Tuesday Afternoon Massacre

[rushmc 23]

yoink

***
So now I'll ask you. What crimes did Trump commit? What law did he break?. To this point no one has answered that question. Not here, not on TV, not on any blog I have read.

It appears to me the only trolls are the one claiming that Trump should be impeached! And none of them can explain the law that he broke.

I have never called for his impeachment.

I do think there should be a number of investigations based upon his documented behavior and some of the details that are now in the public realm in just the same way that you called for investigations into the Hillary emails. I think that Trump doesn't understand the details of the laws he is obligated to follow any more than you or I do and therefore it's likely he's making mistakes.
Those investigations may or may not lead to an impeachment depending upon what they find (or don't).

As you say - all we have to go on are accusations at this point. (actually you don't say this, but you should... I'm assuming that's what 'LOL!' means.)
However, saying something didn't happen based on those accusations is just as ridiculous as saying it did. The knee jerk defense to every situation only shows that you haven't even bothered to consider a position.
The only correct answer is 'Ok - an accusation has been made. So we need to look into it, but personally I think it's garbage because x, y & z.' and to hold off on judgement until that happens.


All of that is separate from what I have said about Trump. That he's a narcissist who does not have the political or oratory skill, experience or temperament to be playing games on the highest stage.
I do not want a leader, Republican or Democrat, who can be manipulated as easily as Trump can. Him responding in anger directly to tweets, or using public speaking engagements to whine about how difficult his life is are exactly the proofs I needs to make that judgement.

You see - this is the way discussion works. If you ask a serious question and take the response seriously, then people will take you more seriously in return.
If you continually respond LOL!, But Obama... or any number of your other typical nonsensical off topic replies then people will continue to ignore or ridicule you.

I shouldn't have to educate you on this shit. It's communication 101.

Actually on many points I agree with you here.
Most of my posts are meant to point out those shark jumpers who seem to believe everything rags like the Washington (com)Post print and run to hang Trump. I for one am willing to wait it out and see where the facts lead.

So, for the Russia thing? I think it is fair to say there is nothing there. Since the Flynn leaks brought most of this to the forefront, any info that would have hung Trump would have also been leaked IMO. That has not happened. Now that someone is assigned to finish this off I think we will see it go away in a few months.

The Comey and obstruction claim?
Much to come out and much to learn. So for me, at this point I just don't know.

The biggest ignored issue? Security leaks used to weaponize information politically. But as long as it is against Trump the media and the left do not care.

As for Trump. I do not have the same view of him. Only history will prove which one of us was closer to the correct view of him.

BTW, LOL means laugh out loud.

That's all I can do with the crazy claims being made.

Thanks for the nice reply!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It appears to me the only trolls are the one claiming that Trump should be impeached! And none of them can explain the law that he broke.

Jesus Christ Rush, I can't believe a foreigner has to point this out to you, but the President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached.

Read up on it. Preferably articles and opinions from people who do not occupy that alt-right space with you.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So, for the Russia thing? I think it is fair to say there is nothing there. Since the Flynn leaks brought most of this to the forefront, any info that would have hung Trump would have also been leaked IMO.

Of course now there are accusations that Pence and Trump knew about Flynn and appointed him anyways. That might be a bit of a problem.

I also like this one:

House Majority Leader in 2016 tells colleagues he thinks Putin pays Trump. When confronted, they do what Republicans do: deny, deny, deny. When WaPo tells them that they will happily release the transcript of the tape they have....I yes, well it did happen, but it was just a joke.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ5_urvvnTAhUD0mMKHd5UC10QFgg1MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fnational-security%2Fhouse-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump%2F2017%2F05%2F17%2F515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html&usg=AFQjCNG8pe6KDI7fcnMkpYtW1Mub3vTcAQ&sig2=ndTftXro58V9j29p6U0DTw

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

It appears to me the only trolls are the one claiming that Trump should be impeached! And none of them can explain the law that he broke.

Jesus Christ Rush, I can't believe a foreigner has to point this out to you, but the President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached.

Read up on it. Preferably articles and opinions from people who do not occupy that alt-right space with you.

Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution reads,

Quote

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

So how does this read to you?

You want a political impeachment.
Should we ever get there, and we are getting closer (just look at your post) we as a country are fucked.

Now, is the Constitution to alt-right for you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

So, for the Russia thing? I think it is fair to say there is nothing there. Since the Flynn leaks brought most of this to the forefront, any info that would have hung Trump would have also been leaked IMO.

Of course now there are accusations that Pence and Trump knew about Flynn and appointed him anyways. That might be a bit of a problem.

I also like this one:

House Majority Leader in 2016 tells colleagues he thinks Putin pays Trump. When confronted, they do what Republicans do: deny, deny, deny. When WaPo tells them that they will happily release the transcript of the tape they have....I yes, well it did happen, but it was just a joke.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ5_urvvnTAhUD0mMKHd5UC10QFgg1MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fnational-security%2Fhouse-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump%2F2017%2F05%2F17%2F515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html&usg=AFQjCNG8pe6KDI7fcnMkpYtW1Mub3vTcAQ&sig2=ndTftXro58V9j29p6U0DTw

Your problem you have here is, no one has yet to claim that Flynn broke any laws (in regards to his contact with the Ambassador)

As I have stated before, the money he took and did not disclose may be a different deal.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Phil1111 1,149]

McCain knocks Trump: 'I've been treated worse' than him

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in an interview early Thursday slammed President Trump’s claims that Trump has been treated worse than any other politician.

“I’ve been worse treated than President Trump has, so let’s be sure that we know about that,” McCain said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/334012-mccain-knocks-trump-ive-been-treated-worse-than-him

McCain is the prime example of why those that say all politicians are corrupt. All politicians are in it for themselves and only for their party, are wrong.

[rushmc 23]

Here is a very good article on impeachment

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment


I am sure you will say it supports your claim.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Phil1111

McCain knocks Trump: 'I've been treated worse' than him

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in an interview early Thursday slammed President Trump’s claims that Trump has been treated worse than any other politician.

“I’ve been worse treated than President Trump has, so let’s be sure that we know about that,” McCain said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/334012-mccain-knocks-trump-ive-been-treated-worse-than-him

McCain is the prime example of why those that say all politicians are corrupt. All politicians are in it for themselves and only for their party, are wrong.

McCain is a dick
And he has been for a long time.

I respect his service but I have little respect for him.

The only thing he loves more than a camera is himself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

Here is a very good article on impeachment

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment


I am sure you will say it supports your claim.

Second paragraph of that article:

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty.

[rushmc 23]

He is a key paragraph from the link.

Which basically says if you think Trump should be impeached for what is known so far, then you should also think Clinton should have been thrown out of office too.

Quote

Some scholarly commentary at the time of the Nixon impeachment proceedings argued that the actual commission of a crime was necessary to serve as a basis for an impeachment proceeding. However, the historical record of impeachments in England, which furnished the Constitution's Framers with the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," does not support such a limitation; at that time, the word "Misdemeanors" meant simply "misdeeds," rather than "petty crimes," as it now does. The issue was revisited at the time of the Clinton impeachment, when those who sought to remove the President from office, basing their arguments principally on the English experience and The Federalist No. 64, claimed that a President could be removed for any misconduct that indicated that he did not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character to be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption. As James Iredell (later Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) opined in the North Carolina ratifying convention, impeachment should be used to remedy harm "arising from acts of great injury to the community."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Stumpy 284]

SkyDekker

***Here is a very good article on impeachment

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment


I am sure you will say it supports your claim.

Second paragraph of that article:

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

***Here is a very good article on impeachment

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment


I am sure you will say it supports your claim.

Second paragraph of that article:

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty.

Keep reading
You cant stop there and have it seen in full context.

but like I said
You would cherry pick it to say the link supports you

Go figure.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Rush I said the President doesn't have to commit a crime for Impeachment proceedings to apply.

The articles support that. It even cites a case of impeachment proceedings against a SC judge for purely partisan reasons without any crimes committed.

The second paragraph clearly states noncriminal behaviour could lead to impeachments. Everything in there supports my statement.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Rush I said the President doesn't have to commit a crime for Impeachment proceedings to apply.

The articles support that. It even cites a case of impeachment proceedings against a SC judge for purely partisan reasons without any crimes committed.

The second paragraph clearly states noncriminal behaviour could lead to impeachments. Everything in there supports my statement.

Sorry
That was part of the debate in the article.

you need to read the whole thing to put it all in context.

Should we ever get to the place you want, as I said earlier, as a country we are fucked.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

***Here is a very good article on impeachment

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment


I am sure you will say it supports your claim.

Second paragraph of that article:

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty.

this is the end of that same paragraph you are trying to split up.

Quote

That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device

.

Why is it so hard to be honest about this for you???

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

ok, later on in the article:


Some scholarly commentary at the time of the Nixon impeachment proceedings argued that the actual commission of a crime was necessary to serve as a basis for an impeachment proceeding. However, the historical record of impeachments in England, which furnished the Constitution's Framers with the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," does not support such a limitation; at that time, the word "Misdemeanors" meant simply "misdeeds," rather than "petty crimes," as it now does.

After that:

In the end, because it is unlikely that a Court would ever exercise judicial review over impeachment and removal proceedings, the definitional responsibility to carry them out with fidelity to the Constitution's text remains that of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But please feel free to quote a part of your article that states clearly that a crime has to have been committed for impeachment to take place. I mean you did use that article to support your position, it should be pretty easy to find.

[rushmc 23]

Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution reads,





.

Quote

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device

I agree with that position by the way. But that still doesn't state a crime has to have been committed.

That was your position, a crime had to have been committed. That's why you keep whining on here about what crime Trump has committed.

So, find something that states that impeachment can only take place if a crime has been committed. So far the article you have brought in to support your position actually supports mine. Which is, no crime needs to be committed for impeachment to start.

The article even provides historical evidence supporting this claim. Mentions of actual impeachment proceedings without crimes committed.

Quote

Why is it so hard to be honest about this

Indeed.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

SkyDekker

I agree with that position by the way. But that still doesn't state a crime has to have been committed.

That was your position, a crime had to have been committed. That's why you keep whining on here about what crime Trump has committed.

So, find something that states that impeachment can only take place if a crime has been committed. So far the article you have brought in to support your position actually supports mine. Which is, no crime needs to be committed for impeachment to start.

The article even provides historical evidence supporting this claim. Mentions of actual impeachment proceedings without crimes committed.

Well, Andrew Johnson was impeached (tried and acquitted) for the "crime" of violating the Tenure of Office act when he fired the Secretary of War.

Did you really expect that he actually read the article he posted?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device

I agree with that position by the way. But that still doesn't state a crime has to have been committed.

That was your position, a crime had to have been committed. That's why you keep whining on here about what crime Trump has committed.

So, find something that states that impeachment can only take place if a crime has been committed. So far the article you have brought in to support your position actually supports mine. Which is, no crime needs to be committed for impeachment to start.

The article even provides historical evidence supporting this claim. Mentions of actual impeachment proceedings without crimes committed.

None had a conviction.

Because no crime was committed.

It was tried but it failed because the proceeding were political.

You would have us go that way again.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 2,193]

It is highly unlikely Trump will be impeached. Unless of course, he stumbles and bumbles even more. I predict that he will unofficially abdicate in favour of Ivanka. He will become the Ceremonial President and do public events. Ivanka will run the country.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[yoink 321]

The biggest problem I have is the precedent for the media that this all sets.

I think it's fair to argue that the media made a significant contribution to the election of Donald Trump with their continal coverage, and if he does eventually step down it will be in a large part, due to the over-the-top microscopic coverage of every single thing the president does.

Trump has made a lot of mistakes, but I agree with him on this: No other president has suffered the scrutiny that he is being subjected to.
Everyone makes mistakes. To err is to be human and all that... You can only hope that with a world leader the mistakes are things like misquoting someone, forgetting a date or getting a name wrong - mistakes everyone makes all the time and are typically ignored as routine, rather than accidentally pressing the 'End The World' button while meaning to order a coke to the Roosevelt room...
One of these types of accidents would be news. The other wouldn't, but could be made to seem to be.

'Trump snubs Japanese premiere by calling him the wrong name!'
'Trump shows more disrespect for Israel by forgetting when Palastine was created! Unfit!'
or the like...

I do think there is a certain amount of this going on, in parallel with (as Newt Gingrich put it) the switch from real journalism to the deliberate seeking of 'gotcha moments'.

This is particularly disturbing if Trump steps down because imagine the future - the media outlets could legitimately go to a presidential candidate and say 'We've made presidents, and we can break presidents...' Imagine what that level of influence does to us as a society.

I also think that IF Trump gets impeached the first thing Pence needs to do is issue a pardon, a la Ford. There is absolutely no chance Donald Trump could receive an impartial, fair trail for any crime he might have committed.

Edited for 8,000 spelling mistakes. Posting before coffee...

[billvon 2,991]

>Which basically says if you think Trump should be impeached for what is known so
>far, then you should also think Clinton should have been thrown out of office too.

"He didn't do it!"
"That doesn't matter. It's not that bad - it's not really criminal."
"Clinton did it first."

[aphid 0]

yoink

Trump has made a lot of mistakes, but I agree with him on this: No other president has suffered the scrutiny that he is being subjected to.

Everyone makes mistakes. To err is to be human and all that... You can only hope that with a world leader the mistakes are things like misquoting someone, forgetting a date or getting a name wrong - mistakes everyone makes all the time and are typically ignored as routine,

When other politicians have dunderhead moments, they ARE duly reported in the media. Trudeau, May, Turnbull and numerous others have all been held to account for similar routine mistakes.

Their routine mistakes of engaging mouth before brain occur perhaps bimonthly or even quarterly.

But because Mr. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his bigly skill of multiple daily flubs, it could be he is just perceived as being persecuted.

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

I do think there is a certain amount of this going on, in parallel with (as Newt Gingrich put it) the switch from real journalism to the deliberate seeking of 'gotcha moments'.

Agreed there. There's plenty real to report on; they don't need to go after every mispronunciation or name mistake. (One reason I prefer NPR to any of the other outlets.)

Quote

This is particularly disturbing if Trump steps down because imagine the future - the media outlets could legitimately go to a presidential candidate and say 'We've made presidents, and we can break presidents...' Imagine what that level of influence does to us as a society.

We have that already. The Washington Post effectively ended Nixon's career. But was that, overall, a good thing or a bad thing?