Toggle sidebar

Politics: The Trump Impeachment Thread

Tidewater said:
I do not think the president can "fire" an army officer. He could prosecute him for illegal conduct. He could reassign him, but I do not know what "firing" an army officer looks like.
Click to expand...
Touche' When I was talking about being "fired" it was specifically that this president gets off on power games, and has had no problems getting rid of people in his organization. I am unsure if you are going to get pedantic regarding whether an army officer is technically a "person in his organization." I do think that Trump has some sway as CiC and would likely attempt to do any number of things you listed to get this army officer to not longer be an army officer.
 
Go Bama said:
Rep Cheney (R-Wyoming) actually chided Vindman’s detractors yesterday calling it “shameful.”
Click to expand...

i imagine she will change her tune and get in line shortly after she thinks a bit about how it is actually totally responsible to question the man's loyalty to the united states because he's not originally from here.
 
NationalTitles17 said:
I disagree with the interpretation here of what happened. Even a soldier, when witnessing a crime, is required to follow the chain of command and report it. In his position he is paid to have an opinion. When called by Congress he is to give his thoughts of why the president's actions were concerning to him. If he is a political appt then the president can fire him. Not so much if not a political appt. Bottom line, if he believes the conduct is criminal and detrimental to national security I want him raising the alarm and not silent. The president's power is not absolute, nor should it be.The executive must be subject to checks and balances. Congress cannot do its job if those working under the president cannot report to it when Congress demands it and the demand is reasonable to the situation. This is not a dictatorship; it is a republic.
Click to expand...

his job on the NSC is to give his opinion on the effects of policy on his portfolio countries like Ukraine. It is quite literally his job for other to call it "politicizing" anything is simply because the facts and Viindman's opinions (that again it is his job to have) look terrible for one party
 
Let me begin by endorsing NT17's rebuttal. Yes, a military officer owes allegiance up the chain of command, and the president is at the top of that. However, as an American and as an honest man of good character, he has a responsibility to report up the chain of command any wrongdoing he observes in his official capacity. This is what Vindman has done.

On another track, now that the house is set to vote on rules of procedure in the impeachment, the question has come up "Will Republicans call Hunter Biden to testify"? I can just picture what a sideshow such an appearance would turn into. Here is my opinion: The impeachment inquiry has as its principal focus the allegation that President Trump used the power of his office to coerce the president of Ukraine to concoct an investigation of Burisma and VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, along with another investigation of a discredited conspiracy theory about the origins of the investigation of the 2016 presidential election, using the withholding of military aid as a bribe.
Whether Joe Biden was ethically wrong in allowing his son to profit from his last name is not germane to this investigation. Even if there was criminal wrongdoing in VP Biden’s involvement with the removal of the Ukrainian Attorney General, that has no bearing on President Trump’s bribery of the Ukrainian president to achieve a political advantage in the 2020 US presidential election.
If investigation of VP Biden is in the public interest, then the DOJ should initiate such and investigation. It has no relevance in the impeachment process.
 
Hard to know where to place this, but this author nails Trump completely. It's in Vanity Fair and paywalled, but you apparently get one free article. Her explanation as to why Trump was incapable of recognizing that his conduct was criminal is as clear as anything I've ever read:

He believes these things because he’s two parts crazy, one part stupid, but also because he’s been engaging in corruption his entire life, to the point that it’s second nature. It’s not so much that he doesn’t understand the difference between right and wrong, it’s that corruption is his first instinct, and the only course of action in his mind. His brain, like a compromised immune system, was defenseless against the infection that is Rudy Giuliani and the bottom-feeding, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the Bidens. The other issue is that, having run for office basically as a ratings play, Trump moved into the White House with a toddler’s idea of what it actually means to be president, just like he had a toddler’s idea of what it meant to be a rich person (gold everything) and played that out. Of course he was going to use the full weight of the federal government to go after insane rumors about his political rival that his personal lawyer came across on a 4chan message board. Of course he thinks he can ask other governments to investigate his enemies. He will never not think this. He wasn’t joking when he asked Russia to meddle in the U.S. election, or when he scoffed at George Stephanopoulos, asking if he’d inform the FBI if another country came to him with dirt on an opponent. One, because he has the sense of humor of a litter box, and two, the part about him being not smart, not sane, and having the morals of Don Jr.’s undercarriage. Likely, he believes it’s his “right” as president to have people killed if he thought it’d help his chances in Ohio and will probably tell a fictional story about this at his next rally. (“They came to me and they said, ‘Sir, would you like us to take him out?’ ”)
Click to expand...

Vanity Fair
 
TIDE-HSV said:
Hard to know where to place this, but this author nails Trump completely. It's in Vanity Fair and paywalled, but you apparently get one free article. Her explanation as to why Trump was incapable of recognizing that his conduct was criminal is as clear as anything I've ever read:



Vanity Fair
Click to expand...

i guess some folks just have a different perspective on the world and have no choice but to vote for and continue support such an unqualified idiot for this position
 
NationalTitles17 said:
I disagree with the interpretation here of what happened. Even a soldier, when witnessing a crime, is required to follow the chain of command and report it. In his position he is paid to have an opinion. When called by Congress he is to give his thoughts of why the president's actions were concerning to him. If he is a political appt then the president can fire him. Not so much if not a political appt. Bottom line, if he believes the conduct is criminal and detrimental to national security I want him raising the alarm and not silent. The president's power is not absolute, nor should it be.The executive must be subject to checks and balances. Congress cannot do its job if those working under the president cannot report to it when Congress demands it and the demand is reasonable to the situation. This is not a dictatorship; it is a republic.
Click to expand...
What is the crime?
 
Tidewater said:
Then Vindman wrote this: "This would all undermine U.S. national security."
So U.S. national security depends on the recipient country not investigating corruption? Aid to Ukraine is a means to an end, not an end itself.
Click to expand...

My understanding of Vindman's point was that practicing chickencrap diplomacy like extorting political dirt on an opponent in return for military or financial aid was what specifically threatened U.S. security, not the charge that Ukraine was not willing to investigate corruption to Trump's satisfaction.
 
Chukker Veteran said:
My understanding of Vindman's point was that practicing chickencrap diplomacy like extorting political dirt on an opponent in return for military or financial aid was what specifically threatened U.S. security, not the charge that Ukraine was not willing to investigate corruption to Trump's satisfaction.
Click to expand...

details/truth/reality don't matter for the gop propoganda machine. they are just sowing seeds of doubt.
 
Just like we've repeatedly seen people marvel at how Trump continually hits a new low, then something worse...

Watching the Trumpers trying to defend the current circumstances has the same quality, they never seem to hit the bottom of tomfoolery.

Pelosi should congratulate the GOP for not streaking when they last crashed a closed hearing..."I want to thank our GOP counterparts for staying dressed at the recent pizza party they staged. It would be entirely inappropriate to interrupt the hearing by streaking it."

How long would it take for the Freedom crowd to truly free themselves when protesting?
 
bama_wayne1 said:
What is the crime?
Click to expand...


among other things it is a violation of Federal Election law to ask for or accept a thing of value from a foreign entity to help in a domestic election. You know exactly what the Trump campaign did with Russia "Russia, if you are listening...."

He did this, ironically within in days of being not totally exonerated for the example above
 
Jon said:
among other things it is a violation of Federal Election law to ask for or accept a thing of value from a foreign entity to help in a domestic election. You know exactly what the Trump campaign did with Russia "Russia, if you are listening...."

He did this, ironically within in days of being not totally exonerated for the example above
Click to expand...

I wonder about the question "what is the crime?"

Is this a trollish-type question where the one asking it knows the answer but enjoys denying that he does?

Or is it a legitimate question where he is in some alternate world that doesn't seem to get accurate info?
 
Is impeachment an exercise in futility if you have a US Senate (who would try the case) dominated by Trump loyalist Republicans who would certainly not vote to convict?

I keep hearing that there are some in the GOP wing who might be convinced otherwise, but I do know that GOP Senators (like Ben Sasse and others) have a history of sounding critical of Trump, but voting for all of his appointments and bills with a rubber stamp.
 
Its On A Slab said:
Is impeachment an exercise in futility if you have a US Senate (who would try the case) dominated by Trump loyalist Republicans who would certainly not vote to convict?

I keep hearing that there are some in the GOP wing who might be convinced otherwise, but I do know that GOP Senators (like Ben Sasse and others) have a history of sounding critical of Trump, but voting for all of his appointments and bills with a rubber stamp.
Click to expand...

The thinking is that voting against impeachment (especially after the public hearings and trial) would cause enough GOP Senators to not be reelected that is would cost them their majority. I think it might work.
 
Tidewater said:
Then he should have restricted his statement to the record of the transcript.
Instead, he used this as a venue to express his view that U.S. security is harmed if we do not send military aid money to Ukraine (in general, I happen to agree with him, but I do not make policy). That is a judgment call and, while he is entitled to his opinion, and he should advance his views behind closed doors in front of the the appropriate authorities. In public, his job is to say, "I support the president's policy."

An non-politicized military has been a norm since Charles I and Oliver Cromwell marched the army into parliament in 1642-53. Vindman's conduct in this regard is not helpful. It might help get Trump in the short term, but, in the long term, we will be left with a more politicized military. I'm not sure that is something we want.
Click to expand...
I just can't go along with this position. There reaches a point where the oath to uphold constitution takes primacy. Other than the enumerated statutory breaches committed, plus conspiracy and extortion, he also witnessed an offense against the constitution and the presidency. He happened to be wearing a uniform when he witnessed all that. IMO, the upholding of his duty to the constitution and the nation far exceeds the upholding of military protocol. I would hope that any soldier would have done the same. We'll just have to agree to disagree...
 
bobstod said:
Let me begin by endorsing NT17's rebuttal. Yes, a military officer owes allegiance up the chain of command, and the president is at the top of that. However, as an American and as an honest man of good character, he has a responsibility to report up the chain of command any wrongdoing he observes in his official capacity. This is what Vindman has done.

On another track, now that the house is set to vote on rules of procedure in the impeachment, the question has come up "Will Republicans call Hunter Biden to testify"? I can just picture what a sideshow such an appearance would turn into. Here is my opinion: The impeachment inquiry has as its principal focus the allegation that President Trump used the power of his office to coerce the president of Ukraine to concoct an investigation of Burisma and VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, along with another investigation of a discredited conspiracy theory about the origins of the investigation of the 2016 presidential election, using the withholding of military aid as a bribe.
Whether Joe Biden was ethically wrong in allowing his son to profit from his last name is not germane to this investigation. Even if there was criminal wrongdoing in VP Biden’s involvement with the removal of the Ukrainian Attorney General, that has no bearing on President Trump’s bribery of the Ukrainian president to achieve a political advantage in the 2020 US presidential election.
If investigation of VP Biden is in the public interest, then the DOJ should initiate such and investigation. It has no relevance in the impeachment process.
Click to expand...


Bingo. The side show should not be allowed. It is not relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back