Which law is that? And how does it apply to Article 2, Section 4?
The problem is the Constitution is vague and both sides can easily twist the meaning in their favor. Treason? Depends who you ask.

Bill Clinton lied to the American people on national TV- a very untrustworthy act. And yet he was acquitted because the Senate majority "disagreed" with the assessment of the House.

It's a battle of opinions and the judge is in Trump's pocket.



Fair point, I guess. Arguably Democrats have been looking for ways yo impeach trump ever since he entered office.

And the main reason Nixon(R) would have been impeached is because Democrats held the majority in the Senate. Had it been Republicans in the Senate he very likely would have been acquitted.

This post was edited by NatureNames on Oct 30 2019 10:44pm

campaign finance law. crimes and misdemeanors. that was easy. so please tell me again how there is 'no damning evidence'. not only his call for foreign help on national tv, but also the official transcript (which already is the varnished version of the actual 'perfect call', which the crook could release anytime to prove his innocence, but decides to hide on a secret server) highlight his crimes in detail.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/the-quid-is-a-crime-no-need-to-prove-pro-quo-in-ukrainegate/

all that effort trying to discredit the whistleblowers (which are certainly more credible and patriotic than president bonespur) and the process (which is perfectly legal and constitutional, despite all the liars claiming it's not) is a waste of time - trump and his lackeys already went on national tv to confirm what they are saying.

literally the only reason NOT to see it, is if you don't WANT to. then you try to muddy the waters, claim it's up for interpretation, try to smear the witness, call it a witch hunt...

This post was edited by fender on Oct 30 2019 10:59pm

Not so fast. You have made a claim. Next provide evidence from reputable sources. Then show how your evidence proves your claim. Finally articulate how your argument is an impeachable offense beyond reasonable doubt (what I would call damning evidence). It's a lot to ask for but this is the minimum of what would be required in a trial. The elephant in the room remains: You need to convince the Judge- Senate Republicans. Good luck convincing them.



I'm not sure what you wanted to show me in that article. It covers a lot of topics. I did read it all. It points out why making a case against Trump has failed in the past. And the challenges of making a solid case now despite there being compelling clues.



This is exactly what a good lawyer will do and you can be sure Senate Republicans will do this. If there is even a sliver of reasonable doubt they use it as an excuse to acquit The Talking Yam.

This post was edited by NatureNames on Oct 31 2019 02:30am

I've repeated this again and again in this thread: impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Impeachment and removal from office ultimately are political decisions.
To remove Trump from office, the Dems need 20 Republican senators to break with Trump and join them, i.e. senators from R+12 states. That's a very tall mountain to climb.

It will only happen if significant chunks of the Republican base turn on Trump, and this will certainly not happen because of campaign finance violations or because he called a foreign government to investigate a clearly corrupt behavior by a prominent Democratic politician. Could Trump get convicted for these things in a court? Probably. But he sure as hell isnt going to get removed from office over something like that.

If the Dems want to achieve more than grandstanding and hurting Trump's approval ratings, they will need to find solid proof for more tangible misconduct on Trump's part.
"He was trying to expose the crooked, corrupt behavior of the Democratic front-runner in crooked, corrupt fashion - quick, let's impeach him over that" just isnt going to cut it.

Why do you keep repeating this? If you're going to claim Joe Biden acted corruptly, present evidence for it.

The proper way to frame what happened is that Trump leveraged America's relationship with Ukraine in a blatantly corrupt way to benefit himself politically, and he used his personal attorney to do it. There's no evidence Biden acted corruptly, and there's no evidence that the Crowdstrike/DNC server conspiracy theory has merit.

The politics is a boring question, because I'm not sure what Trump could do that would disturb his voters enough that Republican senators would turn on him. He could walk to the podium tomorrow and say that if China opens an investigation into the Bidens, he'll lift the tariffs, and Hannity and Rand Paul would find a way to justify it.

This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 31 2019 07:40am

this.

Right wingers about Biden, "well we dont have any real hard proof, but can't you just FEEL like it was off?"

Right wingers on Trump, "if you dont have a signed and notarized transcript of Trump personally saying, on video, that he needed Ukraine to investigate Biden (while also calling him a political oponent on the record with a wink at the camera), then we shouldn't even impeach at all. just stop the witchhunt."


the Trumps and the Bidens are in the same boat, they're both nepotising fucks that want to use foreign govts to get favors. Only one is president, and impeachment doesnt need a single cause to be called. Trump has done a lot more in the past 4 years than Biden, obstruction. bad foreign policy, bad trade policy, etc. Biden made a call years ago to get a favor for his son, isn't president, can't be impeached.

and the "Trump just wanted to root out corruption in the world" argument is something only a 3rd grader would buy. as Trump is working with the Saudis (even after Koshogi), working with China on trade while calling them corrupt, maneuvering pullouts with corrupt dictators, and tried to negotiate with North Korea after Kim personally threatened america dozens of times just in Trump's presidency.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 31 2019 07:47am

https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1189902966272266240

Some interesting points.

I read somewhere (economic moderated right wing paper) that Trump is boosting artificially the US economy digging deficit like no one before. Basically selling his country to get reelected
The impeachment vote is right now.

this has been very apparent since he increased spending and decreased tax rates.

he did increase tax collections from the previous years, because the economy was at an all time high. but he could have collected a lot more by playing with the dials a bit.

It’s about optics & nothing else. They aren’t going to remove Trump from office. They know this. However they want the negative press that comes with the optics of having “ImPeAcHmEnT” stuff going on in the news. It was the same thing with the RuSsIaN cOlLuSiOn narrative that fell on its face. Is it going to actually help them electorally / swing voters? That remains to be seen. I think Snipa went more in depth about this yesterday.