- This topic has 104 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Anyway, now that the shrieking has been relegated to the title, i would like to start this thread by asking everyone to “please”, only post your opinions on the subject. Please do not fling names and accusations at each other. And for good measure, please try to refrain from blasting even the politicians that we are against here. Lets keep this a civil discussion.
Obviously we are aware of the impeachment inquiries and whatnot. Now, I am quite aware that the dems never gave the president a chance. They tried to accost him at every opportunity. And they have gone down the road of “the russia hoax” and the like which was a bunch of hot air. However with this current “ukraine situation” i have a hard time with the republican stance.
It is clear that trump asked zelensky in his phone call “but i need a favor first”. It is pretty clear that Trump wanted a press report about investigating biden. The only 2 points of contention are 1) it was not quid pro quo and 2) it never happened.
To the first point, there were a number of reputable people who testified that the silent UNDERSTANDING was that there indeed WAS a quid pro quo, though it was never formally agreed to. And to the second point, the fact that the burglar dropped the cash doesnt mean he didnt attempt to steal it…
In short, although we can argue that assumptions and presumptions from all relative parties arent enough evidence to establish a crime, the fact remains that there is reasonable suspicion of one. In which case, we should stop cursing out the dems, like the old saying, “just because i’m paranoid dont mean they aint after me”. Here too, just because the dems are nuts about trump doesnt mean they havent got something here. I think its disingenuous to say this impeachment is a sham, it may lack sufficient evidence to establish a crime, but there sure is what to be suspicious of. No? (let the civility begin…)I agree with Prof Turley (the Republican’s witness at yesterday’s hearing). This whole charade regarding Ukraine, Biden Gulianni etc. was clearly inappropriate but not impeachable. Part of the problem is that Trump has so lowered the bar for what is considered “normal” behavior, its hard to get too excited about Ukraine in comparison a lot of his other “stuff”, which I won’t bother reciting here since everyone’s view are relatively locked-in. The matter should be settled at the ballot box in 2020.
I have no clue what you’re talking about. Peaches are delicious, and should not be held accountable for anyone else’s problems.
Very thought out question and although I do agree with you to some degree I believe that the Repubs reaction is still justified for the following reasons.
1) Joe Biden should be getting the same exact treatment (and the notion that he just wanted to save Ukraine from a corrupt AG and it must be within 24 hours or no $ and it had nothing to do with the fact that he happened to be investigation his son is partisan MSM nonsense)
2) if the dems are indeed pursuing justice why did they jump into it that second and they couldn’t even wait when they new that prez was releasing the transcript the next day
3) at the end of the day there is no trace of hard evidence (yes prez is a pro) so why are they impeaching? censure? yes but if they dont have the goods why are they putting us all through this craziness
4) this is just an excuse they have been waiting to pounce for 3.5 years already
5) prez is owed an apology for russian hoax persecution when they display decency then they can also persecute others
Hope that gives some fresh perspectivefurthermore you are asking the question because you are judging him based on your own morals however you have to remember that all presidents do this sick stuff (remember bomster and the IRS scam?) so get rid of him and you get someone else who acts the same way. if its a dem he gets away with censure its only trump who has done so much for usa that gets this treatment. So bottom line for a us president his behavior was more or less routine unfortunately
GH
Except that is not what Tuley saidhere is the key quote “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.””
Turley said he didnt beleive that happened, but a. That wasnt what he was called to testify on, and b. We already know it happened we all saw the phone transcript, and the white house (ie Mulvaney) acknowledged that the quid pro quo took place
“Part of the problem is that Trump has so lowered the bar for what is considered “normal” behavior, its hard to get too excited about Ukraine in comparison a lot of his other “stuff”,”
This I agree with complelty, given Trumps behavior this hardly seems like a big deal. but The Republican’s own witness testified that IF it took place it is an impeachable offense
If the President should be impeached really depends on party affiliation, that is how it seems.
Furthermore, does the president need to commit pre-established crimes to be impeached, or can the majority of Congress determine if the actions or attempted potential actions are impeachable, also depends on the party affiliation, as democrats will argue that this satisfies the criteria vs republicans that will argue that it does not meet the criteria for impeachment. (some will even argue that what the president did was good and his concerns were legitimate).
I believe the same actually happened during the Clinton impeachment, despite president Clinton actually committing pre-established crimes.
All of this feeds the press, it creates narratives. Democrats hope this will feed their narrative against Trump, Republicans believe that this will expose democrats, or as they call it “the swamp” and reenergize republican voters come 2020.
I guess time will tell.
Just as with the Russia hoax, even if the allegation were true there would be no crime.
It’s very interesting that the Democrats are all up in arms over Trump allegedly doing exactly what Biden bragged about doing. Let’s assume that Trump actually did what they’re accusing him of. Explicitly or implicitly he conditioned the aid that he had offered (and that 0bama had refused) on an inquiry into Burisma’s corruption. There is no doubt whatsoever that Biden explicitly conditioned $2B in aid on the prosecutor being fired. The only question in both cases is the motive. Did Biden want the prosecutor gone because Burisma was paying his son for precisely this sort of protection, or was it because he truly believed the prosecutor was corrupt and needed to go? Did Trump want the Burisma investigation reopened because the father of one of the targets was running for 2020, or was it because the corruption bothered him?
Anyone supporting this impeachment push should seriously ask themselves, do they really want to say that running for president should make one immune from any investigation into serious criminal allegations against one or any member of ones family? And if you truly do believe that, how can you possibly justify the FBI’s and CIA’s investigating anyone connected with the Trump campaign?
You can’t have it both ways.
@Gadolhadorah
Totally agree with your last statement 🙂
But in regards to what you said that Trump lowered the standard etc..his other “stuff” etc…and so in comparison “us Republicans” may view it as trivial, I don’t agree with that for 2 reasons.
1. His other “stuff” and whether or not he acts “normal” or unethical or stupid etc, those are just personal flaws which don’t raise or lower the bar in regards to our perception of the severity of the legal accusations being presented.
2. Forget about Trump for a second, I would laugh if I heard these accusations being made at ANY former president as a reason to try and impeach them! Impeachment is for Treason or High Crimes! Which aren’t defined explicitly obviously, but to say that this is a high crime is ridiculous.. If he was blackmailing them to withhold information about a criminal act he once did or something, I would have an easier time understanding, but everyone agrees their was something shady going on with Hunter Biden and the prosecution being shut down, etc and had he merely called about asking them to have a transparent investigation to determine what occurred that would have been a completely valid request, so just cause he “might” have hinted to them like “hey, you know we provide you with a huge amount of aid, so you should want to stay favorable in my eyes” their`s no president that I could think opf that we would say wow that’s a High Crime you should be removed from office.
A Presidents entire day is busy talking and negotiating with all different countries and foreign leaders, there`s no president that didn’t have a conversation or call with a foreign leader that you wouldn’t be able to say that he might have implied blah blah blah…Obama had very questionable dealings with Iran and cash payments, the Clintons monetary dealings is a whole other matter, but have you ever heard of anyone implying that hey they should have been impeached over it?
That’s why in my opinion this whole thing is a sham, not because I refuse to believe he did a “quid pro quo” but simply because whether he did or didn’t, going and trying to impeach him over that is saying, if Russia hoax didn’t work, we`ll make something else work…This is similar to saying , you are welcome in our shul but it is locked and you can’t enter because I am not giving you the key or combination. Prof. Turley says not enough proof, but Trump claims presidential immunity, so he doesn’t have to cooperate with documents or allowing peoole to testify in impeachment investigatiion prescribed by the constitution. Therefore, his obtructiion is violating the constitution and he needs to be impeached.
“Just as with the Russia hoax, even if the allegation were true there would be no crime.”
“Furthermore, does the president need to commit pre-established crimes to be impeached, ”
Again, Don’t forget the constitutional expert brought by the Republicans (Turley) disagrees with these staments (obviously the three experts brought by the Democrats do too)
Democrats: * begin depositions *
Republicans: WE NEED OPEN HEARINGS!
Democrats: Okay.
Republicans: * unanimously vote against open hearings *
────────
Democrats: * issue subpoenas for documents and witnesses *
White House: * refuses everything *
Republicans: There’s no evidence!
────────
Democrats: * begin open hearings *
Republicans: It’s all hearsay!
Witnesses: I heard it straight from the President’s mouth.
Republicans: Ukraine hacked our election!
Witnesses: That’s a pro-Russia narrative that holds no weight in truth.
Republicans: CHALUPA!
────────
Republicans: Trump isn’t being given a chance to defend himself.
Nadler: Now is your time. Come present your case.
Trump: Ha ha nope.
Republicans: Trump still isn’t being given a chance to defend himself.
────────
The Do Nothing Democrats…
Gadolhadorah,
For once I like your political comment
ברוך אתה שהחיינו וקימנו לזמן הזה
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If the previous presidents were not impeached, does not make it right. When someone eats garlic and his mouth smells, does not mean that he should eat more garlic.
Here’s the problem. When a group of people join together to impeach someone years before the “crime” is committed, then holds hearings in secret, won’t let republicans ask questions and won’t let them read the records or call witnesses then there is something wrong with their argument before they even start. I don’t defend trump, but if you can’t move forward with integrity then you have no case.
If just one of those Democrats had the self respect to say Trump was wrong and Biden was also wrong then I would believe they have a trace of honesty in the process.
When you lack yashrus, nothing you say is worth listening to.For the record, there are lots of Trump supporters Who are willing to say that they don’t agree with certain policies or behaviors of his, or even to say that he’s a jerk but they support what he’s done. I have yet to find an anti-Trump supporter who is honest about his party’s representatives the laws that they’ve broken or some of the really slimy things that they’ve done. And it ain’t because They haven’t done anything to call them out on
Syag can you be more specific?
Chash
So based on your Op
Would you support an. Investigation got Obama’s birth certificate fiasco?
(I personally do)It will be a “plum” in the Republicans’ hat when the whole “impeachment” meshugas will fizzle out, and Trump will be re-elected along with a Republican majority in both houses!
People get a president they deserve. If they elect Trump again, they deserve him.
I thought i might have the stomach flu but i think it’s just the opening statements at the hearings
If he is guilty, impeach him but if he is innocent, impeach him for stupidity of acting as he is guilty.
how could we get the white house to read this thread?
And! If he is not guilty, impeach the whole democRATS for dragging the nation through this USELESS excersize.
For anger management, look in the mirror.
I mentioned Trump is stupid you don’t publicize the thing being accused of, i.e. investigate Biden and hold back aid.
There is a similarity betwen Nixon and Trump as both wanted to influence the elections. Nixon throgh the break in into the DNC wanted to influence the 1972 presidential election.
Reb Eliezer sums up the entire Democrat’s argument. He says just because other presidents were not impeached for similar offenses, Donald Trump should still be impeached…
So I would like to ask Reb Eliezer if he would like to be held to a standard that no other citizen is held to, if he’s ok with being harshly punished when no citizen is for slight offenses that every human may make in the course of a lifetime of being citizen of a country with this many laws, ONLY because he would have political enemies?! Does that make sense?
“Reb Eliezer sums up the entire Democrat’s argument. ”
No he doesn’t and that isnt the argument.
The argument for impeachment is simple and staright forward. ALL FOUR of the constitutional experts *testified that the alleged crimes are grounds for impeachment. There is ample evidence that said crime was commuted, including his chief of staff publicly admitting it at a press confrence.
You are making the argument AGAINST impeachment which is far harder, ” other presidents were not impeached for similar offenses,” which isn’t much of an argument. Try telling a cop or judge “yes I was speeding but lots of people speed and get away with it, why shouldn’t I”
* including the Republican one who said ““The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”
Philosopher, you are misunderstanding my point. Was Nixon stupid when he resigned? He knew he will be impeached. They both affected our democracy by manupilating our elections and thereby violated the constitution whereas Clinton was impeached on something that had nothing to do with governance.
Ubiquitin, ALL who testified said there’s NO quid pro quo. This impeachment process is as ridiculous as spending years on the “Russian investigation” which wasted millions of taxpayers dollars on nothing.
I think the Democrats want Trump to win the next election because many people are voting for him only because they see the stupidity and obvious Democrats political manuavers and shenanigans which people absolutely hate.
“ALL who testified said there’s NO quid pro quo. ”
I must have missed those
Anyway we already know there was a quid pro quo, as mentioned. the transcript is available and Mulvaney publicly confessed“He says just because other presidents were not impeached for similar offenses,”
ike all trump supporters you are using contradictory talking points, that makes you sound silly. which is it, do all Presidents commit this offense or Did Trump not do it?
Like the guy who broke the vase he borrowed., and argues that 1) He never borrowed it, 2) It was broken when he borrowed it ans 3) It was fixed when returned” because many people are voting for him only because they see the stupidity and obvious”
Thats how much Democrats stand for truth, they will give up an election just to do whats right! wow!ubiquitin, kindly let us know who testified that it was a quid pro quo.
Gordon Sondland testified under oath and Mulvaney at the news conference.
Try telling a cop or judge “yes I was speeding but lots of people speed and get away with it, why shouldn’t I”
If the law is being selectively enforced due to a pre-existing bias, you’d better believe it is supposed to get thrown out in court.
If a 65 mph speed limit was normally not enforced until 72mph, but it was shown that a particular minority group was routinely given tickets at 68, wouldn’t you object? It would be legal abuse.
This is what’s happening here, but the bias is political not racial.
DassYochid, very well said.
Reb Eliezer, sorry! You are right and I’m wrong. They actually did testify that it was quid pro quo. But they have ZERO proof that is was. That’s why I got mixed up. They say what THINK but could NOT prove that the president actually wanted a quid pro quo.
To me if you have no proof and it’s all based on assumption it’s worth zero. And that what I had in my mind when they were asked to provide proof that it was quid pro quo they had none to offer.
Reb Eliezer, absolutely wrong. Under oath they both testified that their was no quid pro quo. You did not listen to the hearings, I presume.
I don’t even know why we are arguing about the quid pro quo and bribery accusations when the Dems dropped it like a hot potato because they realized that this very broad definition that they had to manufacture in order to ensnare Donald Trump in it could ensnare Joe Biden as well.
Now they are accusing him of abuse of power and contempt of Congress…
Ahem…excuse me. I have mistakenly written one article of impeachment as contempt of Congress…it’s really called obstruction of Congress. What a kangaroo court. As much as I mostly agree with Trump policies, I’m not even such a big fan of Trump as much as I hate the abuse of power by the Democrats.
It’s clear that Reb Eliezer and GH continue to suffer from Trump Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Neither of you have either seen the transcript or seen any of the hearings
A. The transcript does not mention suspension of the aid or a quid pro quo
B. None of the witnesses called by Schiff heard Trump state he wanted a quid pro quo. They testified that they thought Trump was implying it, yet most of the nor only hadn’t ever met Trump, they hadn’t ever met him. This type of testimony would be thrown out by a judge at trial.
C. The only witness who was on the call, the Colonel, said there was no quid pro quo on the call
D. Ambassador Sondland, the big witness, under cross examination admitted he was only presuming a quid pro quo. He then , upon further questioning admitted the following:
1. He called the president subsequent to the July call and asked Trump to clarify what he wanted and Trump responded that he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo. He somehow left this out of his written testimony.
2. He admitted that although the alleged quid pro quo required Zelinsky to make a public statement regarding a Biden investigation before he could get a meeting with Trump and the aid, the aid was released and a meeting was held without the statement.
E. Zelinsky has twice stated that he had not been pressured by Trump and in fact was not even aware the aid was being held.
F. Schiff’s impeachment hearings were one sided. Witnesses were not allowed legal counsel, Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses and most of the hearings were held in secret, with Schiff selectively leaking testimony to the media. Gee, I can’t imagine why Trump wouldn’t cooperate.
G. Refusal to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas is not illegal or an impeachable offense; it’s routine. The Executive is not subservient to the Legislature and has constitutional right to appeal to the Courts , the third branch of government. Had Congress not been in such a rush and appealed to the courts, and Teump still refused, that would be obstruction.
H. The 3 experts called by Nadler were a farce in that they’ve been advocating for impeachment since day one. Korman was so anti Trump that she couldn’t walk past the Trump hotel in Washington without crossing the street. Turley, although called by the Republicans, is a Democrat who voted for Clinton. His point was that the Democrats were incorrectly rushing the process to meet a calendar deadline. In the process too many witnesses hadn’t been called because it would have required time consuming court appeals. He wasn’t saying that Trump was innocent. He said that we were setting a terrible precedent by going forward with an impeachment based upon flimsy proof .Typo correction. Most of the witnesses had not only not met Trump, they had never spoken to him. How could they testify what his intent was?
anynomous, you can’t hide yourself like Trump. Michael Cohen indicated that Trump hints what is on his mind. We have to interpret his pattern of behavior. The letter indicates ‘do me a favor though’ was is ‘though’?
We have to understand the letter in context as he mentions javelins before. How is it that for the previous president of Ukrane, who was really corrupt, Trump provided aid? Why did he ask China to investigate Biden as the corruption of the Bidens was not in China? Why diid he not investigate the Bidens before he became a candidate? All this indicates that he was not out for the corruptiion of the Bidens but to stop his political opponent.A. It does have a request to coordinate with the AG and Guliani an investigation into Trumps political enemy as personal favor.
>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.<
B. Trump directly ordered the hold up of the security assistance to Ukraine as repeated by Mulvaney. There was no valid explanation except that it was to pressure Zelensky.
Regarding Trump not meeting with Zelensky – According to Ambassador Sondland, “we all believed [a White House meeting for President Zelenskyy] was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U. S. foreign policy goals in the region.” (Sondland at 26)[3] As Ambassador Reeker testified, “To say that I was dismayed, frustrated that the White House meeting had not yet taken place is a fair [ ] statement. … We didn’t know exactly where or why, so we were pursuing this PCC process to try to force a decision and a movement forward on that, and that that was, indeed, through that period in July going into August was of concern to I think all of us working on Ukraine trying to figure out why.” (Reeker at 89)
C. That is not the totality of what he said . Read his opening statement.
D. After the July call, Trump knew that he was in very hot water. There was already a whistle blower and rumors that he committed and indefensible offense.E.Irrelevant. You expect him to say what he really feels ?
F. That is fox news propaganda and far from the truth
G. The unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas is not routine. The impeachment document lists four federal agencies and nine administration officials, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, for following Trump’s lead.
H. More fox news propaganda. Fox news loves disparaging professionals, dedicated public servants, and decorated purple heart recipients all in the service of defending Trump.Firing genrrals and advocating ‘yes’ man is no way to govern as this brings to tunnel vision by only seeing one side.
Your relying on Michael Cohen?
The transcript ( not letter ) says do us, not me. a favor
Hunter Biden had a deal with China also
Fox propaganda? You’re watching too much MSNBC. If you were watching any of the hearings, you had to have seen that
the rules that Schiff implemented gave him veto power over Republican witness requests, and did not permit counsel. The Republicans were constantly complaining that Schiff was vetoing their requests.
Once again, the legislative and executive branches are COEQUAL. If there is a disagreement on the validity of any requests, the answer is the courts, not impeachmentIf , as you all claim, that everyone “knew” it was a threat, why didn’t Zalinsky know,
Zelinsky says he was not pressured because he needs the good will of the US, so he does not want to upset Trump.
Hunter Biden is a drug addict who did nothing to warrant his eceiving his $60,000 a month salary. Obama also wanted him removed from his post. It was not an offense for Trump to have asked for him to be investigated. Certainly, it is not an impeachable offense, except for in the corrupt US Congress that is currently led by Democrats whose only purpose in life since Trump was in office was to get him removed. That is total corruption by the Dems, not by Trump.
The bottom line is that this impeachment will not pass in the Senate and Trump will in the meantime get enough support because even people who were Democrats are seeing their elected leaders doing nothing but be busy with witch hunts for 4 years…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.