Donald Trump

[chroniclard]

Once you make a coherent, relevant and unbiased argument you may have a point.

You literally have no defence for Trump, much like the GOP.

 

[Jono8]

That's what it looks like on the face of the impeachment.

You do realise that the constitution says: "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

You can argue the technicalities of it all day, but you won't find anything in the constitution that specifically says what a President can and cannot be impeached for. The sole power of impeachment lies with the house. The most recent election they have had was in 2018, where the American people convincingly voted for a Democrat controlled House of Representatives. This was even after, as the Republicans have so vocally pointed out, the Dems had been saying they would impeach Trump from day one. The latest average polling show the majority want him impeached as well.

This impeachment is therefore quite literally valid (constitutionality) and is also what the American people want and have voted for.

This is a good read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/

 

[Jono8]

Once you make a coherent, relevant and unbiased argument you may have a point.

You literally have no defence for Trump, much like the GOP.

What is amusing is that Trump's associate Roger Stone has literally just been convicted and is awaiting sentencing for obstructing Congress...you know, the thing Trump is being impeached for.

 

[Kyo]

What does your heart tell you?

It's interesting to look at some of his SC 'contributions'. He initially started off - and I don't know how to put this more politely - as someone who was unused to the English language, and would throw words together like a pre-Goggle auto-translate service. He's now actually parsable - the content is still mostly nonsense, sporadic, warped - but he's been doing some reading and sometimes, on the surface, looks like he may have a point. He doesn't, of course, but it's good to see a progression of sorts.

Eh, this isn't an attack and hope it isn't viewed as such. It's more a comment on a strengthening conviction of ideas, however wrong others may view them.

But that's all what he does, he posts simple one liner CT and other nonsensical posts with nothing concrete to substantiate his argument. When others tries to debate his point with supporting evidence or factual material, he either deflects and fails badly to move to another subject so ends up just ignoring their point because he cant refute them. He will resort to ask for evidence (like others to him) and when they do, he is speechless so comes out with drab childish comments. Its pointless engaging with someone like this because all he is looking for is a reaction.

 

[Greebo]

Ha, keep up those personal attacks, just proves you are losing.

Losing what? I am still waiting for you to back up what you posted. Until then I am just ignoring what you post which might mean I miss a valid point.

 

[plasmahal]

Losing what? I am still waiting for you to back up what you posted. Until then I am just ignoring what you post which might mean I miss a valid point.

Read the article and watch the embedded video.

 

[Greebo]

Read the article and watch the embedded video.

I read the article and I have watched the video clip of his speech. Again no where does Schiff say that Russia will invade the USA as YOU claimed he has said. So again, I ask you, where is your proof please?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

That's what it looks like on the face of the impeachment.

Yep just like in the SC Trump thread you are trolling. I've already said in one of your quoted posts there are only 3 crimes mentioned in the US Constitution. Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting. That is it. The impeachment clause only mentions "high crimes and misdemeanours". No meaning to what those actually are is given. It was left to the Congress to decide. So your point that no crimes mentioned in the constitution are listed in the articles of impeachment if Trump is moot. Of course you'll just ignore this post as you did the last as it doesn't fit with your CT.

 

[plasmahal]

Yep just like in the SC Trump thread you are trolling. I've already said in one of your quoted posts there are only 3 crimes mentioned in the US Constitution. Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting. That is it. The impeachment clause only mentions "high crimes and misdemeanours". No meaning to what those actually are is given. It was left to the Congress to decide. So your point that no crimes mentioned in the constitution are listed in the articles of impeachment if Trump is moot. Of course you'll just ignore this post as you did the last as it doesn't fit with your CT.

LOL, your making this up now... "PIRACY and COUNTERFEITING". HAHAHA.

Here's what the constitution lists:

Architects of the US Constitution established the concept of removing the president from office, through the authority of Congress, on grounds of “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanours

 

[plasmahal]

I read the article and I have watched the video clip of his speech. Again no where does Schiff say that Russia will invade the USA as YOU claimed he has said. So again, I ask you, where is your proof please?

He said if the US did not get military aid to Ukraine so they can fight Russia there, then Russia will bring the fight to the US. OK, he did use the word 'Invade' but that's what he meant.

 

[Greebo]

LOL, your making this up now... "PIRACY and COUNTERFEITING". HAHAHA.

Here's what the constitution lists:

Please educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself. I have underlined and made bold some of the more important points. So after reading please tell us again why the two articles Trump has been impeached on, don;t count as impeachable acts?

"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[5] Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[6]

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[7] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[7] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][8]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][9] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[1][10] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[1][8][10]

In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one-third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word "criminal" or "crime" to describe the conduct alleged.[1] Officials have been impeached and removed for drunkenness, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal.[1] Two of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made "harangues" criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency "into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace".[11] A number of individuals have been impeached for behavior incompatible with the nature of the office they hold.[1] Some impeachments have addressed, at least in part, conduct before the individuals assumed their positions: for example, Article IV against Judge Thomas Porteous related to false statements to the FBI and Senate in connection with his nomination and confirmation to the court.[1]

 

[Greebo]

He said if the US did not get military aid to Ukraine so they can fight Russia there, then Russia will bring the fight to the US. OK, he did use the word 'Invade' but that's what he meant.

Ahhhh.....you see now, there it is. He didnt actually say "invade", it was just your interpretation of what he meant? I see. Thank you for clarifying that what you posted was not factual but was in fact an "opinion piece".

And also if you watch the full clip, he was quoting somebody else word for word and not actually saying it himself.

 

[plasmahal]

it was just your interpretation of what he meant? I see

The same as the dems interpretation of what Trump meant in his Ukrainian call.

Schiff himself made up a load of lies about that call.

 

[Jono8]

Please educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself. I have underlined and made bold some of the more important points. So after reading please tell us again why the two articles Trump has been impeached on, don;t count as impeachable acts?

Indeed.

Impeachment is not solely for criminal acts. How can it be?

What if the President suddenly became an alcoholic and could no longer carry out the functions of his office as he was drunk all the time? That isn't a crime, but it absolutely should be a reason for being removed from office.

What if the President, went around bad mouthing America to the rest of the world or just became jaded with the job and no longer carried out the requirements of the job?

What if the President used his power to withhold congressionally mandated aid to an ally, in an effort to extort them into announcing an investigation into a company connected to the son of his political rival?


Impeachment is not simply just about the president committing a crime, it is about the president no longer being able to faithfully carry out the duties of his office.

 

[Jono8]

The same as the dems interpretation of what Trump meant in his Ukrainian call.

Schiff himself made up a load of lies about that call.

Oh look, this again.

I guess you haven't come across the term "paraphrasing" before?

 

[plasmahal]

Please educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself. I have underlined and made bold some of the more important points. So after reading please tell us again why the two articles Trump has been impeached on, don;t count as impeachable acts?

What you quoted has not mention of Piracy and counterfeiting, where did you get that from.

Do you really think Trump look like:

 

[plasmahal]

Impeachment is not solely for criminal acts. How can it be?

I somewhat agree but it's down to the House to now prove that the president committed such crimes.

 

[plasmahal]

I guess you haven't come across the term "paraphrasing" before?

Yes, that's what i did when i paraphrased Schiffs thinking Russia is going to invade the US.

 

[Greebo]

What you quoted has not mention of Piracy and counterfeiting, where did you get that from.

Do you really think Trump look like:

Because I didnt quote the whole list of offences or reasons for impeachment. I thought you might appreciate the relevant clauses relating to articles Trump is being impeached with.

But if you want to discuss why Trump isnt being impeached with piracy then feel free

 

[Greebo]

Yes, that's what i did when i paraphrased Schiffs thinking Russia is going to invade the US.

And then claimed it was absolute fact and he had said the words you claimed. So you lied and manipulated and then tried to defend your position? Right.........

ANd then when I called you out on it, you doubled down and went down a Dowie hole.