House Democrat backs down from impeachment: 'I don't see the value of kicking him out of office'

Yappi

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan now favors censuring President Trump after backing impeachment proceedings over allegations that he withheld military aid from Ukraine for his personal benefit.

Lawrence appeared on the Michigan radio show No BS News Hour with host Charlie LeDuff on Sunday to discuss the impeachment process in the House. Lawrence told LeDuff, to his surprise, that she does not support removing the president from office and that she would ask her caucus to censure him instead.

"We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office," Lawrence said. "I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."
Click to expand...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

House Democrat backs down from impeachment: 'I don't see the value of kicking him out of office'

Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan now favors censuring President Trump after backing impeachment proceedings over allegations that he withheld military aid from Ukraine for his personal benefit.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
 
I normally stay away from most of this talk .... because both sides are so entrenched that it is usually pointless ... but I guess I’m a glutton for punishment ... IMO it is not even debatable ... President Trump did try to withhold aid for his own political gain ... but to me this is not enough to impeach .... he should be censured and let it be known that this kind of action is not appropriate for a sitting President ... but let the people decide if they want to keep or get rid of him by voting.
 
joesports said:
…….President Trump did try to withhold aid for his own political gain...…..
Click to expand...

Did he? Or did the goals of the nation just happen to coincide with his goals? I would think rooting out corruption in a known corrupt nation when we can see the corruption and it happens to involve political opponents from the other party...... that's a win-win for nearly anyone else.
 
Trump has been looking into Ukrainian corruption for well over a year before Biden announced he was running, we have a agreement to do so.
Trump withheld aid from many of our allies for corruption among other things, this included the UN.

There is no doubt Joe and Hunter were getting kickbacks from Ukrainian and Chinese companies. Let's just take this to the extreme and say what if Joe and Hunter were ISIS members, should they be able to keep slowly sawing off heads of the infidels just because Joe decided to run for president, Trump can't stop them?
It is the presidents job no matter how you slice it.
 
gneiss rocks said:
Trump has been looking into Ukrainian corruption for well over a year before Biden announced he was running, we have a agreement to do so.
Trump withheld aid from many of our allies for corruption among other things, this included the UN.
……...
Click to expand...

Congress included language to root out foreign corruption in various spending bills, if he hadn't have insisted on investigations this Congress would have likely tried to impeach him over that.
 
Wow ... I should have know this was futile attempt ... Trump could shoot someone at noon in Times Square on a nationally televised event ... and most of you would call it “fake news “

So let me get this straight ... he held up the aid because of corruption (among other things) .... did that corruption magically go away two days after the whistle blower’s report came out ... or when they released the aid?

... to me the only real thing that is debatable on this is it an impeachable offense or not ... so let me hear why or why not it is impeachable!
 
joesports said:
Wow ... I should have know this was futile attempt ... Trump could shoot someone at noon in Times Square on a nationally televised event ... and most of you would call it “fake news “

So let me get this straight ... he held up the aid because of corruption (among other things) .... did that corruption magically go away two days after the whistle blower’s report came out ... or when they released the aid?

... to me the only real thing that is debatable on this is it an impeachable offense or not ... so let me hear why or why not it is impeachable!
Click to expand...

We've heard that one before. Nobody would support him shooting someone in Times Square. The difference is facts vs non facts.

Again, the burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove their innocence. In the history of English Common Law that has been true. I don't know why this needs to be explained over and over again. It's not impeachable because there is no proof of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors. It's that simple of an answer.
 
joesports said:
Wow ... I should have know this was futile attempt ... Trump could shoot someone at noon in Times Square on a nationally televised event ... and most of you would call it “fake news “

So let me get this straight ... he held up the aid because of corruption (among other things) .... did that corruption magically go away two days after the whistle blower’s report came out ... or when they released the aid?

... to me the only real thing that is debatable on this is it an impeachable offense or not ... so let me hear why or why not it is impeachable!
Click to expand...

The whistle-blowers claims proven false by the transcript, why did they have to lie? Why not let him testify? Why must he be hidden?
 
gneiss rocks said:
The whistle-blowers claims proven false by the transcript, why did they have to lie? Why not let him testify? Why must he be hidden?
Click to expand...
Not sure whistle-bowers claims have been proven false ... and I think its more likely Trump and associates claims proven false!!

Not sure why Trump supporters can't say ... yes, he did it, no he shouldn't have ... but it does not reach the level of an impeachable offense????
 
joesports said:
Not sure whistle-bowers claims have been proven false ... and I think its more likely Trump and associates claims proven false!!

Not sure why Trump supporters can't say ... yes, he did it, no he shouldn't have ... but it does not reach the level of an impeachable offense????
Click to expand...
The law, and any sane person, doesn't place hearsay (whistle blower) above first-hand knowledge.
The wrong conclusions (as in your position) are often the result of ignoring facts.
 
joesports said:
Not sure whistle-bowers claims have been proven false ... and I think its more likely Trump and associates claims proven false!!

Not sure why Trump supporters can't say ... yes, he did it, no he shouldn't have ... but it does not reach the level of an impeachable offense????
Click to expand...

They don't have to be proven false. They have to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. What country have you lived in all your life?
 
Gh0st said:
They don't have to be proven false. They have to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. What country have you lived in all your life?
Click to expand...
First of all the last time I checked ... this is a debate forum ... not a court of law ... I can have any level of criteria I want to form my opinion ... I still believe that is allowed in this country ... but more importantly, read the post I commented on ... all I was saying is I disagreed with his assertion that the whistle-blower’s claims where proven false.
 
nutsnbolts said:
The law, and any sane person, doesn't place hearsay (whistle blower) above first-hand knowledge.
The wrong conclusions (as in your position) are often the result of ignoring facts.
Click to expand...
First off ... many people in this great nation have been convicted on second hand knowledge or circumstantial evidence ... why is that ... because very few people who were directly involved tell on themselves ... any sane person realize this!

Second, as just said if the previous post ... this is a debate forum, not a court of law ... stop hiding behind technicalities and form an opinion ... just tell me you don’t think he did it ... I am saying from what I have read and heard, IMO, it is pretty clear he did it ... but I don’t believe that it rises to level of an impeachable offense ... let the people decide whether they still want him as the President with the election.
 
joesports said:
First of all the last time I checked ... this is a debate forum ... not a court of law ... I can have any level of criteria I want to form my opinion ... I still believe that is allowed in this country ... but more importantly, read the post I commented on ... all I was saying is I disagreed with his assertion that the whistle-blower’s claims where proven false.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all you led with a wildly hyperbolic claim and "whoa is me" assertion that Donald Trump could shoot someone in Times Square on national TV and we'd all have his back. If that was your debate tactic of an attention-getter, it just came off kind of whiney.

You began this "debate" asking if this was an impeachable offense and asked why it isn't. I gave a very simple answer by saying that an impeachable offense is treason, high crime, or misdemeanor and there's absolutely no proof that any of that occurred. So, the reason it's not impeachable, knowing what we know, is that the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused and they've failed to establish this as an impeachable offense.

You can have any opinion you want, but if you want the freedom to voice your opinion, you also get to deal with when people think you're wrong. You are entitled to an opinion, you aren't entitled to be right. The only common theme you've presented is that you aren't convinced because innocence hasn't been proven. It's a common theme with liberals that there is the presumption of guilt, rather than innocence when it comes to people they don't like.
 
joesports said:
Not sure whistle-bowers claims have been proven false ... and I think its more likely Trump and associates claims proven false!!

Not sure why Trump supporters can't say ... yes, he did it, no he shouldn't have ... but it does not reach the level of an impeachable offense????
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, because the of the charade the dems are playing, you were not able to hear any public testimony from anyone whose private depositions were fully favorable to the president. It has been a 100% one-sided sham, and thus the opinion you formed is based on only half the story, and the wrong half at that. And even with all that, there is still nothing whatsoever that rises to an impeachable offense.
 
Where did I say innocence has not been proven ... you might be getting me mixed up with someone else ... next, I am far from a liberal ... I am more a moderate to slightly conservative ... you and I agree that this is not an impeachable offense ... even if he did it it does not rise to the level of a high crime etc ... really the only difference between us is I do believe he tried to get a personal/political favor by with holding aid and or a White House meeting and you don’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top