Impeachment: The Process Begins

Please explain how this is ethical, moral or legal in any way.

It was OK because it was just business as usual. Democratic presidents corrupted entire federal agencies to spy on their political opponents. Nixon privately bugging his opponents was child's play compared to that.

The Democrats lynched Nixon for being 1% as bad as they were themselves.

The fact that the Democrats have a history of lynching people who disagree with them is pretty relevant to the issue of their current lynching of someone who disagrees with them.

He was the president. He had the power to legally prevent the federal investigation or prosecution of any criminal act.

Wrong again. Everything in my statement is 100% correct.



The left's dislike of reality does not make reality dumb.

But it's still not ethical, moral or legal to do. So you're saying it's ok to break the law because others are just as shitty. Don't you think the President of the United States should NOT do illegal things?

I'm not terribly interested in lynching Republican presidents for jaywalking when the Democratic presidents are allowed to get away with murder.

If some standard of accountability is ever established for Democratic presidents, then it will be OK to hold Republican presidents to the same standard.

I am terribly interested when an American president breaks the law and doesn't think that's a problem.

You have a warped sense of accountability. If someone breaks the law, they get punished, period. Why are you giving a pass to a Republican when a Democrat got impeached for a less serious crime?

I don't think the Democrats' crimes are less serious. And Democratic presidents have never been removed from office for their crimes.

Ok, so it's just the punishment part that's hanging you up. So, you agree that Trump broke the law and should be impeached for breaking the law.

And punishment as fitting as any other Democratic president who got caught breaking the law. Is that also correct?

Exhibit B

Why do progressives hate our Constitution so much?

No. I don't agree to trying to remove him from office.



Are you referring to Bill Clinton's $25,000 fine again?

I'd be happy to resolve all of this by having Trump write out a $25,000 check.

The reason is that the Constitution isnt ironclad so that criminals like Trump can get away with smashing it up.
We need to change it so that it can prevent
1 the Tyranny of less populated states disenfranchisement of millions of people
2 the Treasonous behavior of the president and that of his enablers in
the legislature
3 the Self-dealing of a president who treats the presidency as a private business deal (poorly operated it seems)
4 the criminal behavior of being a toadie of a foreign government in xchange for the "emoluments" served up by a larcenous executive branch
5 the Criminal behavior of an industry whose representative organizations are in collusion with foreign govts


Im sure there are even more facts in chief that may provide evience

Impeachment and punishment sometimes are two different concepts. A president can be impeached without being removed from office, as long as that president was found guilty of the charges brought against him/her.

Clinton didn't actually receive a guilty verdict in his impeachment. He plea bargained on his last day in Office to not get charges filed against him when he became a private citizen.

But it seems you have already conceded Trump broke the law and that impeachment is the next step.

Who would conspire to set up a situation where, if foreign aid gets cut to Ukraine, it could be blamed on Trump as a political move and thus trigger/support impeachment?

Who would benefit from that? Follow the money.

What LivingLava????

You are suggesting that Trump "cut" aid to Ukraine because he WANTS to be impeached? (He didn't actually cut the aid, he just held it up).

You keep getting sillier.

No, I'm saying that the game of framing people involves setting up situations where events will trigger blame against the person you are trying to attack by framing them.

Like, let's say you want to attack minorities/poor b/c you're racist/classist AND you want to enjoy illegal recreational drugs: pay minorities and/or poor people to transport drugs for you and then arrest them and put them in jail.

Same deal if you want to cut aide to Ukraine AND get Trump out of office: Set up a situation where it looks like he is threatening to cut aid to Ukraine for political motives, and then manipulate to get the aid cut to justify impeachment.

The problem is that we don't fully know what's going on behind the scenes on either side of the political divide. GOP suspect the deep state, while Maxine Waters referenced "mob language," which suggests she is concerned about Trump being subtly involved with the mob?

It would seem to me that the mob would have more interest in the Democrats, because they are the party that goes easier on crime and trafficking, but without more information about everything that goes on behind the scenes and below the radar, how can we really know who is pulling which strings and why?

I mean, think about the concept of an anonymous whistleblower. It could either be a person who is truly trying to tell the truth and wants to conceal their identity to be protected OR it could be a way of accusing/framing Trump to attack him and the GOP politically. The problem is how to distinguish legitimate claims from political manipulation in a climate where Democrats have clearly gone over the deep end serving some socialist-collectivist interests that drive them to pursue every possible political tactic to oust their enemies rather than cooperating within a multiparty democratic government.

The President of the United States called a foreign government to get political information on an opponent. There's transcripts of the call to prove it. Now it seems other high ranking officials were listening in on the call, complicit to extortion for political gain.

No matter how it's sliced, it is illegal.

A whistleblower made a report. It's being investigated. It could lead toward Articles of Impeachment.

What don't you get about that?

Is that illegal? Is it unethical? You don't think people around the world are communicating to get political information? Did Trump confirm the transcript was accurate? How do you even know the information you're getting is valid?


Extortion involves a threat to coerce. As I understand it, the only threat was loss of foreign aid. Is foreign aid contractual and protected in some way? If not, I don't see how you can hold someone accountable for threatening to take it away.

Discrimination is perpetrated legally all the time by threatening to take away things from people that they aren't entitled to anyway. You might be used to getting something free on a regular basis, but the moment you do something that the giver doesn't like, they take it away and you have no legal recourse because you had no contract guaranteeing you regular access to whatever it was you were getting.


As I said, I think it's important to realize that whistleblowing can be honest or dishonest, depending on the reason it is done and the bigger picture of what goes on.

Sometimes there is a culture of abuse that gets normalized and everyone is misbehaving. Let's take #metoo for example. Say there is widespread sexual abuse going on and victims are getting paid off to keep quiet about it; to the point where rich people are telling each other, "hey, you can do whatever you want to these girls/boys and get away with it as long as you can afford their silence." Now, everyone who buys into that culture of abuse is in the wrong, but if a whistleblower exposes someone and it seems like an isolated instance, then all the other perpetrators just keep quiet and pretend like no one else is doing what the perpetrator is getting in trouble for. In that case, the perpetrator's actions may not be defensible, but the fact is that it could have been a political rival orchestrating the exposure as a tactic, and the real intent is not to stop the abuse.

In fact, it is likely that many forms of abuse are protected in order to keep dirt (compromising) material on people to use as political ammunition in the event it is 'needed.' There's a Russian term for this, "kompromaat." You can google it. So if you are only incriminating a single individual for participating in a wider culture of abuse/exploitation, then you are playing into the hands of other abusers who maintain the system of abuse to hold kompromaat against their rivals.

What I firmly believe from what I've seen since Trump's election and even before, is that the Democrats would have attacked him or any other GOP president in any way they could because they have given up on democracy as anything but a set of gaming rules to work within to eliminate opposition to their internally-formulated planning. They simply don't want to cooperate within a multiparty coalition governmental paradigm. It is too risky to them. They only want to control government altogether so they can maintain total control over policies.