As I said, Trump recently did a quid pro quo with Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Either slow down/stop the flow of people leaving those countries to emigrate to the U.S. or lose financial aid from the U.S. I have no problem with that quid pro quo. None at all.
And again, there is, in my opinion, no "criminal action" in what Trump is alleged to have done. To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.
Here are Rep. Will Hurd's. Republican from Texas, comments on the impeachment hearings. Comments with which I agree:
"An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear and unambiguous,” Hurd said. “And it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I've not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion."
But during his five minutes of questioning, Hurd said Trump’s statements during his July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky were “inappropriate,” “misguided foreign policy” and “not how the executive should handle such things.” No other Republican on the committee has criticized the president’s handling of the phone call, during which Trump asked that Zelensky investigate the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, after arranging to withhold $391 million in foreign aid to Ukraine.
“I disagree with this sort of bungling foreign policy,” Hurd said.
I asked some questions within the last week and you did not respond:
Should the allegations made by the whistle blower been investigated or ignored? If you say they should have been investigated, how would you have changed the process that the House went through? I realize what you believe the end result should be.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Your last question wasn't asked of me directly but I'd like to answer and also respond to CT who also didn't address me directly but seemed to lump me in with anybody offering a counter argument to what he believes as "people afraid to answer questions". That sure as hell isn't me, I thrive on answering questions. I consider it an intellectual challenge, a mind game challenge to see who can offer the best debate. All this calling people names, challenging others "manhood", I have absolutely zero interest in. On the other board I was on for 15 years, we could choose to ignore certain posters and never see what they write. I had an ignore list as long as your arm. I didn't want to see comments from anybody not worthy of a spirited civil debate. If I had the ignore button on here CT would certainly be on it. I have no use for comments like he just made not addressing the subject but commenting on people and personalities.
Having gotten that off my chest. Yes, I think the IG of the Intelligence community had a duty to "investigate" the whistle blower complaint. He also had a duty to tell us he thought the whistle blower just might have a bias in his complaint which he did which then leads me to believe that the whistle blower needs to be further investigated and absolutely needed to be questioned under oath in closed hearings at first but if this goes to trial in the Senate, he will have to testify in open hearings where Trumps attorney can challenge him under 6th amendment rules that say the accused may confront his accuser in open court.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...till-credible/
Intel IG Found Whistleblower Has ‘Arguable Political Bias’ against Trump, But Complaint Is Still ‘Credible’
But guess what, the complaint was investigated by the legal council of the DOJ and they dismissed it. Of course the left will respond with "OH, we can't trust Bill Barr". Well, it wasn't Bill Barr that made that decision it was the Office of Legal Council that made that decision.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/o...lease-congress
The OLC argues that the conduct described in the complaint does not involve an “urgent concern” as the intelligence community inspector general described it. The OLC said it made that determination because it “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”
“As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees,” the opinion reads.
I don't have a problem with having an investigation but I have a big problem with the way it was done. This investigation belonged in the Judiciary and yes I know that Pelosi can do this any way she wants but the precedent was not followed and you know how Democrats love their precedents like Roe v Wade. This should have started in the Judiciary with the Presidents attorney there and Republicans ( the minority ) being able to call their own witnesses. That would have been a fair process, the Schitt show was not. Again, no way in hell should the whistle blower have been exempt from cross examination. Imagine the precedent that sets that a person can make a complaint knowing that he can't be challenged under oath and penalty of law.
To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.
But it should and if one of the articles of impeachment says that Trump broke the law of bribery, then that has to be debated as to whether it meest the criteria for considering it illegal which will be done in the Senate. Why wait for the Senate to debate the legal merits of the case? That should be done from the get go and perhaps avoid a trial in the Senate if a compelling legal argument can't be made in the House. This of course is just an opinion of mind.
I notice you didn't comment on my argument that Hilary violated federal election law and no comment on the article showing that Bernie Sanders was fined for hiring foreign nationals to work on his campaign. No opinion?
Originally Posted by LexusLover
