• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Impeachment; the gift that keeps on giving.

SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Mr Spinkles said:
I understand what you are trying to say but it’s not applicable in this particular instance. Please bear with me so I can explain.

I was asking you a simple question, if the reason the aid was released was because Zelensky “made the grade”, as you claimed, then why was the aid released on Sept 11. I noted this was 50 days after the call, two days after the issue blew up publicly for the President, and about a week before Zelensky canceled a planned CNN interview, which WH officials were concerned he was going to use to announce the investigations.

In addition, I mentioned it was incidentally a day after John Bolton resigned. It was here that I mentioned Bolton called Rudy’s a “hand grenade” and the whole thing a “drug deal”.

Shad, in his typical flippant manner, parachuted in to question whether Bolton used those words. Ignoring, for obvious reasons, the thrust of my question (which wasn’t about Bolton) and even the thrust of my side comment (which doesn’t depend on which phrase Bolton used). I said, ok, whether Bolton used those words or not Fiona Hill testified that Bolton was so alarmed he instructed her to report it to the NSC lawyers, which she did.

Shad’s response, naturally, is not to engage his intellect with that information or accept the clarification I made and circle back to the thrust of my question; but simply to dismiss the information it as “more hearsay”.

It is not, not the way I’m using it in this conversation. Because this isn’t a court of law and I’m not using Bolton’s statement via Fiona Hill as evidence of Trumps guilt; rather, I’m asking YOU what you think about the timing of the aid release - Bolton’s resignation as part of that. I’m using Fiona’s sworn testimony of what BOLTON told her directly as evidence of how BOLTON felt - which involves two parties, not three, as in your example. Obviously if we had Bolton’s testimony directly that would be even better but this is a far cry from hearsay the way I’m using it in the conversation we are having at this moment.
Click to expand...
Here is some interesting new information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f19ae0-24d5-11ea-a14c-412f7b9e2717_story.html
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
Your argument is absurd on its face. You're basically saying that everything that goes on in every federal agency is privileged and neither the public nor Congress has any right to see any documents or hear from any officials in any agency regarding anything that goes on in those agencies.

I'd think making such a stupid argument would give you pause and make you take stock of where you're at, but here we are.
Click to expand...
So essentially, the President is King. As he himself seems to think.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
It's amazing (and frightening) how many times the Trump administration has been essentially told by an entity "You're not a king".
Click to expand...
While he just continues on thinking he is one, and acting like one.
Yes, it is.

I can't wrap my mind around the amount of BS Trump is allowed to get away with. It's insane. It's even become normalized. o_O
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
SkepticThinker said:
While he just continues on thinking he is one, and acting like one.
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...
And his supporters (many of whom complained that Obama's executive orders constituted "tyranny") go right along with him and defend him to the end.

I can't wrap my mind around the amount of BS Trump is allowed to get away with. It's insane. It's even become normalized. o_O
Click to expand...
We can only hope that this will just be a historical anomaly, and after he's gone we can get back to a more normal government. Otherwise, I may seriously look to move elsewhere.
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
SkepticThinker said:
Here is some interesting new information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f19ae0-24d5-11ea-a14c-412f7b9e2717_story.html
Click to expand...
Thanks. To me, this completely explodes shmogie’s claim that the aid was withheld because “Zelensky made the grade”. Zero facts support that assertion and all the facts seem contrary to it, including now this one. Looks like Zelensky did NOT make the grade, in fact.

Is it wishful thinking to suppose that this new fact will have any impact - even if it just darkens the shades of certainty a little - on shmogie’s views? I doubt it, but stay tuned.
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Jose Fly said:
And his supporters (many of whom complained that Obama's executive orders constituted "tyranny") go right along with him and defend him to the end.


We can only hope that this will just be a historical anomaly, and after he's gone we can get back to a more normal government. Otherwise, I may seriously look to move elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Jose Fly, do you see a lot of similarity between the Trump Party’s mental gymnastics in defending him, and Creationism?

I do. Particularly the Argument from Ignorance. The more uncertainty and doubt they can sow, the more their Trump-of-the-gaps can hide and be imagined to have done nothing unsavory. So there’s a refusal to engage with the facts or provide any interpretation of said facts that works. There’s also the constant distortion of facts. And then there’s the ability to reinterpret or just plain ignore the thing they are defending (Trump, the Bible) in such a way that it can never be wrong.
 
Shadow Link

Shadow Link

Active Member
IMG_2450.JPG
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Shadow Link said:
"Could be, should be, would be" — not the same as "definitively."
Click to expand...
Well, that article was written on September 27, only a couple weeks after the Ukraine scandal and resulting Congressional inquiry became public. It is now three months later, and Trump has been "definitively" impeached, obstruction of Congress being part of the grounds.

A more interesting question is whether Trump "ought" to be impeached for that ... but that would require reading beyond just the title of the article.
 
Shadow Link

Shadow Link

Active Member
Mr Spinkles said:
Well, that article was written on September 27, only a couple weeks after the Ukraine scandal and resulting Congressional inquiry became public. It is now three months later, and Trump has been "definitively" impeached, obstruction of Congress being part of the grounds.

A more interesting question is whether Trump "ought" to be impeached for that ... but that would require reading beyond just the title of the article.
Click to expand...
Article? Title? Code?
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Shadow Link said:
Article? Title? Code?
Click to expand...
That is not my understanding of what the Constitution means by “high crimes and misdemeanors” at the time. I found these articles informative:

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

Furthermore, two of the first three articles of impeachment against Nixon were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

So the two articles of impeachment against Trump are not unprecedented, in spite of the scarcity of precedents.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Mr Spinkles said:
High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
From that link...
"....more is expected of officials by their oaths of office."

While that might have been a goal at one time, it hasn't
actually been standard practice. So we should expect
that Trump will be judged based upon the political process
which impeachment is. Remember...were it solely a matter
of guilt of a crime, Clinton would've been convicted.
Does anyone wish that had happened?
 
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Revoltingest said:
From that link...
"....more is expected of officials by their oaths of office."

While that might have been a goal at one time, it hasn't
actually been standard practice. So we should expect
that Trump will be judged based upon the political process
which impeachment is. Remember...were it solely a matter
of guilt of a crime, Clinton would've been convicted.
Does anyone wish that had happened?
Click to expand...
Exactly. I agree, I would only add that a political process need not be a partisan process. Sometimes, the President’s behavior is just wrong, whichever side he’s on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top