Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[falafel]

It's one thing for the president to try to set the tone by telling the AG he really thinks it's important to go after organized crime, or fraud or drugs, or something like that.

It's a completely different thing when it reaches to telling them to go after a specific political opponent. That's ridiculous and scary when it comes to considering what that implies for individual liberty. To me, it's crazy we're even considering that it would be ok for a president to use his power for that.

To be clear, I am trying to separate the question of going after a political opponent and the question of the president directing his AG to investigate a specific individual. I'm not interested in the political aspect at this point and I've tried to make that clear.

[BlueK]

To be clear, I am trying to separate the question of going after a political opponent and the question of the president directing his AG to investigate a specific individual. I'm not interested in the political aspect at this point and I've tried to make that clear.

It would have to be an extreme case, and something that would rise way above any specific personal political benefit, like El Chapo, or someone like that - definitely not a presidential candidate from the other party or his/her family. That said, AG's should be smart enough to figure out whom to investigate without being micromanaged about it. And their role should be limited strictly to investigate matters related to the law and not politics.

And going back to this specific case, if the US justice dept had anything credible on him they wouldn't need Ukraine's help anyway. This smells more like harassment of a political rival than something actually legal.

[falafel]

It would have to be an extreme case, and something that would rise way above any specific personal political benefit, like El Chapo, or someone like that - definitely not a presidential candidate from the other party or his/her family. That said, AG's should be smart enough to figure out whom to investigate without being micromanaged about it.

And going back to this specific case, if the US justice dept had anything credible on him they wouldn't need Ukraine's help anyway. This smells more like harassment of a political rival than something actually legal.

Why would anyone refuse the help of the people who were directly involved in the issue?

[Northwestcoug]

That sucks for you.

I'll tell Commando he shouldn't be so naive either.

[BlueK]

Why would anyone refuse the help of the people who were directly involved in the issue?

That's not what happened. No one refused help. We're talking about the president trying to twist their arm into re-opening an investigation into a company that Biden's son had some involvement with, for what appears to be politically motivated reasons. Why else would Trump even care if it didn't involve the son of someone who is running against him for president? He doesn't care about Ukrainian laws.

[falafel]

That's not what happened. No one refused help. We're talking about the president trying to twist their arm into re-opening an investigation into a company that Biden's son had some involvement with, for what appears to be politically motivated reasons. Why else would Trump even care if it didn't involve the son of someone who is running against him for president? He doesn't care about Ukrainian laws.

Actually, that's not what I'm talking about. But I can understand that you can't separate the issues to discuss them individually, and that's fine.

[BlueK]

After today I don't see how the House doesn't move forward with impeachment. The facts about the call are not really in dispute. We can argue about whether what Trump said in that conversation matters or not. But for those in Congress who see it as a big enough abuse of presidential power, then Constitutionally they need to go through with it. Otherwise they're not following their oath of office. Those who don't agree it's bad enough are free to vote the other way. To a significant extent, the public already voted us to be in this position during the last election. In swing districts it was a vote to put a check on Trump.

[Commando]

I've noticed that Trump defenders/supporters hate Snopes FOR SOME REASON

[imanihonjin]

I've noticed that Trump defenders/supporters hate Snopes FOR SOME REASON

Hey man, that's cool....you trust a source that fact checks satire pieces.

[Commando]

Hey man, that's cool....you trust a source that fact checks satire pieces.

Yeah. If you actually read the article, rather than pooh pooh it, you see that the whole chronology of what you're talking about, annotated with relevant sources, is included. I wouldn't click on it if I was in your position, either.

[Pelado]

For the record, I'm fine with impeaching Trump but I'd rather he just lose in the election.

[PaloAltoCougar]

For the record, I'm fine with impeaching Trump but I'd rather he just lose in the election.

That remains my preference as well--a decisive loss that not even Trump can blame on busloads of phantom voters from other states. But going the impeachment route (which in the absence of additional facts won't end Trump's presidency) is a waste of time and money. Congress should be addressing several important issues, including immigration reform and health care, but it's easier to engage in political grandstanding and to avoid the hard stuff, so here we are.

[creekster]

Yeah. If you actually read the article, rather than pooh pooh it, you see that the whole chronology of what you're talking about, annotated with relevant sources, is included. I wouldn't click on it if I was in your position, either.

Are you talking about the Snopes article that you linked above? That article is fairly pointless. It concludes that Trump was wrong when he claimed that Obama wiretapped his phones to spy on him. Trump was inaccurate, it points out, because, among other reasons, Obama as president likely would not have known of a tap, Obama officials denied it, and Presidents can't cause wiretaps to be put on any phone on their own. Standing alone those reasons don't really seem dispositive to me. Moreover, The article does not address the allegations of FISA abuse and the tapping of guys like Carter Page, which are both the subject of the impending IG report and the prior post (I think).

I think Snopes does a lot of good work, but I just do not understand how they could actually publish an article analyzing whether a Babylon Bee article was accurate. The same Babylon Bee which calls ITSELF "Your trusted Source for Christian News Satire." Then, having been ridiculed for debunking self-proclaimed satire, Snopes defends itself by claiming they did so because too many people can't tell the difference between satire and real news. Now they could have simply told their devoted but apparently imbecilic readers that the Babylon Bee ONLY PUBLISHES SATIRE. instead they dealt with it earnestly, as though it were real news, thereby, it seems to me, likely only furthering the confusion they later claim exists among the dumbest readers. So, as much as I have looked to Snopes for info on whether or not the latest chain letter thread on Facebook is true or not, I don't think I will trust their judgment on much else.

[creekster]

That remains my preference as well--a decisive loss that not even Trump can blame on busloads of phantom voters from other states. But going the impeachment route (which in the absence of additional facts won't end Trump's presidency) is a waste of time and money. Congress should be addressing several important issues, including immigration reform and health care, but it's easier to engage in political grandstanding and to avoid the hard stuff, so here we are.

Agreed. The fact is Trump has screwed things up just by being there. Dems largely can't see past him and repubs largely fall in line with him. A pox on them all.

[clackamascoug]

Here me out - I think Trump has actually brought the office of POTUS up to a modern standard.

Sure he's Bozo without the big shoes - but he's actually expanded the traditional role of a President. He's pushed the limits of tolerance so far - that future holders will have an easier time navigating the outer boundaries of the office, and will be able to govern at a higher bandwidth. I'm sure thirty years from now they'll say - "sure President Huntsman's an idiot - but he's no Trump. In many ways it will make it easier to be the President. Trump is actually doing a service to the office - in a completely doofus way - and unintentional - but I think historians will look back and see the office changed after the Trump era.