I would like your opinion on this anti-impeachment article.

[DMT]

Nots isn't going to support impeachment, but rather stick to Republican talking points. Liberty!!!

[DMT]

GITH, condolences for your loss.

[nots]

I'm not sure how we can reconcile these two quotes above. It seems like the second one directly contradicts the first. The only reason bringing up the Bidens is a bad look is because it's clearly campaign related.



If Hunter Biden broke the law in some way then I agree. I'm not sure that's even relevant to this discussion though, the question is whether the president did. We should not conflate the two, they are separate discussions.



I couldn't care less about what Schiff said or didn't say honestly, my concern came after reading what the White House put out, the transcript itself is very concerning.



I guess that's where we differ. I have no sentence count restrictions. For example if I'm a juror in a murder trial and the phone transcript comes back as "Please kill my husband. I'll pay you $500K when it's done.", that's more than enough for me.

Heck, even just one sentence from the White House's transcript is enough "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." Trump asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, his potential opponent in the 2020 election. That should NEVER happen. That's an abuse of power and a request for a foreign government to involve itself in our election process.

I don’t know how to format like you did, but you asked ‘if you believe Trump’s motivation was anything other than the 2020 campaign’? I do believe that while it was a component, it was not the only reason for the call and I do believe the call would have happened, even if Biden was one of the front runners. In my mind, the two quotes of mine you posted are reconciled.
Your murder analogy notwithstanding, I agree that if you had 2 sentences in the transcript that said ‘I need you to investigate Biden. If you don’t, I am withholding funds’, you would have a better case. But that isn’t what the transcript says.
If you believe those 2 sentences are an impeachable offense, you can certainly be of that opinion. I don’t think it’s enough, but again, I am open to hearing more evidence.

[nots]

Nots isn't going to support impeachment, but rather stick to Republican talking points. Liberty!!!

Yep, everyone who isn’t lined up for impeachment is just parroting Republican talking points.

[DMT]

Yep, everyone who isn’t lined up for impeachment is just parroting Republican talking points.

Pretty much

[Ken]

I don’t know how to format like you did

Good question - I've posted a quick tutorial here:

http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showthread.php/17130-How-to-reply-in-line

, but you asked ‘if you believe Trump’s motivation was anything other than the 2020 campaign’? I do believe that while it was a component, it was not the only reason for the call and I do believe the call would have happened, even if Biden was one of the front runners. In my mind, the two quotes of mine you posted are reconciled.

I think this is a semantics issue. I don't really care what the overall call was about, I care what the portion that is about Biden was really about. If I call you and ask you how your family is doing and then throw in at the end that we should rob a bank, the fact that I asked you about your family doesn't change the fact that the last portion is problematic.

Your murder analogy notwithstanding, I agree that if you had 2 sentences in the transcript that said ‘I need you to investigate Biden. If you don’t, I am withholding funds’, you would have a better case. But that isn’t what the transcript says.
If you believe those 2 sentences are an impeachable offense, you can certainly be of that opinion. I don’t think it’s enough, but again, I am open to hearing more evidence.

Enough in what sense? You don't believe that it's clear what his intent was? To me it is obvious.

We can go into semantics games here and try to analyze every word. Heck we did that with Clinton already (it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is), but that's just silly in my opinion. It's clear what he was asking for and it's clear the game he was playing. If we pretend that he wasn't asking them to dig up dirt on Biden we're just playing political games, which I think is counterproductive.

[nots]

. If we pretend that he wasn't asking them to dig up dirt on Biden we're just playing political games, which I think is counterproductive.

I literally wrote ’bringing up the Biden’s and seeking dirt on them is a bad look. Clearly he shouldn’t be doing that.....’

[Sour Masher]

I literally wrote ’bringing up the Biden’s and seeking dirt on them is a bad look. Clearly he shouldn’t be doing that.....’

Just to be clear, do you believe that if a President withholds money from a foreign government unless said government agrees to investigate and smear a political rival, that is an impeachable offense. I am still not sure if your position that Trump did not do that or if your position is it does not matter if he did, that act is not worthy of impeachment.

[Ken]

I literally wrote ’bringing up the Biden’s and seeking dirt on them is a bad look. Clearly he shouldn’t be doing that.....’

Sorry, the "we" part was directed in the general sense not at you.

But on that point, if he "shouldn't be doing that", what should be the result? Impeachment is the only control we have in place over the president for such abuses of power, right? There's no slap on the wrist option to my knowledge (not that I'd support that if there were, I'm just playing out the hypothetical). Should we do nothing when we find out our president is abusing the powers of the office he was elected to?

[nots]

Sorry, the "we" part was directed in the general sense not at you.

But on that point, if he "shouldn't be doing that", what should be the result? Impeachment is the only control we have in place over the president for such abuses of power, right? There's no slap on the wrist option to my knowledge (not that I'd support that if there were, I'm just playing out the hypothetical). Should we do nothing when we find out our president is abusing the powers of the office he was elected to?

I think Bush pardoning Scooter Libby before his trial is a bad look, but not impeachable.
I think Clinton lying in a deposition is a bad look, but not impeachable.
I think this is a bad look, but not impeachable until and unless there is some additional evidence presented.
I think Nixon deserved to be impeached and removed from office (I understand he resigned first).

[Gregg]

I think Bush pardoning Scooter Libby before his trial is a bad look, but not impeachable.
I think Clinton lying in a deposition is a bad look, but not impeachable.
I think this is a bad look, but not impeachable until and unless there is some additional evidence presented.

Do you all agree with nots on the first two?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Do you all agree with nots on the first two?

I think Bush pardoning Scooter Libby before his trial is a bad look, but not impeachable.
I think Clinton lying in a deposition is a bad look, but not impeachable.
I think this is a bad look, but not impeachable until and unless there is some additional evidence presented.

Well, first of all, he has the facts wrong on the first one. Bush refused to pardon Libby because he said that he respected the jury's verdict, but he commuted his prison sentence instead. (It was actually Trump that pardoned Libby.) I thought Bush's actions were maybe questionable, but far from being an abuse of power. I would say it was within the president's rights to do this, but perhaps bad judgment or a decision I simply disagree with.

In the second case, Clinton's actions were only very tangentially related to his authority as president at all, and only in that he was avoiding a lawsuit because he was president. This would be similar to Trump avoiding a civil lawsuit from Stormy Daniels. It doesn't remotely belong in the discussion. I do support a president being liable for prosecution for things like this after he leaves office (and extending statutes of limitations if necessary).

What sets Trump's Ukraine actions apart from the other two cases is (1) direct relation to an abuse of his presidential powers, (2) that he is doing for his own personal gain, (3) thwarting the express will and constitutional power of Congress, and (4) as a part of a pattern of abuse throughout his campaign and his presidency. They aren't in the same universe as the other two examples.

[Ken]

Do you all agree with nots on the first two?

I do not fully agree no.

Bush broke no laws with respect to Libby.
Clinton committed perjury which appropriately led to impeachment.

[nots]

Well, first of all, he has the facts wrong on the first one. Bush refused to pardon Libby because he said that he respected the jury's verdict, but he commuted his prison sentence instead. (It was actually Trump that pardoned Libby.) I thought Bush's actions were maybe questionable, but far from being an abuse of power. I would say it was within the president's rights to do this, but perhaps bad judgment or a decision I simply disagree with.

In the second case, Clinton's actions were only very tangentially related to his authority as president at all, and only in that he was avoiding a lawsuit because he was president. This would be similar to Trump avoiding a civil lawsuit from Stormy Daniels. It doesn't remotely belong in the discussion. I do support a president being liable for prosecution for things like this after he leaves office (and extending statutes of limitations if necessary).

What sets Trump's Ukraine actions apart from the other two cases is (1) direct relation to an abuse of his presidential powers, (2) that he is doing for his own personal gain, (3) thwarting the express will of Congress, and (4) as a part of a pattern of abuse throughout his campaign and his presidency. They aren't in the same universe as the other two examples.

Sorry about the Libby mistake—I thought Bush had pardoned him. I should have researched it instead of relying on a memory.
You can’t compare Clinton to Stormy Daniels. Clinton lied under oath. As far as we know, Trump hasn’t. Clinton should not have been impeached but he has much more culpability as a lawyer. It is why I fully supported him having his law license revoked.

[DMT]

Well, first of all, he has the facts wrong on the first one. Bush refused to pardon Libby because he said that he respected the jury's verdict, but he commuted his prison sentence instead. (It was actually Trump that pardoned Libby.) I thought Bush's actions were maybe questionable, but far from being an abuse of power. I would say it was within the president's rights to do this, but perhaps bad judgment or a decision I simply disagree with.

In the second case, Clinton's actions were only very tangentially related to his authority as president at all, and only in that he was avoiding a lawsuit because he was president. This would be similar to Trump avoiding a civil lawsuit from Stormy Daniels. It doesn't remotely belong in the discussion. I do support a president being liable for prosecution for things like this after he leaves office (and extending statutes of limitations if necessary).

What sets Trump's Ukraine actions apart from the other two cases is (1) direct relation to an abuse of his presidential powers, (2) that he is doing for his own personal gain, (3) thwarting the express will and constitutional power of Congress, and (4) as a part of a pattern of abuse throughout his campaign and his presidency. They aren't in the same universe as the other two examples.

Of course this is true, but Fox News disagrees and thus so do millions of our fellow Americans. They will twist anything in order to fit their narrative because they believe only in retaining their power at any cost.