Should President Trump, be impeached? Who bears the burden, of proof, the right, or the left?

Happy_Killbot

At this point, I don't think it matters because he is so close to the end of his term. He should just complete his term and be out of office so that the country and the free world can recover under a more competent leader. I do not think that Trump is right for this country because of his authoritarian views and general indecisiveness on key issues. He has kicked out everyone from his cabinet that has disagreed with him and this has lead to a culture where there is no backup should he say or do something dangerous or not in the interests of the American people, which is an almost daily occurrence.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

At this point, I don't think it matters because he is so close to the end of his term. He should just complete his term and be out of office so that the country and the free world can recover under a more competent leader. I do not think that Trump is right for this country because of his authoritarian views and general indecisiveness on key issues. He has kicked out everyone from his cabinet that has disagreed with him and this has lead to a culture where there is no backup should he say or do something dangerous or not in the interests of the American people, which is an almost daily occurrence.

I want to preface my statement that I will not be voting for President Trump. That said, I believe he has the moral right to due process, and to cross examine witnesses. This is not about political Party, or even ideolgy, but I do believe that it SHOULD matter, whether he is guilty or innocent, because no innocent person should be accused, and no guilty should go free. I don't hate liberals, but I disagree with them on this.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought Right now, the evidence that he is guilty is not quite overwhelming, but I think it is suffice to say that he did in fact confide with a foreign power and undermine congress by denying Ukraine foreign aid (specifically weapons, including the anti-tank Javelin missiles that are critical for their war against Russia)

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought Right now, the evidence that he is guilty is not quite overwhelming, but I think it is suffice to say that he did in fact confide with a foreign power and undermine congress by denying Ukraine foreign aid (specifically weapons, including the anti-tank Javelin missiles that are critical for their war against Russia)

Please show me the bipartisan evidence.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought First off, there is the phone call between Trump and president Zelensky. This demonstrates that there was some kind of arrangement between them, where Zelensky gave Trump evidence against Biden, one of his political rivals. This is an abuse of power, and is comparable to using the office to, for example, arrest political dissidents. This flies in the face of what we stand for in liberal democracies, and is in and of itself a very authoritarian and anti-liberal position, that both conservatives and progressives ought to condemn.

There is all the testimony of various persons against him, and the recording of the actual phone call.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought First off, there is the phone call between Trump and president Zelensky. This demonstrates that there was some kind of arrangement between them, where Zelensky gave Trump evidence against Biden, one of his political rivals. This is an abuse of power, and is comparable to using the office to, for example, arrest political dissidents. This flies in the face of what we stand for in liberal democracies, and is in and of itself a very authoritarian and anti-liberal position, that both conservatives and progressives ought to condemn.

There is all the testimony of various persons against him, and the recording of the actual phone call.

What evidence can you provide to me, video, audio, or otherwise, that proves your and other liberals' claims? i don't believe things just because someone says so, I believe the evidence.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought First off, there is the phone call between Trump and president Zelensky. This demonstrates that there was some kind of arrangement between them, where Zelensky gave Trump evidence against Biden, one of his political rivals. This is an abuse of power, and is comparable to using the office to, for example, arrest political dissidents. This flies in the face of what we stand for in liberal democracies, and is in and of itself a very authoritarian and anti-liberal position, that both conservatives and progressives ought to condemn.

There is all the testimony of various persons against him, and the recording of the actual phone call.

What transcript did you read?  The published transcript of the phone call included no evidence against Biden whatsoever.  The only thing in the transcript was a request that the Ukrainians investigate corruption that occurred in their country.

YeshuaBought

CYDdharta said:

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought First off, there is the phone call between Trump and president Zelensky. This demonstrates that there was some kind of arrangement between them, where Zelensky gave Trump evidence against Biden, one of his political rivals. This is an abuse of power, and is comparable to using the office to, for example, arrest political dissidents. This flies in the face of what we stand for in liberal democracies, and is in and of itself a very authoritarian and anti-liberal position, that both conservatives and progressives ought to condemn.

There is all the testimony of various persons against him, and the recording of the actual phone call.

What transcript did you read?  The published transcript of the phone call included no evidence against Biden whatsoever.  The only thing in the transcript was a request that the Ukrainians investigate corruption that occurred in their country.

There is a difference? Now I am confused. 

CYDdharta

YeshuaBought said:

There is a difference? Now I am confused. 

That's what I'm trying to determine as well.  I think there are just different (inaccurate) interpretations of the call.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Evidence against Biden? What are you talking about? We are talking about Trump here, Biden isn't on trial here.

The problem is that Trump is requesting that trial in Ukraine and withholding aid to Ukraine so that he can have dirt on a political rival.

Would it be against the law if for example, a president or other official asked a foreign power to assassinate or arrest a political rival?

The message we would be sending to future generations let this go is that actions such as this would be acceptable.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Evidence against Biden? What are you talking about? We are talking about Trump here, Biden isn't on trial here.

The problem is that Trump is requesting that trial in Ukraine and withholding aid to Ukraine so that he can have dirt on a political rival.

Would it be against the law if for example, a president or other official asked a foreign power to assassinate or arrest a political rival?

The message we would be sending to future generations let this go is that actions such as this would be acceptable.

That's your misinterpretation of the call.  Pres. Trump wasn't on trial when the call was made, either.  There is a HUGE amount of evidence of the Bidens' corruption in Ukraine that occurred towards the end of the 0bama administration.  Pres. Trump simply wanted that corruption to be investigated by the Ukrainians.  just because Biden decided to mount a presidential campaign shouldn't shield him from investigation of his past corruption.  In fact, it makes such an investigation even more relevant.  

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta I think what you are missing here is the way that investigation helps out Trump.

You would agree with me, that if Biden was guilty of corruption in Ukraine, that this would be beneficial to Trump and his campaign for the 2020 election right?

YeshuaBought

CYDdharta said:

YeshuaBought said:

There is a difference? Now I am confused. 

That's what I'm trying to determine as well.  I think there are just different (inaccurate) interpretations of the call.

I agree. i do feel that the political left is being dishonest, though. I try to be neutral because I'm a centrist, but I feel the political left is only tolerant to those that agree with their agenda, and hardly ever tell the truth. I have no idea what to do, in this primary.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta I think what you are missing here is the way that investigation helps out Trump.

You would agree with me, that if Biden was guilty of corruption in Ukraine, that this would be beneficial to Trump and his campaign for the 2020 election right?

I'm still waiting on that bipartisan evidence.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta I think what you are missing here is the way that investigation helps out Trump.

You would agree with me, that if Biden was guilty of corruption in Ukraine, that this would be beneficial to Trump and his campaign for the 2020 election right?

Only if Biden is the eventual nominee.  When the call was made, Biden was one of 2 dozen nominees.  He was fairly low in the polls, even today Biden is still low, he's in the lead, but he's low.  There are still no front-runners in that primary.  So no, I wouldn't agree with you, and I'm sure when you reflect on it, you won't agree either.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

CYDdharta

YeshuaBought said:

I'm still waiting on that bipartisan evidence.

Read the transcript, decide for yourself.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

YeshuaBought

CYDdharta said:

YeshuaBought said:

I'm still waiting on that bipartisan evidence.

Read the transcript, decide for yourself.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

Thank you! On it, now.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta What are the odds that Biden becomes the democratic candidate? I think they are very good, and that is irrelevant anyways, because it is possible that Trump has tried to get dirt on all of the candidates, and this is the only one we know about.

It's very obvious that corruption in Ukraine could be used against him if he was the democratic candidate, and that is all I am saying.

Let me ask this a different way: should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would Trump use that information against him in his campaign?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta What are the odds that Biden becomes the democratic candidate? I think they are very good, and that is irrelevant anyways, because it is possible that Trump has tried to get dirt on all of the candidates, and this is the only one we know about.

It's very obvious that corruption in Ukraine could be used against him if he was the democratic candidate, and that is all I am saying.

Let me ask this a different way: should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would Trump use that information against him in his campaign?

You make a lot of assumption, at least when it comes to Pres. Trump.  I doubt you make such assumption about anyone else.

Biden has nothing to worry about ... unless he was involved in Ukrainian corruption.  If he was thusly involved, then I believe the voting electorate has a right to know and should use that information when deciding who to vote for.

YeshuaBought

CYDdharta said:

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta What are the odds that Biden becomes the democratic candidate? I think they are very good, and that is irrelevant anyways, because it is possible that Trump has tried to get dirt on all of the candidates, and this is the only one we know about.

It's very obvious that corruption in Ukraine could be used against him if he was the democratic candidate, and that is all I am saying.

Let me ask this a different way: should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would Trump use that information against him in his campaign?

You make a lot of assumption, at least when it comes to Pres. Trump.  I doubt you make such assumption about anyone else.

Biden has nothing to worry about ... unless he was involved in Ukrainian corruption.  If he was thusly involved, then I believe the voting electorate has a right to know and should use that information when deciding who to vote for.

I agree. If Trump should be impeached (he should not), so should Biden.

smoothie

As an independent, I believe a president, should focus on being the president now instead of doing things like investigating opponents and getting dirt for the future, which seems like a waste of time in the presidential seat for me regardless if this is grounds for impeachment. Its not the president's job to do this.

If an outside person or group that was not the president or their administration investigated other politicians, I couldn't care less

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta There is a book you should read-

"A warning by Anonymous" it is written by a senior white house official about the Trump presidency.

It is not relevant to talk about what rights/wrongs Biden did any more than it is relevant to talk about the right/wrongs of Hitler or anyone else, because they are not on trial here, this is basic.

Let me ask this question again that you are avoiding:

Should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would you expect Trump to use that information gained from a Ukrainian investigation against him in Trumps campaign for reelection in 2020?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta There is a book you should read-

"A warning by Anonymous" it is written by a senior white house official about the Trump presidency.

It is not relevant to talk about what rights/wrongs Biden did any more than it is relevant to talk about the right/wrongs of Hitler or anyone else, because they are not on trial here, this is basic.

Let me ask this question again that you are avoiding:

Should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would you expect Trump to use that information gained from a Ukrainian investigation against him in Trumps campaign for reelection in 2020?

There are many books you should read-

Profiles in Corruption

Exonerated

Ball of Collusion

the list goes on...

Whether or not Biden was involved in Ukrainian corruption is ENTIRELY relevant.  It goes to the heart of Pres. Trump's request of Pres. Zelensky's during the phone call for which he has been impeached.  If it appears Biden was involved it corruption, and the evidence is quite significant, then it is entirely reasonable for Pres. Trump to ask that such corruption be investigated.  Wouldn't you rather have such corruption be investigated now rather than after the election and have a new special council appointed to investigate it immediately after the election and have Biden facing impeachment?

Once again, if there is evidence of Biden corruption, or any candidate's corruption; I want that evidence presented to the voting public BEFORE the election.

Why are you so afraid of an investigation?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Biden's guilt is relevant to the election, but it is not relevant to the Trump trial, and l completely agree that the American people need to know about that come election season.

You are still avoiding my question, which is about the potential actions of Trump:

Should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would you expect Trump to use that information gained from a Ukrainian investigation against him in Trumps campaign for reelection in 2020?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Biden's guilt is relevant to the election, but it is not relevant to the Trump trial.

You are still avoiding my question, which is about the potential actions of Trump:

Should Biden become the democratic candidate or potential VP, would you expect Trump to use that information gained from a Ukrainian investigation against him in Trumps campaign for reelection in 2020?

I would hope so, since, as you've just admitted;

Biden's guilt is relevant to the election

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Alright, so now we can make progress.

The next question, is it the responsibility of the executive branch of government to investigate corruption by US officials in other countries?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Alright, so now we can make progress.

The next question, is it the responsibility of the executive branch of government to investigate corruption by US officials in other countries?

Right, we are making progress.  You've just admitted Pres. Trump has been impeached for trying to uncover information that should be imparted in the elections (primary and possibly general).  How you can support such an effort is a mystery, however...

Yes, indeed it is the responsibility of the executive branch of government to investigate corruption by US officials in Ukraine;

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta This treaty is for the sharing of information pertaining to criminal investigation that takes place between the two parties.

What I am asking is, is it the SPECIFIC duty of the EXECUTIVE branch to investigate these matters, or does that responsibility fall on another branch of government?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta This treaty is for the sharing of information pertaining to criminal investigation that takes place between the two parties.

What I am asking is, is it the SPECIFIC duty of the EXECUTIVE branch to investigate these matters, or does that responsibility fall on another branch of government?

It's a treaty that allows either country to call on the other for assistance in “taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State”

And once again, YES, it is the SPECIFIC duty of the EXECUTIVE branch to investigate these matters.  Did you think such responsibilities fell to so other branch of government?!?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta

Based on your profile picture, I assumed you were a libertarian, but it seems I may have been in error.

There is no right or wrong answer here, but in your own opinion, do you think that this responsibility should rest in a centralized power, or should it be divided so that no one party of person has control over it?

Should one person be able to dictate what is and is not legal, or should that responsibility rest with elsewhere?

MayCaesar

In my opinion, a president should be impeached in one and only one case: if he/she has systematically demonstrated gross incompetence, disregard for law or other kind of behavior rendering him/her being unable to do his/her job.

Now, Trump certainly falls under this category, but so do nearly all modern politicians (I know, my standards are high). I do not see Trump as less capable to do presidential job than, say, the previous two presidents, and he has done anything that explicitly violates the law, demonstrates lack of basic knowledge regarding his duties and so on. I see no grounds for an impeachment. The fact that the alleged reason for the impeachment process going now is a phone call to Ukraine just shows how desperate the opposition is in its search for anything to frame him with.

Trump being an elected official is unfortunate, but same applies to those who are going after him. If we were living, say, in early 90-s, I would say that Trump should be impeached simply because of how incompetent he is. Nowadays the standards are different, and I would only agree that Trump should be impeached for incompetence if, along with him, half of the Congress was impeached as well, including the vast majority of Democratic congressmen and congresswomen, who seem to believe that Constitution is just a random book, and the ideas of "social justice" are more important than what that book states.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta

Based on your profile picture, I assumed you were a libertarian, but it seems I may have been in error.

There is no right or wrong answer here, but in your own opinion, do you think that this responsibility should rest in a centralized power, or should it be divided so that no one party of person has control over it?

Should one person be able to dictate what is and is not legal, or should that responsibility rest with elsewhere?

What I think is irrelevant.  What matters is how our government is structured.  The Executive branch is theoretically supposed to be in charge.

What we're seeing now is that such responsibility already does rest in a centralized power, but not who you are suggesting.  The unelected bureaucratic administrative state, AKA the Swamp is calling the shots.  That is NOT the way our government is structured nor should it be. The leaks, Mueller, the faux impeachment, they're all examples of swamp creatures trying to protect themselves and each other.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta

If you are convinced that what you think is irrelevant, then why should you be allowed to vote?

Isn't it true that those officials, even if they have been in congress for a long time, could still be voted out if they screwed up bad enough, or it came out they were corrupt?

If they were corrupt, wouldn't it be more likely to come out the longer they held office?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta

If you are convinced that what you think is irrelevant, then why should you be allowed to vote?

Isn't it true that those officials, even if they have been in congress for a long time, could still be voted out if they screwed up bad enough, or it came out they were corrupt?

If they were corrupt, wouldn't it be more likely to come out the longer they held office?

You seem to be confused as to who the Swamp is.  Only a minor part is in Congress, in districts in which one party, usually the Democrats, have overwhelming support.  Mostly the Swamp is made up of, once again, unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state, like your Anonymous author.   It's virtually impossible to fire them, and even reprimanding them is difficult.  When people with no fear of being held accountable for their actions band together, corruption is assured.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta

What gaurantees that they can not be held responsible for their actions?

If an elected official did not like what they were doing, they can fire them can't they?

When you accuse "the swamp" of being unaccountable, what evidence do you have that this is the case?

I want what is best for the country, and I am sure you feel the same way. Do you think that those who you have called "the swamp" do not want what is best for the country?

RickeyD

President Trump has done nothing wrong and the establishment socialists of the Progressive-Democrat Party are lying to and deceiving the American people in order to appease their elitist liberal donors and base. Progressive-Democrats are the Party of Satan, the Party of infanticide-sexual perversion-atheism-socialism, and they are death to America's Constitutional Republic.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta

What gaurantees that they can not be held responsible for their actions?

If an elected official did not like what they were doing, they can fire them can't they?

When you accuse "the swamp" of being unaccountable, what evidence do you have that this is the case?

I want what is best for the country, and I am sure you feel the same way. Do you think that those who you have called "the swamp" do not want what is best for the country?

No, elected officials cannot fire them.  Case in point;

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/burning-question-in-dc-why-does-peter-strzok-still-have-a-job-at-fbi

More generally;

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/sep/05/mcain-federal/

What are some of the things you think are best for the country?

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD I agree, socialism is a dangerous road to go down, the sometimes-socialist policies he accepts should not be made into law.

https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-road-socialism

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; . Trump does not compromise with socialism.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Do you think that Peter Strzok didn't have the countries interests in mind when he said what he did? I think there is some context the Washington Examiner leaves out here, but correct me if I am wrong, by this point the FBI was still under the impression that Russia was colluding with Trump. We now know of course, that Russia acted independently of Trump, and he was an unwilling benefactor.

As for what I want for the country, there are many things and I don't think it is most relevant to this discussion, but to sum up  in particular I want more engineers and scientists in congress and other regional offices (or lower barrier for their entry), energy management solutions, lower market restrictions, and of course advancing the interests of our allies, especially those actively engaged in wars with our rivals.

What do you want for the country?

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Trump is the president, he doesn't make compromises when he bails out banks with our tax dollars.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/460421-donald-trump-is-a-sometimes-socialist

That he does with complete confidence. I appreciate Trump's confidence.

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; President Trump does not compromise with Socialism.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Of course not. Socialists do not like to be socialist. They prefer to say they are not socialist.

Not socialists will spend as much money as it takes through big government to make sure that we are not socialist.

I do not like big government but I guess it is okay.

https://www.cato.org/blog/big-government-conservatism-returns

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Do you think that Peter Strzok didn't have the countries interests in mind when he said what he did? I think there is some context the Washington Examiner leaves out here, but correct me if I am wrong, by this point the FBI was still under the impression that Russia was colluding with Trump. We now know of course, that Russia acted independently of Trump, and he was an unwilling benefactor.

No, his focus was on the Swamp;

Page – Hi. Just leaving my meeting now. How we make law in this country is offensive and irresponsible.

Strzok – I know it is. Its why I LOATHE congress. Can’t wait to hear the story.

As for what I want for the country, there are many things and I don't think it is most relevant to this discussion, but to sum up  in particular I want more engineers and scientists in congress and other regional offices (or lower barrier for their entry), energy management solutions, lower market restrictions, and of course advancing the interests of our allies, especially those actively engaged in wars with our rivals.

How much of your income are you donating towards putting more engineers and scientists in congress and other regional offices (or lower barrier for their entry), energy management solutions, lower market restrictions vs. how much you're putting towards improving your own life?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta When you say "his focus was on the swamp" are you referring to Trump of Strzok?

If Trump, what if anything has he done to fulfill that campaign promise?

What I do with my funds is not something I am willing to discuss with strangers on the internet. suffice to say that there are actions I am taking.

Still waiting to hear what you want for the country.

smoothie

@RickeyD America already has socialist policies supported by both parties and is a mixed economy, but I respect your opinion!

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta When you say "his focus was on the swamp" are you referring to Trump of Strzok?

I posted a quote of Strozk's absolute disdain at having to comply to Congress's directions, and you think I'm referring to Pres. Trump?!?  Way to not keep up with the conversation, Happy.

If Trump, what if anything has he done to fulfill that campaign promise?

Pres. Trump is the Swamp's nemesis.  He has canned quite a few administrative heads, including a number of his own people, who have demonstrated an allegiance to the Swamp instead to the US.  The Trump Administration’s deregulatory efforts have slashed regulatory costs by more than $50 billion, rolling back nearly 8 regulations for every new significant one.  Most importantly, Pres. Trump has forced the Swamp into the light.  People can actually see the size and scope of the Swamp's reach, if they choose to look.

What I do with my funds is not something I am willing to discuss with strangers on the internet. suffice to say that there are actions I am taking.

Yeah, the swamp-rats don't really care about the country either.  Sure, there are some things they believe would help the country that they'd like to see happen, but not at their own expense.

Still waiting to hear what you want for the country.

I want the government to be as small and powerless as possible .

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

President Trump has done nothing wrong and the establishment socialists of the Progressive-Democrat Party are lying to and deceiving the American people in order to appease their elitist liberal donors and base. Progressive-Democrats are the Party of Satan, the Party of infanticide-sexual perversion-atheism-socialism, and they are death to America's Constitutional Republic.

I agree. I think President Trump should stay in office.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta I don't think you are really answering my questions here, kind of seems like you are avoiding them.

When I ask who you are refering to because this statement:

No, his focus was on the Swamp;

Has multiple interpretations that makes it ambiguous. Do you mean Trump was focusing on the swamp or Peter S was focusing on the swamp?

Each has their own implications that you are not making clear.

Who says it is bad that these people you call "the swamp" are holding jobs for a long time? Where I come from that is called a career. The longer you do a job, the better you get at it. Maybe Peter S (I don't want to say his last name) is a bad person, but just because you can find 1 example of a bad person does not mean that everyone is like that.

Firing your own people because they disagree with you is not an example of them putting themselves before the US, but they do have a common denominator, which I am not convinced actually cares for the country more so than himself.

Yeah, the swamp-rats don't really care about the country either.  Sure, there are some things they believe would help the country that they'd like to see happen, but not at their own expense.

I have no idea how you are coming to this conclusion from what I said, this is again ambiguous.

I want the government to be as small and powerless as possible .

Alright, so then do you think that Trump has taken any action to make the government smaller, given the fact that Trump has an authoritarian agenda, and has expanded the power of the president, and his tariffs and budget cuts will widen the budget deficit, opening the doors for more hard-line larger government in the future?