ADVERTISEMENT

What would be an impeachable offense to you?

firm_bizzle

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Jul 24, 2008
41,781
42,620
113
What action by a president would warrant impeachment and removal for you?
 
A clear and coordinated effort to extort a political bombshell announcement out of the Ukrainian President if he wanted military aid from the U.S. to defend itself against Russia would do it for me.

But evidently for some posters bribery and extortion for personal gain isn’t a big deal because ‘everybody does it.’ :rolleyes:
 
Let's see if there is evidence first before making wild guesses. So for everything has been a scam as far as the allegations for the last 3 years.
Assuming that there is evidence (transcripts, witnesses) what would be impeachable?
 
some of the allegations were impeachable but i have yet to see any evidence that would warrant it. seems like another witch hunt or the continuation of 'the coup' past admin hold overs have openly talked about.
 
Let's see if there is evidence first before making wild guesses. So for everything has been a scam as far as the allegations for the last 3 years.

The aid was withheld specifically to get Zelensky to make a public statement regarding investigations of 2016 and Burisma. The hold came directly from Mulvaney at Trump's direction. According to overwhelming testimony, there was no support for withholding the aid outside of OMB. Neither the White House, Trump's allies in congress, or anyone else have provided an alternative narrative that holds up against the evidence and testimony. If you believe anything other this is what is most likely to have occurred, then you are not basing your opinion on the actual evidence that's been made public.

There's no good path for Trump here except total defiance. It's dangerous but less so than letting more facts out. The only scenario I see where Trump might actually be shown as relatively innocent in this whole deal, is if there was a conspiracy between Sondland/Mulvaney/Rudy - working in what they believed to his best interests but also ensuring he had deniability if it all went south. That doesn't seem to be the case and I don't see any of those guys falling on the sword.
 
It's not a problem of "what would be an impeachable crime."

It's "who would you have to hear about the crime from in order to believe it?"

Trump has minions who won't believe anything except what comes out of his own mouth. Everyone else is fake news, crooked media, a liberal democrat, a never trumper, the deep state, or a traitor. He's created these descriptions so he can immediately discredit anyone who says anything bad about him. This includes anyone who report on his crimes. Even when fox news said something criticizing him he tweeted that fox news is going down hill.

They won't believe any of it ever.
 
There's actually a good reason for it. Most of these people are so dug in to supporting trump that facing the idea that he deserves to be impeached doesn't just threaten their political preferences. It threatens their entire identity as a human being. These are people who have built their social connections around trumpism their friends, their church, their clubs, everything about them is trumpism so the idea of accepting reality threatens their entire identity.

Because of this, theyll search out a version of the truth that they like. A version or reality that allows them to feel like they were right all along. When Nixon was impeached access to this alternate reality didn't exist so people had to come to terms with Nixon's crimes. That's not the case anymore.
 
There's actually a good reason for it. Most of these people are so dug in to supporting trump that facing the idea that he deserves to be impeached doesn't just threaten their political preferences. It threatens their entire identity as a human being. These are people who have built their social connections around trumpism their friends, their church, their clubs, everything about them is trumpism so the idea of accepting reality threatens their entire identity.

Because of this, theyll search out a version of the truth that they like. A version or reality that allows them to feel like they were right all along. When Nixon was impeached access to this alternate reality didn't exist so people had to come to terms with Nixon's crimes. That's not the case anymore.
[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]
 
Once upon a time, this "witchhunt" started with a whistleblower sounding the alarm about a phone call where the President pressured the Ukrainian President for 'a favor.' Trump said the call was 'perfect' even though the actual audio of the conversation is locked away in a secret WH server and instead we got an official "unofficial" transcript.

But since then, we've gotten sworn testimony from the players that makes it cystal clear the phone call was just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump Administration told Zelensky that if he didn't 'play ball' and announce a Biden investigation, his military aid was going to continue to be held up. It was only released once the lid of secrecy was blown off their plan by the whistleblower. Any way you want to slice or dice it, this was bald-faced extortion for the President's personal gain.
 
i wanted the impeachment process to start. until now alot of he said/she said. if there is evidence go ahead and throw him out. i havent seen enough to do so yet.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming honestly. It's really more he said / everyone-else-and-all-the-evidence-said.

Trump was leveraging the aid and a white house visit to get Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into 2016 and Burisma. I don't see a reasonable, non-biased observer of the available facts coming to a different conclusion than the this.

Where there's room for debate is what those facts actually describe - a routine foreign policy interaction? Soliciting a bribe? Extortion? Abuse of Power?
 
A clear and coordinated effort to extort a political bombshell announcement out of the Ukrainian President if he wanted military aid from the U.S. to defend itself against Russia would do it for me.

But evidently for some posters bribery and extortion for personal gain isn’t a big deal because ‘everybody does it.’ :rolleyes:
You mean the same thing that Joe Biden bragged about to the Council on Foreign Relations about his time serving as vice president?
 
The evidence is pretty overwhelming honestly. It's really more he said / everyone-else-and-all-the-evidence-said.

Trump was leveraging the aid and a white house visit to get Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into 2016 and Burisma. I don't see a reasonable, non-biased observer of the available facts coming to a different conclusion than the this.

Where there's room for debate is what those facts actually describe - a routine foreign policy interaction? Soliciting a bribe? Extortion? Abuse of Power?
trump withholding $400 million seems like it could be a big deal. but then again biden admitted to withhold $1 billion and that wasnt a big deal at all. last i checked $1b was bigger than $400m. so yea, seems routine to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jedi.Knight
The evidence is pretty overwhelming honestly. It's really more he said / everyone-else-and-all-the-evidence-said.
The only contrary voice, Gordon Sondland, who didn't refuse to speak to Congress, ended up getting cold feet and changed his testimony.

Blowjob by intern, definitely. #thingsthatmatter
LOL Yeah, the same people who were ready to roll a President for lying under oath about a blowjob are the same people who want to excuse a President's bribery and extortion efforts against a foreign country to gain a political advantage in his upcoming reelection campaign.
 
trump withholding $400 million seems like it could be a big deal. but then again biden admitted to withhold $1 billion and that wasnt a big deal at all. last i checked $1b was bigger than $400m. so yea, seems routine to me.

That framing is probably one of Trump's better defenses. It's total nonsense of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jedi.Knight
A BJ is pretty bad IYAM. That's a high crime.
If he forced it on her, yes. I'm not even just talking a subordinate, which is a form of sexual extortion.

And yes, before you defend Clinton again, you should read up. I'm tired of Democrats not knowing not only Bill's long history of sexual assault accusers, but ignoring Hillary's role in going after them.
 
Joe Biden held back more money for something that aligned with US foreign policy at the time.

Trump held back less money for a PUBLIC announcement of an investigation into the democratic front runner at the time, his likely election opponent. This was a move that wasn't thought up by the Intel Community but rather, private citizen Rudy Guliani. The move was so bad that the IC said this is a problem so they put it on a top secret server even though the call contained no top secret info since it was just released publicly without issue. They tried to hide it because they knew it was bad.

Yeah, seems about the same.
 
If he forced it on her, yes. I'm not even just talking a subordinate, which is a form of sexual extortion.

And yes, before you defend Clinton again, you should read up. I'm tired of Democrats not knowing not only Bill's long history of sexual assault accusers, but ignoring Hillary's role in going after them.

Got dammit dude. I really wish you turn your sarcasm meter on when you read my posts.
 
What if Trump gets impeached, Pence kicks major ass and wins in 2020?

If somehow Trump got removed in the next two months, there's going to be a mad dash for the nominee. Pence certainly would be in the mix but I think it would be better politics to go in another direction. Nikki Haley seems to be setting herself up by praising Trump recently.

Here's another great hypothetical. The Senate could, in theory, convict and remove Trump, while also not banning him from public office in the future. Imagine that scenario - he gets removed but still runs as the party nominee in 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
trump withholding $400 million seems like it could be a big deal. but then again biden admitted to withhold $1 billion and that wasnt a big deal at all. last i checked $1b was bigger than $400m. so yea, seems routine to me.

You are incorrect.
 
Joe Biden held back more money for something that aligned with US foreign policy at the time.

Trump held back less money for a PUBLIC announcement of an investigation into the democratic front runner at the time, his likely election opponent. This was a move that wasn't thought up by the Intel Community but rather, private citizen Rudy Guliani. The move was so bad that the IC said this is a problem so they put it on a top secret server even though the call contained no top secret info since it was just released publicly without issue. They tried to hide it because they knew it was bad.

Yeah, seems about the same.

Stop confusing him facts.
 
Assuming that there is evidence (transcripts, witnesses) what would be impeachable?
I'm not sure any of it would be, due to the fact that the Biden story predates his entrance into the race.

Replace the name "Biden" with "Clinton" and it paints a different picture because one is now running and the other is not. Reading the transcript, trump basically asked for an investigation into Clinton and election tampering first, then Biden. Nobody is paying attention to the first request. Why the disconnect?

I suppose we have to ask ourselves how broad the line is between the national interest and personal interest. It seems like there can be a lot of grey area there. Obama gets a pass for wiretapping trump campaign officials because at the time it appeared as though there was a chance of Russian influence based on faulty information. Why doesn't Trump get the same pass?
 
I'm not sure any of it would be, due to the fact that the Biden story predates his entrance into the race.

Replace the name "Biden" with "Clinton" and it paints a different picture because one is now running and the other is not. Reading the transcript, trump basically asked for an investigation into Clinton and election tampering first, then Biden. Nobody is paying attention to the first request. Why the disconnect?

I suppose we have to ask ourselves how broad the line is between the national interest and personal interest. It seems like there can be a lot of grey area there. Obama gets a pass for wiretapping trump campaign officials because at the time it appeared as though there was a chance of Russian influence based on faulty information. Why doesn't Trump get the same pass?

That's a new one. So that fact that Biden has been polling 10 points ahead of Trump means nothing because he wasn't officially in the race so it didn't benefit Trump to get dirt on Biden?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poolside Knight
I suppose we have to ask ourselves how broad the line is between the national interest and personal interest. It seems like there can be a lot of grey area there. Obama gets a pass for wiretapping trump campaign officials because at the time it appeared as though there was a chance of Russian influence based on faulty information. Why doesn't Trump get the same pass?

If Obama personally directed surveillance of Trump associates based on single left-wing journalist's reporting at the urging of James Carville, who then personally bugged the room himself, while ignoring his own National Security Adviser and subject matter experts telling him the whole thing is bunk, then OK maybe we're getting close to a fair comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poolside Knight
ADVERTISEMENT