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 doesn't make sense to me. They know he was guilty, yet their going to acquit him anyway?
Can someone explain that?
Impeachment is supposed to be about a president or judge doing something so abhorrent or dangerous that the country needs to remove them from office. Essentially, the constitution gives Congress the ability to overturn an election or remove someone who has received a lifetime appointment, because it was recognized that there was a possibly that someone like Lenin, Napoleon or Hitler could rise to power, but it is supposed to be reserved for only things that threaten the very essence of the nation, especially when it comes to the president. One of those individuals can be guilty of doing a crime or violating laws/regulations but what they did does not rise to the level of impeachment.
At this juncture they are deciding not his guilt of a crime but whether or not to remove him from office and possibly bar him from ever running again. When they acquit they aren’t saying he did or didn’t do a crime, they are just saying whatever did happen it wasn’t bad enough that he should be removed from office. That bar is extraordinarily high, as it should be. There is a reason, despite this being the nation’s fourth round with this process, that the Senate has yet to actually throw a president out of office. The one president that they probably would have done that to was Nixon. Congressional leaders of his own party told him there were enough votes to remove him and requested he resign prior to the Senate trial for the good of the nation, which he did. That would have happened in this time also had the Republicans thought that was the case here.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Very good post, Oldhag1. I think Trump and the Republicans would have been better served if their position was, yes, the House proved their case, what Trump did is wrong but isn't severe enough to warrant removal. That would have been a lot more respectable than the defense that they put up, which relied on a bunch of hand-waving and wacky legal theories.
Senator Lamar Alexander (R) says additional witnesses aren't needed because the House proved their case, but doesn't think Trump should be removed.
This means we have bipartisan agreement that Trump is guilty.
The president will be acquitted but certainly not exonerated.
At worst-he is asking the Ukrainian government to investigate the corrupt and likely illegal acts that Joe Biden bragged about on tape. Specifically of bribing the government of Ukraine to drop the corruption investigation of Barisma. Barisma-a company SO corrupt that Great Britain had started an independent investigation and frozen their assets. A company that HIRED Hunter Biden-while under that investigation-and while Joe was VP and "point man" dealing with aid to Ukraine. A company so corrupt that even Ukraine, one of the most corrupt nations in the world, was forced to start an investigation on. An investigation that was halted when Joe Biden withheld US taxpayer funded aid to Ukraine-in return for halt it.
So-if Trump did ask them to investigate-what, exactly, is wrong with that? As a taxpayer, I want to know that a country has cleaned up their internal issues before they get any more of my money. Unlike, say, on Obama's watch-where corruption investigations were stopped as a result of bribes......
Are Dems so terrified that such an investigation will further demonstrate how much of a con-man Biden is? That it will be that much more dirt on Obama's scandal-ridden legacy? Or will such an investigation lead to even deeper ties to others in elected positions profiting from Ukraine corruption, not just the Bidens?
The whole demand for "witnesses" is just Dems pathetic attempt to stretch out this media circus for some more air-play. If their was actual evidence of wrongdoing-it was the House impeachment committees job to find it and present it. The fact that they had nothing but 3rd hand information and no actual witnesses demonstrates how much of a shame this whole process was.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 01-31-2020 at 09:53 AM..
Anyone who has read the transcript knows there is nothing there. Now if you fabricate lies and go on what a person, heard from a person, from another person what Pencil Neck did yes there was something there.
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.
