Should Trump have been impeached? (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

At the end of the day, this discussions seems kind of pointless because the following 2 facts remain true:

My problem with your statement is: Do you care if their was a coup attempt?

 

[Isaac]

I do. But … It would just be one more thing factoring in to the seemingly bottomless array of legitimate and serious offenses on both sides …
Additionally.. If by 'coup' attempt, you just mean attempting to unseat the president by finding fault/wrong/something illegal, then that wouldn't bother me at all. If you can find something illegal about a President's election or behavior, why not? And the consequences are whatever they are. I suppose in all fairness, any president could be subjected to this. Of course, some presidents will have a lot more to be 'found' than others and the whole thing will seem messier in that case.

 

[isladogs]

Was there a coup attempt by the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich against Clinton in 1998?
Did that bother you?

 

[Isaac]

I think calling any of this a 'coup attempt' is counter productive. It's just a politically charged buzzword at this point that distracts from the merits of the case. If a case has merits, bring it. The mere "bringing" of something to be looked into shouldn't ever be a bother. If it turns out to have very little basis, we can criticize it as a waste of time and unfair, but of course all that is very subjective.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Was there a coup attempt by the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich against Clinton in 1998?
Did that bother you?

This is what the Repubs get blamed for doing, so basically it's a wash right?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Unlike Clinton, Trump's coup started day ONE! Which makes it more sketchy.

 

[Isaac]

Not sure if that is directed toward me or not. Personally, I am not counting them one against another, if any of them has done something wrong enough to be dealt with, then let it be brought forward. And in the interest of full honesty, I will concede (to the implication) that sure, there are plenty of people who think Trump is bad enough they would jump on any bandwagon that had a chance of bringing him down. Some # of those people exist vs. any sitting President. Unfortunately for Trump, he set a record in that regard.

 

[Jon]

@pisorsisaac@gmail.co I agree with much of what you said there. What I will add is that things aren't always 50:50. Take Russia collusion. There was none, despite Adam Schiff claiming he has seen evidence of it.

Edit: I agreed with what you said a few posts back!

 

[Steve R.]

Unlike Clinton, Trump's coup started day ONE! Which makes it more sketchy.

On Trump's inauguration day, the Washington Post declared "war" ---> The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.

"At the moment the new commander in chief was sworn in, a campaign to build public support for his impeachment went live at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org, spearheaded by two liberal advocacy groups aiming to lay the groundwork for his eventual ejection from the White House."

Seems that the Democrats were not concerned about the rule-of-law which would require finding an impeachable offense. It would be a bit hard to find an impeachable offense on the day Trump took office.

 

[Isaac]

@Jon , I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that. It was hard to find evidence, but I think based on the fact(?) that Russian did interfere greatly in the election, and it greatly benefitted Trump, and based on the type of statements he made (kind of defiant and bold), then coming to the conclusion that we can assume he had something to do with it isn't at all an unreasonable assumption. We get that there was very little hard evidence found, but people can come up with their own conclusions based on all things considered and the way he acted and talked about the whole thing in combination with the circumstances. I will grant you that there wasn't really an evidentiary conclusion so to speak. That doesn't mean there was none, just none hard fast could be found, but people connect dots..
I will grant Trump that he is good at implying things without directly saying them, (or saying "other people are saying", etc. etc., ) in order to distance himself from the direct statement.

It would be like if I were the mayor and my cousin got a lucrative contract and people accused me of some sort of improper channeling, and I said "No, I didn't do it. But I'd be totally cool doing it!" and such things like that, I'm kind of setting myself up for being harshly judged.

 

[Steve R.]

@Jon , I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that. It was hard to find evidence, but I think based on the fact(?) that Russian did interfere greatly in the election, and it greatly benefitted Trump, and based on the type of statements he made (kind of defiant and bold), then coming to the conclusion that we can assume he had something to do with it isn't at all an unreasonable assumption. We get that there was very little hard evidence found, but people can come up with their own conclusions based on all things considered and the way he acted and talked about the whole thing in combination with the circumstances. I will grant you that there wasn't really an evidentiary conclusion so to speak. That doesn't mean there was none, just none hard fast could be found, but people connect dots..
I will grant Trump that he is good at implying things without directly saying them, (or saying "other people are saying", etc. etc., ) in order to distance himself from the direct statement.

It would be like if I were the mayor and my cousin got a lucrative contract and people accused me of some sort of improper channeling, and I said "No, I didn't do it. But I'd be totally cool doing it!" and such things like that, I'm kind of setting myself up for being harshly judged.

First, every country interferes in the internal affairs of other countries. Obama, as the US President, interfered in the internal affairs of England, Israel, and Syria. But the reason for my response is the incessant and unproven assertion that Russia was attempting to help Trump. For all we know, the Russians were actually trying to help Hillary Clinton. There have been accusations that the Steele dossier was a Russian disinformation effort that was meant to hurt Trump. That would seem to negate assertions that the Russians were trying to help Trump. For Russia, Hillary Was a known quantity and she had worked to improve US/Russian relations. So, it seems more probable that the Russians would have preferred Hillary Clinton (along with with Bill) over Trump.

 

[Isaac]

The volume of news at the time was like a firehose of information, so I confess to not remember any specific details I can quote at the time. But it seemed overwhelmingly obvious, plenty of huge social media troll campaigns since banned. And it went on and on.
If there was ever a doubt that Trump was going to be Putin's BFF, I am pretty sure that doubt has been removed a long time ago. One of the things a family member of mine (traditionally a republican - and still a republican, as am I) said bothered him the most about Trump...his admiration for dictators, tyrants, and anything along those lines.

But I agree with you in that I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened. I'm sure it happens all 'round the world, too, but a leader openly inviting it has not really been the American way/norm. (until Trump).

 

[AccessBlaster]

If we are honest half the world hated Tump when he can down the escalator at Trump tower.

 

[AccessBlaster]

....but a leader openly inviting it has not really been the American way/norm. (until Trump).

Like COVID Trump's behavior may be the new normal. Certainly the new pres will need to know how to tweet. That leaves out Uncle Joe.

 

[Isaac]

LOL

 

[moke123]

But the reason for my response is the incessant and unproven assertion that Russia was attempting to help Trump.

Helsinki:

"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" a reporter asked at the joint press conference Putin and Trump held after their one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

Speaking through a translator, Putin answered, "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

Putin did not address the second part of the question.

 

[AccessBlaster]

"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" a reporter asked at the joint press conference Putin and Trump held after their one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

Speaking through a translator, Putin answered, "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

Putin did not address the second part of the question.

Personally I think Obama's open mic slip on missile defense system is far more telling, please take the time to hear the quid pro quo at around 0:15 seconds in.

Now imagine it's Trump.

 

[NauticalGent]

I do not like Trump nor did I like Obama. What intrigues me is how both sides like to point the dirty end of the stick for the same reasons. They are quick to point of any flaws on the other guy yet can turn a deaf ear and blink eye when it come to thiers.

Crazy stuff...

 

[AccessBlaster]

What intrigues me is how both sides like to point the dirty end of the stick for the same reasons.

And that is totally fair criticism.

 

[Jon]

"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" a reporter asked at the joint press conference Putin and Trump held after their one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

Speaking through a translator, Putin answered, "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

That is not collusion and conflating the two is disingenuous. You have no evidence of collusion. If government A wants to help government B, it doesn't mean government B has anything to do with it. Also, Putin could be referring to just the part of the question about wanting Trump to win, not helping him.

If you believe Putin, why don't you believe him when he says, "Read my lips - no", in response to being asked if he meddled in the Russia collusion hoax?