Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[falafel]

I love that he takes notes using a Sharpie Magnum or Marks-A-Lot.

[USUC]

Mind you I am just as cynical as you and JL. I just think this is so funny-- there is SO little wiggle room left, and the silence from the usual suspects is deafening right now, but rest assured they'll come up with something...

Also, I'm less cynical about the Democratic candidates. This is par for the course for any nomination process. You have candidates who all have their pet issues, and its up to the party and the final nominee to coalesce these into a digestible platform. Hilary got the popular vote, for Pete's sake, even before we had an idea of how big of a buffoon he is...

*Clowns to the left of me..

Damn! My Stealers Wheel lyrical knowledge is fading as I've moved away from the classic rock listening of my youth.

[frank ryan]

This isn't true. If it were true, Obama and several prior Presidents would be subject to impeachment on the same grounds. The problem was the reason why the aid was delayed, not the threat to withhold aid. That happens all the time and is a standard part of foreign policy with which the President holds a vast amount of discretion.

Do you have some examples?

[Eddie]

Do you have some examples?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trump/599500/

So it stands to reason that the U.S. should be able to withhold military aid—either to try to force better behavior, or simply to stop wasting taxpayer money on something that’s not working. It’s not especially rare—historically, presidents and lawmakers have done this for all kinds of reasons. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan did it to Israel, stopping the sale of cluster bombs to the country for six years after Congress found Israel had used them against civilians in Lebanon. The George W. Bush administration once suspended military aid to 35 countries simultaneously when they refused to guarantee U.S. immunity in potential cases at the recently formed International Criminal Court. (Much of this money has since been reinstated, particularly for NATO and major non-NATO allies.) There’s a law that bans assistance to human-rights abusers, though it applies to military units, not to entire countries. It was this law, for instance, that Trump’s State Department invoked in 2017 when declaring Burmese units involved in abuses against Rohingya Muslims to be ineligible for military aid.

More to the point that UVACoug was making:

U.S. foreign policy relies a great deal on giving military aid, in the form of arms sales and training foreign forces, in an effort to advance security interests without committing large forces overseas. The public should be scrutinizing where it’s going and what ends it’s achieving—and at what cost. But in the Ukraine instance, the bigger question now is whether, in the course of a phone call, the president dangled $400 million not in the American interest, but in his own.

It wasn't the withholding or delaying aid that was the issue. It was WHY it was delayed.

[UVACoug]

Do you have some examples?

We can start with the time that Biden threatened to withhold U.S. aid (on behalf of the Obama administration) unless Ukraine fired a supposedly corrupt prosecutor. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but how does it not fall within the scope of what Bluek claimed the President is not authorized to do and constitutes a crime?

Edit: Eddie's examples are on point too. This is a well-established foreign policy practice going back decades. Quid-pro-quo is the life blood of foreign policy. I remember being taught about it in high school, although it was called "tit-for-tat" in that context I believe.

[Commando]

I love that he takes notes using a Sharpie Magnum or Marks-A-Lot.

They show up slightly better than Pre-Skool Crayons.

[hostile]

They show up slightly better than Pre-Skool Crayons.

No way he can grip one of those with his tiny hands.

[frank ryan]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trump/599500/



More to the point that UVACoug was making:



It wasn't the withholding or delaying aid that was the issue. It was WHY it was delayed.

I see what you’re saying now.

[The_Tick]

They had this dumb Impeachment hearing on in the break room at work. It is annoying as shit.

Someone unplugged the TV finally. They also took the batteries out of the remote. Praise Jesus.

[Commando]

They had this dumb Impeachment hearing on in the break room at work. It is annoying as shit.

Someone unplugged the TV finally. They also took the batteries out of the remote. Praise Jesus.

There wasn't another channel available for break room enjoyment?

[frank ryan]

They had this dumb Impeachment hearing on in the break room at work. It is annoying as shit.

Someone unplugged the TV finally. They also took the batteries out of the remote. Praise Jesus.

It’s not like it’s big news or anything.

[chrisrenrut]

LMAO. So.. This just happened:



Sharpie-man strikes again.

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

lol game over. No wonder the WH and the DOS forbade Sondland to testify.

This guy?...

Embedded Tweet

Yep, Drumpf needs to pack it up.

[myboynoah]

This guy?...

Embedded Tweet

Yep, Drumpf needs to pack it up.

mecherrypicking.jpg

[The_Tick]

It’s not like it’s big news or anything.

That is the funny thing...I don't care about any of it. Zero. Impeach him? Great. Don't impeach him? Great. IDGAF. The Senate isn't going to do anything at all. Quit wasting taxpayer money.

Politicians are stupid.

I have an idea...don't televise it. Don't allow photographers in. Don't allow reporters in. All of the fucking grandstanding by both sides would instantly stop...because there is no one to pander to. The WWE is more authentic than this stuff is.