Opinion POTWR 2019 Vol 5: Based On Known Facts, Would You Remove Trump From Office?

Based on known facts, would you vote to remove Trump from office?


  • Total voters
    100
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
He has committed verifiable, proven, felonies already. More to come.

What crime has he committed? Gimme an official source.

Also, assuming a crime has been committed, why is it a proper predicate for impeachment?
 
Voted no because I'm not 100% convinced Trump is perpetrating all the evil that's been attributed to him.

I'm also doing quite well in physical metals playing the markets, so to the effect that Trump has on the volatility of silver, gold, and other precious metals... it has been benefiting me greatly.
 
Why are you personally unable to articulate a single lie, yet you believe some nebulas unproven lie rises to the occasion of removing a sitting President?

Incorrect. I said the overwhelming pattern of his statements not matching what appears to be reality is my problem. Not one particular lie.
 
Skimming this, looks like you're right.

I know. It’s not too late to change your vote.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Would have thought moral turpitude or being incapacitated (like Reagan with Alzheimer's)would be acceptable standards as well.

Impeaching a president is a helluva thing. It’s like telling the millions of people who voted “your opinion doesn’t count, because We The Powerful have decided that your chosen representative is unacceptable.” The bar is extremely high, as it should be.

As for incapacity, that’s potentially a 25th Amendment issue. That option also should be invoked cautiously. IMO it should apply almost exclusively when the POTUS is in a coma.
 
You know the answer to this already. He lied under oath, about a bunch of things especially about his own taxes.

This is why you will not be able to find any news article in any of the MSM media "after" the hearing about Cohen giving proof against Trump, but will find MANY articles about that leading up to the hearing.

No, I don't. Haven't followed the story. All I know his he plead guilty to doing something illegal that would benefit Trump.
 
Incorrect. I said the overwhelming pattern of his statements not matching what appears to be reality is my problem. Not one particular lie.

Then your reasoning is unproven, and unprovable. Therefore, your reasoning is invalid to the rest of humanity to remove a sitting President.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
 
I know. It’s not too late to change your vote.

It is since I didn't allow for that option. :eek:


It appears he is guilty under the emoluments clause. The problem is the lack of political will to use it as the reason for impeachment, not lack of evidence.

@JamesRussler, do you remember the thread where we went over emoluments? I seem to recall it being over people staying at his hotels and that it didn't amount to a violation of that clause.
 
It is since I didn't allow for that option. :eek:



@JamesRussler, do you remember the thread where we went over emoluments? I seem to recall it being over people staying at his hotels and that it didn't amount to a violation of that clause.
There was far more to it than some people staying at his hotel. Consider the investigation into the inauguration committee, for example.
 
Then your reasoning is unproven, and unprovable. Therefore, your reasoning is invalid to the rest of humanity to remove a sitting President.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

I gave you a link to 1000's of inaccurate statements. Those can all be proven or disproved. They are not "my facts". What's my opinion is they add up enough to give him the boot. Although now I'm seeing that might not be grounds. In that case, I'd need to see how the myriad of investigations turn out.
 
There was far more to it than some people staying at his hotel. Consider the investigation into the inauguration committee, for example.

That's what I recall being at the crux of that thread. What factually took place that does amount to a violation of the clause? I'm not familiar with any of the investigations.
 
I don’t know how any one could vote yes with what we KNOW right now but then again there would of been idiots that would say yes to voting out Obama
 
Very well then. 5 counts of tax evasion, 1 count of false statements to a financial institution, 1 count of making an "illegal" contribution to a campaign (too large a sum).

https://thehill.com/regulation/administration/402906-cohen-pleads-guilty-to-federal-charges

So this part he just did all by himself? Maybe.

He also pleaded guilty to one count of making an excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016, which is the same date Cohen finalized a payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement over an affair Daniels alleges she had with Trump. Cohen said he did so at the direction of “a candidate for federal office.” He did not mention Trump by name.

The judge set a sentencing hearing of Dec. 12 for Cohen, who was released on $500,000 bond.

ADVERTISEMENT
The $130,000 payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was completed just weeks before the 2016 election. She is now suing Cohen and the president for defamation and to void the nondisclosure agreement.

In addition to the $130,000 payment to Clifford, Cohen also admitted to making an illegal contribution of $150,000. That figure matches up with the amount former Playboy model Karen McDougal was paid by publishers of the National Enquirer for exclusive rights to her story about her alleged affair with Trump.

“What he did was he worked to pay money to silence two women who had information that he believed would be detrimental to the 2016 campaign, to the candidate and the campaign,” Khuzami said.
 
What we have so far I don't see the case for impeachment. I don't think Clinton should have been impeached.

I find the following scenarios highly credible based on what we have so far, but impeachment is indeed among the most serious acts we have, and requires a higher level of proof which, unfortunately, is nigh impossible to obtain, here:
  • Actual conspiracy and collusion where Trump actively directed Wikileaks and/or Russian intelligence to hack the DNC/Clinton.
    • Yes, Stone was talking to Wikileaks, and he lied about that, but he wasn't directing or financing their activities, and it's still not clear that he was more than a dope who believed he was always talking to Wikileaks, and didn't realize the Russian GRU was pretending to be Guccifer 2.0
  • Worse, evidence indicating direct conspiracy and collusion with the Russian government. The Trump Tower meeting is the red flag here. If Mueller can prove that in exchange for campaign favors such as dirt on Hillary he received at that meeting, or for personal enrichment schemes such as his business ventures in Russia (that Trump lied about), he promised future political favors-- most probably a repeal of the Magnitsky Act-- to Putin's government via contact with his agents like Veselnitskaya, then Trump is guilty of treason at a minimum.

If Mueller can somehow prove #2, which I suspect to be the truth, the circumstantial evidence is so impressive, and Trump's lies so voluminous about everything related to it, then not only do I think Trump should be impeached, but I think he should be removed from office, have any Presidential immunity stripped, prosecuted for treason, and finally shipped off to a maximum security federal penitentiary without the tennis courts.
 
I’m fine with waiting for the report. Trump couldn’t really get much of his bullshit accomplished back when the GOP held the house and senate. Post midterms has Nancy Pelosi trolling him in his own Oval Office and repeatedly stuffing him. Probably not a terrible thing to have someone so ineffectual linger around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top