(3 minutes). And This is The Star Witness???

<< < (3/5) > >>

AOC (I love her) has stated publicly, as well as many other democrats, that impeachment is about winning the 2020 election. 
I can provide quotes if you wish.
Those are positions/comments by influential politicians you cannot ignore.

A group of democratic Senators, Bob Mendez (D-NJ) was one, sent a letter to the President of Ukraine saying in effect give us info on Trump and his staff or we will hold up defense funds.  Was that legal?


--- Quote from: gww on November 14, 2019, 12:00:13 pm ---He proved himself guilty when he released the money. When he got caught he released it and claimed no foul. 

--- End quote ---
In all sincerity, please show me the hard evidence I am (and Kathy is) looking for. Provide links.
Where is that line between negotiating and influencing on one side and threatening and extortion on the other. You need to make a real strong case if you want to take drastic action against someone - not just sling mud in the shades of grey.

Put yourself in the President's position - every President. Roughly half of your subordinates support you and the other half wants to see you fail. Who do you trust to give you the whole unbiased truth? How do you deal with having information withheld from you by your subordinates, crimes being covered up? There could be factual basis in anything you hear through the grapevine and it would be negligent to ignore all of it, especially when Biden goes on the record telling of his victory by persuasion.

Arm twisting an ally is fair game. Breaking heads organized crime style is not. See - we even have phrases in our language to differentiate the two.

Of all the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by our government through history- including genocide of native Americans and expansion of our influence throughout the globe by brutality - how in anyone's imagination does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense?

Ben Framed:
Good post incognito.... Very well said.


--- Quote ---GWW, what Jim and Tom are saying is, the dems did it and it was OK'ed. That opens it up to being done without breaking the law. If it were illegal before, the dems determined it was now legal, so anyone should be able to do it. After all, it was determined that doing it was legal. Jim and Tom are not saying an illegal act is OK because someone else did it. They are saying it was legalized when others done it and were cleared of breaking the law.
--- End quote ---

I used to use this argument all the time at work.  I used to tell management that they could not pick just this one person to enforce a rule on that they had not been enforcing up to that point.   I used to tell them that the only way that would be right would have been to notify everyone that they were going to start enforcing the rule aging before actually starting to enforce it.  It does not matter that it has already been a standard of conduct cause they had gave that up by not enforcing it.

However, a path of letting things get worse and worse as people get more and more lawless based on what those before have did is not something to reach for.  The goal can not be to reach for the bottom and make it ok.  The presidents problem is that he will not see that he could ever be wrong.  He only demands that he is right.  In this case, even putting him on notice would have no effect.  I always took the position that any discipline should be corrective.  Only do enough to get the point across that the actions are not to be repeated.

So the question becomes, do we want the president or others to use our government to gain advantage on personal stuff?  If the answer is that it is worth making a stab at not saying that this is good and acceptable, we have to do something.  The something has to be good enough to change a mind of someone who thinks they are not wrong.  Tom mentioned genocide.  It is a good example of something that was done and was not punished when done but could not be considered good.  I am sure the nuremberg trials were an effort to get the point across that even though there are those that have got away with it, society says stop, a good thing.

You all can say that you have not seen enough proof that the president was using the government for personal gain.

You can say it is ok that he did that because others did it.

I say it is a worth while effort to try and keep it from being ok to do and I do believe it would take a blind man to not think that our president was doing just that.  My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with trying to do whatever the minimum is to get the point across that this type of stuff needs to be wrong.

You can not clean up the swamp and also be in the race to the bottom where everything bad that has ever been done wrong is ok to do.

I understand kathys point also that is basically innocent until proven guilty.  I believe the democrats are correct on putting on an investigation and that there is enough for a prosecution and trial.  I will not be convinced of a defense of "well others have did it".  I believe the Mueller report and the senate report was notice that informed everyone that asking for foreign involvement was wrong.  So if you believe it is wrong and everyone was informed of that, what to do?   If you pick that it does not bother you and you are on a jury during a trial, then you really don't have to come up with any type of defense cause you are not bothered by the action.
Everybody has that choice though I doubt the founding fathers would have made that choice.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version