Winners only.

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

And no one complained about it. Trump gets impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and it’s a “Democrat witch hunt”.

Go figure.

Lying under oath (perjury) is black-and-white. Bill was under oath, and he lied while under oath. Do you disagree? GETTING head is ******. Do you disagree?

"Abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" are both open to interpretation. I personally believe every executive order is an abuse of power, and Chevron deference is an abuse of power, and officer discretion is an abuse of power... you get the point. Abuse of power is open to interpretation. I do not believe asking a foreign leader to investigate crimes committed by US citizens is abuse of power.

"Obstruction of congress" infuriates me. The charge of "obstruction of congress" is actually an abuse of power. It basically means, "we're congress, so you must obey us. If you don't, we'll criminally charge you for it." What is the black-and-white definition of "obstruction of congress"? Is the janitor who says "bathroom's closed while we clean it" obstructing congress? Is a broken chair obstructing congress? Is a defective valve that makes the room too warm obstructing congress?

Law needs to be black-and-white for people to be able to follow it. You must know that if you are as legally knowledgeable as you imply.

This may sound crazy: try to reply civilly and logically rather than aggressively and defensively.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Well, he is not in jail for those two accusations and he was acquitted of those charges so him being impeached was pointless and nothing more than people who don't like Trump being vindictive little babies.

You accept their decision? Yet you will thrown the impeachments up all the time as if it means something. All impeachment means is someone is accusing someone else of doing something wrong. Do you think just because he was accused of something that he was guilty? You must because you sure like to say he was impeached. If you accept their decision then ipso facto his impeachments should be meaningless as well.

You’re conflating ideas again.

You asked if the things he did were crimes. I answered in the affirmative, based on factual information.
Being acquitted does not mean he was never impeached, and being impeached means the accusations were credible.
There is no denying that, no matter how badly you want to. It’s history. And it’s immutable, regardless of your opinions or feelings.

Yes. I accept the decision that when a law is created that the law exists. I can deny it all I want, but that changes nothing. The existence of law cares not how I feel or opine about it’s existence. It remains law.

I have no problem saying he was impeached. I have no problem saying g Clinton was impeached. I’ve said bith quite a few times.
Do you think I am inaccurate in saying these things? Do you have information that shows they were NOT impeached?
Feel free to bring it to the conversation.

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

Actually he used the "is doesn't mean is" defense. Nevertheless my point is we went after everybody who paid off some side action or denied an affair, etc, then our jails would be overflowing. The only reason it's been done now and was done then is pure politics.

You're probably right. I wasn't old enough at the time (born in 1989) to know or care about or understand the entirety of the issue, and my interpretation is solely reliant on my research in the past few years.

If you were old enough to live through it: was it fairly represented in the news at the time? I think Trump has not been fairly represented by the news, so I'm curious how the Clinton ordeal compares.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You’re conflating ideas again.

You asked if the things he did were crimes. I answered in the affirmative, based on factual information.
Being acquitted does not mean he was never impeached, and being impeached means the accusations were credible.
There is no denying that, no matter how badly you want to. It’s history. And it’s immutable, regardless of your opinions or feelings.

Yes. I accept the decision that when a law is created that the law exists. I can deny it all I want, but that changes nothing. The existence of law cares not how I feel or opine about it’s existence. It remains law.

I have no problem saying he was impeached. I have no problem saying g Clinton was impeached. I’ve said bith quite a few times.
Do you think I am inaccurate in saying these things? Do you have information that shows they were NOT impeached?
Feel free to bring it to the conversation.

No, No, No. Just stop.

I did not ask if the things he DID were crimes.
"Abuse of Power.
Obstruction of Congress.

Do either of these things constitute a criminal act?"

I did not state he did these things I only ask you if those acts constitute criminal acts. Right off the bat you are speaking from your true feelings. You think he did these things and your post show this is how you think.

Being impeached -
1.
(especially in the US) charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
This says nothing about the accusations being credible. Again, your feelings.

Nobody said he wasn't impeached. I said the impeachments were spiteful.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You’re conflating ideas again.

You asked if the things he did were crimes. I answered in the affirmative, based on factual information.
Being acquitted does not mean he was never impeached, and being impeached means the accusations were credible.
There is no denying that, no matter how badly you want to. It’s history. And it’s immutable, regardless of your opinions or feelings.

Yes. I accept the decision that when a law is created that the law exists. I can deny it all I want, but that changes nothing. The existence of law cares not how I feel or opine about it’s existence. It remains law.

I have no problem saying he was impeached. I have no problem saying g Clinton was impeached. I’ve said bith quite a few times.
Do you think I am inaccurate in saying these things? Do you have information that shows they were NOT impeached?
Feel free to bring it to the conversation.

No impeachment is just a trial held by politicians against politicians...being impeached does not mean the charges are credible...it means there was enough votes to bring forth preceedings...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You're probably right. I wasn't old enough at the time (born in 1989) to know or care about or understand the entirety of the issue, and my interpretation is solely reliant on my research in the past few years.

If you were old enough to live through it: was it fairly represented in the news at the time? I think Trump has not been fairly represented by the news, so I'm curious how the Clinton ordeal compares.

There was a night and day difference in coverage between the Trump and Clinton impeachments...Clinton's coverage was fairly balanced with more detailed facts why he was guilty versus innocent imo...with Trump it was very broad charges that left way too much to interpretation both sides of the argument really lacked fact based details how why what he did was "illegal" it was mainly a feelings argument on both sides...


Clinton was the second impeached president in history...then Trump was impeached twice...the process of impeachment is now a joke being turned into a tool to attempt election influence...and while I think that was the case in the Clinton impeachment...at the there was an actual clearly definable law broken (even if it was fairly minor) with perjury...there is no clearly definable law broken in the Trump impeachments...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

No. I’m implying that people who live in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.

So people on benefits can only hold certain views...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You're probably right. I wasn't old enough at the time (born in 1989) to know or care about or understand the entirety of the issue, and my interpretation is solely reliant on my research in the past few years.

If you were old enough to live through it: was it fairly represented in the news at the time? I think Trump has not been fairly represented by the news, so I'm curious how the Clinton ordeal compares.

At the time Clinton was very popular, we were at peace and the economy was humming along like a fine tuned machine. So for many in the GOP they felt Lewinsky was the only thing they could attack Clinton over and there were daily updates and if there wasn't anything new to talk about, then conservatives would whine out how "I have to explain what a BJ is to my kids because of Clinton" when it was the conservatives who were the only ones talking about it. It really opened my eyes as to what the GOP/conservatives were all about and I left the GOP for the Libertarian Party over the GOP's obsession over the Lewinsky scandal.

I agree Trump isn't getting fair treatment in the media. The only thing that seems sorta criminal to me is that the pay-off was "concealed" as business expense, but I'm not sure how criminal that is. It certainly seems the argument can be made that protecting the Trump brand/image is legit business expense. I can't really compare the coverage as I'm much less plugged into mainstream or conservative media than I was in the 90s.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

It is kind of frustrating that he pays 1/15 the income tax I do.
Not thrilled about the campaign violations either. Kind of weird to break the law in a campaign to be the leader of a country.

It’s like running for Sheriff and stealing the signs of the other candidates.

That's when he's paying taxes at all. In all fairness it isn't just Trump paying next to nothing in taxes.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Lying under oath (perjury) is black-and-white. Bill was under oath, and he lied while under oath. Do you disagree? GETTING head is ******. Do you disagree?

"Abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" are both open to interpretation. I personally believe every executive order is an abuse of power, and Chevron deference is an abuse of power, and officer discretion is an abuse of power... you get the point. Abuse of power is open to interpretation. I do not believe asking a foreign leader to investigate crimes committed by US citizens is abuse of power.

"Obstruction of congress" infuriates me. The charge of "obstruction of congress" is actually an abuse of power. It basically means, "we're congress, so you must obey us. If you don't, we'll criminally charge you for it." What is the black-and-white definition of "obstruction of congress"? Is the janitor who says "bathroom's closed while we clean it" obstructing congress? Is a broken chair obstructing congress? Is a defective valve that makes the room too warm obstructing congress?

Law needs to be black-and-white for people to be able to follow it. You must know that if you are as legally knowledgeable as you imply.

This may sound crazy: try to reply civilly and logically rather than aggressively and defensively.

Obstruction of justice is the frustration of governmental purposes by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. It is a federal crime.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22784/6#:~:text=Page%202-,Obstruction%20of%20Congress,It%20is%20a%20federal%20crime.

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

That's when he's paying taxes at all. In all fairness it isn't just Trump paying next to nothing in taxes.

There's a huge difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I recall Trump saying something like "nobody pays more in taxes than they have to". Nobody can disagree with that.

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

Obstruction of justice is the frustration of governmental purposes by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. It is a federal crime.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22784/6#:~:text=Page%202-,Obstruction%20of%20Congress,It%20is%20a%20federal%20crime.

Can we agree it is an ambiguous charge?

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

There's a huge difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I recall Trump saying something like "nobody pays more in taxes than they have to". Nobody can disagree with that.

Billionaires are paying real tax in the single digits if at all. OTOH, just ssi/medicaid eats up 8% of our income, that's before we pay a dime of state or federal taxes. I don't care if you call that avoidance, evasion or good accounting - I call that criminal. When Ross Perot ran, he released his taxes and he was paying just over 10%. Teresa Heinz-Kerry - 17%.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Can we agree it is an ambiguous charge?

I don't think it's that ambiguous. In Trump's case, they had specific acts that he committed that were considered obstruction. It's basically the same if you or I were being investigated for a crime and covered up or destroyed evidence or attempted to influence witnesses (obstruction of justice) - Congress serves as the court when it's a President, Senator, etc.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Billionaires are paying real tax in the single digits if at all. OTOH, just ssi/medicaid eats up 8% of our income, that's before we pay a dime of state or federal taxes. I don't care if you call that avoidance, evasion or good accounting - I call that criminal. When Ross Perot ran, he released his taxes and he was paying just over 10%. Teresa Heinz-Kerry - 17%.

That's all the more reason for a flat tax without loopholes...