- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What would have to come out for you to say Trump had committed an impeachable offense?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:53 pm to TidenUP
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:53 pm to TidenUP
I don’t know how my response about people avoiding the question through semantics is some sort of “gotcha!” And I’m not a leftist, but I will answer your question.
To see this is some sort of unfounded witch hunt, I would have to see evidence that the testimony of individuals saying that they we told by Trump or Giuliani that Trump wanted to see investigations started on Burisma and election interference before he released foreign aid is fraudulent. And I would want to see evidence on why those individuals chose to fabricate those claims.
To support an impeachment claim, I would need to see credible evidence that they President intended to withhold US aid from a friendly foreign country based on his desire investigations into political opponents, driven by personal motives.
Honestly, without any sort of nefarious motive, I want to know what would be a smoking gun for someone who currently doesn’t support an impeachment proceeding that would prompt them to say “Ok, this deserves to be looked in to.” I want to know where people are drawing the line.
If your response is “there is nothing he could do”, or “as soon as they throw all the Dems in jail”, then you aren’t really adding anything.
To see this is some sort of unfounded witch hunt, I would have to see evidence that the testimony of individuals saying that they we told by Trump or Giuliani that Trump wanted to see investigations started on Burisma and election interference before he released foreign aid is fraudulent. And I would want to see evidence on why those individuals chose to fabricate those claims.
To support an impeachment claim, I would need to see credible evidence that they President intended to withhold US aid from a friendly foreign country based on his desire investigations into political opponents, driven by personal motives.
Honestly, without any sort of nefarious motive, I want to know what would be a smoking gun for someone who currently doesn’t support an impeachment proceeding that would prompt them to say “Ok, this deserves to be looked in to.” I want to know where people are drawing the line.
If your response is “there is nothing he could do”, or “as soon as they throw all the Dems in jail”, then you aren’t really adding anything.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 7:57 pm
3
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:59 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Posted on 10/22/19 at 7:59 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
I would need to see credible evidence that they President intended to withhold US aid from a friendly foreign country based on his desire investigations into political opponents, driven by personal motives.
So, when Biden bragged about withholding funds to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son, it didn't trigger you. Trump asks them to finish the investigation on corruption(it's cute that you refer to it as "political opponents" BTW), it's suddenly an abuse of power?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:03 pm to TidenUP
I believe that Biden should be investigated for withholding that same aid based on the conflict of interest that existed when he did that. Yes I do.
I would think it equally worth investigating if any other political figure withheld US aid because they wanted someone investigated.
I would think it equally worth investigating if any other political figure withheld US aid because they wanted someone investigated.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:04 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
To see this is some sort of unfounded witch hunt, I would have to see evidence that the testimony of individuals saying that they we told by Trump or Giuliani that Trump wanted to see investigations started on Burisma and election interference before he released foreign aid is fraudulent. And I would want to see evidence on why those individuals chose to fabricate those claims.
So the wise founders thought that the Fifth Amendment should give every person the presumption of innocence except in the case of impeachment which applies to treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors (and the FF were not talking jaywalking, Francis)
Very interesting concepts.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:04 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
I would equally think it worth investigating if any other political figure withheld US aid because they wanted someone investigated
The president is literally in charge of foreign policy and justice.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:05 pm to jimdog
quote:
Trump is guilty of doing what he promised, putting America first.
no he puts himself first.
You are ok with using military aid as a carrot and stick to get dirt on leading dem candidate in which quid pro quo was spelled out.
Leader was told to go on tv and say he would be looking into it else no aid.
Even you see the abuse.
Several posters in this thread admit that politics comes before country.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:07 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
I would think it equally worth investigating if any other political figure withheld US aid because they wanted someone investigated.
How the frick does the Executive in Chief recuse himself from a criminal investigation to be conducted by one of his subordinate agencies?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:07 pm to PhDoogan
I don’t think I said that thePresident has to prove his innocence, or anything of the sort.
I responded directly to the question of what would it take for me to see this as some sort of democratic ploy to maintain control of the White House.
I responded directly to the question of what would it take for me to see this as some sort of democratic ploy to maintain control of the White House.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:08 pm to DeathAndTaxes
When there is evidence that Trump committed a crime.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:10 pm to PhDoogan
quote:
How the frick does the Executive in Chief recuse himself from a criminal investigation to be conducted by one of his subordinate agencies
The same way that any other law enforcement official does?
Or by not inquiring about it directly?
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:11 pm to CelticDog
quote:
no he puts himself first.
You are ok with using military aid as a carrot and stick to get dirt on leading dem candidate in which quid pro quo was spelled out.
Leader was told to go on tv and say he would be looking into it else no aid.
Even you see the abuse.
Several posters in this thread admit that politics comes before country.
This was a hearsay, pre-prepared statement coordinated with highly partisan actors from a man who does not appear to have ever spoken with Trump.
But he clearly spoke with Schiff staffers and other dim lawmakers, and was clearly no fan of our president.
Be smarter.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:12 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
I would think it equally worth investigating if any other political figure withheld US aid because they wanted someone investigated.
And if that political figure is the President, go ahead and automatically frame it as an impeachment proceeding? With the evidence known as of a couple weeks ago?
Is it never ok for a President to withhold aid unless and until actual moves are made to demonstrate that the probe into potential corruption is really happening? Is there not a real enough possibility of that to refrain from impeachment proceedings unless more credible evidence than hearsay and presumptions was uncovered?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:13 pm to CelticDog
quote:
You are ok with using military aid as a carrot and stick to get dirt on leading dem candidate in which quid pro quo was spelled out.
Everyone involved and were there say that didn't happen.
You people!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:14 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
because they wanted someone investigated.
Again, you say "they wanted SOMEONE investigated". It's not someone, it's corruption, connected to Biden's son.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:15 pm to CelticDog
Taylor’s testimony today connects the dots, the question is whether republican senators can start to put our country ahead of party.
It will be interesting to see how long this takes, seems like a new stone is turned over every few days regarding inappropriate conduct by this administration. Trump has openly obstructed the whole process from the get go. He still refuses to admit that Russia interfered with the election, ludicrous.
It will be interesting to see how long this takes, seems like a new stone is turned over every few days regarding inappropriate conduct by this administration. Trump has openly obstructed the whole process from the get go. He still refuses to admit that Russia interfered with the election, ludicrous.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:15 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
What would have to come out in regards to the situation with Ukraine for you to say an impeachment proceeding is warranted? And what evidence would you need to see?
Since the birth of this nation Presidents before Trump have used similar tactics to get other nations to do our bidding. We have literally overthrown legitimately elected government officials in other countries and you want to impeach the President because he asks another country to look into some shady deals and election interference. GTFO. Part of the presidents job is to make deals with world leaders like this.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:15 pm to Dale51
quote:
Everyone involved and were there say that didn't happen.
you are not paying attention. Get off fox for two days.
Taylor said oh theres no quid pro quo and then gave example of it being precisely quid pro quo.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:15 pm to TidenUP
quote:
It's not someone, it's corruption, connected to Biden's son.
And using a billion dollars of American taxpayer money.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:16 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
I don’t think I said that thePresident has to prove his innocence, or anything of the sort.
You did. You said that in order to believe the president's claim that it is a witch hunt, he must come forward with evidence that those who have testified (through 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th hand accounts) have themselves committed crimes (i.e. lied under oath), or are at least fraudulent.
You do not believe the president should be entitled to the presumption of innocence in a proceeding that could literally lead to a fricking civil war and actual deaths of thousands or more?
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 8:17 pm
Page 3 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News