A conservative lawyer sums up the case for impeachment

Stjohns3269

Active Member
As I stated previously I voted for Trump but a number of things that have happen over the last few years have made me regret my decision.

I try to stay active on twitter and follow peoples who's opinions i admire or agree with. I have been following Bryan Gividen for a while and he really makes a lot of sense to me. He also is a lot smarter than me so I'm using his words but except for a few things (specifically pro life and pro religious liberty i agree with him)

Sorry if my formatting of his tweets isn't good.

142860
142861
142862
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I’ve heard Mr. Trump say much worse but you continue to support him.

what’s the difference for you?
Trump doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not.

If Trump said, “I’m very diplomatic in my speech, and always try to compromise” I would not believe him. So, when a twit says “I’m a pro-life kind of conservative” but in the middle of that sentence feels the need to call the Senate Majority Leader “Cocaine Mitch”, I tend to discount his opinion.

It would be like you saying, “I am a pro-choice up to birth, Kenyan half-breed lovin’ progressive”.
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Trump doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not.

If Trump said, “I’m very diplomatic in my speech, and always try to compromise” I would not believe him. So, when a twit says “I’m a pro-life kind of conservative” but in the middle of that sentence feels the need to call the Senate Majority Leader “Cocaine Mitch”, I tend to discount his opinion.

It would be like you saying, “I am a pro-choice up to birth, Kenyan half-breed lovin’ progressive”.
Mitch Mcconell’s own campaign website sold cocaine Mitch shirts after kilos of cocaine were discovered on board his father in laws boat. So let’s not pretend to be above the fray.

Seems more likely that you find it difficult to defend Trump’s behavior in light of well thought out rational argument of his deficiencies as president.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Mitch Mcconell’s own campaign website sold cocaine Mitch shirts after kilos of cocaine were discovered on board his father in laws boat. So let’s not pretend to be above the fray.

Seems more likely that you find it difficult to defend Trump’s behavior in light of well thought out rational argument of his deficiencies as president.
I’ve not read or heard a single rational argument in favor of impeachment of President Trump.

I have personally made many of my own and agreed with many other people who have made rational arguments regarding deficiencies in things Trump has said or done.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
I have been following Bryan Gividen for a while....
Interesting tweet thread. Thank you for posting it.

Mr. Gividen is clearly a man of conscience and his conscience doesn't allow him (for whatever reason) to like or support Trump. I commend him for that. But that fact and the fact he's a conservative* doesn't negate my conscience being clear and be of similar ideological values as he professes.

*I have no reason to not believe him (re: conscience and ideological bent) and for the purposes of this post it really doesn't matter....

Anyway, back to the tweet thread. Here's his last tweet:
“Don’t support impeachment because you like the Democrats,” Gividen asserts. “Support impeachment because you fear that Donald Trump’s abuse of the presidency threatens your freedom.”
His assumption - "you fear that Donald Trump’s abuse of the presidency threatens your freedom" - is one I don't share. But even if I did share it to some extent (which I don't) I would argue that a good ethical framework requires, in the case of two evils, supporting the lesser. Huh? What? Why?

Because his assumption about Pence (a mid-thread tweet) is also problematic. Gividen sees Pence as a viable solution to impeaching /convicting Trump (as it would result in a net gain for conservatives). Maybe so, but as certain Democrats have already made their case that Pence is next up for the firing squad Gividen's "perfect plan" backfires badly. So I'm not comfortable with putting into play a "domino fall" that ends with ceding control to the Left (even if the plan to have Pence also impeached doesn't come to fruition, Dems would be happy to have Pence stand as the Repubs' 2020 candidate or have to deal with anyone in 2020 not named Trump). Because if any of these possibilities happens I wind up with the greater of two evils (if I agreed Trump was the lesser evil; which I don't). So I'm happy (and with a clear conscience) right where I am/we are.

Of interest (perhaps), I see that his tweet thread is getting play on various Left sites (like AlterNet). Honestly, I would expect nothing less. What was interesting was how quickly it got picked up and written about.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Interesting tweet thread. Thank you for posting it.

Mr. Gividen is clearly a man of conscience and his conscience doesn't allow him (for whatever reason) to like or support Trump. I commend him for that. But that fact and the fact he's a conservative* doesn't negate my conscience being clear and be of similar ideological values as he professes.

*I have no reason to not believe him (re: conscience and ideological bent) and for the purposes of this post it really doesn't matter....

Anyway, back to the tweet thread. Here's his last tweet:

His assumption - "you fear that Donald Trump’s abuse of the presidency threatens your freedom" - is one I don't share. But even if I did share it to some extent (which I don't) I would argue that a good ethical framework requires, in the case of two evils, supporting the lesser. Huh? What? Why?

Because his assumption about Pence (a mid-thread tweet) is also problematic. Gividen sees Pence as a viable solution to impeaching /convicting Trump (as it would result in a net gain for conservatives). Maybe so, but as certain Democrats have already made their case that Pence is next up for the firing squad Gividen's "perfect plan" backfires badly. So I'm not comfortable with putting into play a "domino fall" that ends with ceding control to the Left (even if the plan to have Pence also impeached doesn't come to fruition, Dems would be happy to have Pence stand as the Repubs' 2020 candidate or have to deal with anyone in 2020 not named Trump). Because if any of these possibilities happens I wind up with the greater of two evils (if I agreed Trump was the lesser evil; which I don't). So I'm happy (and with a clear conscience) right where I am/we are.

Of interest (perhaps), I see that his tweet thread is getting play on various Left sites (like AlterNet). Honestly, I would expect nothing less. What was interesting was how quickly it got picked up and written about.

--- End of line (MCP)
Interesting. it seems to me you are doing the exact opposite of what the gentleman I quoted is doing.

You say you are against removal of Trump because there is a possibility of Pence being sullied to and at risk of removal as well.
That scares me honestly. It shows me that you are not concerned with the rule of law and the people in power following the law because you happen to agree with their politics. I think that is a very slippery slope.

If Trump and Pence both extorted Ukraine to try to dig up dirt on Biden falsely I believe that is an impeachable offense and I would want to follow through with impeachment and let our framers guide tell us what the next logic step would be.

I don’t think having two people in these positions who are willing to break the rules to get what they want to be the lesser of two evils. I think you need to remove the cancer and get back to treating the patient and whatever arises there after
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
It shows me that you are not concerned with the rule of law and the people in power following the law because you happen to agree with their politics.
Fantasy Supposition And Innuendo

Wake me when Trump Actually Breaks a Law
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Interesting. it seems to me you are doing the exact opposite of what the gentleman I quoted is doing.

You say you are against removal of Trump because there is a possibility of Pence being sullied to and at risk of removal as well.
That scares me honestly. It shows me that you are not concerned with the rule of law and the people in power following the law because you happen to agree with their politics. I think that is a very slippery slope.

If Trump and Pence both extorted Ukraine to try to dig up dirt on Biden falsely I believe that is an impeachable offense and I would want to follow through with impeachment and let our framers guide tell us what the next logic step would be.

I don’t think having two people in these positions who are willing to break the rules to get what they want to be the lesser of two evils. I think you need to remove the cancer and get back to treating the patient and whatever arises there after
Are you going to be terribly disappointed when Nancy decides she's going to go for censuring instead of impeachment? You know that's going to pretty much make him unimpeachable for the rest of his time in office.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Interesting. it seems to me you are doing the exact opposite of what the gentleman I quoted is doing.

You say you are against removal of Trump because there is a possibility of Pence being sullied to and at risk of removal as well.
That scares me honestly. It shows me that you are not concerned with the rule of law and the people in power following the law because you happen to agree with their politics. I think that is a very slippery slope.

If Trump and Pence both extorted Ukraine to try to dig up dirt on Biden falsely I believe that is an impeachable offense and I would want to follow through with impeachment and let our framers guide tell us what the next logic step would be.

I don’t think having two people in these positions who are willing to break the rules to get what they want to be the lesser of two evils. I think you need to remove the cancer and get back to treating the patient and whatever arises there after
Now you're assuming something on my part that is incorrect.

I DO NOT think Trump did anything wrong. So there's no issue with rule of law being under attack.

What I DID say was that IF I agreed with Gividen (which, once again to be clear I DO NOT) I'm not sure I would go along with his plan.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Now you're assuming something on my part that is incorrect.

I DO NOT think Trump did anything wrong. So there's no issue with rule of law being under attack.

What I DID say was that IF I agreed with Gividen (which, once again to be clear I DO NOT) I'm not sure I would go along with his plan.

--- End of line (MCP)
Which is what I said. Then you are more concerned with who is in power then the rules being followed. When the first thought you have when deciding to impeach is who will be next in line you are no longer concerned with the law and rules. You are concerned with ensuring power is consolidated. That is a dictatorship. Not a democracy.

This decision and trial should be a bipartisan effort to get to the truth with no concern of the eventualities
 
Top