Trump committed crimes: he should be impeached and removed from office
Then he should be tried in criminal court and sent to jail.
The fact that these proceedings are occurring only as a result of Democrats' craven and cynical fear related to protecting one of their own, politically, instead of for all the numerous other crimes the Idiot in Chief has committed, does not mean Trump didn't do anything illegal or deserving of impeachment and conviction in the Ukraine matter.
I cannot believe that I've seen comments and essays:
* denying the plethora of first-hand witness testimony to criminal acts
* making the testimony out to be just a bunch of unfollowable gossip (that's basically what Jordan's "prayer chain" bilge was)
* suggesting or asserting that what Trump did was simply his prerogative and a legal foreign policy shift (absolutely blown away by this one)
* that there is some deep state conspiracy to trump up any charge that will stick or constantly interfere with Trump
Y'all can read my past essays; it's been a while, but you will see I've had, and be assured continue to have, nothing but contempt for the Democrats and our political process in general. But that hasn't blinded me to the evils the current president is engaged in, and if what gets him is analogous to the tax related violations that put away Capone, so be it.
With conspiracy theories about Russia, "deep state" this, and so on, sometimes when I read the essays and comments here I get confused and think I accidentally went to a Faux News comment page or something.
Just because the Democrats are terrible doesn't mean every nutty conspiracy theory the Republicans peddle about Trump, Russia, Ukraine, or the law is true or deserves more attention than the time it takes to mercilessly ridicule the peddler.
The fact is Trump engaged in criminal activity with respect to Ukraine and the investigations. It's not ambiguous or unimportant: our terrible record on holding politicians to account lies at the heart of why we are all in this mess. I say: go further, there are surely many more office holders abusing their power for personal political gain and we should impeach them, too.
Comments
The inquiry process
or the presenting of evidence and information to the House Judiciary Comm'ee hasn't yet finished. Even the public hearings may have more to go. So it's probably better not to get too worked up right now.
I have from the beginning favored a broad investigation, not one so U-Gate-centric. I think this is a big mistake, as Fein notes. So much else there to "indict" him on, much of which can be much more readily understandable by the Great Unwashed. Instead, with U-gate leading the charge, we get loads of Deep State baked-in propaganda and way too many confusing Ukrainian and supporting cast names.
I would need to devote 3 walls of my office to put up flow charts with plenty of boxes and arrows and names so I can keep track of what's what and who's who in the U-gate matter. And that would be bad b/c I would then have to take down all my Andy Johnson and Dick Nixon posters to make room.
Can you tell us
what MSM you consider to be a trusted news source?
I'll bet that you had the entire Trump-Russia Timeline pasted on your walls before it eventually collapsed.
CB, I should be
insulted, as you seem not to have read many of my prior posts. But then I remember, Yeah, I've posted a fair amount here so I can't expect everyone to catch 'em all.
Feel free now to double-check me by doing a deep dive into my posting history here, but sadly for your betting prospects I have consistently called out the R-gate story for the nontroversy propaganda that it is. Stephen Cohen calls Russiagate "Intelgate" -- sounds about right to me. I"ve been suspicious of the story from the beginning.
As for MSM sources, I read the NYT and WaPo. The Times for its coverage of Broadway and movie and architectural reviews. WaPo for its D.C. society page. On cable I tune in CNN to see how long it takes Andrew Cuomo to pass the baton, often awkwardly, to the next host, one Don "Meadowlark" Lemon, the amateur astronomer with an interest in black holes. That's entertainment.
Of course I sometimes miss the old Ted Turner CNN of my youth -- the one which had a few actual news programs during a 24-hr period. Back then it was called the Cable News Network. Today it's just called the Constant Nattering Nabobs network. Wouldn't surprise me if nabob Cooper Anderson or nabob Meadowlark pulled in $10m/yr for their nightly nattering.
Edit: It does seem interesting to note that your argument seems to devolve into You support impeachment, therefore you must have been a Russiagater. And there must be something Russiagate-y with my news sources. Curious logic. The flip-side of the same coin of If you oppose impeachment, you must be a Trumpista.
Will congress care that Trump is doing Bibi's bidding
in Lebanon? Bibi has asked Trump to withhold foreign aid to Lebanon because he thinks Iran is arming Hezbollah. Stay tuned to see if congress with hold hearing on that. You know because they have authorized aid to go there.
BTW this is being pushed as Trump is doing a favor to Putin, not Bibi because.... well who the hell knows why, but I guess it's just Vlad derangement syndrome at work here.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
You're confused about a lot of things apparently.
Like how can people not buy your phony duopoly framing where criticism of one 'side' automatically denotes support for the other.
You are also terribly confused about why the Democrats are pushing impeachment so hard.
First, it has nothing to do with upholding the 'rule of law' and everything to do with fundraising for establishment Democrats facing robust primary challenges from progressives.
It's also a giant dog and pony show designed to distract from discussion actual issues (Patriot Act?) and to cover for the Dems' own corruption in Eastern Europe, which was far more egregious and much better documented.
It's also a distraction from the much more important allegations that numerous Federal Agencies conspired to first rig and then (when that didn't work) overturn the results of the 2016 election.
Finally, impeachment proceedings are a transparent attempt to help push the 'evil Russia' narrative and to gin up support for MOAR WAR.
So no, you didn't wander into a Fox News commenting site, but you didn't wander into an MSNBC commenting site either.
Confusing, I know.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Confusing, especially when one
has been trained practically from birth that it is of stellar importance, the only thing that really matters, to pick a SIDE. Pick a side and stick to it. Either be Blue or Red but one cannot be both, nor can one be neither as not joining a team is forbidden in the USA. In America that is just the way it is, and if we refuse to see that then of course we are wrong and just creating needless questioning and perhaps division in the ranks of our Team. FACTS, Schmacts, the ONLY thing that matters is the team one is on. USA, USA, USA!
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Interesting that the argument usually devolves that way
I'm not supporting the Democrats so I must be supporting the Republicans? A tedious syllogism that predictably follows most arguments about Trump and the establishment Democrats.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Trump wasn't just changing policy
he was soliciting a foreign power's help in interfering with a domestic election. That's not debatable, as there are multiple witnesses to it.
It does matter that past Presidents have also committed crimes and got away with them: as I noted that strikes at the heart of one big reason our country is in its current state. It doesn't mean Trump should be let off the hook, especially based on flimsy conspiracy theories.
Yeah it is
Lots of hearsay and beliefs and I think that is what he did. How many of our essays have you read? Might want to read mine on the "Impeachment Farce" where I posted lots of info showing that the witnesses admitted that they did not see or hear him do that.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
I agree snoop
When I look at the actual evidence including what Trump actually said, I don't see much that supports the DNC/MSM narrative. I feel a little like I did in the lead up to the Bush II invasion of Iraq. I looked at the evidence and didn't see anything that indicated that Hussein had any significant WMD programs (surprising since Reagan and Bush I had helped him start such programs). There was so much BS and all the MSM were so solemnly passing on the crap they were being fed without thinking about it. I wondered, "What in hell are they seeing that I am missing?" The answer was that they didn't see anything. The only reason that an investigation would have been useful to Trump would have been the optics of having Biden investigated. They would surely not have found anything that was not part of the public record. Hunter barely went to Ukraine. He could not have participated in day to day corruption. Why would he? He was being paid $50,000+ for just being Joe's son. As to optics, Joe's speech at the Council on Foreign Relations and his propensity for holding little girls and sniffing their hair pretty much takes care of optics. What Trump was really after was Ukranian agreement to participate in the investigation of Ukraine and the US security establishment's meddling in the 2016 election. That cut too close to home and that is why Brennan, Clapper, and their cronies called in makers with security establishment-linked Dems to launch the impeachment investigation.
Plausible. And it merits consideration as more bits of info
become public. But they were pretty much going rabid ape-shit during Russiagate, prior to any impeachment talk. And it dates back to the instant Hillary lost to Trump.
Yep, I'm with you.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, I've failed
to see the strength of the argument that says past presidents did far worse and weren't impeached so let's not impeach Trump. And therefore let's essentially throw out the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution entirely b/c it wasn't used in proper and timely fashion in the numerous instances previously.
Use it or Lose It sounds simple and straightforward, and also too crude and simple-minded a way to go about upholding the constitution and preserving democracy.
Similarly, many people and orgs get away with murder with no charges brought, so let's toss out the criminal code and hold no one accountable for criminal behavior.
There's a parallel argument, which you bring up above, that Trump has done far worse --usually in the undeclared war context -- so if he isn't being impeached on the most serious charges, he shouldn't be impeached at all. I recall Chris Hedges taking this line, or walking up to it. I hear it from several prog podcasters.
But it would seem the Al Capone example applies -- sometimes the most effective way is the second best one. And the world was made a slightly better place when Big Al was put away on the technical angle, tax fraud, not murder. Contrarily, the world also would have been a better place if Congress in 1868 hadn't chosen a technical and dubious matter to try to oust Andrew Johnson but instead had gone after the heart of the matter -- his consistent flouting and undermining of constitutional congressional legislation primarily in the Reconstruction area.
Thanks for the fine essay. And it's always encouraging to see someone else express dissenting views here.
So what is he being impeached on?
Can you point to the evidence that shows he did what he did? Again many of us have spent considerable time on this that shows that the evidence against him is being manufactured.
But since there are more serious charges that he could be impeached on, but isn't, shouldn't he be? It's disingenuous for democrats to go after him for this, but let his more serious crimes go unpunished.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
I’ll offer a suggestion
Why don’t we wait to see IF the House actually impeaches him or not, and then, if so, we’ll all know what articles of impeachment they bring against him. To me this seems preferable to asking people to guess what they might impeach him for, before the inquiry hearings are even completed.
Just a suggestion, of course. Personally, I’m going to wait and see what happens before judging it. They might not even do it. It seems to me that Pelosi intentionally limited the scope of the inquiry to such a narrow investigation that it’s unlikely to actually happen.
They can't impeach him on matters
that they might be involved in, nor accuse him of crimes they have committed themselves.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That's true, but
What law was broken? Specifically?
"interfering" is not a legal term.
And, then there is the treaty between the US and Ukraine
.... on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998.
How could Democrats have forgotten about this? It was signed by Bill Clinton.
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text
I am waiting for the extradition request for Hunter Biden.
Ukraine wants the $871,000 back that went to his account. I am sure it is an impeachment offense to grant an extradition request that personally affects one of your main political rivals. (Sarc).
Wow, Pluto.
Jesus effing Christ.
I had no idea that was there.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yeah. And neither is 'meddling.'
ca 2016
"Hacking" may be a legal term, but you have to know what it means to use it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Not some past presidents. By today's standards
That would include every President. By today's standards, nearly every President would have been a war criminal not long after having taken the oath of office. In the modern era, it would have happened about the time he got his hand off the Bible.
You may have read the comments and essays here
but did you read the links people provided that helped support their opinion? I as well as many others here have gone to great lengths to include supporting and backing up documentation that backs up my opinion.
So can you point out exactly what law Trump broke in Ukraine that calls for his impeachment? If you are only listening to what the witnesses said then again we have posted opposing facts on them.
People are taking it as fact that Trump asked for 'dirt' on Biden when he never mentioned him in the transcript. Just like the accusations from Russia Gate people are taking things as fact when they haven't been proven true. He did mention Burisma and from what many Ukrainians are now saying about that it was Trump's right to do so and they are calling for them too. He also said that he didn't want to release the aid because other countries haven't sent their pledged amount yet.
The article that Linda essay'd has this:
We are supporting a proxy war with Russia that is actually working against our best interests. Think that if things get too aggressive there that Russia will not respond? And then what? Will we send troops to fight Russia for Ukraine? Very slippery slope in what we are supporting there. And finally Obama refused to send lethal aid to Ukraine after congress allocated the funds. I don't remember either party calling for his impeachment.
I haven't seen pictures of Russian troops parading all over Ukraine, but maybe I missed them. But maybe Trump is guilty of what people say he is and Vlad has had enough of him and is asking for the info released. Yeah I wish I was kidding:
SMDH
There are numerous other issues that should get Trump impeached as folks have listed here. That democrats aren't even considering them sure says a lot just like Nancy said she didn't think it was worth impeaching Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Here is what Trump actually said about Biden
From the transcript: "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."
Biden had bragged about having the prosecutor fired. There is no doubt about it. It is on Youtube. Trump did not actually ask Zelensky to investigate Biden. He asked Zelensky to cooperate with Barr. The difference is significant because publicly announcing that Biden was being investigated might have a political effect. Cooperating with Barr would only have a a political effect if an indictment was pursued or there were leaks. Since Biden had bragged publically about having the prosecutor fired, this was all out in the open in any case (although apparently off-limits to the MSM).
It's a matter of priorities. There are plenty of eyes on Trump.
He won't be able to fart without someone noticing. However, many fewer people are paying attention to neoliberal right leaning democrats who are consistently given a free pass and bias coverage by the networks as they screw over their own base.
I am not as concerned about Trump throwing rocks at my face from a distance as I am about dem establishment corporatists stabbing me in the back while pretending to be an ally.
If you perceive Trump to be the more serious threat then that's ok.
Meanwhile, as you and others
seem to feel the need to hammer on Impeaching Trump, what are your thoughts on real, actual progressive policies to help ordinary Americans? How about M4A and removing the threat of medical bankruptcy from ordinary Americans when they get sick or injured? What about a decent and livable wage for workers? How about that Social Security insurance for your own old age, any thoughts on keeping it around or does that not matter anymore? How about ending the wars that ARE indeed bankrupting this country, any thoughts on that? And then there is Wall Street, which is being bailed out once again this very moment, any thoughts on that beast? And what of climate change policies, any care at all about those? All these things are being deliberately kept out of the screaming arguments on whether or not we should Impeach our latest criminal POTUS. Do you really not see that?
From what I have read about all those things Trump "should be" Impeached for, there are maybe a handful that he alone is guilty of. Sure, you'll say that I am merely committing what about-ism or whatever, but the point still stands that ALL of our leaders commit these same acts every day. Hell, personal enrichment or emoluments clause seems to be a big one that could perhaps be proven from Trump alone but then again, how come they ALL end up fabulously rich once they leave office? Think they're not personally enriching themselves at our expense? Ever wondered how they do that consistently, no matter which "side" of the aisle they are on?
And perhaps the true elephant in the room, just what do you think will happen to anyone truly "left" who gets into office? Do you honestly think this same extremely narrow scope type of Impeachment won't be done to someone from your side if they step out of the Deep State line? Are you going to be happy with a Pence presidency? Think any of these Democrats can beat even that RWNJ loon? I don't. And if one should get elected then expect yet one more circus, perhaps Trump will indeed contest the results of that election to keep the "controversy" going, then what? On and on the diversion goes while the world burns and America rips itself apart defending her oligarchs, blindly doing what is expected - ignore the reality and get with the game damnit, this is about winning office, period, reality be damned. Do not expect real change, do not expect your government to work for YOU, just get on the team sports bandwagon and scream to high heaven for your side.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Heh, all those
important issues being kept out of the discussion b/c of impeachment ... I must have missed something in all the MSM shows in recent months. I seem to recall wall-to-wall horserace coverage of the primaries, not any substantive discussion of the issues you raise. And before that of course it was 2.5 yrs of non-stop R-gate nonsense.
The MSM rarely cover substantive important issues in any meaningful way, and when they do cover them as issues, it's from an artificially constricted center-to-right perspective. If they did cover them honestly and frequently, we would be seeing 90% public approval of the Sanders M4A proposal and he would be far ahead in the nomination battle. And so on with all the other important issues.
As for presidents enriching themselves, it goes with the territory, at least in the contemporary era. But they usually arrange to have this occur once they are out of office. Major book deals a/o speaking fee arrangements can mean $millions rather quickly. But while in office, it's not supposed to be done, using the powers of the office to leverage things to the prez's financial advantage. Donald just does it overtly and frequently, and so far, with impunity.
As Bruce Fein above notes wisely, letting this president get away with a wide range of crimes and constitutional violations in non-Ukraine areas is almost an open invitation to future presidents to do the same, and more, at which point there would be little chance of the constitution and democracy surviving.
Letting
Democratic politicians and presidents get away with using cluster munitions, thermobaric vacuum bombs, and phosphorous weapons on the children of Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and impeaching a president for wanting to build hotels in Russia, encourages mass murder and discourages the travel industry.
The way to prevent
the moral outrages of unauthorized war and war crimes is for congress to act and swiftly when they occur. For the most part instead, Congress has sat on its hands as these things occur and given over considerable war-making power to the president over the years. There are also those dicey political considerations preventing action, notably when Israel is involved as one of the war-making participants. Then non-action is almost guaranteed.
(Re the difficulty in the war-making area and impeachment, see e.g., during Nixon and the House Judiciary Comm'ee not passing an article of impeachment against Nixon for the secret bombing of Cambodia and for the usurpation of Congress's war-making power. Only a bare majority of Ds on the comm'ee voted Aye; all or almost all Rs voted Nay.)
But if some of the above can effectively be stopped by other means, such as the Al Capone route, then we get the same desired outcome anyway and I am for it.
I respect Bruce Fein. He is good lawyer.
But what specific crimes does he say Trump committed? I want the statutes, the evidence and the witnesses.
Trump, if he is making loads of money by being President, is because he is a billionaire. Why would anyone think that a billionaire is not going to be making money as President. It would almost be impossible to not make money. People will be throwing it at you. Blind trusts can only go so far.
Bruce Fein is on the liberal side of things. But you can find lawyers on the right accusing Democratic Presidents of crimes just as often. It's a charade at this point.
Fein mostly
lists violations of specific constitutional provisions. He's specific there. And he's specific in noting the criminal laws violated in the U-gate area
And when he cites to "U.S.C." it's the United States Code, not the University of Southern California, as some might assume. It's football season after all, but USC's team is mediocre.
Meanwhile, let's remember this is an impeachment process, not a criminal one. Don't conflate the two. Donald is not going to prison when it's all done, though he should. And the process is still underway. Let's wait to see what the Judiciary Committee has to show. They should be getting reports from what those other 3-4 committees were looking into in the non-gate areas.
In the impeachment process, Donald will be adequately represented in the senate trial by the usual frantic hand-wavers and slick distractors who will be brought in from the House to attempt to argue his side. He will get his day in court. And, given the likely outcome, the public will render their verdict ultimately at the ballot box.
Anybody can cite a statute
But the statute will not apply if the facts applied to it are false; and we have had this argument on another thread where you refuse to accept the statements of the Ukrainians involved. They clearly say there was no quid pro quo. Is Fein out of the loop?
Does he think the Ukrainians will not be witnesses? Lindsey Graham (hate the guy) says the Biden money smells (but he is right as rain).
What about the $871,000 Hunter Biden received? Are you disputing that? Are you disputing that Ukraine wants the money paid to Biden back? Reminds me of ostrich defense.
Sources for those who care:
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/624611.html
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/623992.html
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/625975.html
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/625076.html
You're straying too far
into the criminal proceeding weeds. This is an impeachment process, not a criminal trial. And the president does not have to commit a criminal offense to be impeached. Further, the impeachment offenses listed by Fein are overwhelmingly about violations of the constitution, while violations of the criminal code are only a tiny fraction of the overall HC&Ms.
As IANAL, you may want to take up your criminal law concerns with Bruce Fein himself. If so, please report back.
You have some serious misconceptions about the law
And I don't have time to explain them. But the Constitution says the President can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. So the charges against the President in an impeachment trial must constitute crimes. The Constitution does not require the Senate to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is what juries and judges must do in criminal cases.
But the President must be charged with a criminal act of some kind to impeach him and the senate must find him guilty of a crime to remove him from office.
And I have yet to see any of his accusers come up with an identifiable crime. Fine came up with a statute, but as I have said, the Ukrainians involved have said there was no quid pro quo. American witnesses have said there was. But even if the Americans thought it was quid pro quo but the Ukrainians didn't understand that it was, then the Ukrainians would not have acted in expectation of any thing. It is hard to have a crime of quid pro quo if the parties are unclear about what is to be done in exchange for something else.
Sorry but that is incorrect and, as such, disinformation
I vowed long ago, since way before any such effort was ever initiated, to avoid discussions about the topic of impeachment from now on. I found the extremely negative and misinformed reactions quite off putting,and it was clear to me then that no one was interested in anything but ripping apart the very idea of trump being impeached.
However, absolutely wrong “facts” being propagated as truth is something that still gets to me.
I’m responding to try to keep alive the idea that an informed, truth-based populace could possibly make better decisions. (See my unicorn and rainbows icon.)
So, about your claim that impeachment requires that the president be guilty or convicted of a crime.
I’d start here. It’s a long article, extremely informative. High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The source is Constitutional Rights Foundstion
A few tidbits, from a very detailed article. (Please read the whole thing.)
There’s a lot more information available online and in books that explains in great detail what is an impeachable offense and why. ALL agree that impeachment is NOT a criminal prosecution. There is no requirement that the president be convicted of any specific crime. In fact, Congress cannot prosecute anyone for any criminal offense. It is not a court of law.
This is not my intention
I'm all for Trump being impeached, but for the more serious actions he has committed not for this issue.
I read the info from the hearings that say unequivocally that yes he did what he is being accused of only to see on further questioning the witnesses saying that he did not actually do that. Then there's that whistleblower who has ties to Brennan and was involved in the Russia Gate saga and trying to get Trump removed. And I'm especially wary when it's the IC involved with this and Russia Gate.
Thanks for posting the link. I do agree with this.
This seems to fit to a T what Trump has done. Congress has the power of the purse and Trump took money meant for certain things and redirected it to the wall. But IIRC the court has ruled he could do that. He is also breaking the Flores legislation that only allows kids to be held 20 days. Congress told him to end the war in Yemen, but he said no. Apparently congress didn't try to overturn his veto.
The emoluments clause was also litigated and I think it ruled in his favor. I'll look for the link if anyone is interested. Plenty of other issues he has done, but then congress would be on the hook for them too. Invading countries is supposed to be the biggest crime, but that ship has sailed on this country long ago.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
The focus point is this
Some people are falsely proclaiming that impeachment requires a criminal charge.
It doesn’t.
Congress can in fact impeach him simply for being incompetent and/or generally corrupt.
It is well within the scope of Congress to bring articles of impeachment against him, if they think his actions warrant it. Whether or not he committed a crime. That’s how the US Constitution is written.
From a political standpoint or personal views, anyone can believe it’s right or wrong, for whatever reason. But the facts remain: it’s irrelevant whether he committed any crime, and congress has the constitutional right to impeach him if they believe he is unfit to serve.
That's what's wrong with this site
People are too damned civil and nice to dessenting voices.
S/
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Why S/ ?
More fact than false.
Then I came along and ruined that.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
It was a left handed welcome
to BayAreaLefty.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
I am sorry but I don't agree about his having committed crimes
At least while in office. Give me the statute you say he violated and then give me the witnesses and evidence to support your legal conclusion.
A rational response
in an irrational world.
Fact is, impeachment has, or should have, nothing to do with whether anybody likes Trump, or thinks he's a good president.
You either believe in a republic with rule of law or you don't.
Republic with rule of law means you can't get a do-over on an election just because you don't like the results. Especially when the people helping you get that do-over work in Langley.
Go ahead and tell me Trump is such a danger that we must throw away rule of law, disregard an election result, and trump (heh) up some charge that can then justify the CIA essentially removing him from office through intermediaries.
And then you can tell me that Evo Morales is a dictator and faked election results.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
^^^^ The ORIGINAL Sin.
It wins the prize for being the first crime committed.
And the prize for the greatest criminal threat to the Republic.
So, it should come first in prosecution.
Impeachment by its nature
means overdoing an election. That is rule of law -- constitutional law. It was put in by the Founders for a serious purpose, when the chief exec goes off the rails from ordinary conduct.
As impeachment is a political process, there will always be those driven by personal animus. But Fein's piece lays out a long list of specific charges that apply to Donald. It's up to the House Dems now to flesh out some of these and lay the evidence before the public. So far, they have wallowed a bit too long and at length on U-gate, and this is just too narrow a focus. A losing strategy.
Apparently you misunderstood me.
It is not at all in the spirit of the law or the Founders--bad men though some of them were--to use impeachment to rearrange the results of an election because you didn't like who won.
If it's OK to use impeachment for such things, it basically empties the proceedings of whatever gravity they once held.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
I have been participating the "Impeach Now" rallies in Ashland and Medford. It is interesting to note that some of the drive-by "shots" in Medford have been of the "you are usurping the constitution" ilk along with the usual hand gestures. In Ashland I have yet to encounter the "Trump Party Line" other than the hand gestures and devotion to their earthly god.
Living in the "State of Jefferson" is about what I expected, but I am getting connected with some activists.
RIP
Please write a travel report
Tell us what it is like out there for you. Really.
You've been missed. I was thinking of you just the other day. Don't be such a stranger.
My opinion on this
The guy is dangerously nuts and should be removed. Pence is a religious but and should be removed. The republicans backing trump are sick and should be voted out. The democrats pursuing impeachment are hypocritical and should be voted out.
In a better world they'd all be kicked out of government leaving us with 1 person still in the Senate and 3, maybe 4 in the House.
kick 'em out
..... Bernie Sanders .....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
My 2 cents
When you jump straight to him investigating Biden solely to get a foreign nation involved in the upcoming election you make a logic leap. One that no shred of information exists to support.
This is common in US thought as we since we think of manipulating elections for our own benefit we see everyone as doing that.
Trump had recently seen the clip of Biden bragging about being involved in Ukraine's internal matters. He also had people telling him, rightly or wrongly, that he did it to protect his son. Everyone leaps to the upcoming election. One only the Washington elite and corporate sponsors think Biden had (has?) a chance at. Trump would love to run against Biden. Have you seen him? Why does the media call CT on the known fact that in 2016 the Ukrainian political elite all wanted Clinton to win and went so far as having unverifiable 'evidence' given to attack Manafort. This was well reported in US media, not RT. They wanted Clinton to win because Trump was running on a campaign that went against what the current corrupt elite in Kiev and Washington wanted. Of course Washington liked the vintage 2016 corrupt Kiev elite. We are talking billions of money. (Notice how they frame Hunter's salary as $50,000 a month and not $600,000 a year. All for doing close to nothing.)
Just like our media will slam Iran and give Saudi Arabia a pass. Ignore Israel's war crimes but demand judgement on some leader in Africa we currently don't like. Washington, its politicians, its media, its think tanks, en masse only care about money.
So when I see the WP let a known corrupt Ukrainian write an article for them, I know they are spinning for everything they can.
And no I don't get my news from RT. I would if I needed news. I am and avid reader of many outlets and sources so I don't go to any site for established news. That said, for reporting on things not Russia internal, it is probably as close to the 2000's Al Jazeera Arabic News that exists. (Al Jazeera sold its soul in 2011 and hasn't been the same.) Everything I read is US based. I read the WP every day. I make smart ass comments every day. Their reporting is lazy and done by people with very little knowledge of events, but massive knowledge on what current Washington gossip is. You know, Venezuela's ONLY problem is that our chosen non-elected leader isn't leading Venezuela. A fascist that got 4% of the vote taking power in Bolivia is not a coup. Obama was a conservative (well, they did get that one right).
( )
Nice work if you can get it.......
What happened to Al Jazeera in 2011?
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Hillary got $1 million from
Qatar in 2011.
Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, was instrumental in training and supplying weapons to thousands of the so-called "rebels" in Libya in order to bring down Qaddafi. He was also in control of Al Jazeera. All reporting from Libya was one-sided. Many of the preposterous lies in the press about Qaddafi were promulgated by them. Any reporters who tried to tell the truth were fired.
When the Libyan conflict ended, after Qaddafi was killed by a bayonet up the anus, a dozen or so Al Jazeera reporters were attempting to get their first hand reports of actual arms smuggling from Libya into Syria get published to no avail. They quit.
Basically, the US State Department under Hillary Clinton and the CIA co-opted the Qatari controlled Al Jazeera. It is now just a propaganda outlet.
This link from Politico describes Ukraine's election meddling.
The conspiracy to sabotage Trump's campaign was in full swing throughout 2016. Money from the oligarchs was flying, damaging documents were leaked from Ukraine in an attempt to prove Trump's entire campaign was working with Russia to win the election.
This Report was written one month before Trump moved into the White House. The information is flowing freely. Trump is angry with Ukraine and Ukraine is very worried. They are shut out of the White House. Hillary was supposed to win.
I'm dropping the link in case anyone wants to know more about it.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
Anyone that just dismiss RT without even looking at it
have drank too much kool-aid, spiked with war mongering intelligence agencies talking points.
What has Chris Hedges, Abby Martin, Lee Camp, Jimmy Dore,Jesse Ventura, to name just a few of the people exiled off mainstream media, said or done to support the claims made about RT?
Sometimes people say such nonsense about shows about shows they've never seen or heard.
One thing all of the hosts have said (many times) is that they have total control of the content of their shows and everyone I've mentioned did not have that freedom in their prior life on mainstream media.
As the late RT host, Ed Schultz, remarked about after getting booted from MSNBC for covering Bernie Sanders, was that for a change his show wasn't tightly scripted, and for the first time he wasn't expected to do a pre-show interview to cull out unwanted views before the show's interview with the guest.
One thing is for certain all corporate media has done is to give critical support for the imprisonment/torture of Julian Assange whose Wikileaks has never had to retract and or correct anything they've published. Nothing they have published has ever been found to be untrue...nothing...ever.
It is also true that RT is where you will find articles defending Julian Assange and Wikileaks, and quite often I might add, like today.
Assange treated as terrorist by UK, it's ‘almost murder by state’, doctors warn
WikiLeaks founder may die in jail
" The treatment of Julian Assange by UK authorities puts his life at risk, essentially denying him a right to a fair trial, which is shameful for all those involved, doctors who signed a letter in the journalist’s support told RT.
Assange, the founder of anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks is being held in a top security prison in the UK and may be extradited to the US to face trial on espionage charges. The only crime he has been convicted of is skipping bail, but the treatment he is receiving from Britain is usually reserved for highly dangerous violent criminals.
“He is isolated for 23 hours a day. I think this is what treatment of terrorists [looks like],” said Australian doctor Margaret Beavis.".
British physician Marco Chiesa, another signatory of the letter, said if Assange does die in jail due to a lack of medical treatment, it would be “almost a murder by the state.”
“If the same situation happened in a different country, let’s say Cuba, there would have been a very different position held by the British government and the mainstream media,” he said.
But Dr. Chiesa is not expecting London to change its mistreatment of Assange despite public pressure and thinks he will likely be forced to stand before the court in February as scheduled regardless of his physical and mental state.
Assange is facing extradition to the US, where he would face espionage charges carrying a prison sentence of up to 175 years. His supporters say he is being persecuted by Washington and its allies for publishing material exposing their wrongdoings. (all emphasis mine)
https://www.rt.com/uk/474351-assange-treated-terrorist-uk/
I'm shocked, shocked
to find that there's gambling going on around here.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
your perception is very subjective
There are lots of great journalists on RT. To think folks like Chris Hedges or Ralph Nader's insights are not of value because they are on RT seems to be a prejudice and perception problem on your part. The US MSM has blacked out any actual real journos. Presstitutes is what you get here.
Fox News just had Tucker Carlson standing nearly alone explaining how we were duped by the MSM and deep state in the White Helmet/Douma etc. chemical weapons SNAFU. Not all the big dembot establishment outlets, Fox, first to come clean. Tucker has also been alone in having Assange and Tulsi on. Fox. It is unwise to write everything both do off, there are good things they carry that no one else does.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein
Well
Without the "Pee Tape" the dems got nothin'.
Permit me a slight correction ...
There. That's more like it. And I don't mean just with reference to impeachment.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I sense doubt from you
about the power of the Pee Tape. It all flows (so to speak) from the Pee Tape.
Uh oh....
Bay Area Lefty.
You should not have thrown around that CT term. It's meaningless, but more than that, it's the weapon used to ban me from DKos. I talked about my reservations and doubts about the Russiagate narrative. Ms. Wee Mama swooped in and declared that I was using right wing talking points (CT) and I was out the door within a half an hour.
If you want to use the term, then you'd better be clear about the EXACT source of the conspiracy and the theory. If you don't or can't then please refrain from accusing the writers and commenters here of CT and faux news, etc. If you don't agree with any points being made, then provide sources for your points. Don't just throw around these shitty labels.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Couldn't disagree more that it's meaningless
Conspiracy Theories work, in part, because people pushing them really believe, and they view anyone who disagrees or who labels them "CT" as being part of the conspiracy, dishonest, etc. (I'm composing an essay about this). It doesn't really matter what evidence or links are provided, because there's a built-in defense against it that people who don't otherwise fall for these theories engage in, even when they mean well and are sincere.
I'm sorry for your experience at TOP. I, myself, was banned there during the Great Purge of the 2016 election season, for the crime of pointing out that the Hillary wasn't any better than any of the Republicans running, and in some ways worse.
Edit: I came here and wrote a number of essays around that time, then took a long hiatus from political discussions before returning.
I will wait for your essay on this to see how you explain
the concept of CT.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Trump is a swine, but
being a swine is not an impeachable offense as long as no actual crime is committed. (I apologize to any actual swine who might be offended by the comparison.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Pages