Trump and the Rule of Law - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15048240
Amb. Taylor pointed out, in his earlier testimony, that giving Ukraine an existential threat also undermined the commitment to the Rule of Law we have had for centuries.

It does it in a number of ways.

This post is something of a placeholder. I'll talk more about it later. But I can start now.

Trying to get a foreign country to meddle in our elections undermines both rule of law and the legitimacy of the Republic. Face it, the more corrupt elections are, the less democratic we will be.

We have tried to help a lot of countries establish Rule of Law. We even tried in Russia, but it didn't take. Our lawyers had a lot of trouble getting Russians to think of contracts as binding, and not just a way to make a quick buck.

Ukraine is in a shooting war, witholding aid (and we did withold aid) was an existential threat. That's serious pressure. It also subverts the postwar world Ike and Truman set up after WW2. It also benefits Putin. In short, it's disgusting.

Trump did not have the authority to withhold aid. There is a procedure to do that. But Ukraine passed the tests, so there were no grounds for halting aid, not that the Trump crowd was competent enough to use that process.

Ukrainegate doesn't stand by itself. They had tried the very same 'offer you can't refuse' with the previous president. They also leaned on, and got, an under the table deal so that political donors could get an energy contract for less than other standing bids.

This hostility to the Rule of Law has been ongoing for a few years. The Trump campaign had about a hundred contacts with Russians and their intermediaries. Every one was supposed to be reported, which would have prevented most or all of the subsequent meetings. As you know, that did not happen. They went on to lie dozens of times, denying the meeting happened. They then lied dozens of times more about the nature of those meetings.

They went so far as to repeatedly try to set up backchannel communications that American intelligence couldn't listen to. In case you're wondering, that's against multiple laws.
#15048260
This post should be in the Ukrainegate thread and the OP literally has not offered one shred of evidence for impeachment and braking of rules of law. . This is all opinion and backed by absolutely no facts nor effort to post facts. Its noted the OP alleges his political opposition engages in Firehoseing yet this piece challenges that credibility.
#15048261
Finfinder wrote:evidence for impeachment and braking of rules of law.


Impeachment does not require a law to be broken. The house and senate simply believing the president is unfit is enough. In your job, do you have to break the law to be fired? Or can you get fired without breaking the law?
#15048272
Rancid wrote:Impeachment does not require a law to be broken. The house and senate simply believing the president is unfit is enough. In your job, do you have to break the law to be fired? Or can you get fired without breaking the law?


You are saying no law was broken and this is just partisan bureaucrats, Democrats, and the head of 1 committee deciding to negate the will of millions and millions of voters. The star report suggested 11 felonies and impeachable offenses for Bill Clinton. The Mueller report concluded no collusion.

If your employer fires you with discrimination are they not culpable?
#15048275
Rancid wrote:Impeachment does not require a law to be broken. The house and senate simply believing the president is unfit is enough. In your job, do you have to break the law to be fired? Or can you get fired without breaking the law?

American people think Donald Trump is fit enough to do this job. They voted for him.

It is a power grab. Opposition party wants to take the president hostage. What I can tell from watching the hearing, It looks so partisan.
#15048276
Finfinder wrote:You are saying no law was broken and this is just partisan bureaucrats, Democrats, and the head of 1 committee deciding to negate the will of millions and millions of voters. The star report suggested 11 felonies and impeachable offenses for Bill Clinton. The Mueller report concluded no collusion.

If your employer fires you with discrimination are they not culpable?


I've said none of that. I've only said, no law needs to broken for impeachment to happen.

But yes, there is partisanship. no shit.
Last edited by Rancid on 13 Nov 2019 17:10, edited 1 time in total.
#15048277
Istanbuller wrote:American people think Donald Trump is fit enough to do this job

Not exactly. Most Americans did not want him as president.

Istanbuller wrote:It is a power grab. Opposition party wants to take the president hostage. What I can tell from watching the hearing, It looks so partisan.

Yes, it will be partisan. Of course. Pretty much anything these politicians do is partisan. The high level of partisanship is why it will fail.

It could be argued that Republicans are more partisan than Democrats as they are better at sticking together. However, that's neither here nor there I guess.
Last edited by Rancid on 13 Nov 2019 17:12, edited 1 time in total.
#15048278
Rancid wrote:Impeachment does not require a law to be broken. The house and senate simply believing the president is unfit is enough.


Well, it's a foregone conclusion that's not going to happen in this case...
By late
#15048279
Istanbuller wrote:
American people think Donald Trump is fit enough to do this job. They voted for him.

It is a power grab. Opposition party wants to take the president hostage. What I can tell from watching the hearing, It looks so partisan.



Taylor is not partisan, and that's who you are talking about.

It's also hardly a power grab, if Trump gets kicked out on his ass, we get Pence.

But I love the hostage bit! Can we imprison him at Elba?
#15048284
Rancid wrote:Not exactly. Most Americans did not want him as president.

He won the election in 2016. It means that he is perfectly fit.

Yes, it will be partisan. Of course. Pretty much anything these politicians do is partisan. The high level of partisanship is why it will fail.

It could be argued that Republicans are more partisan than Democrats as they are better at sticking together. However, that's neither here nor there I guess.

It wouldn't have to be like this. It would be a bipartisan hearing if he was caught of doing of a real and defined wrongdoing.

late wrote:Taylor is not partisan, and that's who you are talking about.

It's also hardly a power grab, if Trump gets kicked out on his ass, we get Pence.

But I love the hostage bit! Can we imprison him at Elba?

It is very likely that he is partisan and biased against the president.

I remember someone was saying in 2016 here that Donald Trump has not enough number of real friends who have the same mindest like him. He is surrounded by secret enemies. He had to win the election by himself.
#15048287
Istanbuller wrote:
1) He won the election in 2016. It means that he is perfectly fit.


2) It wouldn't have to be like this. It would be a bipartisan hearing if he was caught of doing of a real and defined wrongdoing.


3) It is very likely that he is partisan and biased against the president.

4) I remember someone was saying in 2016 here that Donald Trump has not enough number of real friends who have the same mindest like him. He is surrounded by secret enemies. He had to win the election by himself.



1) No, it means he won. There are conditions to be met to keep being president.

2) And unicorns, too.

3) You are just making shit up. He was appointed to work in foreign affairs by every Republican president from Reagan to Trump.

4) Don't forget Putin.
#15048288
Rancid wrote:I've said none of that. I've only said, no law needs to broken for impeachment to happen.

But yes, there is partisanship. no shit.


Ok but I guess I'm still not sure what your point is by making that statement without offering an opinion about it. What response should I have had ? Like I should be OK with the fact that going forward the Democrats have reduce the power of the executive branch as well as rendered the vote for president useless, because if the presidents party does not hold controll of congress they will be impeached purely for partisan purposes?
#15048290
Finfinder wrote:
Ok but I guess I'm still not sure what your point is by making that statement without offering an opinion about it. What response should I have had ? Like I should be OK with the fact that going forward the Democrats have reduce the power of the executive branch as well as rendered the vote for president useless, because if the presidents party does not hold controll of congress they will be impeached purely for partisan purposes?



Actually, Congress is Article 1 because Congress was supposed to have the most power.

In any case, this doesn't reduce the power of the president one bit. But it is an attempt to stop Trump's power grab..

The impeachment of Clinton was clearly partisan. This is not. I suggest you pay attention, and lay off the fake news for a while.
#15048296
late wrote:The impeachment of Clinton was clearly partisan. This is not. I suggest you pay attention, and lay off the fake news for a while.


Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. His impeachment wasn't "partisan", it was the correct thing to do.

Which, I guess when you consider that liberals rarely enjoy more than a passing relationship with honesty, could mean that it might've been partisan...
By late
#15048298
BigSteve wrote:
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. His impeachment wasn't "partisan", it was the correct thing to do.

Which, I guess when you consider that liberals rarely enjoy more than a passing relationship with honesty, could mean that it might've been partisan...



The Whitewater investment scam failed. The public lost interest when they found out it was Hillary that did it. So they went on a fishing expedition.

Prosecutorial misconduct law should apply to Congress.

I'm not American, so bear with me while I try and […]

Jeremy Corbyn denies using boy treated on hospi[…]

A subpoena has to assert its lawful authority. […]

The Irishman...

Because it actually has nothing to do with the ac[…]