Democrats Have Impeached Trump in the House.

[HBee]

That is an unbelievable answer. You don't care about political corruption as long as you personally were being benefited right now?

This is your problem, you read what nobody wrote.

 

[SlinkyMike]

That is an unbelievable answer. You don't care about political corruption as long as you personally were being benefited right now?

It's that whole: "He's hurting the wrong people!" Mindset. Fsck the rule of law as long as libtards agre getting pwned. Disgusting.

 

[Unhappy438]

Regulations = commies = libtards = nationalisation

, yeah that seems to be the logic. Remember when they nationalised the banks in 2008?

 

[konfab]

Sure, sure, but it's got nothing to do with the current corruption of the current president.

But it certainly has something to do with how you can fix the problem.

Congress could simply pass a bill stating that the US president cannot block any aid from congress. Of course they won't like it because when their guy is in charge, you want him to be able to do the same thing as Trump did (but probably with a bit more grace). But given how this has surfaced as a way for corruption to happen, it should be a pretty easy no-brainier for most people in congress.

The clever part is that this doesn't require Trump to actually be guilty of anything. It would be based on how his behaviour can be interpreted, which most people could at least see as being problematic. It also doesn't have to be seen as an attack on Trump

 

[konfab]

, no its not. Making private assets public is nationalisation.

It is.

If I put in a regulation stating that you have to accommodate and feed 10 homeless people in your house, do you actually own your house?

 

[cerebus]

Congress could simply pass a bill stating that the US president cannot block any aid from congress.

There are already laws to that effect, at least 2 of them. Trump broke them.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

The Trump White House created an irregular budgetary process to match its irregular foreign policy process on Ukraine. The hold was illegal under two budgetary statutes, adding further weight to the case that Trump abused his authority for private gain.

www.justsecurity.org

Relevant Budgetary Laws

There are two relevant budgetary statutes that are implicated by Trump withholding military aid for Ukraine: apportionment authority and the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Both laws are intended to restrict the executive branch from undermining Congress’s “power of the purse” under the Constitution.

OMB’s hold on military aid was an abuse of its apportionment authority and constituted an illegal deferral. While the Trump administration was well aware of the legal issues with its actions, it ignored them and held up the funding anyway.

Most people could at least see as being problematic. It also doesn't have to be seen as an attack on Trump

Anything that attempts to hold Trump accountable for his breaches of duty and law is going to be seen as an attack on him by his followers. There's nothing you can do about that I'm afraid.

 

[konfab]

There are already laws to that effect, at least 2 of them. Trump broke them.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

The Trump White House created an irregular budgetary process to match its irregular foreign policy process on Ukraine. The hold was illegal under two budgetary statutes, adding further weight to the case that Trump abused his authority for private gain.

www.justsecurity.org

Anything that attempts to hold Trump accountable for his breaches of duty and law is going to be seen as an attack on him by his followers. There's nothing you can do about that I'm afraid.

Making it illegal and removing the power from him doing it are two different things.


The former only works when you work on the assumption that people in power give a damn about the laws. The latter works regardless of how corrupt/moral a person is.

South Africa is suffering because of this. All of Jacob Zuma's shenannigans were illegal, but he was using powers granted to the president because the idiots who wrote the constitution assumed that a Nelson Mandela would always be elected.

 

[cerebus]

Making it illegal and removing the power from him doing it are two different things.

What the hell are you talking about? Who has the power to do illegal acts?

 

[cerebus]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217619934403940352

The drama

 

[Eniigma]

This thread is just hot air and bluster.

Trump is NOT going to impeached in the upcoming trial.

Republicans, who make up the majority of the Senate aren't breaking ranks in any meaningful way and have formed a protective steel circle around Trump and are already throwing their weight behind his 2020 re-election campaign.

His recent rallies in Texas, Milwaukee and Ohio were bigger than ever before, and Democrats are sluggishly trying to choose a 2020 candidate in their presidential candidate run-offs. None of the Democrat candidates have yet gained a commanding or popular lead, and among them, their polcies are vastly different, creating hard-line divisions in the party ranks. Alt left Socialist types vs. moderate traditional Liberals and libertarians towards the center.

Their recent individual rallies have also had dismal turn-outs in comparison to Trump's rallies.

Trump has a comfortable time and numbers lead in this election campaign and therefore I think he will win the upcoming elections with a greater margin than 2016.

I don't think he'll be booted out after the trial, but the repubs will need to make a good show of doing it right. Just outright dismissing it or turning it into more of sham than it already is will just hurt them. And of course the liberal MSM will jump on it and paint it far worse than anything it is.

I suspect no matter what happens, the media will report very differently on the process.
The current tactics, false news from news sites and propaganda sites and even politicians themselves and polarising stances taken is very concerning for the future.

 

[greg0205]

Making it illegal and removing the power from him doing it are two different things.


The former only works when you work on the assumption that people in power give a damn about the laws. The latter works regardless of how corrupt/moral a person is.

South Africa is suffering because of this. All of Jacob Zuma's shenannigans were illegal, but he was using powers granted to the president because the idiots who wrote the constitution assumed that a Nelson Mandela would always be elected.

Um.

Using powers granted to the president... illegally... is an... abuse of power...

Funny thing.

It's impeachable...

And, would you look at that! It's Article 1 of *this* impeachment.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

This POTUS must not give a damn about the laws. I mean he straight up did it despite Congress removing the power from *any* POTUS to do it.

 

[TysonRoux]

Devin Nunes, call your office please.

William Barr, call your office please.

Mike Pence, call your office please.

So very different listening to a member of the Team telling it as it is, vs all the others doing a Zupta, deny, deny, dienaai, .......

 

[konfab]

What the hell are you talking about? Who has the power to do illegal acts?

The power is the ability to block foreign aid.

The current law is to try and regulate the behaviour.

I was arguing that the president shouldn't have the power to block foreign aid.

 

[konfab]

Um.

Using powers granted to the president... illegally... is an... abuse of power...

Funny thing.

It's impeachable...

And, would you look at that! It's Article 1 of *this* impeachment.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

This POTUS must not give a damn about the laws. I mean he straight up did it despite Congress removing the power from *any* POTUS to do it.

Wrong.

You want the president to be able to block foreign aid, yet constrain what they can and cannot block. Which is hoping that the president will actually be a moral person.

I am saying that the office of the presidency shouldn't have this power. To use an example, the president doesn't have the power to remove a member of congress. So it doesn't matter if Trump said that congressman X should be removed or not.

By stating that Trump did abuse the power despite the laws against it, you are making a good argument as to why the president shouldn't have such powers in the first place.

 

[cerebus]

The power is the ability to block foreign aid.

The current law is to try and regulate the behaviour.

I was arguing that the president shouldn't have the power to block foreign aid.

The president is always going to have more power than a normal citizen, and he's always going to be able to abuse that power. That's why high crimes are an article of impeachment. In any case, Trump DOES currently have the power of the purse, and he HAS currently abused it, which needs remediation. It's pointless to try to enact future legislation because the president has already proven his inability to not abuse the powers of his office.

 

[greg0205]

So very different listening to a member of the Team telling it as it is, vs all the others doing a Zupta, deny, deny, dienaai, .......

The best twitter this morning was folk posting clips of Devin saying, "Lev Parnas? Don't know him" on Fox a while back and clips of Devin saying, "Lev Parnas? Oh, THAT Lev Parnas" on Fox yesterday.

 

[TysonRoux]

Snollygoster hick

Trump tests the limits of his power despite impeachment

The President is not waiting to be acquitted of impeachable crimes to show that no one can stop him doing what he wants to do

Trump shows that impeachment will not moderate him

 

[konfab]

The president is always going to have more power than a normal citizen, and he's always going to be able to abuse that power. That's why high crimes are an article of impeachment. In any case, Trump DOES currently have the power of the purse, and he HAS currently abused it, which needs remediation. It's pointless to try to enact future legislation because the president has already proven his inability to not abuse the powers of his office.

He isn't going to get removed from office and you know it. Which means that any future president can abuse them as well.

At least what I offered actually plugs the hole in the legislation and it would be sufficiently more bipartisan than this current debacle.

And interestingly, congress is meant to be the body that has the power of the purse if I am not mistaken.

The US Constitution gives the Power of the Purse to Congress. This power is outlined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, known as the Appropriations Clause and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. The power also forms part of the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.
The power of the purse is the ability to tax and spend public money for the Federal Government. Specifically, bills that are specifically for the purpose of raising revenue are to start in the House of Representatives. The idea at the Constitutional Convention was to give this power to the House, as it was the only part of Congress that was directly elected.

https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/power-of-the-purse

So the existing powers that the president has in directing foreign military aid go against the constitution.

 

[TysonRoux]

Parnas says the 'most important thing' was 4 more years of Trump

 

[BBSA]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217619934403940352

The drama

How is this relevant to the thread topic?