No, I didn’t. Read it again
No, I didn’t. Read it again
This was your statement.
Whatever you think of those comments by Republicans saying that at present they would not vote for removal, it certainly would NOT be treason.
i never said nor suggested it would be.
I said this;
In other words, they have clearly stated, prior to any articles being filed so they could not possibly be aware of the charges contained, they would exonerate trump. That alone should be considered treason.
im surprised you find my statement and your interpretation congruent. I spoke to their actions regarding their intent to specifically render a judgment of no guilt regardless of what the articles may contain.
That would be comparable to a judge saying the next guy that walks into his courtroom is not guilty regardless of any evidence against him. It is in absolute conflict with the duties and obligations the parties are charged with fulfilling. In essence the senators supporting such statements have rendered aid to what could be an enemy of the state which is treason.
Now, if you wish to educate me on why it wouldn’t apply as trump is not considered to be an enemy of the sate I’m more than open to such. It may simply be my bias against him but I see trump as the worst president of my life, no question about it. He has twisted the concepts of our laws and Constitution into pretzels. He is without question the most divisive president, and with no valid basis for such division, that I’ve seen.
You did, and I note that as I composed my post you added to your response probably knowing I'd zero in on the very statement in which you said it:
Exoneration in the impeachment trial would be voting against removal. So I think that my statement "Whatever you think of those comments by Republicans saying that at present they would not vote for removal, it certainly would NOT be treason" fairly characterizes what you said. You were objecting to the Senators saying now that they would not vote for impeachment if the matter ever came up. Indeed, you say as much here:
And that is not treason as it is not waging war against the US nor giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the U.S.
I agree. It would be wrong, violate the defendant's rights, violate the rules of conduct for judges and might be some crime under the relevant jurisdiction. But that crime would NOT be treason.
Yes, your bias is coloring your views on this. And I applaud your recognition that your strong feelings on it are at work here. It's clear you have very strong views on Trump, and I totally respect your right to hold and express those views. I agree he is a bad president, though I don't share the depth of your dislike (or maybe hatred, though I don't know if that's how you'd characterize your opinion) of the guy. But being a bad president does not make him someone who is waging war against the US or an enemy of the U.S. Though you don't like it, he is the elected president of the country and does still have a fair amount of support. We have a divided country. Supporting someone (in this case Trump) who is on the other side of that divide doesn't equate to committing treason. A Senator stating today that he or she would not vote to remove Trump from office no matter what is proven in the Senate trial is not treason. It would be wrong for him/her to prejudge the matter — I agree with that. But treason? No.
I believe he is undermining the very foundations of our government. Depending on the precise definition of war regarding this law, the actions could be treason if intentional. I’m open to you defining the term of levying war. Given today’s society I would believe it would include subversive acts such as it appears trump is guilty of. Of course this could be ignorant disregard for our government on his part and his foolish flailing could result in an optically similar situation which would mean he’s an idiot but not guilty of treason.
But again you either misunderstand my statement or are (unlikely) intentionally altering it. I said nothing about the voting itself. The acts I speak of are the intentional placement of rules, which the senate has sole authority to do, to create a situation where you couldn’t convict a mole of digging a hole if you stood there and watched it. It is a premeditated act (since it’s already been proposed) to intentionally create a finding of not guilty regardless of the charge and facts presented. To suggest such an action without even reading the articles of impeachment show a lack of intent to fulfill their duties as a US senator. It would intentionally be ignoring the possible crimes put forth in the articles of impeachment. The voting is simply a result of the premeditated action of creating rules that make it impossible to convict.
Are you the only one in this country that doesn't understand that?
There have been (I believe) 39 indictments based on the mueller investigation. That alone proves it wasn’t a hoax or witch hunt.
Or maybe you and the other trumpeters simply don’t understand why this investigation was started. Have you read the authorizing document?
it is a proven fact there were communications with a representative of a foreign government. That is why the investigation came about. Trump is whining because the communications were with his kids and various other people within his circle. Sorry Budwad but you can whine all you want but when you review the initiation of the mueller investigation on a purely objective view it would take a traitor to suggest it wasn’t the proper thing to do given the knowledge available at the time.
It isn’t a dem or republican issue. It was what was proper to defend the United States itself from foreign governments.
so if you wish to maintain your contrived narrative regarding mueller investigation, leave the line that says “patriots only”. The investigation wasn’t initially about trump but improper influence in our electoral process. I would expect such an investigation any time there is valid support to believe there is improper influence by a foreign state into our business.
Your rhetoric and invalid arguments are nothing but a deflection of the truth.
Now you are talking about something different than before. If this is what you meant, that certainly was not clear from what you previously wrote. I've not heard any Senators propose to do what you suggest. But even if they did, it is within the lawful power of the Senate to make the rules that govern its proceedings. Voting to do that is not a crime, and certainly not treason. Again, it's not levying war against the U.S. nor giving aid and comfort our enemies. Your very strong dislike for Trump are coloring your views on this. You are determined to see this as a crime as a result.
Personally, I think that as things stand today, if the house were to impeach, the Senate would not have the votes to remove Trump from office even without any change in the rules. And the Democrats would pay the price for being seen as trying to subvert the democratic process, much as the Republicans did in their efforts to impeach both Clinton and Obama. As previous impeachment efforts have shown, it is only likely to succeed when there is a strong popular consensus that the guy has committed some serious offense and has to go. The public was nearing that point with Nixon in 1974. Had he not resigned, he may have been successfully removed from office. But to get to that point, the Congress had held a series of public hearings that put on display the misdeeds of the president and his minions in covering up the Watergate break-in. The Democrats today have not yet got that strong popular consensus that they'll need. They are going to have to convince not just Democrats but a large number of Republicans as well. Even then, impeachment is likely to instill further division in the country. IMO the best way to get rid of Trump is by voting him out at the next election. Americans tend to accept better the results at the ballot box than they would an impeachment process that appears to be partisan driven.
Yes, this is what he always been referring to. I’ll find the quote for you where this was said (at least I hope I still can)
i disagree that an intentional act to control the end result is necessarily lawful. While the mechanism itself may be lawful, the intent is what I believe to be the crime. The senators are willfully ignoring their duties to act to defend the US against a possible criminal act by the president. The fact they craft some means to make it appear they are acting doesn’t change the fact they would effectively be covering up criminal activity. How is that not a crime?
Persoanlly as long as the senators have taken the position of being willing to cover up criminal activity by the president, I believe a move to impeach would simply give trump a stand to claim he, again without true vindication, that the action has exonerated him. He has successfully used that same tactic to rally his sheep. It would allow him to further divide the country so I see it as being more harmful than gainful.
Yes, have a great loathing for Trump. I’ve seen people act as never before in support of a person who clearly holds his interest in promoting his name before the best interests of our country. I teeter between whether his acts are simply a display of grandiose narcissism with no understanding of the damage it has caused on the world stage or an actual intent to move the country into a fascist state. His statements over his tenure so far have suggested he does desire a fascist state with himself as the leader. His constant pecking away at the rule of law and attempts to circumvent the processes in place and limits of authority shows a desire to alter the foundations of the rules of government we currently have. His attacks on the US Constitution itself show a lack of respect for the establishment of our government itself.
I see support by the gop in his actions when they speak of ignoring their duties concerning holding a valid trial if the the president is actually impeached. I just don’t know if their actions are simply out of foolish loyalty to a political party that is so strong they are willing to refuse to perform their duties to defend the US Constitution or something worse.
It also came out at the Muller testimony that Muller himself had virtually nothing to do with the investigation and the writing of the report. It was the team of Democratic patrician lawyers and high level officials in the Obama justice department that perpetrated this hoax of an investigation. It wasn't an investigation into collusion. It was an attempted coup to unseat a dully elected president. But not with guns but with lies and corruption at the highest levels of govt.. Can that be seen as treason?
Now the accusation is obstruction absent collusion. This is all political theater. You need an underlying crime to indict for obstruction. What is the underlying crime? What did he do to obstruct justice? How did he influence the investigation?
It is your pedagogical hatred towards Trump, like may of the like minded people, that can't see the trees for the forest.
If you won't to defend the US constitution you would at least understand what is happening here. Obviously you don't.