The Impeachment Thread

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, Nerm said:

I am aware that even if Trump was impeached, there is almost no chance he would be removed from office (unless something dramatic happens).  But I was wondering about the legal/constitutional rules if he was removed from office.

 

Is it possible for him to be removed from office, then retake the office if he won the 2020 election?  Would he be legally eligible to run still? 

 

Constitutionally possible. 

 

But no way in Dallas he gets removed from office unless at least 2/3 of the voters want him out. 

[twa]

Just now, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Well we know you’d gladly vote for him again like the hack that you are 

 

You hacks make him more attractive every day.

 

Now go whine cause Pelosi isn't fulfilling your wish either. 

[Mooka]

29 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

I did not think this was new, I’ve been aware of it since it was revealed. My point is that people not involved or following politics aren’t aware of these things. A presidential impeachment makes people on the periphery aware in ways that a normal news cycle just doesn’t. Dems have the chance to make that case to a wider audience and one that isn’t as bought in to party lines while, in addition to that, satisfying their base and boosting morale by holding Trump accountable which is what we elected them to do 

lots of people tune out politics. You can’t tune out an impeachment as easily. It’s water cooler talk in a way that the latest Maddow show or Washington Post story isn’t. It’s a seminal moment that gets people on the sideline involved.

 

Oh my bad then, misunderstood you. 

 

You can disagree, but I don't think the Dems will make any more of a case then they're making right now, if that makes sense. As in, impeachment proceedings will go like the Kavanaugh hearing or the Mueller testimony; everything from the Right will be phrased as an attack on them or Trump, while Fox News and alike do their thing. And ultimately Trump won't be impeached. 

 

 

Quote

Not to mention it’s the right thing to do. 

 

Not arguing that. Just think its a bad idea. I generally don't assume any politician would do something because its the right thing to do. 

 

 

I'd say my position on impeachment is like if i went back in time and told you the Mueller investigation was a waste of time. 

 

 

28 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Hey bruh, no disrespect but I think you should read the constitution articles of impeachment to learn more about that.

 

you are basically saying we shouldn’t go after Jeffrey Epstein because we know he is a child sex trafficker and rapist.

 

When everyone reads them too and holds their elected officials accountable for something I'll go along with that. 

 

I'm saying if we voted Jeffrey Epstein for President in 2020 then impeaching him for being a child sex trafficker would be dumb. Especially if he couldn't be impeached despite being a sex trafficker. 

 

[Fergasun]

I get the point. But impeachment can be framed as "Democrats stuck in 2016".

The message should be, "Vote him out and send him to jail."

And Dems make the case for 2020.... not a hard case at all.

"Boo, Dems not impeaching so I won't vote for them" screams Russia election influence....

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Hey bruh, no disrespect but I think you should read the constitution articles of impeachment to learn more about that.

 

you are basically saying we shouldn’t go after Jeffrey Epstein because we know he is a child sex trafficker and rapist.

 

Well God damn.  Rare is an instance where you say something I agree with.  But you just stumbled on one such instance.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, twa said:

You hacks make him more attractive every day.

Cut it out guys. You’re making twa vote for Trump again. I mean it.

[NoCalMike]

"Yeah but the Senate won't remove him" excuse is one I sort of bought into a year ago, but it doesn't hold water anymore.  Anyone who follows politics in the least knows the Senate is actively trying to protect if not straight up cover for Trump. This isn't breaking news.  Everyone also already assumes the Senate will not remove Trump.  This isn't something people are sitting on the edge of their seats wondering about.   We all know this already, yet I don't know anyone who says "See the Senate isn't removing him, it's a win!"   All of this information is out in the open to anyone who watches the news.  The way the Senate is behaving feels like treason to liberals,  heroic patriotism to Trump supporters, but all the people who fall somewhere in the middle I think are going to see how shameless the Senate is acting.   Impeachment support among voters has been growing, albeit slowly, but it is going up.  Why? Very likely because of all the investigating going on.  The correlation is there, the more information about this investigation that is made public, the more support for impeachment rises. 

 

We also have to realize that before any actual impeachment would be the impeachment hearings which are going to expose a lot more information from witnesses and FBI agents the public has previously not heard from before.  People will be hearing directly from them for once instead of the spin coming first.  Yes, the spin will still come hard & heavy on your prime time cable news stations, but those hearings are going to be front & center plastered on every major news network all day long, every day, until they conclude. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

The message should be, "Vote him out and send him to jail."

He’s not going to jail. If a dem candidate wins the general they’re not going after trump. It’ll play very poorly for them in the public, it will take a long time, and their presidency will be defined by trump even though he’s out of office. And they know all that. 

 

Instead they’ll make it about undoing what he did and building something to run for re-election on. 

 

If the dems don’t go after him now he gets away with all of it. 

 

(Unless he wins re-election then they get 4 more years to go after him)

[88Comrade2000]

 

The Dems should do it now, because Trump has committed crimes that warrant his impeachment.  The Senate isn't going to do a damn thing.  I don't know if the Senate can refuse to even hold a trial.  If they can, Mcconnell will do that.   Mcconnell do whatever to make the Senate part in the process, quick and simple.  The may just have a vote and then Trump will say he is exonerated.    This is why Trump would love for impeachment to happen.   It will be another thing to fire his base.   I am have been cleared and his supporters will eat it up.

 

Nancy is too chicken to do impeachment because she feels it will cost her the House. That's the only reason why actual impeachment is unlikely to happen.  There will eventually be hearings.   They should have them after Labor Day.   You don't have an actual impeachment, if it happens, in the Fall of 2020. That will take away from the Dem nominee.  The race would just be- see the Dems try to remove your PResident with their impeachment.  I was found not guilty by the Senate.  Pure B.S. but enough voters will believe it.  They will no real discussion on anything else and the election will hinge on whether you feel the Dems were right to impeachment Trump.  

 

I don't see impeachment, if and when it happens; really moving the needle.   The people who are for Trump will remain so and those who are against him, will remain  so.   

If you aren't motivated enough to come out and vote Trump out; then you deserve whatever happens to you in a potential second Trump term.    Yes, the Dem nominee maybe someone you can't stomach or you can't stomach their positions.  Trump is a unique threat that requires one to hold their nose and vote the Dem.

 

As for the Democratic congress not doing what you want.  Well, it's pretty simple.  Do what AOC did in 2018. She challenged an incumbent and won.  Encourage, support  candidates who intend to primary all the Dems.  That means primarying people like Nancy Pelosi.  You want a different Dem congress, then you have to encourage people to challenge the incumbent Dems.   Vote all those old timers out.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

He’s not going to jail. If a dem candidate wins the general they’re not going after trump. It’ll play very poorly for them in the public, it will take a long time, and their presidency will be defined by trump even though he’s out of office. And they know all that. 

 

Instead they’ll make it about undoing what he did and building something to run for re-election on. 

 

If the dems don’t go after him now he gets away with all of it. 

Trump is going jail.  SDNY will go after Trump for the stuff he did before the presidency and that's what they will get him on.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Trump is going jail.  SDNY will go after Trump for the stuff he did before the presidency and that's what they will get him on.

 

When all any of the various proclamations about what will happen to trump comes true, I’ll consider accepting this. 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

When all any of the various proclamations about what will happen to trump comes true, I’ll consider accepting this. 

 

 

If Trump hadn't gotten elected, he'd probably be in prison right now.

 

KArma is coming for Donald Trump.  Maybe not fast enough for the rest of us, but he will get his due.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

It’s not like a Dem President has to to send his DOJ after Trump. 

 

Trump has made a lot of enemies that are waiting for him to be a free man to stand for  multitude of crimes 

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If Trump hadn't gotten elected, he'd probably be in prison right now.

Nah. Trump would have less legal liability if he lost. It would seem like a political hit. Winning and being horrible for everyday consumption has got people pissed. Now when he's out he's going to have a bunch of diff groups gunning for him. It's like Manafort and Flynn. Winning the election was the worst thing to happen to them.

[Larry]

38 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

The Dems should do it now, because Trump has committed crimes that warrant his impeachment.  The Senate isn't going to do a damn thing.  I don't know if the Senate can refuse to even hold a trial.  If they can, Mcconnell will do that.   Mcconnell do whatever to make the Senate part in the process, quick and simple.  The may just have a vote and then Trump will say he is exonerated.    This is why Trump would love for impeachment to happen.   It will be another thing to fire his base.   I am have been cleared and his supporters will eat it up.

 

"Look!  The only people who voted against me were all Democrats!  That proves that I'm completely innocent and the whole thing was just angry Democrats who can't accept that I won."  

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Well God damn.  Rare is an instance where you say something I agree with.  But you just stumbled on one such instance.

go you

[Jumbo]

this is one long one that i apologize for

 

i kept getting interrupted on it since yesterday; it's splice city and it's a little rambly 

 

so maybe just read the last couple paragraphs  since my edit function has become buggy, too, and i'm just going to finally post it, get rid of it,  and shrug off the embarrassment:

 

 

 

there should maybe be more explanation given by dem leaders in discussion everywhere on basic process details  for starting an impeachment inquiry in the house including length of time involved and specific steps as required,  and then the same for the impeachment trial held in the senate if the articles are moved forward...it might help their voters evaluate arguments or inspire them to research if they hear their leaders speaking on it in detail

 

but to treat it as most are

 

there is a lot of passion,  much frustration, and some anger amongst many dems on this matter...and real disappointment fresh off yesterday (quite unnecessary/avoidable/misplaced imo) ....with all those kinds of feels flying, dem on dem castigation and infighting vs  discussion/debate increase

 

i've seen enough dem self-destruct moves in my life to be used to them, but one key segment hating/warring on another key segment remains a concern to party strategists in 2020 like it qws in 2016 (true for gopers too, of course, if more perhaps  prior to 85% becoming trumpets)

 

i do find substantive agreement with "both sides" of the dem split on this and understand in many cases emotion drives reasons on either side (fear of taking risks/ can't afford to lose vs  anger-frustration /must take action) and both are valid.

 

and both sides have more pragmatic takes per what are best tactics to serve the actual strategy...the young turk/progressives and whatever other dem segments on the impeach side are saying their energy drives out and up the base and that's job #1 and can back it up with good arguments....the folks who say it will be a long drawn out series of reruns in the form of hearings and already-worn sound bytes, knowingly ending in a brick wall that will sap energy for months and provide Grade A fuel to drive up and out an even bigger 2020 base for don, and claim that impeachment is too unpopular overall and it's too close to the election and back it all up with solid support, too

 

my own call remains conflicted and could flip at many a possible development, but for now it's "no impeachment"

 

maybe someone will think it must because i'm weak or lack courage or don't know enough about impeachment. i always have room to learn---except about people---i know too much about people already. i haven't read on impeachment as presented in the constitution recently, but i have read it and the constitution often enough over the years, and of course read on the topic re: other sources, and fwiw, i also lived through it twice  as a politically aware adult cuz i am old...ish

 

what was the intent of impeachment for the founders? my take is it wasn't to make a statement of principle as its goal, though we're certainly free to use it that way. i don't think it was intended to be used to make a point of principle or create a public or historical record. nor was it intended to be a galvanizing act to drive out a base electorate. again, you can use it for any of those reasons. i'm not going to insult either side or anybody on this one at this time.  i'm open as i say, but to me it was to have a device where the people's house, specifically, would have the sole authority to remove a president from office when no other means were available.

 

the idea being that for such to come to pass, there would be some nefarious/criminal activity and/or actual threat to the nation of such magnitude that it couldn't wait for an election, nor could a typical arrest be made, and that the evidence of it would need to be so overwhelming as to be undeniable by virtually anyone to be be able get the needed opposition votes. so when done for this purpose and successfully meeting its burden, the nation overall would be able to accept it as justice and, however upsetting to however many, still move forward in  peace even after such a thing as removing the head of the government.

 

very sadly, i think that today is unlike then, of course we all do i hope. and its even unlike the nixon and clinton times in many ways. 

 

this time we KNOW in advance that this gop party would ignore almost any evidence at this point and it would be killed in the senate. so should the party use the tool knowing that in a long drawn out public spectacle, with full knowledge and by choice, marching directly to fail by either incompletion before the election or defeat in the senate? (a slanted framing, but a popular one)

 

and if the dems choose playing it as a move for  "principle/making a record/holding gopers accountable in a vote" knowing that they can't get him out, and that's what the process is supposed to be used for, i can indeed see a lot of useful political fodder that gives to the other side. of course we can debate whether that matters much or at all to forever trumpers, freshly unearthed trumpers, swing voters, and other randos.

 

pelosi is anything but weak as a leader or a person (c'mon) and has regularly cited how a sizeable majority of voters are against it, the limited time prior to election to make a case and swing the amount of public opinion necessary, knows it will die in the senate (not the case in past times) and knows what the actual intention of the process is---to remove the president---and that will fail to occur, no question.... and she and many others figure that's how it all will be branded by the opposition....another fail, this time full on lemming style (would be a great spin for them) and that source of inspiration likely adds bigly to the other side's already swelling confidence as it adds to the dems caricatured as the never ending chain of impotent fail and fury and helps them lose (their vision)

 

 

fear is a part of it for her as it is for most of us on either side of impeachment, though she's as brave as anyone of course...all non-trumpers feel that fear...the fear of getting it wrong...of not doing something we absolutely need to do...that we'll do the thing we knew e shouldn't do...sort of like the redskins

 

the #1 things i hope dems keep in mind no matter what,  at the end of the day they need to not be despising key segments of their coalition (even those disgusting evil worthless baby boomer dems) and displaying that side too frequently and too self-indulgently....save the venom for the truly deserving opposition to the best of your ability and within the situation

 

 

[Going Commando]

10 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

That’s what I don’t get. Advocating for doing nothing or not even trying isn’t helpful in the slightest. 

 

"Let's not enforce the law on people who we know are criminals."

[Going Commando]

Serious question Jumbo, in her long political career, what can Nancy Pelosi point to as a significant personal accomplishment?  What victories over Republicans has she achieved?

 

Pelosi is a Democrat who thinks winning and losing ends at the ballot box.

 

She is a Democrat who thinks leadership means doing only the things that have overwhelming consensus in the voting public.  You know people Jumbo, so you know that the vast, vast majority of them are readily led.  We're social creatures that follow forceful leadership.  (That is true of all of the high information voters here in the tailgate too BTW.  I am begging for leadership myself, and instead I get a void.)  Our social instinct is the reason Trump has been able to horrifically reshape all of our norms of government in three nightmarish years.

 

It's not about boomers vs millennials in the party.  I would be happy if Bernie and Warren were leading the party.  Mainstream Democrat congressional leadership has demonstrated its ineffectiveness over and over again.  They can't lead the base, much less the public, they can't beat Republicans, and they won't even enforce the law against Trump.  They don't even realize they are fighting an honest to God war of ideology against a faithless, radicalized and mobilized enemy that is burning the country down to pursue a core agenda of white supremacy, Christian fundamentalism, oligarchy, and corporatism.

 

It's past time to find new leadership.  It should have been done in 2016.

[LD0506]

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Pelosi is a Democrat who thinks winning and losing ends at the ballot box.

 

She is a Democrat who thinks leadership means doing only the things that have overwhelming consensus in the voting public.

 

Pelosi is a QB that can only throw to the open receiver, there's no anticipation of the play...........

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, LD0506 said:

 

Pelosi is a QB that can only throw to the open receiver, there's no anticipation of the play...........

 

Well put.  I like that analogy.

 

I'm a Civil War nerd, admittedly, but I also like the analogy I made that Pelosi is a George McClellan.  It's a depressing parallel.  It's not going to get better either, even if she begins the impeachment process formally.  It's a defect of her leadership and philosophy.  She's been in Washington too long and has lost touch with the political realities of her party and country.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Simmsy]

The senate will only protect Trump for as long it it protects them. If their constituents want Trump gone, they will turn on him to save their asses in a heart beat.

[twa]

Only 45% of Dem reps????