Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,059
I don't watch Fox News.
I don't care if he directed it. It's not impeachable. I frankly remain to be convinced he did anything that was actually wrong.
But the important takeaway here is that Adam Schiff has now twice fabricated evidence to try to create a basis on which to impeach.
The entire impeachment debate seems to hinge on whether what Trump did was "illegal" but the usage of that term as Democrats have been is misleading itself.
I mean, it was illegal for Obama to do what he did in the Fast and Furious. It was illegal for Obama to attempt to order amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's illegal for a debtor in bankruptcy to claim the federal exemptions when they are only entitled to the state exemptions. Etc, etc, etc.
The problem is your mistaken understanding of what that term means. For my debtor example, the resolution to the illegal conduct is not jail, it's amending your schedules or face dismissal of your case. It MIGHT be illegal for Trump to withhold those funds, but the remedy to that breach of law is a lawsuit compelling him to release the funds. And since the funds have now been released, it's a moot point.
It's no more illegal than any unconstitutional executive order or unconstitutional piece of legislation that Congress ever passed. However, you don't remove the Senators from office for passing bad law or impeach the President for ordering an illegal executive order. You vote them out of office. Impeachment is for CRIMES, not simply illegal orders. And what's more, it's for high crimes and misdemeanors, like treason.
On the flip side, in a situation that is very similar to your misguided argument about Obstruction, which I'll get to momentarily, I'm not even sure he did anything wrong if he withheld the funds in an attempt to uncover actual wrongdoing on the part of someone else. You cry foul because it was the son of a potential political opponent, but if Hunter Biden was actually doing something illegal, then it makes sense that we don't want to be funneling money to a corrupt regime either. A directive to "clean your act up" before we give you the money is completely understandable even if it's not technically allowed under the Constitution (the remedy to which, again, is a lawsuit ordering Trump to release the funds). It's also something that seems like we do ALL THE TIME (essentially bribery of foreign governments to do what we want).
In any case, the bottom line is, the answer to this is replacement in the general election.
You have no idea why or why not, so, your baseless speculation carries no weight. I will note this is all strikingly similar to the Russia investigation, which, newsflash: NO COLLUSION.
So his refusal to play along in that matter DID NOT mean he was hiding anything. Sorry!
Addressed already. No more illegal than an unconstitutional law passed by Congress or an unconstitutional executive order. Illegal meaning not allowed, but not wrongdoing punishable criminally or by removal from office. Obama had tons of things overturned. So therefore he acted illegally all the time.
This is a non issue report and one that is being used deliberately to mislead. Therefore you are a liar for repeating it.
I read the report. I suspect you haven't.
Nowhere does it say the President obstructed justice. In fact, it doesn't even conclude that a President is able to obstruct justice, nor does it conclude that if a President could obstruct justice, that Trump did obstruct justice. It says "maybe" and skirts around the issue. Which it does because it did not dare say "We found jack shit" after wasting years and millions of dollars on nothing.
That wasn't a campaign finance violation.
None of this has been proven, and it all happened before he was President, so again, not impeachable.
Don't like him? Then don't vote for him.
I agree he's odious.
Unfortunately, so are every candidate on the left (with the exception of Bernie Sanders, but, I can't vote for a socialist either).
