a reply to: dawnstar
Yes, I think trump has done something that is deserving him being removed from office.
Very well; I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. I disagree strongly, but that is far and wide different than just wanting someone
removed because you don't like them.
The house has followed the same rules that were in effect while the republicans were in the majority.
There are several differences between the Clinton impeachment and the Trump impeachment. Clinton was accused of a specific instance of criminality
that had hard evidence supporting it: perjury and interfering with a witness to cover up said perjury. His perjury was on videotape. That does not
mean I agree with the impeachment; I didn't then and I don't now. I simply do not think the issue was serious enough to override the vote of the
Nixon might have been a different story. We'll never know, because there was no reason to present evidence after he resigned and was pardoned. I do
know he was accused of a specific instance of criminality and that his own actions indicated hard evidence existed.
Trump has been accused of a specific potential criminal instance with no hard evidence yet presented. Opinions are not hard evidence and neither is
hearsay. His conversation with Zelensky can be read two ways... one, as the Democrats are claiming, that indicates an abuse of power; the other, as
Trump is saying, that indicates a desire to cooperate with Ukraine in continuing the same investigation that targeted him for over two years. Only two
people know what was going through the minds of the leaders: Trump and Zelensky. Trump has explained why he did what he did, and Zelensky has stated
multiple times that he felt no pressure to do anything to receive military aid. Just as I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I give Donald Trump the
benefit of the doubt. The law actually requires such in cases of criminal prosecution... "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What someone thought he meant or what someone heard him say out of context is irrelevant.
As far as bias, it's a nice scapegoat, anyone who just doesnt jive with what you want must be bias.
That's not what I am talking about. Bias in either direction can color the testimony of accusers. That bias must be taken into account in determining
innocence or guilt.
Suppose for one moment that your neighbor got upset at you for some reason... doesn't matter why. That neighbor can then hold that grudge against you
and one day see you yell at your kid. They call the authorities and make a formal complaint. You get a visit from Child Protective Services who then
want to know how many times a day you hit your child, why is the child crying, etc. I actually know a couple, used to be close to them when they lived
closer. Great parents with a beautiful little girl. One day she was playing and accidentally fell against a heater and burned herself. Horrified, my
friends picked her up and rushed her to the hospital. After she was treated, they were then taken into a little room and questioned: how did she get
burned? Why weren't you watching her? How many times has this happened before? They asked the little girl if her parents were ever mean to her, did
her parents hit her, did anyone push her into the heater?
That is improper and it is exactly what I see happening to Trump. Those investigators saw a little girl with burns and decided her parents were guilty
of child abuse, and then set out to prove it. People heard something Trump said and immediately decided he was abusing his power and set out to prove
it. They never could prove anything against my friends, and so far nothing has been proven against Trump.
If we ignore witness bias, yes, Trump could be proven guilty... but so could my friends, and so could you. All witness bias weakens testimony. It has
to if we want justice.
Ya, the pres can decide how he wants to handle foreign policy to an extent. But there are laws, and there are policies set up. Proper channels
and ways things should be done. If he wanted to change course, he could have at least clued in the people on the ground in ukraine. If he wanted to
remove the ambassador, there was no reason to publicly drag her name through the mud. If he wanted to seek assistance in an investigation there were
proper channels to do this and a far better time than when the person you are wanting to investigate becomes your potential political rival in your
Laws yes. The President makes the policies, though. Donald Trump is the President. The policies are whatever Donald Trump wants them to be.
One of those laws, incidentally, directs the President to certify that foreign aid is not going to a corrupt government before releasing it. Trump
would have been in violation of the law had he not put a temporary hold on the funds to check out the Ukrainian government.
Proper channels are whatever channels the President decides they are. Donald Trump is the President. Donald Trump decides what a proper channel is.
The ambassador's name was not 'drug through the mud' until the phone call transcript was released, in response to the whistleblower's accusation. I
had never heard of her before that. Donald Trump has the right to defend himself by presenting evidence in his favor whether it offends someone or
The discussion into investigating Burisma started before Joe Biden announced his candidacy. Volodymyr Zelensky won the Presidency, and had his first
conversation with Donald Trump, on April 21, 2019. Joe Biden announced his candidacy on April 25, 2019. One could call that suspicious timing, perhaps
indicative of someone trying to place themselves in a position to avoid future prosecution.
In any event, announcing candidacy for President is not an excuse for not investigating a crime. Hillary Clinton was under an FBI investigation twice
while she was running against Donald Trump in 2016. We now know Donald Trump was also under investigation by the FBI during that same year. Why is Joe
Biden exempt from investigation all of a sudden? He hasn't even won the nomination yet and thus is not a candidate for President; he is a candidate
for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Trump is not in that race.
I also heard that our own intelligence community briefed the senators recently and told them that the idea that the ukraine was the one
meddling in the election originated in russia. And that the biden bit has been debunked. Although his son having that job didnt look too good, he
broke no laws. And, the danged prosecutor biden told them to fire was corrupt, he wasn't investigating burisma at that time, and it was the consensus
of many countries that he had to go if the money was gonna keep flowing.
You really should actually research Viktor Shokin. He has never been formally accused of a crime. His successor, however, spent some time in an EU
prison for corruption and money laundering. You won't hear about that on CNN, but you will if you simply search for the names online.
It is possible for both Russia and the Ukraine to simultaneously meddle. Showing that one did so does not absolve the other.