated from him before it was popular by banning him from mar a largo. Name a punishment one of his many democrat enablers laid at him. I’ll wait.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump disassociated from him before it was popular by banning him from mar a largo.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Teppler]

Very ugly projection of their support for pedophiles.

[Khorza]

Originally Posted by Valeriya [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You dont even know what your talking about half the time

Originally Posted by Valeriya [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He wont get impeach

Instead of spamming this thread with every thought that pops into your head, maybe you could spend some time actually researching this topic a little.

Impeachment doesn't mean conviction. Impeachment is the allegation of wrongdoing. It's passed by the House, and the trial is held by the Senate.

Obviously the majority Republican Senate isn't going to vote to convict Donald Trump. I know that, Democrats know that, everyone knows that. You aren't really making any sort of groundbreaking observation by stating that you don't think Trump will be removed from office by his Republican allies.

Now as far as my personal feelings on the matter.

We can argue about details and hearsay and rumors until Trump is dead in the ground (and we probably will), but it's all mostly meaningless to me because there's one very important fact that no one has to argue about:

The president of the United States of America withheld aid to a foreign ally, while simultaneously requesting that said ally launch an investigation to damage the president's political rival.

That's really bad. And it wasn't even a slip up. This president has shown a pattern for this type of behavior, like when he invited Russia to commit cyber espionage against the Democratic party.

This is obviously not decorum fit for holding the highest office in the United States of America. I really hope that everyone realizes this, and they just continue to support Donald Trump for their own personal gains, or the memes, or whatever petty reason they have. Because this is the type of behavior that you should expect from the leader of some corrupt country like Somalia or Libya, not the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world.

So yes, objectively he should be removed from office. This behavior has continued for 4 years without a sign that the president has learned anything. But of course, half of the population is willing to watch the country go down in flames because "I like the guy."

As a citizen, the whole thing is deeply embarrassing, that's for sure. It would be nice to once in my life live in a country that's actually respected by the rest of the world.

[feniin]

Originally Posted by Khorza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Instead of spamming this thread with every thought that pops into your head, maybe you could spend some time actually researching this topic a little.

Impeachment doesn't mean conviction. Impeachment is the allegation of wrongdoing. It's passed by the House, and the trial is held by the Senate.

Obviously the majority Republican Senate isn't going to vote to convict Donald Trump. I know that, Democrats know that, everyone knows that. You aren't really making any sort of groundbreaking observation by stating that you don't think Trump will be removed from office by his Republican allies.

Now as far as my personal feelings on the matter.

We can argue about details and hearsay and rumors until Trump is dead in the ground (and we probably will), but it's all mostly meaningless to me because there's one very important fact that no one has to argue about:

The president of the United States of America withheld aid to a foreign ally, while simultaneously requesting that said ally launch an investigation to damage the president's political rival.

That's really bad. And it wasn't even a slip up. This president has shown a pattern for this type of behavior, like when he invited Russia to commit cyber espionage against the Democratic party.

This is obviously not decorum fit for holding the highest office in the United States of America. I really hope that everyone realizes this, and they just continue to support Donald Trump for their own personal gains, or the memes, or whatever petty reason they have. Because this is the type of behavior that you should expect from the leader of some corrupt country like Somalia or Libya, not the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world.

So yes, objectively he should be removed from office. This behavior has continued for 4 years without a sign that the president has learned anything. But of course, half of the population is willing to watch the country go down in flames because "I like the guy."

As a citizen, the whole thing is deeply embarrassing, that's for sure. It would be nice to once in my life live in a country that's actually respected by the rest of the world.

Well said. It's a shame it'll fall on deaf ears among this group.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Khorza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Instead of spamming this thread with every thought that pops into your head, maybe you could spend some time actually researching this topic a little.

Impeachment doesn't mean conviction. Impeachment is the allegation of wrongdoing. It's passed by the House, and the trial is held by the Senate.

Obviously the majority Republican Senate isn't going to vote to convict Donald Trump. I know that, Democrats know that, everyone knows that. You aren't really making any sort of groundbreaking observation by stating that you don't think Trump will be removed from office by his Republican allies.

Now as far as my personal feelings on the matter.

We can argue about details and hearsay and rumors until Trump is dead in the ground (and we probably will), but it's all mostly meaningless to me because there's one very important fact that no one has to argue about:

The president of the United States of America withheld aid to a foreign ally, while simultaneously requesting that said ally launch an investigation to damage the president's political rival.

That's really bad. And it wasn't even a slip up. This president has shown a pattern for this type of behavior, like when he invited Russia to commit cyber espionage against the Democratic party.

This is obviously not decorum fit for holding the highest office in the United States of America. I really hope that everyone realizes this, and they just continue to support Donald Trump for their own personal gains, or the memes, or whatever petty reason they have. Because this is the type of behavior that you should expect from the leader of some corrupt country like Somalia or Libya, not the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world.

So yes, objectively he should be removed from office. This behavior has continued for 4 years without a sign that the president has learned anything. But of course, half of the population is willing to watch the country go down in flames because "I like the guy."

As a citizen, the whole thing is deeply embarrassing, that's for sure. It would be nice to once in my life live in a country that's actually respected by the rest of the world.

Lol guy comes here in and explains that he is coming up with some damning evidence that has been discussed already 40 times in both threads. Seems there isn't only one side with deaf ears.

Republicans know what your stance is. They are saying that Trump held aid, had a conversation then released it prior to any investigation taking place. Therefore, no quid pro pro. In other words, "Start the investigation first, then I'll release aid."

No one is here for personal gains. Anyone arguing that the other side is doing it for personal gains is a white knighting retard.

The obvious concern is what precedent you set for the future. If there is a crime committed but you can't prove it and Republicans own the house, are you okay with Republicans moving forward with impeachment? No. Flip the roles then ask yourself the same questions.

[Khorza]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol guy comes here in and explains that he is coming up with some damning evidence that has been discussed already 40 times in both threads. Seems there isn't only one side with deaf ears.

I never claimed it was damning evidence, everyone had access to the transcript that the white house released. That's what's so insane about this, everyone knows that the president did this shit yet they still twist themselves into knots in an attempt to defend him.

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are saying that Trump held aid, had a conversation then released it prior to any investigation taking place.

Okay, the problem with this sentence is that you took a bunch of very important details and described that part as, "had a conversation."

You know as well as I do that the details of that conversation are the problem here. You're very obviously glossing over that part and throwing your hands up in the air like, "they just had a conversation, what's the big deal?"

Well, the big deal is that during that conversation the president of the United States asked a foreign government to meddle in an upcoming election.

That fact alone is damning, and no one is even disputing it because it's a fact. The president of the United States should be a defender of democracy, not attempting to usurp it.

Then, when you consider the context of this request it gets even worse. The president is mysteriously withholding preapproved aid to a foreign ally. This particular conversation was meant to discuss what's going on with that aid. The president then asks a foreign government to investigate his political rival. And then after this request, the aid is released.

This is pretty cut and dry my dude.

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Therefore, no quid pro pro. In other words, "Start the investigation first, then I'll release aid."

Yeah but, you know what you're doing here man. You're not fooling anyone. You're ignoring all of the relevant information and bringing up all of the irrelevant information. It's the same tactic that every Republican politician and pundit is using right now; it's just complete smoke and mirrors.

You don't have to declare, "THIS IS QUID PRO QUO" for it to be quid pro quo. If it walks like a duck, etc.

The chronology of the events is completely irrelevant too, but you know that. It doesn't matter when Trump released the aid. All that matters if that he made a request for Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, and Zelensky accepted that request. Nothing else has to be said, but it's clearly understood that if Zelensky doesn't meet Trump's expectations then further aid could be at risk.

You don't have to read between the lines to figure this whole scheme out, but you at least have to open your eyes to look at the words on the page.

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Flip the roles then ask yourself the same questions.

Nothing that I've said has been partisan. I have my own gripes with the Democrats. If the president of the United States is soliciting foreign governments to undermine the integrity of our election system, I want them removed from office regardless of their party affiliation. It's that simple.

This isn't the NFL. Stop making it about your team vs. everyone else's team. The man is a shit president, better luck next time. I voted for Obama and he turned out to be pretty lousy too. Just not quite this bad.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Khorza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The chronology of the events is completely irrelevant too, but you know that. It doesn't matter when Trump released the aid. All that matters if that he made a request for Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, and Zelensky accepted that request. Nothing else has to be said, but it's clearly understood that if Zelensky doesn't meet Trump's expectations then further aid could be at risk.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Khorza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never claimed it was damning evidence, everyone had access to the transcript that the white house released. That's what's so insane about this, everyone knows that the president did this shit yet they still twist themselves into knots in an attempt to defend him.



Okay, the problem with this sentence is that you took a bunch of very important details and described that part as, "had a conversation."

You know as well as I do that the details of that conversation are the problem here. You're very obviously glossing over that part and throwing your hands up in the air like, "they just had a conversation, what's the big deal?"

Well, the big deal is that during that conversation the president of the United States asked a foreign government to meddle in an upcoming election.

Here is the issue I have with what you are saying. Trump didn't directly ask for Biden information and then follow up with "well we are going to hold the aid until you help us." If Trump is legitimately investigating a corruption claim all the while hitting two birds with one stone while not mentioning with-holding aid. There isn't a crime. Obviously he is using for some political advantage but there is also some sort of corruption there. It's obviously biased in your favor because you disregard anything with Biden even if corruption took place, put directly to Trump while he did so legally. This took place even more so when an investigation didn't take place and the aid was released. If you set the precedent for someone utilizing the law to seek out corruption while looking for political gain, you are now blowing the whistle on any possibly corruption if it includes the right elected officials. This is a problem. If it was done within the law, it's within the law. An investigation on corruption, is an investigation on corruption. If with-holding aid was not mentioned, it wasn't mentioned.

There was recently an article about how the FBI was wire tapping Carter Page and falsifying documents to utilize in the Russian investigation. Where's your outrage there? This is proven.

[feniin]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is the issue I have with what you are saying. Trump didn't directly ask for Biden information and then follow up with "well we are going to hold the aid until you help us." If Trump is legitimately investigating a corruption claim all the while hitting two birds with one stone while not mentioning with-holding aid. There isn't a crime. Obviously he is using for some political advantage but there is also some sort of corruption there. It's obviously biased in your favor because you disregard anything with Biden even if corruption took place, put directly to Trump while he did so legally. This took place even more so when an investigation didn't take place and the aid was released. If you set the precedent for someone utilizing the law to seek out corruption while looking for political gain, you are now blowing the whistle on any possibly corruption if it includes the right elected officials. This is a problem. If it was done within the law, it's within the law. An investigation on corruption, is an investigation on corruption. If with-holding aid was not mentioned, it wasn't mentioned.

There was recently an article about how the FBI was wire tapping Carter Page and falsifying documents to utilize in the Russian investigation. Where's your outrage there? This is proven.

What Trump did wasn't legal, regardless of what Biden may or may not have done.