Something really odd about impeachment talk

[Perd Hapley]

I seem to be almost alone in this, so maybe I didn’t get the memo. Almost no one seems to be discussing the outrage of presidential candidates voting to convict their opponent, and remove him from the race, because he tried to remove his opponent have a potential opponent’s son investigated for apparent misdeeds.

If that’s not clear enough, the Senate is expected to vote on whether or not to remove Donald Trump from office, and disqualify him from holding office again. The charges stem from the notion that President Trump, presumptive candidate for re-election, tried to hurt Joe Biden’s chances by having a third party investigate the Bidens’ malfeasance. But four of those potential jurors (Senators) are running for president themselves. Unlike Donald Trump, they wouldn’t just be hurting their opponent’s chances, they’d be voting to take him out of the running entirely, and permanently. So, even if President Trump is guilty of tampering with an election, four of his opponents (if they don’t recuse) would be doing the exact same thing, only more blatantly.

Yeah, I found a couple of articles on the subject, but they’re from Right Wing Hate Media^TM, so they don’t count, and no one’s paying attention to them. I had to go track them down.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/18/will-the-democrat-senators-running-for-president-recuse-themselves-from-impeachment/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/02/thomas-massie-should-democrat-senators-running-for-president-recuse-from-impeaching-trump/

Yeah, I get that the silence on this just demonstrates it’s all kabuki, and everyone knows there’s no chance of conviction in the Senate. But that doesn’t explain why almost no conservatives/Trump supporters are flogging this issue.

I guess it's another illustration of the way left-wing media still set the agenda for what the right-of-center media are going to discuss.

[MechAg94]

It seems to me I have heard it mentioned.  I think give up pointing out left wing hypocrisy since that seems to be a daily norm on the left. 

[Hawkmoon]

I agree with you. Any senator who is a candidate should recuse him/herself.

Where I disagree with you is in characterizing the possibility that Trump was trying to dig up information about Biden's son as tampering with the election. It's standard practice for politicians to look for information that may be damaging to their opponents. Doing so is not illegal unless they clearly break some law in the process (like Nixon's henchmen burglarizing the Democratic National Committee offices).

So what law did Trump break by asking the government of Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

Even if there was a technical violation of some law (which, remember, has NOT been proven) -- is that "tampering" with the election? I suppose it's semantics but, to me, tampering would mean something like registering ineligible voters, losing ballots that voted for the opponent, creating fake ballots that voted for your side, reprogramming voting machines, ... You know -- things like "tampering," rather than just doing what all politicians do.

[makattak]

Even if there was a technical violation of some law (which, remember, has NOT been proven) -- is that "tampering" with the election? I suppose it's semantics but, to me, tampering would mean something like registering ineligible voters, losing ballots that voted for the opponent, creating fake ballots that voted for your side, reprogramming voting machines, ... You know -- things like "tampering," rather than just doing what all politicians do.

It's not hard to discern what "Tampering with an election" is.


Does it hurt Democrat chances of being elected? Tampering. (E.g. Wikileaks releasing authentic emails from the DNC so the public could see how bad they are. That's "tampering.")

Does it hurt Republican chances of being elected? Not tampering. (E.g. hiring a foreign national to dig up dirt from other foreign nationals in order to attack Donald Trump. Not "tampering.)

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not saying that Trump was "tampering," or doing anything illegal. I'm saying that's what the allegation is.

It's not hard to discern what "Tampering with an election" is.


Does it hurt Democrat chances of being elected? Tampering. (E.g. Wikileaks releasing authentic emails from the DNC so the public could see how bad they are. That's "tampering.")

Does it hurt Republican chances of being elected? Not tampering. (E.g. hiring a foreign national to dig up dirt from other foreign nationals in order to attack Donald Trump. Not "tampering.)

Fact-check: true.

[WLJ]

If you mean odd as in out of the ordinary it's not odd at all but rather business as usual IMHO but if you mean odd as in it shouldn't be this way then I agree
 

[French G.]

They should recuse or vote present. Tactically, they should vote against. Do they want to run against Trump with his high unfavorables, or Pence and whatever really good VP he picks?

[Perd Hapley]

If you mean odd as in out of the ordinary it's not odd at all but rather business as usual IMHO but if you mean odd as in it shouldn't be this way then I agree
 

What's odd is so little conservative/pro-Trump chatter about it. The Establishment Press is ignoring the issue, of course. But why are we?

I tried bringing this up on a conservative forum, but it didn't raise much interest there.

[Ron]

Years and years of conditioning.

[Perd Hapley]

Years and years of conditioning.

As I said in the OP, the only explanation I can figure is that the "mainstream" (extremist Left) press still decides what we talk about. Sure, we have the internet, and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, but they mainly respond to what the Left-wing/Establishment Press is talking about.

[Ron]

As I said in the OP, the only explanation I can figure is that the "mainstream" (extremist Left) press still decides what we talk about. Sure, we have the internet, and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, but they mainly respond to what the Left-wing/Establishment Press is talking about.

Thinking outside the official narrative = conspiracy theorist!!

[cordex]

Another possible explanation for the lack of noise on this is that the Senate vote isn't imminent and so it's all theoretical at this point.

[MechAg94]

I agree with you. Any senator who is a candidate should recuse him/herself.

Where I disagree with you is in characterizing the possibility that Trump was trying to dig up information about Biden's son as tampering with the election. It's standard practice for politicians to look for information that may be damaging to their opponents. Doing so is not illegal unless they clearly break some law in the process (like Nixon's henchmen burglarizing the Democratic National Committee offices).

So what law did Trump break by asking the government of Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

Even if there was a technical violation of some law (which, remember, has NOT been proven) -- is that "tampering" with the election? I suppose it's semantics but, to me, tampering would mean something like registering ineligible voters, losing ballots that voted for the opponent, creating fake ballots that voted for your side, reprogramming voting machines, ... You know -- things like "tampering," rather than just doing what all politicians do.

Minor nitpick, but didn't Trump ask about the company specifically?  And didn't mention any names. 

[Perd Hapley]

Another possible explanation for the lack of noise on this is that the Senate vote isn't imminent and so it's all theoretical at this point.

I definitely think the "theoretical" (I would say academic) angle is part of it, but it's because we all know there's no chance of a conviction.

[HankB]

Given Joe Biden's braggadocio about threatening to withhold US aid from Ukraine unless the prosecutor investigating the company paying Biden's son was fired post-haste, there is compelling evidence that BIDEN engaged in a quid pro quo by using his position as VPOTUS for familial enrichment by pressuring a foreign power by manipulating US policy for personal/familial gain.

It seems to me that any POTUS who became aware of this apparent high level corruption would be OBLIGATED to seek the truth in this matter.

The only arguments I've heard otherwise boil down to "The laws regarding international corruption and abuse of power may not be applied to anyone running against Trump, and trying to apply them to such people is itself a criminal offense, even if the law doesn't say so."
 

[Hawkmoon]

Given Joe Biden's braggadocio about threatening to withhold US aid from Ukraine unless the prosecutor investigating the company paying Biden's son was fired post-haste, there is compelling evidence that BIDEN engaged in a quid pro quo by using his position as VPOTUS for familial enrichment by pressuring a foreign power by manipulating US policy for personal/familial gain.

It seems to me that any POTUS who became aware of this apparent high level corruption would be OBLIGATED to seek the truth in this matter.

The only arguments I've heard otherwise boil down to "The laws regarding international corruption and abuse of power may not be applied to anyone running against Trump, and trying to apply them to such people is itself a criminal offense, even if the law doesn't say so."
 

I've maintained that from the outset. I agree completely.

[Boomhauer]

Democrats can do no wrong whatsoever

[DittoHead]

But they have to take an oath beforehand

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of [in this case, Donald J. Trump] now pending,
I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

You don't think they would break their oaths do you? 

[Angel Eyes]

But they have to take an oath beforehand
You don't think they would break their oaths do you? 

You mean Senators Sanders, Warren, Harris, et al?   Nah, I'm sure they'll put their personal ambitions aside and do what's right for the Republic ...


 

[WLJ]

But they have to take an oath beforehand
You don't think they would break their oaths do you? 

It's a living oath