Hypothetically. Using US policy for personal political gain is not subverting US policy, its abusing his power to create or alter US policy, not the same things. Unless and until he is removed from office, US foreign policy is whatever he says it is.
Nah, that falls in the same camp as “I swear I could never vote for him,” that ■■■■ all fell to the wayside soon as he had the power. Knees were bent. You know all about it.
4 Likes
Notice how you say “stand alone”…essentially you’re saying you endorse smearing Biden by divorcing the video from all its surrounding content.
And forgetting these events were all known talked about WHEN IT HAPPENED…the video coming out revealed nothing new.
I wouldn’t go that far.
If there is indeed cause to investigate the Biden’s there are proper channels to go through to make that happen.
Leaning on a foreign government to publicly announce that there is an investigation instead of having the DOJ quietly do it is the real problem.
Having Ukraine publicly announce that there is an investigation has great political consequences. Having the DOJ do it and not being able to talk about less so.
That is the major problem.
2 Likes
The no proof personal gain on an election that has yet to happen.
I don’t think the Senate is buying it.
The Senate sees the election meddling right under their noses.
The President took an oath to defend the Constitution. Using the office of the Presidency for personal gain is a violation of that oath. The President does not have the power to make policy but whatever suits the President’s interests.
You are proposing a model of Presidential infallibility… a notion that is entirely inconsistent with the founder’s efforts to establish a system of countervailing powers.
So what is the down side for Biden then?
You got Trump now.
The Senate not buying it is no proof of anything as you have dozens of elected Senators terrified of crossing Donald Trump. Cowardice is a powerful motive but not a particularly respectable one.
This didn’t address my question.
Are you for explaining all the details behind what Joe Biden did here, or are you about showing the video and spinning that it’s the exact same thing Trump did?
I mean seriously…how many times will we go over the same material and pretend it’s never been discussed?
It seems some of you love this tactic of bringing up stuff, having it shot down, waiting a little bit and then bringing it right back up again.
I guess if it fits your comfort level to do that…
Umm no, recognizing that it is the President who is constitutionally tasked with foreign policy and so cannot be accused of violating it is not to say he is infallible and cannot he held responsible through impeachment for formulating that policy for corrupt reason. He can abuise his power to make foreign policy, he cannot violate foreign policy. Nor can it be claimed that Biden was acting on official US policy and Trump wasn’t, until he is impeached and removed Trump is in charge of US foreign policy.
I did not say the President was violating foreign policy. I said he was violating his oath of office. There is no way the founders would have accepted the notion that since the President is responsible for formulating foreign policy he can craft that policy for personal gain.
1 Like
I agree. Before going through a whole trial with witnesses, the Senate needs to first decide what would be impeachable. Nobody denied that Clinton lied under oath. However, the Senate did not impeach on the basis that lying about the Monica case didn’t reach the level of replacing a President.
First, decide what one would impeach Trump for, and if there is something then try to prove that.
Why try to prove that he temporarily held funds back for the purpose of requesting an investigation of Biden if actually proving that was true would not lead 2/3 of the Senate to vote for impeachment?
And I would be for acquittal for several reasons. One is that the facts are not established that 1) Trump delayed the funds to demand an investigation that included Biden 2) that if he did do that, it has not been shown it was for personal political reasons other than that an investigation was needed and…if both 1 and 2 were proven, that this can’t appropriately be handled as part of the normal political process.
Do you honestly believe that being the VP’s son had nothing to do with Hunter getting that position? It’s corruption, maybe not illegal but it clearly stinks, as even some in the MSM have admitted. Here is a quote from an article referencing this:
“Less privileged Americans can’t be faulted if they wonder why their addicted loved ones are on the streets or in the morgue while the vice president’s son is blessed with diamonds and sinecures. Multitudes locked up for years under Joe Biden’s crime bill might ask why the author’s son traveled the world scot-free. And sober working people making $50,000 a year may be skeptical of a system in which a vice president’s addicted son reportedly collected that sum every month.”
Did anyone respond to your post?
Heck… forget what the founder’s would say about it… why would we accept it?
He ordered the withholding of Ukrainian aid which was legally REQUIRED to be dispensed in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act. Even if it had no practical effect on the actual delivery of aid to Ukraine, it was an abuse of power.
Now, should Trump be removed from office for that abuse.
No.
This PARTICULAR abuse of power amounts to a peccadillo, not a high crime and misdemeanor. But abuse of power can rise to a high crime and misdemeanor.
I support the investigation. I support the impeachment. I would oppose conviction and removal from office. But I do believe the strong rebuke that Impeachment provides is needed to show that this sort of behavior is intolerable.
BTW, in general, I believe that the standards should be very high for removal of a President from office, higher than that for removal of a Federal Judge or a Cabinet member. Presidents are elected and it should be difficult to remove an elected official. On the other hand, they should know clearly that they are not permitted to run amuck.
To summarize:
Trump abused power.
That abuse amounted to a peccadillo, not high crimes and misdemeanors.
The House was right to investigate and impeach.
The Senate will be right to acquit, on the grounds that it was a peccadillo.
1 Like
I just now did. 
1 Like
That was some passive aggressive avoiding the issue right there.
Well done!
Either Biden is a champion of corruption fighting or he is not.
Not much middle ground there.
You would think Hunter would be on his very best PR feet with his Dad running a close primary.
The reality is that this dude has a very poor attitude. Contempt of court over paying up for his child. the court was asking…Wheres Hunter…
“The defendant’s conduct is willful and contemptuous,” Lancaster wrote in a motion Monday asking a judge to hold Biden in contempt of court.
“The defendant continues to act as though he has no respect for this Court, its orders, the legal process in this state, or the needs of his child for support,” Lancaster wrote. “This court should sanction the defendant as it deems appropriate and just.”
Judge Holly Meyer, in an order made public Tuesday, said Biden must appear Jan. 29 in Independence County Circuit Court and “show cause, if any exists, as to why he should not be held in contempt for any of the alleged violations of this Court’s orders.”
1 Like
