******Official politics thread ******

[rebeccablack]

do you think a president using aid payments and military support to a nato ally as a wedge to coerce them into opposition research against a political rival is generally in the national interest, legality aside? does it seem like the behavior of a person with a good understanding of their responsibilities and the limitations of their power as commander in chief?

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm right tho. The crux of the special counsel investigation was the President cannot be charged with a crime. Ergo impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding.

Your argument is a bird.

It isn't a criminal proceeding but the basis for impeachment has always been on the idea that a crime needs to be committed because otherwise it is just hearsay. If your argument is that you don't need a crime to impeach a President then I'd like to hear your theory on Trump vs the crimes committed by previous sitting Presidents and why Trumps case is inherently worse by evidence vs some of the atrocities in the past. Then you will need to lay out what precedent needs to be set for impeaching a President without a crime. What constitutes impeaching a sitting President? That seems to be the issue at hand here.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It isn't a criminal proceeding but the basis for impeachment has always been on the idea that a crime needs to be committed because otherwise it is just hearsay. If your argument is that you don't need a crime to impeach a President then I'd like to hear your theory on Trump vs the crimes committed by previous sitting Presidents and why Trumps case is inherently worse by evidence vs some of the atrocities in the past. Then you will need to lay out what precedent needs to be set for impeaching a President without a crime. What constitutes impeaching a sitting President? That seems to be the issue at hand here.

An opposition majority in the House

hope this helps

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The CIA is not under investigation, Trump is the one who is being impeached.

The establishment which includes the cia has been harassing trump since before he was president. This isn’t anything new.

Funny how Mr Eat The Rich supports the richest of the rich and their power grabs though.

How amazing is it that Mr Eat The Rich seems to shit on anything that is won through grass roots populous measures like Trump or Brexit.

A complete an utter tool of the highest elites that portrays himself as a guy that says “we need to eat the rich”.

Hey Horza at this time I’m going to point out you are a complete and utter fraud.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

do you think a president using aid payments and military support to a nato ally as a wedge to coerce them into opposition research against a political rival is generally in the national interest, legality aside? does it seem like the behavior of a person with a good understanding of their responsibilities and the limitations of their power as commander in chief?

It depends on the conversation that took place. Was that aid and support openly levied against getting that information? Was there an actual crime taken place that would constitute looking for that information? Has this done in the past by any other party with political affiliation? Was there an uproar then and was it national news?

This would start to form my opinion. The last question being if it's happened in the past and there wasn't an uproar but this is being media blasted....is there an agenda on the other side too? Wouldn't that be constituted as pretty much the exact same thing but instead using media to smear campaign your opponent?

[Horza]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It isn't a criminal proceeding but the basis for impeachment has always been on the idea that a crime needs to be committed because otherwise it is just hearsay.

After the call, multiple officials told the whistle-blower that future talks between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky would depend on whether the Ukranians would “play ball” on the investigations he sought.

The whistle-blower, who lodged his concerns with the inspector general for the intelligence community, has identified at least a half-dozen government officials — including several who work for the White House — who he believes can substantiate his claims. The inspector general has interviewed some of them and found the whistle-blower’s claims credible.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An opposition majority in the House

hope this helps

Once again you seem to post but not even answer the question. If you read the last bit, it said "These are the questions at hand." Context matters and you never seem to grasp any of it. What that means is that the House doesn't know because then they don't know the precedent it would set. You are adamant about impeachment....So I ask you, dumbass....being so adamant what is the precedent? Hope this helps.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How amazing is it that Mr Eat The Rich seems to shit on anything that is won through grass roots populous measures like Trump or Brexit.

Trump is a billionaire, isn't he?

[BallzDeep]

Thanks for justifying my point with a hearsay comment. Officials also have a political affiliation. Hope this helps.

[Horza]

Trump officials are Republicans? Is there a point that you're trying to make?