The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: Nareed

Don't call this an epiphany, more like an observation.

The character of the man counts a lot when it comes to impeachment, but also the reaction to the investigation.

Consider that Reagan actually did trade arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages in Lebanon (or at least the Iranians convinced him they could get them released), and then diverted at least part of the money involved to the "Contras" in Nicaragua. I think in all that, there are several impeachable offenses.

Now, while the scandal broke late in his second term, there was no big push to impeach and remove him. Partly, IMO, that is because the man had a good character (or at least he displayed it publicly), and he didn't rush to circle the wagons and impede any investigations (and also he planned ahead and got himself protected with loyal underlings as scapegoats).

Contrast that to Clinton and Trump. Both have flawed characters that rub people the wrong way. Both of them also got in the way of the investigations. We know what happened with Clinton. Hopefully things won't turn out so well with Trump.

A similar way to look at it, is you have to have some capital to squander. Not like Trump has any. Kind of like how Bill Cosby had a lot of goodwill to squander which made it harder for people to finally throw him under the bus.

Quote: rxwine

A similar way to look at it, is you have to have some capital to squander. Not like Trump has any. Kind of like how Bill Cosby had a lot of goodwill to squander which made it harder for people to finally throw him under the bus.

There's that.

When a politician can't be implicated in a crime, they either are innocent or took the necessary measures to protect themselves.

Another difference is that Reagan was actually implementing such policies as he thought would help the country. On the one hand winning the release of hostages, and on the other supporting armed rebellion against the Communist government in Nicaragua.

Neither Clinton nor trump, nor Nixon for that matter, have any such lofty motives.

Quote: Nareed

When a politician can't be implicated in a crime, they either are innocent or took the necessary measures to protect themselves.

I guess some of you feel that the President has been "implicated in a crime"...that makes you hopeless and not worth even talking to; you've taken leaks as the gospel truth.

The President COULD SOMEDAY be implicated in a crime. Right now, that has not happened.

I guess you are trying the old "if we say it enough, people will believe it to be true" approach.

Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of unnamed sources...

Quote: Nareed

Neither Clinton nor trump, nor Nixon for that matter, have any such lofty motives.

Clinton had a 'p" problem; he should not have even been impeached.

Nixon wasn't impeached.

Reasonable people understand that President Trump is not under a real threat of impeachment for any high crime or misdemeanor at this point.

COULD SOMEDAY happen...but, sorry folks, not yet...

Remember when Benghazi happened and Republicans said Hillary was innocent before the first of 7 Congressional hearings was even completed.

Me neither.

Right now Republicans seem to think you need iron-clad, incontrovertible proof of guilt before you can even start an investigation. also that crimes comitted by the person after the investigation started, should be ignored or overlooked.

Quote: Nareed

Right now Republicans seem to think you need iron-clad, incontrovertible proof of guilt before you can even start an investigation. also that crimes comitted by the person after the investigation started, should be ignored or overlooked.

They're also going to attempt to redefine "collusion."

Before this is all over, they'll say that Donald can only be impeached if he personally asked Putin to hack the election. Anything short of that is "nothing to see here."

Quote: ams288

They're also going to attempt to redefine "collusion."

Before this is all over, they'll say that Donald can only be impeached if he personally asked Putin to hack the election. Anything short of that is "nothing to see here."

And not if Donnie said "please," right?

But it all boils down to popularity, disapproval and election returns.

If the Democrats win back the House and Senate, they will of course impeach Golden Boy first thing, and have a decent chance at convicting him. I know this seems unlikely now, but we're over 16 months away from the midterms, and a lot can happen between now and then.

Gulf War I was over in February 1991. The consensus then was that Bush the elder was invincible, and ti would be a fool's errand to run against him. I recall and Op. ed at the time jokingly calling for the Democratic party to nominate George Herbert Walker Bush for president, and stick him with a Democratic VP. If you recall, Bush the elder lost the election.

Although the 92 campaign was possibly the most complex in recent times (three candidates, then two, then three again), Bush largely lost on the strength of a rather minor recession and Saddam's continued survival in Iraq.

No one wants a recession. No one wants the US involved in a military disaster (well, no one other than the Russians, Iranians, and North Koreans). But Trump may well blunder into both, then make things worse. For example, the travel ban and laptop ban has already begun to depress the travel and tourism industries; aided by a general very intense dislike for Trump overseas.

We'll have to wait and see.

Republicans complaining about the Russia/Trump investigation should be a tad less hypocritical, as all their complaints applied to the Whitewater investigation on Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Let's review:

1) The investigation is unnecessary because there was no crime comitted. Perhaps. It's doubtful Trump or his campaign staff, advisers, and hangers on colluded with Russia. And despite years of investigation, no wrongdoing regarding Whitewater was found on the part of the Clintons.

2) Now he's being investigated on something else entirely. Not even true. Clinton was impeached on charges stemming from perjury concerning a relationship with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, on the course of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit; which has absolutely nothing to do with the Whitewater real estate controversy. Trump, on the other hand, is being investigated on obstruction of justice of the Russia investigation. That is, for actions by Golden boy to impede said investigation.

3) The president cannot obstruct justice. That's rich. Unlike the papacy, the presidency does not grant divine powers on the person holding the office. If Trump went out and shot someone, that may not lose him any voters, but it would make him guilty of murder, regardless of the results of the last election. BTW, Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice. So if impeachment proceedings can occur on that charge, it's clear the president can obstruct justice.

I know impeachment is a political, not a judicial, process. I know the golden rule of politics is "it's wrong only when the other party does it." But, seriously, you won't get away by claiming what applied to Clinton cannot apply to Trump. A defense without the patina of fairness won't be swallowed by anyone.

It's well known that Woodrow Wilson suffered a couple of strokes. Historical rumor is his wife and the WH staff handled most of the duties of the presidency until the end of Wilson's second term. These were extraordinary circumstances, though the VP should have taken over. No one elected the WH staff or Mrs. Wilson to handle executive power.

Today we see something similar.

While Golden Boy is nominally in possession of his faculties, it seems policy decisions and implementation are carried out by cabinet secretaries. Trump says one thing, the various departments like State and Defense do something else.

Take the Qatar kerfuffle, for example. Trump is backing the Saudis, State is calling for a fair compromise, and Defense authorized sales of F-15 fighters and other weapons to Qatar, for several billion dollars.

This would make Golden Boy a figurehead; or in US political terms, a PINO (President In Name Only).

Sad!

Uh Oh. Like Trey Gowdy said last week, if you keep
pushing an investigation that has no evidence,
don't be surprised when it's you that ends up
being investigated. The Dems should have quit
this whole thing months ago, too late now.

NAPOLITANO: FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH COULD FACE 5-10 YEARS IN PRISON

"Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch could be jailed for up to ten years if found guilty of misconduct, Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed Monday.
If emails exist between Lynch and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz improperly discussing the Clinton email investigation, the former attorney general could be charged with “misconduct in office,” a felony carrying five to ten years in jail, the Fox Business contributor stated."