Impeachment Hearings

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2020, 07:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I can answer your question, Sunset.

EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle approves of the US government using aid to accomplish official US foreign policy ends.  Aid is rarely dispersed as a handout, but conditioned to the US national interest.  Aid is the carrot just as sanctions are the stick. So of course it can be paused or withdrawn if US conditions are met.  SOP as you say.

And such was Obama's pausing of aid to Egypt.  And aid to Egypt under Trump was also slashed. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-09-07/senate-panel-slashes-military-aid-to-egypt.  No complaint from the Democrats.

So why is Trump's Ukraine action different?

Until September of 2019, both sides ALSO agreed that using officially sanctioned aid to accomplish private, political ends would be an abuse of power, especially if done by a president.

Trump stopping desperately needed aid to the Ukraine to force a pre-US election announcement that they were investigating Trump's primary opponent in the upcoming election--though the Ukraine had no grounds for such an investigation--would be an example of pausing aid for a private, political end at odds with official US foreign policy, and possibly risking the effectiveness of that policy.  Not to mention the irony of making corruption a condition of aid to a country we have always lectured about corruption. 

So what Trump did is not SOP.  The complaint is not that he just "paused aid" pending certain conditions be met; the complaint is that the "conditions" were for private gain and working against US foreign policy, without Congressional knowledge and approval, not to mention encouraged by foreign (Russian) intelligence services.  It was a way of using presidential power of the office--a power none of Trump's opponents has--to cheat on elections, to sow disinformation.  Followed by obstruction of witnesses and documents.

I see your point, and would like to counter with "What aid did they not receive?"  As far as I understand, the "pause" of the aid was withdrawn, and the Ukrainians received their aid, prior to the predetermined date.  So, "Where's the beef?"

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2020, 08:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your stance is that he did not ask Ukraine to investigate Biden?

The White House claims he did

"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."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Except that it's within his rights, and duties as POTUS to inquire about corruption.  Why is that a "high crime"?  Is it because it involves a member of the "resistance" party?  

It's almost like Trump took over as CEO of a company where the norm was employees stealing from the company.  Now, that he's trying to expose said employee theft, the rest of the gang is trying to get him thrown out.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2020, 08:24 PM)Dill Wrote: What do you make of this statement from page 3 of the partial phone transcript between Trump and the Ukrainian president?

Trump: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

"This whole situation" is pretty vague, and he seems to be following prompts from Russian, not US intel. Crowdstrike is a CA company and the DNC server has never been in the Ukraine.

Followed by this on page 4:

"The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. 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."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html

"Read the transcript" Trump says. It looks like he is asking them to investigate Biden, doesn't it? EVEN IF Biden might not be the nominee, he is still asking for an investigation into Biden, though there was currently no evidence to warrant an investigation.  And Trump has already withheld aid before asking this. In a criminal court this would indeed be evidence.

Again, I believe that it's completely within his rights as President, to ask favor of other World leaders.  So, where's the "high crime"?  As a US citizen, I just don't see it.  The only place that it is "there", is in the eyes of people who never wanted him to be President to begin with.

[hollodero]

(01-27-2020, 08:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Again, I believe that it's completely within his rights as President, to ask favor of other World leaders.  So, where's the "high crime"?  As a US citizen, I just don't see it.  The only place that it is "there", is in the eyes of people who never wanted him to be President to begin with.

I do wonder what you would have said if Obama had "asked" a foreign leader to investigate Romney, "asked" as in you either find some reason to investigate that guy or else I will arrange that you don't get aid Congress granted you to fight our foes.

If you say you'd be just as chill, fine.

[HarleyDog]

(01-27-2020, 05:21 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Both sides lie. Don't they ?

Yes they do. Here's a few reasons I don't buy all this bs against Trump:



If Trump was a Democrat, 3/4th's of P&R and the country 1/2 the country would strongly support him.
Trump did nothing worse than most presidents, but have kept more promises than most of them.
Oprah, Ellen, Madonna, Snoop Cat (not my dog), CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and other media strongly influenced this hatred for DT.
Stock market is doing extremely well.
Iran's not going to nuke Jerusalem now.
Other countries are finally starting to pony up their share.
Their are jobs if you want one.
The response on the Iran embassy was nothing short of awesome.
Everything leaked is politically motivated and only half true. Why else would it be leaked?

I feel it's so easy, and I've said this before, to say "Facts" when the information you receive is edited, skewed, altered or your just plain lied to. Do I have all truth? Of course not. But to get so worked up is crazy. I actually think it pains some of you deeply. The positive in that is you love your country and you care that much. That is not only admirable, but highly respected by HD. There was a reason several posts ago where I stated how many different networks and news sources I read and listen to. It's only so I can try and decipher through the garbage and come to my own conclusion since we don't have sincere truth reporting anymore. 

I respect all your opinions, but honestly wish you we were not so consumed in a finger pointing contest and actually had conversation on what would be great for Trump to accomplish instead of bashing every breath he takes, and the same for the next president. But I get some of that too. I've already explained my issues with Trump. But I will tell you what sucks, and that's that this nation may never come together again and support a president. Both political parties have made sure that is not going to happen. The only way that support begins again is if both parties were somehow dismantled, and all seats were independent based on what the citizens want instead of what the parties want.

One thing I am grateful for, is when this stuff get's me stressed out? That "off" button on the remote is within reach and I can listen to Limp Bizkit, with the dogs, and play.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2020, 09:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: I do wonder what you would have said if Obama had "asked" a foreign leader to investigate Romney, "asked" as in you either find some reason to investigate that guy or else I will arrange that you don't get aid Congress granted you to fight our foes.

If you say you'd be just as chill, fine.

On the bolded, sure I would have accepted that.  Romney is a Republican In Name Only, and he was too wishy washy to ever have been a strong leader, anyway.  Had the miracle that it would have taken to elect that milquetoast ever happened?  We'ed likely all be speaking either Russian or Arabic by now.

As for the rest of your post, WTF are you talking about??

[hollodero]

(01-27-2020, 09:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: On the bolded, sure I would have accepted that.  Romney is a Republican In Name Only, and he was too wishy washy to ever have been a strong leader, anyway.

lol... so you'd accepted it because you don't like Romney. Didn't see that one coming. I'd really like to rephrase my example to someone you actually like then.
Say, Obama telling a foreign country you have to announce an investigation into Trump for some Trump Tower deal or whatnot.

(01-27-2020, 09:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:   Had the miracle that it would have taken to elect that milquetoast ever happened?  We'ed likely all be speaking either Russian or Arabic by now.

Phew, thank god Obama won then. I have trouble enough with English.

(01-27-2020, 09:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As for the rest of your post, WTF are you talking about??

About what Trump did. He held up aid given to Ukraine by Congress to fight Russia, until Ukraine investigates Biden. That's the f I'm talking about.

[hollodero]

(01-27-2020, 09:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: If Trump was a Democrat, 3/4th's of P&R and the country 1/2 the country would strongly support him.

I don't think that's true.

I wouldn't.

[Benton]

(01-27-2020, 08:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except that it's within his rights, and duties as POTUS to inquire about corruption.  Why is that a "high crime"?  Is it because it involves a member of the "resistance" party?  

Because he's only doing it in regard to his political opponents.

This ain't Russia. Yet.

[Belsnickel]

(01-27-2020, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I see your point, and would like to counter with "What aid did they not receive?"  As far as I understand, the "pause" of the aid was withdrawn, and the Ukrainians received their aid, prior to the predetermined date.  So, "Where's the beef?"

Attempted bank robbery is still a crime. Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted abuse of power is still a high crime.

(01-27-2020, 08:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except that it's within his rights, and duties as POTUS to inquire about corruption.  Why is that a "high crime"?  Is it because it involves a member of the "resistance" party?  

It's almost like Trump took over as CEO of a company where the norm was employees stealing from the company.  Now, that he's trying to expose said employee theft, the rest of the gang is trying to get him thrown out.

Were he actually inquiring about corruption rather than asking for dirt base don debunked conspiracy theories, then you might have a point. But he still withheld aid illegally.

(01-27-2020, 08:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Again, I believe that it's completely within his rights as President, to ask favor of other World leaders.  So, where's the "high crime"?  As a US citizen, I just don't see it.  The only place that it is "there", is in the eyes of people who never wanted him to be President to begin with.

Congress appropriated funds. The Executive is not allowed to place any conditions on those funds beyond those set forth in the law. This is why the GAO concluded it was illegal to withhold the funds. It is made worse that he did it to request investigations into a political opponent and a debunked conspiracy theory.

[HarleyDog]

(01-27-2020, 10:37 PM)Benton Wrote: This ain't Russia. Yet.

Good point. With all the socialist ideas coming from some on the left, we are lucky for at least another 4.5yrs.   

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2020, 08:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except that it's within his rights, and duties as POTUS to inquire about corruption.  Why is that a "high crime"?  Is it because it involves a member of the "resistance" party?  

It's almost like Trump took over as CEO of a company where the norm was employees stealing from the company.  Now, that he's trying to expose said employee theft, the rest of the gang is trying to get him thrown out.

We’re in the philosophical argument now behind the impeachment: is it abuse of power to use your office to benefit yourself in an election. That has been debated at length here with overwhelming evidence showing a lack of concern with corruption itself from Trump and repeated insistence on just the announcement by Ukraine with no concern over a fleshed out investigation.

So that said, do you have any examples of another president asking a foreign nation to investigate their electoral opponent?

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2020, 10:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Attempted bank robbery is still a crime. Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted abuse of power is still a high crime.


Were he actually inquiring about corruption rather than asking for dirt base don debunked conspiracy theories, then you might have a point. But he still withheld aid illegally.


Congress appropriated funds. The Executive is not allowed to place any conditions on those funds beyond those set forth in the law. This is why the GAO concluded it was illegal to withhold the funds. It is made worse that he did it to request investigations into a political opponent and a debunked conspiracy theory.

(01-27-2020, 11:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We’re in the philosophical argument now behind the impeachment: is it abuse of power to use your office to benefit yourself in an election. That has been debated at length here with overwhelming evidence showing a lack of concern with corruption itself from Trump and repeated insistence on just the announcement by Ukraine with no concern over a fleshed out investigation.

So that said, do you have any examples of another president asking a foreign nation to investigate their electoral opponent?

What's even more sad, is that people are so infatuated with Trump hate, that they no longer recognize what is an actual misgiving, and just business as usual, when it comes to American politics.

Y'all keep on hatin' on the POTUS, but he gets things done, and he's going to be acquitted and win re-election.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-28-2020, 12:04 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What's even more sad, is that people are so infatuated with Trump hate, that they no longer recognize what is an actual misgiving, and just business as usual, when it comes to American politics.

Y'all keep on hatin' on the POTUS, but he gets things done, and he's going to be acquitted and win re-election.

Good chance if he has a foreign country interfere in an American election in his favor again and a bunch of American's condone it again.

Another rigged election in 2020 and who knows where this "democracy" is going.

[BmorePat87]

(01-28-2020, 12:04 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What's even more sad, is that people are so infatuated with Trump hate, that they no longer recognize what is an actual misgiving, and just business as usual, when it comes to American politics.

Y'all keep on hatin' on the POTUS, but he gets things done, and he's going to be acquitted and win re-election.

I’ll take this nonsensical response as a “no”.

[NATI BENGALS]

I don't doubt for a second that Trump would alter vote counts in his favor if possible. What's even more scary is his cult following that would gleefully applaud it.

I have had full faith in our election system until recently. I guess that's what happens when a reality tv show host conman takes over.

[Benton]

(01-27-2020, 11:15 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Good point. With all the socialist ideas coming from some on the left, we are lucky for at least another 4.5yrs.   

I understand you're joking, but this has cracked me up during the trump years.

A number of Republicans are pro Russia. It's ok if the meddle, it's ok for trump to distance us from other allies in favor of Russia. Etc. 

But what do they knock the left about? Socialism. 

It's confusing.

But honestly, in my opinion, both sides are socialists. Just about different interests.

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 08:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Again, I believe that it's completely within his rights as President, to ask favor of other World leaders.  So, where's the "high crime"?  As a US citizen, I just don't see it.  The only place that it is "there", is in the eyes of people who never wanted him to be President to begin with.

Analogy: I certainly have a right to ask an employee a favor, like "could you bring me a cup of coffee?" or "Could you work a half hour later tonight?" No crime there.
But I don't have a right to ask for a sexual favor, just because I have a right to ask a favor. I don't have a right to ask an employee to lie to the government as a favor to me. Most can see that such favors have nothing to do with legal expectations that an employee do his/her job. 

There are employers who don't see a difference. Or don't want to. But the law does see the difference. Crime there for sure.

Trump may certainly ask a favor of a foreign leader, as in "Could you allow us to fly over your territory for a military mission" or "Will you vote with us on this UN Resolution?"  No "high crime" there.


But it is not within Trump's "rights" as president to withhold Congressionally designated aid to a foreign country and strive to keep that from Congress. It is not within his rights to use taxpayer money to extort disinformation from a foreign leader to disable a political opponent in the US.
Most can see it has NOTHING to do with his duty as president, and puts his interest before the country's. That's why it is a high crime

Clinton got a bj from an intern.  But what's wrong with expressions of love between people? They are not illegal. That argument would not have worked for Starr.

But the defense of Trump seems to be going in that direction: his specific crimes are diluted by applying general labels to them. It is illegal to bribe or extort a foreign leader for personal ends, but because that involves asking a favor, call that "simply asking a favor" and suddenly it is "SOP," what every other president has done, not illegal at all.   All presidents ask favors, all use quid pro quo, just as every employer asks a favor of an employee now and then.

What makes this worse in this case is that US has been trying to stop Ukrainian politicians from using "favors"--aka corruption--to consolidate power in the Ukraine, in part by using their power to undercut opponents.  Do you think a US president then has a right to do the same thing? It seems you are saying they do. You are saying that it is within a president's right to engage in corrupt and illegal behavior.  

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 02:08 AM)Benton Wrote: I understand you're joking, but this has cracked me up during the trump years.

A number of Republicans are pro Russia. It's ok if the meddle, it's ok for trump to distance us from other allies in favor of Russia. Etc. 

But what do they knock the left about? Socialism. 

It's confusing.

But honestly, in my opinion, both sides are socialists. Just about different interests.

LOL one side is socialist for big business; the other is socialist for the middle and working class.

Follow the tax cuts.

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 09:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: If Trump was a Democrat, 3/4th's of P&R and the country 1/2 the country would strongly support him.
Trump did nothing worse than most presidents, but have kept more promises than most of them.
Oprah, Ellen, Madonna, Snoop Cat (not my dog), CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and other media strongly influenced this hatred for DT.
Stock market is doing extremely well.
Iran's not going to nuke Jerusalem now.
Other countries are finally starting to pony up their share.
Their are jobs if you want one.
The response on the Iran embassy was nothing short of awesome.
Everything leaked is politically motivated and only half true. Why else would it be leaked?

It is definitely NOT true that Democrats would accept a leader who called for a wall and a muslim ban, and had 22 sexual assault accusations against him. Trump could not run as a Democrat. He shocks us EVERY WEEK with his behavior. That is why it is not persuasive that he's done "nothing worse" than other presidents. What other president has bragged his supporters would let him get away with murder, or mocked a disabled person? What other president keeps "fixers" to cover his crimes?

Iran is closer to a bomb now that when Trump became president, and we are closer to war with Iran.  Trump's policies in the Middle and Far East have created vacuums now being filled by our adversaries, Russia and China.  His disruption of NATO and the confusion he has sowed in Ukraine also redound to Russia's benefit.  Other countries have lost respect for us and our allies mistrust us.  Oprah, Ellen and Snoop have not moved me to this view, but Trump's own actions.

(01-27-2020, 09:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I feel it's so easy, and I've said this before, to say "Facts" when the information you receive is edited, skewed, altered or your just plain lied to.

What I have been doing on this and other threads is sorting out those "edited, skewed, altered" facts, as well as the lies. I am explaining to people how facts are "edited" or "skewed" when I say that Trump is separated from accountability by the claim that impeachment and other complaints are simply driven by "hate" and not Trump's public and verifiable actions. That's what I am doing when I explain the difference between legally and illegally withholding aid.

Trump's scandals are not like a Hillary scandal based on what a secret service member claims to have over heard. Trump does and says the things he does in plain sight, on tv and in his tweets--unfiltered, unedited, unskewed. The skewing comes in when people start explaining why he didn't really say what he said, or mean what he said, or ok he did it now "get over it."

If people hate trump because he mocks sexual assault victims, that's not because Oprah "skewed" their thinking, or because they would only hate such behavior in a Republican, but because the majority of Americans can conclude that is truly despicable behavior whoever does it, and doubly so in the country's primary role model. If some think such behavior is tolerable if the stock market is high, or they just don't think it really all that despicable, they ought to say that outright, and not imply that only "hate" or partisanship explains why so many think Trump unfit for office--not Trump himself.