Poll: Articles of Impeachment against President Trump

[CampingJosh]

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.

Guilty or not guilty is for a jury, and what someone "thinks" shouldn't really matter. That's a matter of whether the prosecution demonstrated guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

For where we are in the process, that's a terribly uninteresting question. The prosecution hasn't even begun, so "not guilty" should be everyone's default response.

This poll is asking if the members of INGO think that President Trump did the things named in the two articles of impeachment.

 

[chipbennett]

Ah, well that's how I read it. This sounds like "guess the names" of the INGO members that voted for the non-pro-Trump poll options... BW has made this same sentiment before, about "obvious" democrats here on the forum.

I can see how it could be read that way. Might even be the correct reading.

 

[jamil]

I think we're in agreement here?



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?

I think if Trump used his power to pressure another country to dig up dirt for him, that's an abuse of power. I don't think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense though. I think for an an impeachable offense to have the wide support of the people, it should be something that rises above what other presidents have done and not been impeached. I think presidents have done far worse.

On the Obama point, no, not impeachable, but obviously we're presuming, for the sake of argument, that Obama directed Lois Lerner to do all that and there's evidence of it. We'll never know. Because hard drives in Democratic administrations have serendipitous calamities befall them when subpoenaed, and their email servers astonishingly don't keep copies of emails.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have not heard EVIDENCE of either.

 

[jamil]

It's interesting that anyone thought a poll for this would be necessary?

A better poll would be for who we'd guess the names are for those who voted with the dems. A couple are obvious, others you have to pay closer attention. Sheep's clothing sort of thing...

Sigh.

C'mon man. This is getting to be some uber level identity politics going on here. So we need a poll to identify the INGO traitors? What. So you can shame them?

It's a legitimate thing to poll. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. It's optional. I declined to participate in the poll because it didn't provide any options for me to give a truthful answer. If I said Trump is innocent of both I'd be lying, because I don't know if he's innocent the obstruction charge. Also, I think I'd rather have something that answered whether we think it's an impeachable offense. Even if he's guilty, is it impeachable?

 

[printcraft]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/opinions/trump-is-still-winning-jennings/?hpt=ob_blogfooterold

You have to remember: Donald Trump wasn't elected to fit in with these people — the political, intellectual class -- to make them happy, or to become one of them. He was elected to break them. And that's apparently what he's done.

 

[2A_Tom]

Poll on WIND this AM.

Is voting for impeachment worth losing your seat in the house?

 

[jamil]

Poll on WIND this AM.

Is voting for impeachment worth losing your seat in the house?

It depends. It's a question of when to override the will of constituents. If there's actually a high crime/misdemeanor committed, I think the representative should vote for impeachment. On the other side of it, if constituents want impeachment, and the allegations are not supported, then the representative should probably vote against.

 

[harleymac1]

The whole process that Schiff ran brings shame. Since when is an accused in the US not allowed to know their accuser? And what kind of hearing refuses to allow opposing viewpoint witnesses to tell what they know? If we allowed jury trials to run the way this whole impeachment thing was held innocents would be in prison and the criminals would be in the streets.

 

[2A_Tom]

The criminals are in the gubmint.

 

[Trigger Time]

I hope trump obstructs these democrat traitors of the Republic as much as possible.

The anniversary of the Boston tea party was on the 16th. History will repeat itself because we have allowed tyrants into the hen house. And these public SERVANTS have forgotten their roles and place at the table.
Hearing democrat traitors KNOWINGLY talk/lie about defending the constitution and the republic makes me vomit. Liars, thieves, murderers, oath breakers

 

[Expat]

I didn't vote as bacon was not an option.

 

[jamil]

The whole process that Schiff ran brings shame. Since when is an accused in the US not allowed to know their accuser? And what kind of hearing refuses to allow opposing viewpoint witnesses to tell what they know? If we allowed jury trials to run the way this whole impeachment thing was held innocents would be in prison and the criminals would be in the streets.

Accused not knowing their accuser. Well, it's a whistleblower, so there's that. I'd like to have more confidence that the whistleblower is legit. But assuming he is (which doesn't assume that what he alleges is true) I don't mind protecting whistleblower generally. It seems they're traitors when they're against your guy; they're hero's when they're against their guy. Apparently.

You have a point about the process so far. Democrats have done all they can to keep Republicans from defending this. If it were an honest inquiry, every effort would be made to show both sides honestly.

 

[Trigger Time]

Accused not knowing their accuser. Well, it's a whistleblower, so there's that. I'd like to have more confidence that the whistleblower is legit. But assuming he is (which doesn't assume that what he alleges is true) I don't mind protecting whistleblower generally. It seems they're traitors when they're against your guy; they're hero's when they're against their guy. Apparently.

You have a point about the process so far. Democrats have done all they can to keep Republicans from defending this. If it were an honest inquiry, every effort would be made to show both sides honestly.

Well might has always made right in the history of the world. Even how David defeated goliath.
The democrats ARE the traitors in this play. Theres no if ands or buts about it. They want to destroy the foundation of this nation. Why would anyone except a wimp want to negotiate or parlay with that side?
FOR ONCE republicans need not backdown or dig in. They need to fix bayonets and charge!
I know exactly how this ends and I'm at peace with it. Support the right or get out of the damn way

 

[Hatin Since 87]

So 3 people think he’s guilty. Wonder who that could be

I don’t understand how people take this seriously. How can anyone believe this is a legitimate impeachment when they’ve been pursuing this since the election results came in? And the worst part, people actually buy into it and support it.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[Shootin45super]

I can only hope that once the Dems are back in power, the Reps don't forget about how things have been handled since Trump was elected and do everything in their power to return the favor. I've never been more sick of hearing about this garbage, the petulance is embarrassing but if this is how it's gonna be I hope the Reps take the bull by the horns and master the task.

Maybe we should have a poll to see who in there right mind would ever vote for another crooked democrat!

 

[Shootin45super]

Just seen on the breaking news that they have proof on Trump and he even said that he,
Burnt down Cheryl's she shed!

 

[Dead Duck]

Just seen on the breaking news that they have proof on Trump and he even said that he,
Burnt down Cheryl's she shed!

Well that's good enough for me.