No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I saw they handed a bunch of "Read the Transcript" shirts at a Trump Rally.  Dems should counter with "Release the transcript" shirts.  Seriously though, I keep hearing the term "transcript" used in the media, when the actual full transcript has never been released.  Anyone doing an interview that uses the term transcript in reference to what Trump released should be stopped right then and there and pressed to acknowledge that the full transcript has not been released.  It should be a non-starter to not demand this is agreed upon before moving forward.

 

I'm guessing that about 98% of the people who were wearing those t-shirts hadn't actually even read the memorandum released by the WH (you're right, it's NOT a transcript). Sort of like the Trump supporters going on the air to argue that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump...before finally admitting that they hadn't even read it, including literal members of Congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Can the Dems stop calling it quid pro quo and just say extortion?

 

No kidding. I feel like "Quid Pro Quo" is the new "Collusion".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Can the Dems stop calling it quid pro quo and just say extortion?

They should. They should the most base, descriptive language. Quid pro quo is generally understood, but it's also legalize which means that some won't get it or will think it's just only bad in the world of lawyer-speak.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell yeah, Lindsey has arrived at the “Trump’s too stupid for crimes” defense. That’s the person we want in control of the nukes.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

They should. They should the most base, descriptive language. Quid pro quo is generally understood, but it's also legalize which means that some won't get it or will think it's just only bad in the world of lawyer-speak.

Agreed. I vote for "bribery", very simple. 

(just for his base of booger eating morons) :ols:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Seriously though, I keep hearing the term "transcript" used in the media, when the actual full transcript has never been released.  Anyone doing an interview that uses the term transcript in reference to what Trump released should be stopped right then and there and pressed to acknowledge that the full transcript has not been released.  It should be a non-starter to not demand this is agreed upon before moving forward.

 

The correct term for what has been released is "press release", and I agree with you.  

 

In fact, given the willingness to lie I've seen from this administration (and this Party), I'd demand the actual recording.  (At least to Gang of Eight.  I can understand classifying it.)  

 

21 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Can the Dems stop calling it quid pro quo and just say extortion?

 

I'd say "solicitation".  As in "solicitation for a campaign contribution."  

 

Plus I like the idea of impeaching Trump for solicitation.  Unsuccessful solicitation.  

Edited by Larry
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not one of the resident lawyers here, but from what I can tell I think extortion would be the correct term, if they were going by the Hobbs Act.

 

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2402-hobbs-act-generally

 

Quote

The extortion offense reaches both the obtaining of property "under color of official right" by public officials and the obtaining of property by private actors with the victim's "consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear," including fear of economic harm. See this Manual at 2405 and Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 265, 112 S.Ct. 1181, 1188 (1992) (only a private individual's extortion of property by the wrongful use of force, violence, or fear requires that the victim's consent be induced by these means; extortion of property under color of official right does not require that a public official take steps to induce the extortionate payment).

 

That last sentence would mean that even if Trump hadn't withheld the aid, he could still be guilty simply by threatening to do so unless Ukraine went along with his demands that benefited him personally and politically. 

 

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Agreed. I vote for "bribery", very simple. 

(just for his base of booger eating morons) :ols:

I think it's worse than bribery; it's extortion, plain and simple. If Ukraine had approached Trump (the way Russia did in 2016, if we're being honest), that would be bribery.

Ukraine is staring down the barrel of Russian guns, and Trump demanded they provide dirt on his opponent if they wanted any help to defend themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

I think it's worse than bribery; it's extortion, plain and simple. If Ukraine had approached Trump (the way Russia did in 2016, if we're being honest), that would be bribery.

Ukraine is staring down the barrel of Russian guns, and Trump demanded they provide dirt on his opponent if they wanted any help to defend themselves.

Oh, I think it's extortion too...I was just saying it the simplest way possible for the Magats. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah but the difference is that she really was a technophobe where as Trump’s motivations were actually sinister.

You don't host your own email server by being a technophobe.  Also, I recall around this time that Hillary had gone on Oprah gleefully listing all the gadgets she loved carrying around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Barr didn't want to make it too obvious.

 

Been obvious for months.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, twa said:

Tribe should crawl back under his bridge.

 

 

Holy crap. If you think that of Tribe, what in the world do you think Lindsey Graham should do?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, twa said:

Tribe should crawl back under his bridge.

 

 

On this day, twa called somebody a troll.  

 

(As a way of trying to distract from the fact that this person's characterization of Rudy's tweet is accurate.)  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.