Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a silly objection, you don't need to be able to read minds to prove crimes. They're often proven through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.
It's all very simple. Trump called Ukraine asking for dirt on Biden, which throws up a clear red flag as possibly an illegal attempt to solicit a foreign power's help to attack a political opponent for political gain. Therefore, an impeachment inquiry is being opened to investigate Trump's conduct. Now, for the sake of argument, if we assume as fact that Trump's intent for a quid pro quo must be proven, the mere fact that intent needs to be proven is, in fact, a basis for an investigation! It's not a basis to object to a mere inquiry.
However, none of that matters as a quid pro quo isn't necessary for Trump's conduct to be impeachable. The ask here was the crime. If it turns out that there was zero basis for this investigation into the Bidens and Trump just pulled it out of thin air (which seems to be the case), then his mere request is arguably enough to impeach.
While it is not necessary for impeachment, realistically there will be no conviction in the Senate without a quid pro quo. Without it, it is reminiscent of Clinton where you know, of course, he committed a crime, but does it rise to level of his being kicked out of office. So while Trump is, by his own words, guilty of a crime, I would not support moving forward unless it can be proven that he withheld US aid as a condition of providing dirt on Biden.
While it is not necessary for impeachment, realistically there will be no conviction in the Senate without a quid pro quo. Without it, it is reminiscent of Clinton where you know, of course, he committed a crime, but does it rise to level of his being kicked out of office.
A quid pro quo actually weakens the Dems' argument that Trump committed a crime.
Quote:
So while Trump is, by his own words, guilty of a crime . . .
No, he's not. Nothing he said puts him anywhere close to being guilty of a crime.
i'm betting that it will be engraved over the entrance to trump's presidential library.
On his tombstone when his day comes, I but don’t think st Peter will accept that at the pearly gates. Hear God sees the hearts or the intent of every word we speak. Sooo - we need some clarifying down here on this.
While it is not necessary for impeachment, realistically there will be no conviction in the Senate without a quid pro quo. Without it, it is reminiscent of Clinton where you know, of course, he committed a crime, but does it rise to level of his being kicked out of office. So while Trump is, by his own words, guilty of a crime, I would not support moving forward unless it can be proven that he withheld US aid as a condition of providing dirt on Biden.
I'm not really sure why you wouldn't support impeachment without a quid pro quo (which there almost certainly was). Are you saying your support is contingent on how successful you think impeachment will be? Because that's how I'm reading your objection, and I have to say I wholly disagree with you on that. The decision to impeach (theoretically) shouldn't be made simply as a calculation of whether you not you think it will pass the Senate, but whether it's the right thing to do. Here, the fact that Trump asked a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent without any basis whatsoever is alone an impeachable offense.
Unless as a country we're just going to be cool with future presidents recruiting foreign powers to "investigate" political opponents based on nothing more than a hunch, just to help them stay in power. Might as well remove the impeachment clause from the Constitution at that point.
Unless as a country we're just going to be cool with future presidents recruiting foreign powers to "investigate" political opponents based on nothing more than a hunch . . . .
I don't get it. That's no different from getting domestic powers to "investigate" political opponents based on nothing more than a hunch, as the Democrats have done with Trump. The Dems can't impeach the President for doing something they themselves did.
There is a certain type of people who post here a lot that live almost entirely in fantasyland. They post what they want to believe as if it were fact, and when they find something weird from a fringe website or news source that they want to believe they post that too. As an example, it has been said that a person watching only Fox News is generally less well informed than a person watching no news at all. There seems to be something to that, judging from what we see posted here on a regular basis. More of that below ...
But getting back to Sondland's excuse: Sondland was willingly passing on what Trump said as if it were a fact, when he personally knew it wasn't true. So what he said to the career diplomat in total became a complete contradiction within itself, but Trump wanted him to say it and he did. Now he is trying to claim that it wasn't his lie, it was Trump's. (But he still wanted Taylor to do that dirty illegal bit, because Trump wanted it done.) This hotelier will not be able to enjoy his millions from a jail cell, and he knows it. Sondland has to get out in front of this.
Similarly, when Trump began his original campaign he got a lot of free airtime, because he was a notorious reality TV celebrity. He could say anything and the news media would just repeat it, basically amplifying what he said by repeating it without comment. He got a billion dollars (possibly much more) in free propaganda. Many of the people posting here listened to what he said, and liked it (me too, somewhat).
But it became obvious rather early that Trump was lying a lot, and contradicting himself, and the media reported that too, all except Fox News. Subsequently, Fox was lying by omission (pleasing to Trump) and Trump was calling all the other media "fake news".
So we get these weird scenarios such as when recently Fox had one of their many polls which in this particular case reports "more than half of registered voters want Trump impeached and removed". That made news everywhere, but it was not mentioned on Fox at all, until a guest brought it up! Fox viewership could not hear the surprising results of Fox's own poll, they were less informed by design.
That's what we are dealing with.
Last edited by Hesychios; 10-13-2019 at 10:29 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(But he still wanted Taylor to do that dirty illegal bit, because Trump wanted it done.) This hotelier will not be able to enjoy his millions from a jail cell, and he knows it. Sondland has to get out in front of this.
