Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[creekster]

So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.

Pretty much. The remedy is at the ballot box, just as the remedy for ma ny of the things people don't like about Trump should be at the Ballot box.

It was shocking to me to hear Nadler say, yesterday at the mark up hearing, that he felt compelled to rush through impeachment because if we didn't Trump would imperil the integrity of the 2020 election. In other words, he is penalizing Trump for something that has not even happened and for something that was not supported by evidence in any of the hearings (apart from some over wrought speculation by some very partisan 'expert' witnesses) and, second, it is staking out the democrats position that the next election is illegitimate if Trump wins. This sort of insidious undermining of confidence in our processes is much more dangerous to our republic than the patent buffoonery of Trump the nincompoop. Nadler and Schiff are both awful.

[beefytee]

So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.

Yep.

It is a really simple process...with a lot of ramifications:

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._United_States

[PaloAltoCougar]

.... it is staking out the democrats position that the next election is illegitimate if Trump wins. This sort of insidious undermining of confidence in our processes is much more dangerous to our republic than the patent buffoonery of Trump the nincompoop. Nadler and Schiff are both awful.

Agreed, except I'd call it a draw with respect to danger. Trump has devoted years to convincing his followers that the system is rigged and that the voting process is illegitimate, so there's more than mere buffoonery at work when the guy with the weird hair hat goes to work.

[BigFatMeanie]

Yep.

It is a really simple process...with a lot of ramifications:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._United_States

So if the VP is impeached does he preside at his own Senate trial?

[Commando]

So congress can impeach a president because their feelings are hurt... good to know.

Ted Translator: These impeachment proceedings hurt my feelings.

[BlueK]

Pretty much. The remedy is at the ballot box, just as the remedy for ma ny of the things people don't like about Trump should be at the Ballot box.

It was shocking to me to hear Nadler say, yesterday at the mark up hearing, that he felt compelled to rush through impeachment because if we didn't Trump would imperil the integrity of the 2020 election. In other words, he is penalizing Trump for something that has not even happened and for something that was not supported by evidence in any of the hearings (apart from some over wrought speculation by some very partisan 'expert' witnesses) and, second, it is staking out the democrats position that the next election is illegitimate if Trump wins. This sort of insidious undermining of confidence in our processes is much more dangerous to our republic than the patent buffoonery of Trump the nincompoop. Nadler and Schiff are both awful.

So you're saying that the witnesses that testified in the hearings about the aid to Ukraine having been withheld to exert pressure on them to make an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens before it would be released are not to be believed, OR does it just not amount to evidence of Trump trying to get Ukraine to do something to influence the 2020 election? Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

[creekster]

So you're saying that the witnesses that testified in the hearings about the aid to Ukraine having been withheld to exert pressure on them to make an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens before it would be released are not to be believed, OR does it just not amount to evidence of Trump trying to get Ukraine to do something to influence the 2020 election? Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

I am not sure that I said anything about testimony at the hearing (although I am also not sure the testimony was quite as clear cut as you are suggesting). But if you are suggesting that what Trump did would lead to undue influence on the 2020 election, I think you are over claiming it and misconstruing it. There are a lot of steps that go from what Trump apparently did to unduly influencing the election. Here are a few: First, Trump would need to make a specific demand and force the issue (which he did not do), then the Ukraine would need to announce or investigate something AND come up with something that might be newsworthy or impactful, then this information would need to be disseminated uncritically and then it would need to make a difference. All of that is possible, but none of it has nor will happen. So act to remove him for what he DID but not for what MIGHT have happened if a series of other events had occurred, some of which probably would never have occurred even if Trump HAD been successful i asserting the pressure that he did.

Two points: I am not excusing what Trump did in that phone call. It was inexcusable and borderline impeachable.

Second, if you apply the standard of the IG report, however, then you have to accept Trump's explanation (which is plausible even if not likely) that he was asking for an investigation into corruption for the prior election in 2016 or corruption in general. That tracks with what he said. Moreover, if there are two equally likely explanations (2020 vs 2016) then the IG std. says the legal explanation is accepted.

But, as I said in the quoted post, the implication of Nadler's comments is that Trump can win but only if he illegally messes with the election so we cannot risk that and must impeach now rather than rely on the will of the electorate. This is so elitist and anti-democratic that it makes me angry. It will result in a large portion of the electorate having no confidence in the system or the result even if it is the fairest campaign in history. What the democrats are doing is just as bad (and maybe worse because they put on the cloak of 'statesmen') as what Trump has done or might do.

[beefytee]

So if the VP is impeached does he preside at his own Senate trial?

He would have to, right?

[BlueK]

I am not sure that I said anything about testimony at the hearing (although I am also not sure the testimony was quite as clear cut as you are suggesting). But if you are suggesting that what Trump did would lead to undue influence on the 2020 election, I think you are over claiming it and misconstruing it. There are a lot of steps that go from what Trump apparently did to unduly influencing the election. Here are a few: First, Trump would need to make a specific demand and force the issue (which he did not do), then the Ukraine would need to announce or investigate something AND come up with something that might be newsworthy or impactful, then this information would need to be disseminated uncritically and then it would need to make a difference. All of that is possible, but none of it has nor will happen. So act to remove him for what he DID but not for what MIGHT have happened if a series of other events had occurred, some of which probably would never have occurred even if Trump HAD been successful i asserting the pressure that he did.

Two points: I am not excusing what Trump did in that phone call. It was inexcusable and borderline impeachable.

Second, if you apply the standard of the IG report, however, then you have to accept Trump's explanation (which is plausible even if not likely) that he was asking for an investigation into corruption for the prior election in 2016 or corruption in general. That tracks with what he said. Moreover, if there are two equally likely explanations (2020 vs 2016) then the IG std. says the legal explanation is accepted.

But, as I said in the quoted post, the implication of Nadler's comments is that Trump can win but only if he illegally messes with the election so we cannot risk that and must impeach now rather than rely on the will of the electorate. This is so elitist and anti-democratic that it makes me angry. It will result in a large portion of the electorate having no confidence in the system or the result even if it is the fairest campaign in history. What the democrats are doing is just as bad (and maybe worse because they put on the cloak of 'statesmen') as what Trump has done or might do.

to me it isn't relevant if it would have actually made a major difference in the election. I think it's wrong for a president in his official capacity to ask another country for a personal political favor, much less now that we know he asked for the funds to be blocked before he made the call. Yes, they were eventually released, but only after it hit the news. I would say it crosses the borderline of impeachable, but reasonable people I guess can disagree if it goes that far or not.

And I personally don't care about what Nadler says about whether it's the only way he can win or not. It doesn't really seem relevant.

I also find it impossible to believe the Republicans wouldn't be equally up in arms if a democrat president did the same thing, and I would agree with them.

[creekster]

to me it isn't relevant if it would have actually made a major difference in the election. I think it's wrong for a president in his official capacity to ask another country for a personal political favor, much less now that we know he asked for the funds to be blocked before he made the call. Yes, they were eventually released, but only after it hit the news. I would say it crosses the borderline of impeachable, but reasonable people I guess can disagree if it goes that far or not.

And I personally don't care about what Nadler says about whether it's the only way he can win or not. It doesn't really seem relevant.

I also find it impossible to believe the Republicans wouldn't be equally up in arms if a democrat president did the same thing, and I would agree with them.

You are making my point. Trump's impeachment question should be answered based on conduct that has occurred (which is what you are basing your opinion on). IT should not be based on what Nadler or anyone else thinks MIGHT happen down the road. Moreover, and this is the part you aren't addressing and which is my greater criticism of Nadler's comments, his criticism of Trump's potential future conduct means he is justifying impeachment because we cant trust voters to choose correctly due to the undue influence that he believes might happen and if Trump wins it can only mean that he cheated making the election illegitimate. Nadler (and others such as Pelosi have said similar things) is pursuing this impeachment because of what MIGHT happen. That's why he claims it must be done now and done quickly. This attitude is as problematic to our system and the confidence in our process than Trump's conduct.

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

Yes! The deplorable rednecks and Ruskies will elect Drumpf again! :foilhat: :crazy:

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

LOL... isn't this the same dude that thought Guam would tip over and capsize?

[All-American]

I agree that it’s doubtful that Bloomberg would lick Gabbard. Biden in the other hand seems to be the licking type.

Ew.

[BlueK]

Interesting take on Professor Turley.

https://www.cato.org/blog/jonathan-turley-then-now

[Pelado]

Interesting take on Professor Turley.

https://www.cato.org/blog/jonathan-turley-then-now

Thanks.