Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: the GOP’s 5 big arguments against Trump impeachment

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default the GOP’s 5 big arguments against Trump impeachment

    “One, the articles of impeachment violate the Constitution,” said Avlon. “These are nonsense words and a contradiction in terms. Impeachment is written into the Constitution. Good people can disagree with the charges, process, or whether it rises to the level of removal from office, but it takes brass to argue that impeachment is unconstitutional.”

    Two, this he failed to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever,” said Avlon. “Now, Republicans seem set to ignore the recent findings from the GAO after the articles were adopted, that the hold on Ukraine military aid did break the law. Trump and Republicans seem to be arguing without an indictable crime, impeachment is illegitimate.”

    “Number three. Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense,” said Avlon. “The White House legal brief calls it a ‘novel theory’ and ‘made-up standard.’ That’s a novel definition of ‘novel,’ which the dictionary defines as new and not resembling something formerly known. Abuse of power was the second article of impeachment drawn up about President Nixon and President Clinton at the recommendation of Ken Starr, now a member of the Trump legal team. Let’s go back to the Constitutional Convention and look, there’s Edmund Randolph later the first attorney general, arguing that impeachment was important because, quote, ‘the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power.

    “Number four, obstruction is not an impeachable offense,” said Avlon. “They’re calling it ‘a radical theory that would do grave damage to the separation of powers,’ but this is not a radical idea. Obstruction was core to the articles of impeachment against Nixon, and the Supreme Court weighed in in U.S. versus Nixon, writing, ‘generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.’ Of course, Bill Clinton was initially accused by Ken Starr of abusing his power by invoking executive privilege and lying repeatedly … and that’s despite landing over reams of documents, allowing direct witnesses to testify, all things the Trump White House has refused to do. And Clinton even testified under oath himself.

    “Finally, number five, despite all the evidence the president did nothing wrong,” said Avlon. “That’s right. The president’s legal team is all in with his insistence of complete innocence, arguing that the call with the ukrainian president was perfectly appropriate and just about the important issue of Ukrainian corruption, Now, if all of this is true, you would think that the White House would be fighting to have direct witnesses exonerate the president under oath. That’s not what’s happened. Instead, the fact-free strategy of deflect and project, arguing it’s the Democrats who are engaged in a brazen unlawful attempt to interfere with the 2020 election.”
    https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/cnn...p-impeachment/

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to floridafan For This Post:

    evince (01-22-2020), Phantasmal (01-21-2020), ThatOwlWoman (01-21-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    This farce is because pussies like you aren't man enough to accept the ass kicking you took in the 2016 election. When you get it whipped again in November, hopefully it will send you so far over the edge, you'll perform a retroactive abortion on yourself.

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    This farce is because pussies like you aren't man enough to accept the ass kicking you took in the 2016 election. When you get it whipped again in November, hopefully it will send you so far over the edge, you'll perform a retroactive abortion on yourself.
    You lack the limited brain you were born with, honey bunch. Now address my post or shutthefuckup

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,485
    Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,066 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    “One, the articles of impeachment violate the Constitution,” said Avlon. “These are nonsense words and a contradiction in terms. Impeachment is written into the Constitution. Good people can disagree with the charges, process, or whether it rises to the level of removal from office, but it takes brass to argue that impeachment is unconstitutional.”

    Two, this he failed to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever,” said Avlon. “Now, Republicans seem set to ignore the recent findings from the GAO after the articles were adopted, that the hold on Ukraine military aid did break the law. Trump and Republicans seem to be arguing without an indictable crime, impeachment is illegitimate.”

    “Number three. Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense,” said Avlon. “The White House legal brief calls it a ‘novel theory’ and ‘made-up standard.’ That’s a novel definition of ‘novel,’ which the dictionary defines as new and not resembling something formerly known. Abuse of power was the second article of impeachment drawn up about President Nixon and President Clinton at the recommendation of Ken Starr, now a member of the Trump legal team. Let’s go back to the Constitutional Convention and look, there’s Edmund Randolph later the first attorney general, arguing that impeachment was important because, quote, ‘the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power.

    “Number four, obstruction is not an impeachable offense,” said Avlon. “They’re calling it ‘a radical theory that would do grave damage to the separation of powers,’ but this is not a radical idea. Obstruction was core to the articles of impeachment against Nixon, and the Supreme Court weighed in in U.S. versus Nixon, writing, ‘generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.’ Of course, Bill Clinton was initially accused by Ken Starr of abusing his power by invoking executive privilege and lying repeatedly … and that’s despite landing over reams of documents, allowing direct witnesses to testify, all things the Trump White House has refused to do. And Clinton even testified under oath himself.

    “Finally, number five, despite all the evidence the president did nothing wrong,” said Avlon. “That’s right. The president’s legal team is all in with his insistence of complete innocence, arguing that the call with the ukrainian president was perfectly appropriate and just about the important issue of Ukrainian corruption, Now, if all of this is true, you would think that the White House would be fighting to have direct witnesses exonerate the president under oath. That’s not what’s happened. Instead, the fact-free strategy of deflect and project, arguing it’s the Democrats who are engaged in a brazen unlawful attempt to interfere with the 2020 election.”
    https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/cnn...p-impeachment/
    All I need is one.

    What crime has Trump committed??

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    All I need is one.

    What crime has Trump committed??
    Does a crime have to be committed for impeachment?

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,485
    Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,066 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Does a crime have to be committed for impeachment?
    Yes.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,565 Times in 17,092 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Yes.
    no
    No crime needed. But Trump withholding the aid violated the Impoundment Control Act. Lindsey argued during Clinton no crime was needed. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics- But he is a Republican so he can change his mind and be right both times. No matter what the Right claims, even if it is contradictory, the rights just jump on board.
    Trump's actions in Ukraine can be seen as bribery too. He withheld the aid for his own personal benefit , help in the 2020 election. Trump asked Russia to helo him, China to investigate Dems and also Ukraine.
    If the Dems did this crap, the Reds would have pulled out the pitchforks and torches.
    Last edited by Nordberg; 01-22-2020 at 09:53 AM.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Does a crime have to be committed for impeachment?
    not if you don't mind looking like petty, partisan hacks.......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Nothing in the criminal statutes is required in an impeachment indictment.

    Anybody who says otherwise is lying and falsely practicing law and can be punished.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    This farce is because pussies like you aren't man enough to accept the ass kicking you took in the 2016 election. When you get it whipped again in November, hopefully it will send you so far over the edge, you'll perform a retroactive abortion on yourself.
    winning with 3 million living breathing Americans NOT voting for you is no win idiot


    its theft

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,485
    Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,066 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    no
    No crime needed. But Trump withholding the aid violated the Impoundment Control Act. Lindsey argued during Clinton no crime was needed. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics- But he is a Republican so he can change his mind and be right both times. No matter what the Right claims, even if it is contradictory, the rights just jump on board.
    Trump's actions in Ukraine can be seen as bribery too. He withheld the aid for his own personal benefit , help in the 2020 election. Trump asked Russia to helo him, China to investigate Dems and also Ukraine.
    If the Dems did this crap, the Reds would have pulled out the pitchforks and torches.
    Yes, a crime is needed.

    No, Trump did no bribery nor any quid pro quo. This has been supported by Ukraine themselves.

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    winning with 3 million living breathing Americans NOT voting for you is no win idiot


    its theft
    According to the Constitution, getting 270 or more ELECTORAL VOTES is winning.

    Don't like it. Tough shit.

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,565 Times in 17,092 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Yes, a crime is needed.

    No, Trump did no bribery nor any quid pro quo. This has been supported by Ukraine themselves.
    Not correct. Trump was the only one on the planet who got something from Zelensky announcing an investigation of the Bidens. That was his payoff. Zelensky has to keep getting help from America to fend off Russia. We all know what Trump would have done if Zelensky told the truth about the gut-wrenching pressure Trump put on him. They need our help. Ukraine papers have been posting lots of Trump criticisms.

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,485
    Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,066 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    American papers have been posting lots of Trump criticisms too... whoopity doo...

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,565 Times in 17,092 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Yes, a crime is needed.

    No, Trump did no bribery nor any quid pro quo. This has been supported by Ukraine themselves.
    No crime is needed. The founders said high crimes and misdemeanors. They felt a guy doing lesser wrongs also should be booted out. They thought it was an office that should have an honorable man holding it. That is not Trump. I posted Lindsey saying no crime is needed a few times.
    Ukraine was under terrible pressure. They were in a shooting war with Russia and Trump held up their military aid. They need the US to survive,. There was no way Zelensky could tell the truth. The risk was too great. Trump quid poro quoed his ass off. Asking him to investigate Biden was a benefit to one man on the planet. See if you can figure out who that is.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 11-07-2019, 08:42 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-05-2019, 12:05 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-08-2018, 03:19 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-31-2017, 08:17 AM
  5. The 7 dumbest arguments in defense of Trump
    By christiefan915 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-14-2016, 06:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •