Poll: Articles of Impeachment against President Trump

[CampingJosh]

The House Judiciary Committee approved the articles of impeachment against President Trump, and the entire House is going to debate and vote on Wednesday.

The first article charges him with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals. The second article charges him with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry.

Anybody want to weigh in on each of the two articles?

 

[wtburnette]

Abuse of power is complete bull . It was a huge nothingburger that the dems are trying to use to remove Trump from office, but there's nothing there. It's the kind of thing that presidents have always done and are really supposed to do with foreign nations. The only reason the dems are using this is that they have to have something to use and they're afraid of what dirt Trump might find on Biden that would come back on them. If there wasn't anything there, they wouldn't be so scared and pushing this sham impeachment. I like how someone on WIBC put the obstruction charge the other day. Not sure if it was Hammer & Nigel, or the Chicks, but they put it a way that I completely understood. The two branches (legislative and executive) are equal in power. Trump and his team know that the whole thing is a sham and he refused to participate in it, so the dems charge him with obstruction. If he had participated, they would likely have trapped him into something worse, but now he can just sit back and say that he refuses to participate in a sham impeachment.

Whatever, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway. I think the dems have seriously miscalculated with this circus. I think there is going to be serious voter backlash at election time. There is no way this goes anywhere in the Senate, so they better dream their wet dreams about removing him now before the Senate tells them what's what.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

How can they accuse him of obstruction when the dems themselves wouldn't allow republican committee members to call their own witnesses or in some cases even participate fully in committee proceedings? All those behind closed door dealings are the very definition of obstruction. They've lost their freaking minds. If/when this goes to the Senate, I don't think they're going to like the outcome once they get put in the hot seat.

 

[d.kaufman]

2 votes for guilty of both. I see Kut and Alpo voted!

 

[drillsgt]

2 votes for guilty of both. I see Kut and Alpo voted!

Lol, you beat me to it.

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

 

[chipbennett]

If there were still any semblance of the Rule of Law under the Constitution, both of these sham articles would be dismissed by the Chief Justice as not rising to the standard of impeachable offenses.

The first article, for abuse of power, is utterly specious. It reminds me of the George Zimmerman trial, where the prosecution helpfully presented all of the evidence to support acquittal. Every "witness" the democrats presented confirmed that Trump himself did not invoke a quid pro quo. (And even if he had, there is nothing criminal, much less impeachable, about doing so.)

The second article, for obstruction of congress, actually represents a constitutional over-reach by the legislative branch and violates constitutional separation of powers.

Finally, if anyone actually supports these articles of impeachment, I can only conclude that such a person is either a) too stupid to know what they're talking about or utterly ignorant of the constitution and civics in general, b) so gullible as to believe everything they hear from the sound-bite media punditry, or c) so overcome with Trump Derangement Syndrome that "orange man bad" overrides any remaining semblance of objective reasoning.

 

[Slapstick]

...Finally, if anyone actually supports these articles of impeachment, I can only conclude that such a person is either a) too stupid to know what they're talking about or utterly ignorant of the constitution and civics in general, b) so gullible as to believe everything they hear from the sound-bite media punditry, or c) so overcome with Trump Derangement Syndrome that "orange man bad" overrides any remaining semblance of objective reasoning.

For most that would be C, TDS is strong in some people, even in some of our fellow INGO members.

 

[jamil]

The House Judiciary Committee approved the articles of impeachment against President Trump, and the entire House is going to debate and vote on Wednesday.

The first article charges him with abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to assist him in his re-election campaign by damaging Democratic rivals. The second article charges him with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry.

Anybody want to weigh in on each of the two articles?

There's not an appropriate choice that says not guilty of impeachable obstruction and unproven abuse of power.

1) Trump is not guilty of impeachable obstruction. He stonewalled. The remedy for that isn't to sit and do nothing so that you can later charge him with obstruction. Go to court. If the President has no standing to refuse cooperation, then the courts will order him to honor the subpoenas. Then if he still refuses, you can charge him with something.

2) I don't know if he's guilty of abuse of power. They did establish that he (mostly Rudy on his behalf) pressured Ukraine for an investigation into democrat collusion with Ukraine in 2016, and the Biden thing, which is within his power to do. They did not prove he did it to help his re-election campaign. They need both. Gimme witnesses that were present during a meeting where they talked about doing it to help his reelection.

 

[chipbennett]

There's not an appropriate choice that says not guilty of impeachable obstruction and unproven abuse of power.

1) Trump is not guilty of impeachable obstruction. He stonewalled. The remedy for that isn't to sit and do nothing so that you can later charge him with obstruction. Go to court. If the President has no standing to refuse cooperation, then the courts will order him to honor the subpoenas. Then if he still refuses, you can charge him with something.

Worse: the Democrats are claiming that Trump obstructed congress because he went to the courts to assert his constitutional authority regarding executive privilege. To be clear: to the Democrats, going to the Judicial branch of government - the one that interprets law and the constitution and settles matters of disputes involving the same - to determine if a demand made upon the Executive branch by the Legislative branch is valid, constitutes obstruction of congress.

2) I don't know if he's guilty of abuse of power. They did establish that he (mostly Rudy on his behalf) pressured Ukraine for an investigation into democrat collusion with Ukraine in 2016, and the Biden thing, which is within his power to do. They did not prove he did it to help his re-election campaign. They need both. Gimme witnesses that were present during a meeting where they talked about doing it to help his reelection.

Further: it is not even established that investigating Biden would have any impact on the 2020 election, given that the Democrats have not yet determined who will be their presidential candidate in 2020. I'll also add that it is highly ironic that the Democrats are claiming abuse of power through investigation of a political opponent to influence the 2020 election, when that is exactly what they are using their power to do to their 2020 election opponent (i.e. Trump).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[doddg]

What is the expression?
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Everyone is guilty of everything: that's why it's called politics (imo).

I remember reading about how LBJ was such a bully, getting legislation through Congress using his literal largess of physical size for intimidation, trapping members in the hallways or wherever to pressure them to vote this way or that.

I find Trump to be an embarrassment in the way he runs his mouth, but treason? (just shut up, Trump)
Trying to intimidate a head of state of another country? Really? (not even news worthy)
Or digging up dirt on a political opponent? (Now that's a new concept: has anyone read any real recorded history?)
I'll bet that's the first time that has ever happened in the history of the United States! (satire)
Come on! That is exactly what rich countries do to less powerful countries and everyone knows it who even glances at history.

I "never" give political comments since opinions are all over the place.
Everyone believes they have a monopoly on truth.
Opinions follow not facts but family & socio-economic culture dictates to most on how what they believe politically & religiously & such discussions alienates instead of leading to enlightenment.

People aren't looking for truth with open minds.
And to be fair, where are you going to find it?
Not in the public media.
People can't even agree that God was the creator, so imagine what happens with everything else.
I'm just so fed up. Does it show?
The American public is lied to about everything of substance and most of what doesn't matter anyway.
"Follow the money" still applies.
Most political leaders are mere pawns and everyone knows it, pushing someone's agenda, and it does not bode well for the hard-working, God-fearing average citizen who just wants parity in society.

 

[jamil]

Worse: the Democrats are claiming that Trump obstructed congress because he went to the courts to assert his constitutional authority regarding executive privilege. To be clear: to the Democrats, going to the Judicial branch of government - the one that interprets law and the constitution and settles matters of disputes involving the same - to determine if a demand made upon the Executive branch by the Legislative branch is valid, constitutes obstruction of congress.



Further: it is not even established that investigating Biden would have any impact on the 2020 election, given that the Democrats have not yet determined who will be their presidential candidate in 2020. I'll also add that it is highly ironic that the Democrats are claiming abuse of power through investigation of a political opponent to influence the 2020 election, when that is exactly what they are using their power to do to their 2020 election opponent (i.e. Trump).

1) That language is nowhere in the article concerning obstruction. They're not saying that he went to the courts to assert executive privilege. They're saying he ordered his administration not to cooperate. Democrats could have taken the administration to court. Trump has gone to court and has lost many rounds in court. Democrats should have took the administration to court to force him to comply. That does work. That's how Nixon ended up turning over the tapes.

2) It doesn't matter whether there would have been any impact of investigating Biden. It matters if Trump was trying to use his power as president specifically for personal gain. So, a strategizing meeting, emails to the effect, some kind of evidence that Trump was using his power to damage political opponents would be enough to establish abuse of power.

 

[jamil]

Again, I think the questions should have said 'guilty or not guilty' rather than guilty or innocent. I have no idea if he's innocent of abuse of power. I can't honestly answer the question because the correct choice isn't available.

 

[chipbennett]

1) That language is nowhere in the article concerning obstruction. They're not saying that he went to the courts to assert executive privilege. They're saying he ordered his administration not to cooperate. Democrats could have taken the administration to court. Trump has gone to court and has lost many rounds in court. Democrats should have took the administration to court to force him to comply. That does work. That's how Nixon ended up turning over the tapes.

By saying that Trump went to the courts, I'm saying that Trump insisted upon a court order in order to be forced to comply with an otherwise unenforceable Congressional subpoena. It is the very basis for the article of impeachment.

Allow Alan Dershowitz to explain far more articulately than I can:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...lls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, when it votes to approve the articles, as the chamber is expected to do so Wednesday.


President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.


The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.


But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.


It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress.

2) It doesn't matter whether there would have been any impact of investigating Biden. It matters if Trump was trying to use his power as president specifically for personal gain. So, a strategizing meeting, emails to the effect, some kind of evidence that Trump was using his power to damage political opponents would be enough to establish abuse of power.

What specific, personal gain would Trump have achieved, if Joe Biden is not the Democrat nominee for president in 2020? Please elaborate.

 

[chipbennett]

Again, I think the questions should have said 'guilty or not guilty' rather than guilty or innocent. I have no idea if he's innocent of abuse of power. I can't honestly answer the question because the correct choice isn't available.

So much for innocent until proven guilty, eh? Seems rather pedantic to split hairs between "innocent" and "not guilty" in an INGO/internet poll. (And I say that as the king of pedantry.)

 

[jamil]

By saying that Trump went to the courts, I'm saying that Trump insisted upon a court order in order to be forced to comply with an otherwise unenforceable Congressional subpoena. It is the very basis for the article of impeachment.

Allow Alan Dershowitz to explain far more articulately than I can:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...lls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, when it votes to approve the articles, as the chamber is expected to do so Wednesday.


President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.


The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.


But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.


It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress.



What specific, personal gain would Trump have achieved, if Joe Biden is not the Democrat nominee for president in 2020? Please elaborate.

1) President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.

This is what I'm saying. Trump has taken it to lower courts, the lower courts have ruled against him, but until that process is exhausted, and SCOTUS ultimately orders him to comply, and then he subsequently refuses the court's order, THAT's obstruction. I honestly don't know what the argument is here.


2) WHAT? Are you kidding? I think if Trump tried to dig up dirt on Biden in 2019, and then Biden didn't become the nominee in 2020, maybe the dirt digging worked.

But that doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter if it's successful. It doesn't matter if Ukraine cooperates or not. If Trump tried to use his power as POTUS to dig up dirt on a political rival, that's an abuse of power. Also, it wasn't just Biden that was the subject of the investigation Trump wanted. It was more about the democrat's role with Ukraine in the meddling with the 2016 elections. Trump has much to gain personally from that or dirt on Biden. Of course that would have happened before anyone knew who the nominee is.

It's a lot like a bribe. (not saying this is bribery, it's just similar for the purposes of example) If you try to bribe someone and that person refuses, you're still guilty of trying to bribe someone.

BUT. Democrats haven't established that this was the clear motive. They've just implied it.

 

[chipbennett]

1) President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.

This is what I'm saying. Trump has taken it to lower courts, the lower courts have ruled against him, but until that process is exhausted, and SCOTUS ultimately orders him to comply, and then he subsequently refuses the court's order, THAT's obstruction. I honestly don't know what the argument is here.

I think we're in agreement here?

2) WHAT? Are you kidding? I think if Trump tried to dig up dirt on Biden in 2019, and then Biden didn't become the nominee in 2020, maybe the dirt digging worked.

But that doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter if it's successful. It doesn't matter if Ukraine cooperates or not. If Trump tried to use his power as POTUS to dig up dirt on a political rival, that's an abuse of power. Also, it wasn't just Biden that was the subject of the investigation Trump wanted. It was more about the democrat's role with Ukraine in the meddling with the 2016 elections. Trump has much to gain personally from that or dirt on Biden. Of course that would have happened before anyone knew who the nominee is.

It's a lot like a bribe. (not saying this is bribery, it's just similar for the purposes of example) If you try to bribe someone and that person refuses, you're still guilty of trying to bribe someone.

BUT. Democrats haven't established that this was the clear motive. They've just implied it.

Perhaps doing so is abuse of power. Even if it is (for the sake of argument), it isn't inherently an impeachable abuse of power. If it were, we would never see the end of impeachments of politicians for the very same abuse of power. Further, there are myriad actions that an elected official can take in carrying out legitimate, constitutionally or statutorily enumerated authority/responsibilities that also tangentially and/or coincidentally confer some personal benefit/gain to that official. That tangential/coincidental benefit/gain does not force said official to recuse himself from performing the duties of the office to which he was elected.

The counter argument here seems to be that the easiest way to act with impunity and avoid investigation for ostensibly unlawful actions is to announce one's candidacy for president while the office is presently occupied by a member of the opposing party. It's a brilliant plan, really. Any democrat can avoid otherwise legitimate investigation by the executive branch merely by announcing a run for president, because any otherwise legitimate investigation initiated by the executive branch would become an impeachable offense, due to the mere possibility that the current president could benefit politically from the investigation.

Side note: should Obama have been impeached for directing Lois Lerner (IRS) in her actions against Obama's political opponents?

 

[1775usmarine]

IBTL

 

[KG1]

1) President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.

This is what I'm saying. Trump has taken it to lower courts, the lower courts have ruled against him, but until that process is exhausted, and SCOTUS ultimately orders him to comply, and then he subsequently refuses the court's order, THAT's obstruction. I honestly don't know what the argument is here.


2) WHAT? Are you kidding? I think if Trump tried to dig up dirt on Biden in 2019, and then Biden didn't become the nominee in 2020, maybe the dirt digging worked.

But that doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter if it's successful. It doesn't matter if Ukraine cooperates or not. If Trump tried to use his power as POTUS to dig up dirt on a political rival, that's an abuse of power. Also, it wasn't just Biden that was the subject of the investigation Trump wanted. It was more about the democrat's role with Ukraine in the meddling with the 2016 elections. Trump has much to gain personally from that or dirt on Biden. Of course that would have happened before anyone knew who the nominee is.

It's a lot like a bribe. (not saying this is bribery, it's just similar for the purposes of example) If you try to bribe someone and that person refuses, you're still guilty of trying to bribe someone.

BUT. Democrats haven't established that this was the clear motive. They've just implied it.

This is the key take away in your entire post.