Ashlee wrote: ↑
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:43 am
Atienne wrote: ↑
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 am
What is also funny is all this talk of “what he did was wrong” and bitching about the acquittal. Wrong does not mean he committed a crime.
I quite like you Atienne, so please do not take this personally, but you are categorically wrong.
First, impeachment does not require a crime, as when the constitution was enacted there were no federal laws and there were no federal statutes. At best, you can make an attenuated argument about incorporating federal common law (which doesn't really exist outside of bankruptcy and admiralty law). Anyone with enough time to read up on the topic would agree (you don't have to be a lawyer or constitutional scholar, here).
Second, assuming a crime must be shown in order to impeach, the GOA (a non-partisan quasi-agency) actually released a report saying the withholding of aid to Ukraine was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act (https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
). There's your crime. Or we can go down the road of obstruction of Congress (also a crime: 18 U.S.C § 1505). Moreover, it is a bit rich to claim impeachment must rest on a showing of a crime, yet block any attempt to call witnesses at a trial. The House impeaches, which is issuing of formal charges akin to the grand jury process. No other impeachment trial (of a president or otherwise) has been held in the Senate without witnesses. Even Clinton's trial had witnesses after introduction of years of evidence from Ken Staar's investigation. Injecting "criminal process" into the impeachment comes with it a whole host of issues, such as burdens of proof, right to call witnesses, etc. If you want to require proof of a crime, sure whatever, but you cannot then also refuse to mirror the proceedings after criminal proceedings. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (I mean, in actuality they did, but we are talking academically here).
Finally, this is the first time in American history that the vote to convict was bi-partisan.
Like I said, not a personal attack and I am sure I will not change your mind, but I think you are resting your conclusion and a series of fundamentally flawed premises.
It's okay, I can disagree with someone and still enjoy their company. From what I know, you can do the same.
Should I have said "what he did was wrong" does not equate to "high crimes and misdemeanors"? As determined by the Senate, the same Senate that has that authority?
All this talk about how we need to follow the Constitution, yet the Bills of Rights is violated every day in places like Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Washington, Washington D.C., Oregon, Colorado, Chicago, Illinois? What are your thoughts on that?
Did you read the part where I said the vote to acquit (implied in the Senate) was strictly along party lines EXCEPT for Mitt Romney (slated to become the new John McCain)? No one likes Mitt Romney and if he wants to be a "maverick" I hope the great people of Utah recall his dumb ass as soon as possible. He has a grudge because the President made him look like a bigger ass than Mittens could do on his own.
As for the purported lack of witnesses...maybe, just maybe, when you have sore loser Democrats screaming impeach from before the President even takes office, the Senate knows that this is a load of bullshit and an attempt to usurp the Presidency like some small island in the Pacific with a military junta. If you can just impeach someone because they "weren't supposed to win" then you can probably impeach the Vice President just as easily because allegedly he's a "white cishet Christian male who believes in GCT" and then you got President Pelosi. *Shiver* even typing that makes me uncomfortable. Being where I am from, I know a little history about Nancy D'Alessandro and her family.
No one cares (except for Ukranians) that some money was delayed or withheld from Ukraine. We need to cut back on the foreign aid anyway. If I am not mistaken, the Ukrainians got the (or some of that) money eventually. They got plenty. What's 214mm really? GAO, quasi-agency, again, entrenched bureaucrats. Likely the same card carrying Party members who are just looking for a way to make an impeachment stick. It failed again, of course. This is what the President meant when he said we would get tired of winning. Win after win after win, it's expected. Cannot get cocky though. As soon as the current harebrained plot collapses, another one is already hatched and in play.
I hate to say what about... but what about Biden? Didn't he basically do the same thing? Threaten to withhold money from Ukraine unless they did what he (AND AGENCIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS) said? That is, fire the guy who is probably corrupt but also looking into his son and friends's also likely corrupt dealings at Burisma... If I am not mistaken, we have agreements with other countries to investigate corruption. Something fishy happened over there. The President wants to get to the bottom of it. I wish I could get a job in a field I know nothing about and collect hundreds of thousands of dollars due to who my daddy was, but I know it's wrong.
I am sure when Biden did it that was okay, because it was supported by the UN, World Bank, maybe even IMF. It was months ago, I don't remember. One of those "power behind the throne" type of organizations disguised as one that helps the world.
I don't understand why it's okay when one person does it, but when another person does it, it's not okay. Please enlighten me, because as far as I have learned, diplomacy is simply offering to do X for another country so that they do Y for you. Is that not in essence quid pro quo?
Of course some of you people (I'm not yet sure about you, Ashlee - I personally believe you do not subscribe to this) aren't going to rest until there is one world government communist hellscape monthly Yangbux and subsidized Bernie Basket Weaving degrees throughout the land. I have a spoiler for you types. It isn't going to happen. Too many patriots.