Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (2 Viewers)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.

 

[MT15]

I think there has long been a suspicion that THAT is exactly why he is being impeached.

yeesh, Jim, his own actions have led to his impeachment. Pelosi really really didn’t want to impeach him, but she had no choice.

in a hypothetical situation, he could have shown some recognition that strong arming an ally to garner a bogus announcement of an investigation into a political rival was wrong. Had he shown some contrition, there’s a chance that Congress would have gone with censure, or something similar.

But instead of self awareness, we got doubling down. Calling for China to open an investigation as well as Ukraine on the WH lawn, renewed attacks on an ambassador that did nothing wrong, and sending Rudy back to Ukraine.

His own out of control actions after the fact led to this impeachment almost as much as the unethical actions that started the whole thing.

Only truly blind partisans are saying these things you are saying.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Yeah, I think most people get it. Democrats don't like Trump - you can even say they hate him - so they take a very serious power - impeachment, on that overturns the results of an election - and turn it into a partisan weapon, a political strategy.

I agree that most people get it. Republicans are inextricably linked to Trump - you can even say that they are blindly loyal to him - so they ignore open and obvious misdeeds - relying on weak arguments like "there was an election three years ago" as if the constitution excepts elected officials from impeachment - and complain that politics are political.

 

[FullMonte]

The nebulous "abuse of power" and even worse "obstruction of Congress." LOL. Weakest impeachment in history. To not see this as a political charade you have to be totally oblivious to facts and/or be so emotionally invested in hating Trump that it trumps all rational reasoning skills.

I would disagree that it's the weakest in history.

Trump--House of Representatives investigates Trump for improper actions regarding his dealings with Ukraine. House impeaches Trump for his improper actions regarding his dealings with Ukraine.

Clinton--Special Counsel investigates Clinton for a real-estate deal that happened before (and during) he was governor of Arkansas. Special Counsel finds no evidence of guilt by Clinton related to that deal. During the investigation, Special Counsel finds out that Clinton was having an affair with a White House intern. Special Counsel asks Clinton about the affair, and Clinton denies the affair. House impeaches Clinton for lying under oath about a personal matter that occurred years after the actual incident that Clinton was being investigated for.

 

[samiam5211]

The nebulous "abuse of power" and even worse "obstruction of Congress." LOL. Weakest impeachment in history. To not see this as a political charade you have to be totally oblivious to facts and/or be so emotionally invested in hating Trump that it trumps all rational reasoning skills.

So do you think there are any circumstances where a president could legitimately be impeached for "abuse of power", that doesn't violate a criminal statute?

 

[JimEverett]

So do you think there are any circumstances where a president could legitimately be impeached for "abuse of power", that doesn't violate a criminal statute?

Every impeachment of a President, at least, we have had has been on the basis of an actual crime. "Abuse of power" can be a standalone charge, but the abuse of power must be sourced by an actual crime - at least it seems that way to me. How else can the use of power be abusive except out of a criminal violation?

It is too general, and too ripe for political shenanigans - like we are seeing today - to remove a President and one that was elected PResident at that, on the basis of such a generalized concept.

 

[samiam5211]

Every impeachment of a President, at least, we have had has been on the basis of an actual crime. "Abuse of power" can be a standalone charge, but the abuse of power must be sourced by an actual crime - at least it seems that way to me. How else can the use of power be abusive except out of a criminal violation?

It is too general, and too ripe for political shenanigans - like we are seeing today - to remove a President and one that was elected PResident at that, on the basis of such a generalized concept.

So if the President removed the Tariffs on China because they gave him a video of Hunter Biden murdering a prostitute, that would not be impeachable to you?

 

[Nebaghead]

Every impeachment of a President, at least, we have had has been on the basis of an actual crime. "Abuse of power" can be a standalone charge, but the abuse of power must be sourced by an actual crime - at least it seems that way to me. How else can the use of power be abusive except out of a criminal violation?

It is too general, and too ripe for political shenanigans - like we are seeing today - to remove a President and one that was elected PResident at that, on the basis of such a generalized concept.

If a president asks the FBI to investigate political opponents, that is OK and not impeachable?

 

[JimEverett]

If a president asks the FBI to investigate political opponents, that is OK and not impeachable?

Didn't the FBI do that in 2016?

But that would be more problematic given that hte PResdient does not have pleanry power over domestic issues in the way he does foreign affairs.

 

[JimEverett]

So if the President removed the Tariffs on China because they gave him a video of Hunter Biden murdering a prostitute, that would not be impeachable to you?

Are you also assuming in your scenario that the PResident committed no crime?

 

[Archies Ghost]

So if the President removed the Tariffs on China because they gave him a video of Hunter Biden murdering a prostitute, that would not be impeachable to you?

Do you consider it impeachable only if the video is of Hunter Biden or of any US Citizen committing a felony?

 

[samiam5211]

Are you also assuming in your scenario that the PResident committed no crime?

I am assuming that it would not violate any law.

 

[Nebaghead]

Didn't the FBI do that in 2016?

But that would be more problematic given that hte PResdient does not have pleanry power over domestic issues in the way he does foreign affairs.

The president has no authority to withhold funding from a nation if congress approved it. The impoundment control act of 1974. The act that was passed because of Nixon's abuse of power.
All I hear is excuses. Just admit, because he is your guy he is ok. If he was a democrat you guys would be foaming at the mouth for an impeachment, just like Clinton.

 

[dtc]

Every impeachment of a President, at least, we have had has been on the basis of an actual crime. "Abuse of power" can be a standalone charge, but the abuse of power must be sourced by an actual crime - at least it seems that way to me. How else can the use of power be abusive except out of a criminal violation?

It is too general, and too ripe for political shenanigans - like we are seeing today - to remove a President and one that was elected PResident at that, on the basis of such a generalized concept.

I'm sure you have volumes of source material to backup your assertion that it needs to be sourced by another crime, right? And then the way you state your question "how else can the use of power be abuseive except out of a criminal violation" is absurd. An abuse of power could be economic and self dealing as most of Trump's actions are. The use of his office to procure future political or financial benefit is anathema to the office yet your argument excuses it wholly.

 

[MT15]

Didn't the FBI do that in 2016?

But that would be more problematic given that hte PResdient does not have pleanry power over domestic issues in the way he does foreign affairs.

so you are saying that Obama ordered the FBI investigation? I had a higher opinion of your reasoning powers.

 

[JimEverett]

The president has no authority to withhold funding from a nation if congress approved it. The impoundment control act of 1974. The act that was passed because of Nixon's abuse of power.
All I hear is excuses. Just admit, because he is your guy he is ok. If he was a democrat you guys would be foaming at the mouth for an impeachment, just like Clinton.

Hey, at least Clinton's was based on an actual violation of the law. And pretty clearly, if Trump were a Democrat you guys would be opposing impeachment.

 

[JimEverett]

so you are saying that Obama ordered the FBI investigation? I had a higher opinion of your reasoning powers.

What does it matter if "ordered" or not? It is his Justice Department.

 

[dtc]

Hey, at least Clinton's was based on an actual violation of the law. And pretty clearly, if Trump were a Democrat you guys would be opposing impeachment.

If Trump were a Democrat I'd vote for someone else and I'd still support his removal from office. It's beyond my ability to rationalize him being an unindicted co-conspirator and the blatant abuse of his office. And, for what it's worth, I think Democrats in Congress are idiots and Pelosi had no choice, but to follow the trail she didn't want to follow. Trump attempted to bribe a foreign government for his own political benefit. And, when being investigated he refused to provide testimony which, in my mind is obstruction.

I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong, but the Mueller report was enough for me and should have been enough for anyone who actually has morals and can read.

 

[MT15]

There has been a long standing tradition that the DOJ operates independently of political matters. It did under all modern presidents since Nixon, well until this one.

And it’s pretty weak to make up a scenario, predict someone’s response and the try to use that against them.

I’m actually surprised by these types of responses. Obviously I shouldn’t be though.