Clutchfans - I regret to inform you that bigtexxx has left the building. I apologize for running him off with all my substantive questions. Maybe he will return tomorrow if we are lucky.
Substantive question? You tried to change the topic to discuss Bill Clinton and his blowjob. Sorry, not relevant to Trump. It's again telling that you can't stick to the topic. You've got nothing. Show me that impeachable evidence - I mean, it's clear according to the liberal media (and the liberal pile-on crew on cf.net), yet the witnesses couldn't describe any impeachable offenses.
I'm trying to actually. My fault, I've caused you to conflate two separate things: (i) the legal question of what constitutes an impeachable offense, and (ii) the evidentiary question of whether sufficient evidence exists to issue articles of impeachment. Let me slow things down and parce them separately. Our discussion in the thread about dear leader's health is going to tackle the second issue - whether sufficient evidence exists to issue articles of impeachment for a vote by the House. Let's take that up over there. The legal question of what constitutes an impeachable offense -- Basically legal scholars agree that it is not well defined in the constitution, that's why there is all the handwringing among legal scholars and even here within Clutchfans. Therefore, I thought I'd simplify it. For the discussion between you and me, let's agree on Republican house rules, ok? The honorable Lindsay Graham explained that you don't even have to have committed a crime to be impeached. And we know William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. So, while the legal scholars debate this weighty issue of what the Founding Fathers meant in the Constitution . . . let's use the tried and true concept of "precedent" as employed by the courts of our country since its founding. So, based on precedent, we should easily be able to agree that Trump can be impeached without having committed a crime, and a crime as basic as lying about getting a blowjob is more than enough. After all, I know Republicans don't want to be inconsistent about the legal question of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Are we all square on that one?
An "impeachable offense" is whatever the hell The House votes it is though Ms. Pelosi was very careful in defining the crime of extortion and bribery. The 'Trial' of whether the charges warrant removal from office is in the Senate. Rant and rave about 'not an impeachable offense' but the Constitution let's the House decide and it is about 90% sure they are going to. Trump resigning is about the only other possible outcome (health reasons? hence the hospital trip?). Somebody famous once said "elections have consequences".
Yep, it's not hard to see that the articles of impeachment will include some combination of bribery, extortion and obstruction. Trump definitely won't get charged with lying about getting a blowjob, well.... unless he is lying about getting one that he didn't actually get. I could see that scenario.
On the July 25 call, I think some participants genuinely thought they weren't doing anything wrong, and it wasn't until later that the aid was really in jeopardy. Folks need to be aware of the timeline. You can see from the testimony how Trump boiled the frog on his diplomatic team. The news focuses a lot on the July 25 call, which is important, but September 1 is the real crux. On May 29, Trump offers Zelensky a White House meeting. On July 10, Sondland tells Yermak that an announcement of an investigation into Burisma is necessary to get that White House meeting. This is technically a quid pro quo because official White House meetings are a favor a president can give in his official capacity and he's asking for something in return for his personal benefit. But, it's one of these small corruptions that officials in any Administration would probably not look askance at. After all, a White House meeting is just a nice-to-have for Ukraine. Mostly, Zelensky himself would be the beneficiary because it makes him look like more of a big-shot for his own next election cycle. So no one objects at this time except John Bolton. July 18, the aid is withheld. The NSC and agencies scramble to say this money should go through asap, but they don't actually know the reason why. July 25, Trump responds to Zelensky's request for missiles with "I would like you to do us a favor though." Several people are alarmed, and somebody decides to file a whistleblower report. Why, because the quid pro quo seems to have escalated now. It's not just the White House meeting at stake, it also might be the sale of these missiles. But not everyone is alarmed, apparently Morrison included. They only know that they're leveraging the White House meeting. They don't know if Trump really will withhold the missiles or how long he'll detain the aid. Maybe they hope it's a bluff. Maybe they figure Zelensky will play ball and it will all soon be over. Maybe something will happen to save them from an ethics conflict. September 1 is when it becomes clear (despite earlier hints) that all aid is dependent on this announcement of an investigation. Ukraine has been cooperating on it, but don't want to go public until they have assurances (that is, they're given a firm date for this White House visit). Politico just published that aid was withheld a couple days prior and Ukraine is alarmed. Sondland is finally told clearly to give Ukraine nothing without the announcement. He meets with Yermak and tells him without the announcement, there's no White House meeting, no missiles, no aid. Sondland then tells his staff the new understanding -- it's not just the White House meeting that they're leveraging, but everything, and Taylor memorializes it in text. So you can see how Trump has escalated them from a small impropriety of leveraging a meeting to putting Ukraine under existential threat, and what originally caused little consternation eventually became a big ethical problem for his diplomats. Sondland, a political appointee, doesn't seem to get it at first, but Taylor does. And when Taylor's testimony makes clear Sondland's culpability in the whole thing , he either sees his own legal peril or he is finally struck with the moral imagination necessary to recognize his own unethical behavior. So he changes his testimony. Looking forward to his public hearing. Just because the text uses the word "crimes" doesn't make this a criminal case. Trump is not in jeopardy of losing life, liberty, or property. I actually spent some time googling to see if there was some argument out there that is criminal and coming up with nothing. Any links appreciated.
How do you know what this process is exactly doing? I have never been a proponent of impeachment because I knew he would never be removed in the Senate but this is definitely an impeachable offense and nobody is going to switch sides because they think Trump is being treated unfairly or that he is victim of a witch hunt. Those lines have already been drawn.
Rep. Jim Himes: "I know we're having this long debate about extortion versus bribery. Bottom line, bribery is when I pay you do something corrupt. Extortion is where I threaten you into doing something corrupt. Frankly, in my opinion, it's both." @MSNBC
It likely is an impeachable offense. No , people who have their minds made up aren't going to change them. But there are a lot of people who haven't made up their minds and they are going to look at a failed impeachment attempt and hear Dumpster say "Fake News" "Witch Hunt" and buy it , especially those who aren't paying attention. Those that get their news from social media …. Half the people are stupid and half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin Dumpster's "Base" should prove that point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
is no one watching this today? I'm just reading reports that Vindman says he is the one who alerted Eric Ciaramella about the July phone call?
Eric Ciaramella is a left-wing Deep State informant who was assigned to the White House. Ciaramella held the positions of National Security Council director for Ukraine under Susan Rice and director of Baltic and Eastern European Affairs in the Office of Vice President Joe Biden. https://www.conservapedia.com/Eric_Ciaramella
I still have to ask how do you know a lot of people have not made up their minds? And if they don't really have an opinion as of yet I would bet most of those people don't even vote. Not that many voters actually live in this vacuum that you speak of.
It was perfect! You didn't put quotes around honorable, nor a wink or smiley-face emoji. You are being very nice to texxxxxxx.
