Questions about the Impeachment

I have questions about this Impeachment of President Trump that I haven't seen raised anywhere else. This is disconcerting as i think they should have been asked all along.

1.) If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not? As head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to ask foreign officials to investigate U.S. Citizens. This is usually done through diplomatic channels, but Trump seems to like being part of 'the deal'.

2.) As Commander-in-Chief, does President Trump have the right to stop the U.S. military from aiding a foreign power? Whether Congress earmarked money for it or not?

These questions have been going around in my head for a while. I didn't vote for Trump, but I think that if these questions haven't been raised by Congress, that the Impeachment trial won't be fair.

a reply to: CryHavoc

The dems will use any reason to get rid of trump.
Who or why is irrelevant.
If they had any concern about corruption they would have stopped all the money flowing to biden years ago.


And number two.
Yes.. He can stop military aid.
Not sure about other types of aid.

a reply to: CryHavoc

If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not?

Good question! Why isn't Trump asking Ukraine to investigate any other Americans that might be doing corrupt business in Ukraine? Are the Bidens the only ones, in that great big, super corrupt place?

As Commander-in-Chief, does President Trump have the right to stop the U.S. military from aiding a foreign power? Whether Congress earmarked money for it or not?

Sure, but he probably should have done it before he signed the congressional appropriation into law. As it happens, the GOA found that the Trump Administration did in fact violate the Impoundment Control Act.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...the Trump Administration did in fact violate the Impoundment Control Act.

But that would mean that the President no longer is in charge oi making decisions for the military and that Congress is effectively 'Commanders-in-Chief'.

And THAT violates the Separation of Powers clause in the U.S. Constitution.

a reply to: CryHavoc

1. The evidence suggests Trump was doing a quid pro quo to gain a political advantage just like Nixon who broke laws to get a political advantage. Now maybe someone will testify and Trump will be cleared of all charges or appearances of breaking the law. We shall see assuming the Senate even allows testimony.

2. Contrary to the delusions of the right-wingers we do NOT live in a dictatorship. Congress is a coequal branch to the president. As the Constitution is currently written, Trump does NOT have the right to do whatever he wants or see fit with a complete disregard to the will of Congress.

I get it. All you right wingers LOVE the military but hate Congress. All you right wingers hate our Constitution because it gives power to the minority party. All you right wingers hate democracy because it's so messy.

You right wingers prefer a type of government having STRONG uncompromising leadership. What you right wingers want is the same type of government we have in the US military. What you want is to get rid of Congress, put all the Democrats in jail, and replace our current government with STRONG leadership that can only come form having a military style right wing dictatorship.

This is why you right wingers are so obsessed with the president as being "Commander in Chief". And just like in the military you right wingers want to worship the Commander as the supreme authority over our lives.

The problem is you right wingers simply do not have the backbone to admit what you really want.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I agree. You are making a very good point.

a reply to: dfnj2015

As usual you sound like a broken record.
The impeachment will fail in the next vote for lack of evidence.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Trump's Administration had already made sure that Ukraine had achieved the required anti-corruption bench marks, and signed the appropriation into law.

On the same day as the Zelenskiy "perfect" phone call, the Trump Administration, through the OMB, instructed the Pentagon to hold the Ukraine money, and not tell anyone. That's a violation of the law, because the law says that if the President wants to stop the aid, he must inform Congress. Congress wasn't informed. Even Mitch Mc Connell, who got wind of the hold up, couldn't get any answers from the Trump Admin. about the hold up.

So, the answer is yes, the President can hold or stop aid, but there are legal procedures to do so.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CryHavoc

The dems will use any reason to get rid of trump.
Who or why is irrelevant.
If they had any concern about corruption they would have stopped all the money flowing to biden years ago.

If Biden broke laws by being corrupt and there is so much evidence then why are Republicans so incompetent that they did not put Biden in prison years ago. Maybe the real reason is contrary to delusions and opinions no evidence exists.

It's not just any reason. The problem is the Trump presidency is a crime wave. He breaks the law every other day with his shenanigans. What do you expect dems to do roll over and die? Republicans would try to take every advantage of every possible situation to their party's advantage. Why would you expect Democrats to do anything less.

Stop blaming the dems. Tell your dear leader to stop shoving his own foot so far down his mouth it comes out his butt!!!

On the contrary, we right-wingers would love it if left-wing liberals would go live in a country that best suits your mindset.
Left-wing liberals' views are so far off from being constitutional that it would require cancelling our existing constitution and them creating a brand new one that limits what the citizens can do instead of limiting what the government can do.

Everything you just said is nowhere near what we really want so I don't know where you get those ideas.

a reply to: dfnj2015
The 'dems' also know Trumps' sleeze is no grounds for impeachment.

Anyone with a head on their shoulders know Trump will not get impeached.

Otherwise the country is forked. It would just be acts of 'getting back at' xyz 3rd world government style... Though we're close as a first world nation

Same could be said in the other direction. Does Manafort, Cohen go to jail for financial crimes from years ago that had nothing to do with anything. Of course they wouldn't. Do frogmen and agents storm Roger Stone's home and make sure the media was on site if he was a close friend of Obama. No way in hell that happens.

The tables however have turned. It's political retribution time. This trial is about Hunter, Joe, FBI, CIA and more political enemies peppered in it. Trump knew exactly what he was doing. Democrats are putting on an act. They don't want this trial at all. Longer it goes on they are going to start taking in more and more water. Just right out the gate, everyone wants to know just exactly what Hunter was doing to earn 80K a month. How did it all go down.

Please stay on topic.

Right-wing vs. Left-wing is not the discussion here.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

As usual you sound like a broken record.
The impeachment will fail in the next vote for lack of evidence.

The Republican senators may stop ignoring the evidence once the stakes become apparent.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
The tables however have turned. It's political retribution time. This trial is about Hunter, Joe, FBI, CIA and more political enemies peppered in it.

What does it mean to get retribution on the FBI or CIA?

If you have evidence Hunter or Joe have committed any crimes please I beg you to indict them. Why are Republicans so incompetent that they are incapable of enforcing our laws!

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If you have evidence Hunter or Joe have committed any crimes please I beg you to indict them.

Well, there would have be an investigation to gather evidence of those crimes first, but asking for investigations seems to be an Impeachable Offense these days.

I like the President. I think he’s great.

The impeachment will fail. That much is undeniable.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
The tables however have turned. It's political retribution time. This trial is about Hunter, Joe, FBI, CIA and more political enemies peppered in it.

What does it mean to get retribution on the FBI or CIA?

If you have evidence Hunter or Joe have committed any crimes please I beg you to indict them. Why are Republicans so incompetent that they are incapable of enforcing our laws!

You are contradicting yourself... Trump sought information on their crimes and now you leftist are trying to impeach him for doing so. Yet in the same breath, you want to know why no charges have been filed against the Bidens. You can't have it both ways...

Even the Obama administration thought Hunter's dealings were shady. This isn't to say any actual crime actually occured, but it definitely looked shady and unethical. There is no way Hunter Biden would have been placed on the BoD of that company with no experience and being a crackhead had his father not been Joe Biden. The question is what were they expecting in return for placing Hunter on that board.

Even though it's late in the discussion, I'll give it a shot on addressing your questions.

1. Another poster already pointed out opposition to Trump in any event - so we would still be in this situation.
Biden publicly admitted squeezing the prior Ukraine administration to quash certain investigations - his recorded statements sound very much like extortion - so political rival or not, some justification for investigation exists.
would see. Right thing? That, and the question of implied quid-pro-quo legality, remains.

2. This does not appear to be a CinC-type decision, more unitary Executive administrative priorities based.
My understanding is that the earmarked funds for military weapons (not "military" but "financial" aid) were disbursed within the statutory time frame - not immediately but before the funding expired.
GAO makes the assertion the funds were 'impounded' rather than 'timely disbursed'.
Lawyers need to argue to figure what body of law prevails.

ganjoa