US Politics The trump impeachment thread

[Illyria99]

This impeachment thing is a waste of everyone's fucking time. I'm really not into politics; but everytime I turn on the tv, it's basically all people are talking about. It's seriously annoying.

The Democrats have been up in arms since Killary lost to Trump. And since then, they've spent a lot of time trying to find a reason to remove him. Anyone with eyes and a functioning brain should be able to see that these impeachment proceedings are a fucking farce. Frankly, I don't like ANY of the people involved (including Trump) but it's pretty clear that Pelosi, Schumer, and their bedwetting brigade will do anything to remove the President. It's obvious and it's pretty lame.

I don't have to be a political expert to notice the biased media "reports" regarding Trump. I don't have to like the guy to understand that he IS the subject of a witch hunt, so to speak. Its stupid and its obvious. Yet, it's also hilarious because no matter what they try, Trump still fucks with them on Twitter.

I don't think he'll be removed. And I hope he wins next year, because I'm really looking to forward to the ocean of tears from the Pelosi Posse, Schumer Shits, and the SJW's.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

If successful the scale will forever tip in the direction of the executive

Trump is currently operating under how the constitution is written, and has operated for 250y. The House is attempting to change that scale with how they have operated this entire event. I've agreed I don't believe Trump is operating to defend the office, but to test how the office and 'separation of powers' operates, they need to go thru the judicial branch, which they haven't. Or, if they wish to change the constitution and how it is worded or used, I believe they are the legislative branch and can do so, no? Trump's still playing by the rules of the constitution. House Dems are making up their own rules. Yeah, that sounds fair.

Why does the President have the power to appoint the director of the department that is charged with investigating him??

l

Again, it's in the constitution. Don't like it, change it. Moreover, Mueller made it clear he was unimpeded. His word isn't good enough?

The Mueller investigation actually never absolved Trump of Russian collusion

Actually, it said it found no collusion. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but none could be proven. Just like I could call you a chicken fucker, and while no proof may be found, you aren't absolved the accusation. At some point, perhaps after 2y+ and millions of dollars, you have to accept that there is no 'there' there to be found. Or, you can move on to the next accusation, and keep throwing them until something sticks enough to get traction.

the list of instances of obstruction of Justice date all the way back to the Stormy Daniels affair, Th e Mueller report and the current impeachment hearings.

This might have some meat. Obstruction of Justice is a legal term, whereby a law is broken, there is proof and a conviction can occur. However, to date, there has been no law proven to be broken. Obstruction of Congress is different, and unfortunately doesn't carry the same criteria or use. When Nixon and Clinton were impeached, they had evidence of actual laws being broken, proved it, and were done. Dems can't show a law has been broken by Trump, and it hurts their case.

However, it should be made perfectly clear that impeachment is a political process, and no law is required to be broken (it just helps A LOT). So, I'm not saying the impeachment is a farce because no law has been broken - impeachment doesn't need that and can occur without a broken law. My point, however, is that your 'list of instances' would have brought this to a head a lot earlier if they were valid. They aren't. Even in the impeachment charges, the 'Obstruction' doesn't reference any of these things, they point to the lack of subpeona compliance for the impeachment investigation....which was to be decided by the judicial branch, not just assumed as a charge by the House. This is an empty charge against Trump until the 'separation of powers' is reviewed by the courts.

but Trump has mastered the art of double talk as he is quite adept at the art of deception

Ha...this one always amuses me, as I find myself wondering the same thing forever - genius, or idiot? Can he be both? Doesn't feel like it.

I am quite sure the Republicans will simply use the trial as a platform to advance their quake theories about Ukraine interfering in Us elections and as an opportunity to further muddy the election credibility of Biden by off handedly putting Trevor Biden on trial anyways

Did any of you read the 6pg letter from Trump to Pelosi regarding the impeachment? I heard bits of it over the radio, and while it at times addressed valid concerns about what's being done, there is a large portion dedicated to campaigning and propagandizing in preparation for the next election (going way off base from the impeachment and focusing on what you will hear more of at rallies for votes...lol). It's like he went up to bat, aimed for the outfield, then started swatting flies all over the place forgetting where he was and why he was there. Idiot.

 

[atara]

Is it bad faith to speak of impeachment long before any reason is found? And then to carry it forth when the 'proof' is subjective?

Why do you expect me to answer for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when I'm certain you're not prepared to answer for Stephen Miller and the concentration camps?

I didn't call for impeachment "long before any reason is found". Why should I be expected to defend someone else's position that I've never held?

And why do you support putting children in concentration camps? (See the problem?)

'Ubiquitous'. And yet, half the country doesn't see it that way.

A third of the country believes that humans did not evolve from single-celled organisms via the natural tendency of reproduction-promoting traits to be expressed at high frequency. I don't think taking a poll is a very good way to determine what the facts are.

EDIT:

The House is attempting to change that scale with how they have operated this entire event.

The House has behaved appropriately in reaction to the Republicans' unwillingness to face the reality of the situation before them. It is not generally possible to convince a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

 

[JessFR]

Is the democrats assault on trump a witch hunt? Perhaps. Do they want to see him removed and don't care what it's actually for? Definitely.

None of that means he shouldn't in fact be removed though. If I were somehow the personification of congress. I'd be looking for a reason to remove him. I wouldn't just invent a reason, I don't think that's OK. But I'd be looking.

If you honestly believe the president is bad for the country and corrupt, and you have a responsibility to act in the interests of the country, you have a responsibility to make sure that you act if and when he does something wrong, and make sure you find it if it happens.

I don't see a problem with that. All the president has to do, is not do something wrong. How hard is it to just not go asking other countries to go after a domestic political enemy?

Cause that's what this is about. And I don't see any way to interpret it as acceptable behavior for a president.

Is it an especially bad act for a president? No. Is it the worst thing any president has ever done? No. But it's still wrong. And I think the expectations of the office of president should be exceptionally high.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I don't think it's bad faith so long as the ultimate cause for impeachment is valid in the end.

For instance, I will say, with no reservations at all, that I've wanted trump out of office since the moment he took office, before he'd done anything. And I see nothing wrong with that. I'm allowed to not like him, I'm allowed to believe he's bad for the country.

I don't want congress to just make up evidence, although strictly speaking impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But I see nothing wrong with believing the guy is bad for the country, and keeping a very close eye on him for wrong doing.

All that matters is, did he do something wrong. If he did, having wanted to see him removed before that doesn't make what he did OK.

Great response, thank you. It is absolutely true that pre-election distaste for the man should have no bearing on if he did something wrong or not to warrant removal from office. Hell, we all enjoy an inner smile when someone we dislike suffers a setback, I'm sure.

But, the past few years of accusations that go nowhere....they don't paint a picture of trying to 'make up evidence'? How will that play when/if FISAgate shows mal-intent? That's another thread, and I'm sure it will get a lot more discussion in the next few months. But for those who didn't go into this with an inherent dislike (nor even a like...just indifference) towards Trump as a President, it feels like a never ending attempt to 'make up evidence'.

Ultimately, if he did wrong, you'd have the country overall calling him out. To date, only half are buying it. I can't say the deniers are right or blind anymore than I could say the accusers are right or blind. But here we are after 3y+ of this and America isn't united on the subject.

As for running for president in future. That will be up to the senate. The Senate has three options here under the constitution. They can either keep him in office, remove him from office, or disqualify him from holding office entirely.

tkThe absolute highest possible sanction they could provide is to disqualify him from holding any office of federal government again. They can do as much as that, as little as nothing. Or something in between, like just removing him from office but not disqualifying him.

So this opens another question, which we likely have to wait until after the Senate decides to hold a trial or not = Can/Would the Republicans use this as a means to separate themselves from Trump? The Senate Reps could remove (unlikely) or block him from office (also unlikely, but possible) as a means of getting separation from Trump and his effect on the country. BUT, they haven't put anything together to be an alternate candidate next term. It would be a shame if they allowed him to run again simply by poor planning, and I don't think they LOVE him as much as Dems HATE him. I can see, perhaps, they leave him in because they don't like the way Dems have played this game - but this is also an injustice to the country = if he's guilty, boot him.

I'd like to think they'd hold the trial, and the charges get properly addressed by witnesses to share more of the truth of what's gone on (on both sides). But that's naive on my part. In truth, I expect the Reps to play partisan, and either dismiss outright with later comments indicating what's already been said of a 'witch hunt' by the right while the left adds to their campaigns the claim that Reps aren't upholding their oath of office; or we have a quick trial that is nearly as stacked for the right as the House investigation was for the left. Partisan efforts, both putting party over country. I expect disappointment for all Americans.

 

[atara]

Anyone with eyes and a functioning brain should be able to see that these impeachment proceedings are a fucking farce.

Why is it that everyone who is convinced the impeachment is false never actually discusses anything of relevance to the issue at all? It's always about what some fringe Democrat said at some point two years ago.

Not one of you has defended Trump on the merits of his conduct. Nobody is interested in discussing the witness testimony. Nah, let's bring up Hillary Clinton again.

I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. I voted for Gary Johnson. I considered it possible that Trump would do a decent job. I held out hope long after my friends thought I was crazy for even entertaining the idea that Trump was anything but a fascist out to destroy our democracy. I did not call for impeachment after the Mueller report.

Today, I support Trump being impeached and removed for attempting to manipulate the President of Ukraine into announcing a bogus investigation in order to smear his political rival. Because that is what he fucking did.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I don't see a problem with that. All the president has to do, is not do something wrong. How hard is it to just not go asking other countries to go after a domestic political enemy?

Cause that's what this is about. And I don't see any way to interpret it as acceptable behavior for a president.

Per CNN's transcripts (if there's another part, I'm open to seeing the quote):

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

CNBC's snip

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,” Trump said to Zelensky in the call.

A US Gov't official (Biden) openly bragging about withholding aid in exchange for Ukraine to address the prosecutor looking into possible corruption with Hunter. This is the definition of quid-pro-quo and as a country, we should NOT be doing this. By treaty, it is our President who should ask the Ukraine to look into such corruption. And he should point the Ukraine to our Attorney General with the evidence. This is what Trump did. His job, as President.

 

[JessFR]

Great response, thank you. It is absolutely true that pre-election distaste for the man should have no bearing on if he did something wrong or not to warrant removal from office. Hell, we all enjoy an inner smile when someone we dislike suffers a setback, I'm sure.

But, the past few years of accusations that go nowhere....they don't paint a picture of trying to 'make up evidence'? How will that play when/if FISAgate shows mal-intent? That's another thread, and I'm sure it will get a lot more discussion in the next few months. But for those who didn't go into this with an inherent dislike (nor even a like...just indifference) towards Trump as a President, it feels like a never ending attempt to 'make up evidence'.

Ultimately, if he did wrong, you'd have the country overall calling him out. To date, only half are buying it. I can't say the deniers are right or blind anymore than I could say the accusers are right or blind. But here we are after 3y+ of this and America isn't united on the subject.



So this opens another question, which we likely have to wait until after the Senate decides to hold a trial or not = Can/Would the Republicans use this as a means to separate themselves from Trump? The Senate Reps could remove (unlikely) or block him from office (also unlikely, but possible) as a means of getting separation from Trump and his effect on the country. BUT, they haven't put anything together to be an alternate candidate next term. It would be a shame if they allowed him to run again simply by poor planning, and I don't think they LOVE him as much as Dems HATE him. I can see, perhaps, they leave him in because they don't like the way Dems have played this game - but this is also an injustice to the country = if he's guilty, boot him.

I'd like to think they'd hold the trial, and the charges get properly addressed by witnesses to share more of the truth of what's gone on (on both sides). But that's naive on my part. In truth, I expect the Reps to play partisan, and either dismiss outright with later comments indicating what's already been said of a 'witch hunt' by the right while the left adds to their campaigns the claim that Reps aren't upholding their oath of office; or we have a quick trial that is nearly as stacked for the right as the House investigation was for the left. Partisan efforts, both putting party over country. I expect disappointment for all Americans.

I don't see reason to believe that democrats are trying to make up evidence. I DO think they are doing absolutely everything they can to dig up any possible wrong doing he may have done.

And, in a way, I kinda wish they (congress) operated like that all the time. Not just with Trump. The office of president should be held to a high standard. And I feel like trump, among others, have shown that there is far too little oversight over the office of president as it is.

I don't think it's that if he had done something wrong a notable majority would agree. I think it's that if he had done something extraordinarily wrong that might be the case. But I don't think presidents should have to have done something extraordinarily wrong to face repercussions.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Why do you expect me to answer for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when I'm certain you're not prepared to answer for Stephen Miller and the concentration camps?

I didn't call for impeachment "long before any reason is found". Why should I be expected to defend someone else's position that I've never held?

And why do you support putting children in concentration camps? (See the problem?)

You're losing me, A LOT on this one. Though it's a 'me' problem, so I'll come back on it later if I can.

A third of the country believes that humans did not evolve from single-celled organisms via the natural tendency of reproduction-promoting traits to be expressed at high frequency. I don't think taking a poll is a very good way to determine what the facts are.
...
The House has behaved appropriately in reaction to the Republicans' unwillingness to face the reality of the situation before them. It is not generally possible to convince a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Fully agree on both counts.

Not one of you has defended Trump on the merits of his conduct. Nobody is interested in discussing the witness testimony.

Actually, I've just addressed his conduct. Witness testimony? You mean all the people who heard one end of a phone call and gave their interpretation of it? Or the law professors who defined 'impeachment' after showing their distaste for the President, but didn't actually witness anything? I am looking forward to a trial that WOULD put some of Trump's team on the stand - let them give their interpretation of the discussions and allow the Dems to cross examine. Moreso, hear from people who were actually on the call or have met and/or talked directly with Trump. Those kinda witnesses would be great.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I don't think it's that if he had done something wrong a notable majority would agree. I think it's that if he had done something extraordinarily wrong that might be the case. But I don't think presidents should have to have done something extraordinarily wrong to face repercussions.

You may be right regarding a majority. However, I didn't pay attention during Clinton's impeachment to know how political it was vs holding him accountable for doing something wrong (perjury), and where the public sentiment was on it.

One point I keep hearing on conservative radio is the long list of presidents (not Nixon or Clinton) who did much worse things and suffered no such impeachment talks. I have a sht memory, but off the top of my head was reference to presidents who supported slavery, supported Jim Crow laws, built internment camps in WW2 (Japanese, but also German and Italian) and took away all property of those American citizens. Granted, these are being listed thru the lens of today (when supported, was acceptance slavery and Jim Crow the norm, I suspect yes given the eras ; and WW2 itself is an extreme condition). Point being, others have done worse and suffered nothing. This isn't to say if Trump is in the wrong it makes his offense less, but offers comparison to the persecution either party has put upon previous presidents.

And, in a way, I kinda wish they (congress) operated like that all the time. Not just with Trump. The office of president should be held to a high standard. And I feel like trump, among others, have shown that there is far too little oversight over the office of president as it is.

This is creating a crucible in which the President operates, and while the spotlight of transparency has benefits, it can also restrict the office from doing all it needs to in an effective manner. Overall, I do agree with your view. But I'd extend it to other gov't officials as well. Particularly those who spend decades in Congress, coming out millionaires on six-figure salaries (and their families).

 

[Illyria99]

Why is it that everyone who is convinced the impeachment is false never actually discusses anything of relevance to the issue at all? It's always about what some fringe Democrat said at some point two years ago.

Not one of you has defended Trump on the merits of his conduct. Nobody is interested in discussing the witness testimony. Nah, let's bring up Hillary Clinton again.

I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. I voted for Gary Johnson. I considered it possible that Trump would do a decent job. I held out hope long after my friends thought I was crazy for even entertaining the idea that Trump was anything but a fascist out to destroy our democracy. I did not call for impeachment after the Mueller report.

Today, I support Trump being impeached and removed for attempting to manipulate the President of Ukraine into announcing a bogus investigation in order to smear his political rival. Because that is what he fucking did.

You know, some of us are just interested in giving an opinion and moving on. I'm definitely not interested in writing endless paragraphs to explain my views. There's really no need, actually.

Hillary was mentioned because when she LOST, that was when the shit storm began. Her supporters just went crazy, claiming the election was fixed. The butthurt was strong with them. Massive. Butthurt.

So basically, it's like this...Trump won, Hillary lost, and the Democrats have been looking for a way to get rid of him ever since. Their motto? "Throw enough shit, and maybe something will stick." I don't need to discuss witness testimony, or any other particulars of the situation.

This is the Cliff Notes version.

 

[alasdairm]

Ultimately, if he did wrong, you'd have the country overall calling him out.

i don't see that at all. there are many people - some here - who seem to make excuses and give him a pass for pretty much anything. i've been wondering at what point they'll say "ok, that's too far" but we don't seem to have got there yet.

(and, yes, i understand the opposite is true - there are some who'll criticise him for anything and everything).

Today, I support Trump being impeached and removed for attempting to manipulate the President of Ukraine into announcing a bogus investigation in order to smear his political rival. Because that is what he fucking did.

indeed.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that many previous presidents have done worse things than trump and managed to get away with it. And I hate that but it doesn't mean we shouldn't hold presidents to a higher standard today.

Now of course, I don't believe any of this is really about some wider attempt to hold the office of President to higher standards. This is a rival political party doing everything it can to knock out an opponent. Just as it always is, a hostile congress tries to kill a politically opposing presidents presidency.

That's why these things happen. None of this is about doing what's right for America. It's entirely about corrupt political fights.

But it is possible to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons. And that's how I see this. I don't like democrats any more than Republicans. And I really don't like politicians. I wish this were a sincere attempt to act in America's best interests. But it's not. It's an attempt to act in the best interests of democrats.

That's why some presidents get away with their abuses and others don't.

But even if I totally oppose the motives, I can still support the outcome.

 

[tathra]

I've seen a lot of liberals and leftists desperate to crucify tulsi for voting "present" on the impeachment vote, but I'm #stillwithher



I fully agree with her reasoning, because the impeachment is a partisan circus, not because trump isn't guilty of the charges levied against him, but because republicans have shed any interest in even appearing to care about democracy and are in the middle of pulling off a slow-burn coup to install a dictatorship; they're not even playing the same game as everyone else, so they're going to win by default until people start acknowledging this and fighting back instead of letting themselves be manipulated into focusing on the game that republicans stopped playing years ago


trump is merely the symptom of much more serious issues, and too many people think everything will be all fine and dandy once he's gone and they very much will not be

what I'd really like to happen is for her and Bernie to be able to appeal to even trump voters and get everyone united behind a Sanders/Gabbard presidency so we can start fixing some of the serious things wrong with the country before the inevitable collapse. everyone needs to take their bullshit tribalism and shove it and focus on making things better and the best way to accomplish that, not petty squabbles over who holds power and what political party they're registered with

 

[TheLoveBandit]

(and, yes, i understand the opposite is true - there are some who'll criticise him for anything and everything).

Well, Trump doesn't help himself AT ALL on this count, either...if we're being honest.

That's why these things happen. None of this is about doing what's right for America. It's entirely about corrupt political fights.

Amen.

But it is possible to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons. And that's how I see this. I don't like democrats any more than Republicans. And I really don't like politicians. I wish this were a sincere attempt to act in America's best interests. But it's not. It's an attempt to act in the best interests of democrats.
...
But even if I totally oppose the motives, I can still support the outcome.

Respect. And, agreement.

too many people think everything will be all fine and dandy once he's gone and they very much will not be

Also agreement. We've got much bigger problems ahead of us, beyond the influence of any one president.

 

[Xorkoth]

Ultimately, if he did wrong, you'd have the country overall calling him out. To date, only half are buying it.

This is, unfortunately, not true, and it's because of how intensely tribal partisan politics has gotten. Half the country refuses to even briefly entertain the notion that their political leaders should be ousted. It's as if evidence and facts no longer matter, all that matters is it's your side and not those god damn conservatives/liberals.

Trump sure didn't cause the partisan divide, that's been fostered carefully for a long time. He's certainly cashed in on it and helped propagate it, but whether he's removed, or voted out, or kept in for 4 more years, we have a LOT of work to do to avoid the fate we're headed towards.

I just want a leader who isn't gazing adoringly at dictators around the world and who isn't manipulated with simple appeals to the ego, who has a steady position and holds it, does not act impulsively, and listens to those around him. Someone who has more than zero experience in dealing with international political situations. Someone who can match wits with the leaders of our rival nations.

I don't disagree with everything he's done. It's good that he's addressed the problems with China. At the same time, I'm not at all confident he has any clue how to navigate us through the situations we find ourselves in. I think we should have rules regarding the amount of experience that a candidate has in governing when it comes to the presidency.

That's why I want him out. The guy is not equipped to deal with the realities of the international stage right now.

 

[cduggles]

And yet, half the country doesn't see it that way.

Half of the country is a lot.
here’s one of a gazillion articles giving context for that high number:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267491/congress-approval-support-impeaching-trump.aspx

House Dems are making up their own rules.

Actually, they’re following a lot of precedent. Let’s see how closely the Senate hews to say, the rules of Clinton’s impeachment.
I wonder if Trump will testify. Ha ha.

Did any of you read the 6pg letter from Trump to Pelosi regarding the impeachment?

Unfortunately, yes. Deep end.

But, the past few years of accusations that go nowhere....

Read the Mueller report!

And by the way, Ambassador Sondland, who was on the “overhead” phone call remembered it before he testified before Congress publicly. He donated a million bucks to Trump’s inauguration, so he’s a fan.
His testimony was damaging to Trump and his administration... about the phone call, quid pro quo, and everyone including Pence, Pompeo, and Mulvaney being in the loop.
You should familiarize yourself with it. It’s something I don’t think anyone can look at and believe Trump and company aren’t guilty as hell.

 

[JessFR]

I'm want a leader who doesn't attack the countries that have been our friends and allies for years, while supporting and condoning despots and totalitarian or corrupt regimes. Or countries that have generally been our enemies.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if the intelligence agencies of generally hostile governments have briefed their leaders about how to best take advantage of trumps ego and use it against us. And that that's why trump always seems so friendly with leaders who have generally been against our interests and policies.

And as if that weren't bad enough, while he's off harming national security for his own benefit. He actually uses his office to use security clearances as a weapon against people who have served their country for years and felt compelled to speak out.

It's disgusting.

 

[alasdairm]

note the source: Trump Should Be Removed from Office

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

(my emphasis)

alasdair

 

[cduggles]

note the source: Trump Should Be Removed from Office

(my emphasis)

alasdair

Fascinating, because if Trump loses the religious right, he loses, no doubt. Pence is supposed to keep them in line.
Trump probably can’t expand his base very much, and he has to keep what he has.
Trump’s people have to be panicking.