The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 84,748 views

Will the current Articles of Impeachment ever be sent from the House to the Senate?

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Dotini
If I recall correctly, they mentioned things like attacking, invading and devastating foreign countries with great loss of life and ensuing refugee crises all on the basis of choice and not necessity.
Click to expand...

Is that partisan politics speaking though? Do you have a source? What concrete examples?

edit: I yopu have stopped denying the abuse of power, but are now downplaying it. The US consitution states:

“And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

Foreign influence has always been seen as one of the greatest threats to the republic.
 
Last edited:
PocketZeven
Is that partisan politics speaking though? Do you have a source? What concrete examples?
Click to expand...
No, this is not partisan politics, its bipartisan national policy. In the USA, attacking and devastating foreign countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya etc.) has almost full bipartisan support. Fomenting regimes changes and causing refugees is routine and a source of great fun and satisfaction for many Americans, left, right and center. Spreading freedom, democracy and the American way is our thing.
 
PocketZeven
This is a tricky slope in my opinion. What makes lying on social media and international tv less problematic ethically then lying under oath for a leader of a country?
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

"Politicians lie" is not a fresh or hot take. It's not great when they lie to the media, but it's not a crime nor should it be. It's a problem that self-corrects, as shown in basic children's stories like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Lying to a grand jury that is investigating whether or not someone has committed a crime absolutely needs to be penalised. When you're talking about the organs of government that provide checks and balances, anything that attempts to confound those processes is a major problem. When it's the President themselves doing it, an individual who by design wields a fairly staggering amount of power, that needs to be treated very, very seriously regardless of the perceived impact of the lie.

Trump will never go on trial or tell anything under oath, does that make him more ethical?
Click to expand...

More ethical than what? Clinton? Who cares? As I've said to others, comparison with the crimes of others does not minimise any crimes that Trump may have committed. By the same logic, nor does comparing his potential crimes to others make them worse. Ethics doesn't come into it.

Trump may never be questioned directly under oath, but that's not to say that during a robust trial he shouldn't. And if he were to be questioned in such a manner and were to be caught demonstrably lying, then I would expect him to be penalised for it as is right and just.

Dotini
If I recall correctly, they mentioned things like attacking, invading and devastating foreign countries with great loss of life and ensuing refugee crises all on the basis of choice and not necessity.
Click to expand...

Those things are definitely worse in the humanitarian sense, but they were also at least nominally in the service of the protection of America. They were based on foreign policy that I don't agree with, but there is a definite group of politicians that believe that the best defense is a good offense. Moreover, these were not policies conducted covertly by a few, these were policies that were widely discussed and approved before implementation. The President and government in general has a pretty free hand in terms of what they can do if they can justify it as being for the good of America.

I think there's a pretty big difference between a foreign policy that was considered and widely approved but in hindsight was a poor choice and based on faulty information, and a "foreign policy" that was implemented as quietly as possible with little to no oversight and over the objections of a number of career officials who seemed to understand what was going on.
 
Dotini
No, this is not partisan politics, its bipartisan national policy. In the USA, attacking and devastating foreign countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya etc.) has almost full bipartisan support. Fomenting regimes changes and causing refugees is routine and a source of great fun and satisfaction for many Americans, left, right and center. Spreading freedom, democracy and the American way is our thing.
Click to expand...

I am confused. Are you suggesting that Trump asking a favour is bipartisan policy? You just said that other presidents have done worse then asking a foreign power for a favor, but then state that they had bipartisan support. To summarize:

Impeachable: Bipartisan support for regime changes and indirectly causing refugee crisis.

Not impeachable: Asking a foreign power to investigate a domestic political opponent. Then try to cover it up, lie about it and refuse to hand over any documents or let anyone testify that were involved?

edit:

Imari
Are you serious?

"Politicians lie" is not a fresh or hot take. It's not great when they lie to the media, but it's not a crime nor should it be. It's a problem that self-corrects, as shown in basic children's stories like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Click to expand...


I guess you have a different understanding of the underlying ethical lesson in the boy cried wolf then? I dont see in particular Trump going to see any repurcussions on his lies.

I fully understand what you are saying, but it is just weird that political "white lies" are now mentioned in the same breath as straightout lies that have consequences.

Imari
More ethical than what? Clinton? Who cares? As I've said to others, comparison with the crimes of others does not minimise any crimes that Trump may have committed. By the same logic, nor does comparing his potential crimes to others make them worse. Ethics doesn't come into it.
Click to expand...

Is lying everyday abo more ethical then one big lie under oath.
 
Last edited:
polysmut
I don't know which is more ethical but I think the constitution effectively says if you lie under oath then you're not supposed to be president anymore.
Click to expand...

Thats an answer to a different question though. Does the constitution say anything about conduct during office?
 
PocketZeven
Thats an answer to a different question though. Does the constitution say anything about conduct during office?
Click to expand...

Constitution
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
 
John Bolton is set to testify at the senate trial. I wonder if, given that Trump dismissed him from office, whether he gives a toss and will bury him?

I don't know if Bolton is like Rex Tillerson and privately held the view that Trump is a :censored:ing moron.
 
Liquid
John Bolton is set to testify at the senate trial. I wonder if, given that Trump dismissed him from office, whether he gives a toss and will bury him?

I don't know if Bolton is like Rex Tillerson and privately held the view that Trump is a :censored:ing moron.
Click to expand...
First, last and always Bolton is a neocon. War with Iran was his idea, and to that extent I'm sure he's appreciative that Trump took his advice on the issue. But it appears they've had a personal falling out with Bolton getting fired. He is not exactly "set" to testify at the Senate trial, as the trial has not begun, the rules have not been agreed, and the subpoena Bolton requires has not been issued.
 
Dotini
First, last and always Bolton is a neocon. War with Iran was his idea, and to that extent I'm sure he's appreciative that Trump took his advice on the issue.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't really have anything to do with what he can or cannot, or will not, say about the Ukraine quid pro quo and general obstruction of justice.
 
Liquid
Which doesn't really have anything to do with what he can or cannot, or will not, say about the Ukraine quid pro quo and general obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
It does not appear he's willing to go on TV and blurt out what he knows. He likes being paid. Trump may try to exert executive privilege to prevent revelation of his communication with Bolton. It may wind up in the courts, or we could know 10 minutes from now on TV.
 
Liquid
Which doesn't really have anything to do with what he can or cannot, or will not, say about the Ukraine quid pro quo and general obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

It might. Could Bolton be so pleased with Trump's "progress" with Iran that he'll offer an exonerating testimony to ensure that he remains in office (and without lingering doubt about his guilt) to continue the crusade? It's not that implausible. The timing is certainly interesting.

What could possibly better for the conservative narrative of the impeachment trial than a high profile witness that is expected to sing actually turn out to offer crushing testimony for the dems? And what possible reason could Bolton have for offering damaging testimony on Trump, now that Trump is doing exactly what he wanted all along?
 
Eunos_Cosmo
It might. Could Bolton be so pleased with Trump's "progress" with Iran that he'll offer an exonerating testimony to ensure that he remains in office (and without lingering doubt about his guilt) to continue the crusade? It's not that implausible. The timing is certainly interesting.

What could possibly better for the conservative narrative of the impeachment trial than a high profile witness that is expected to sing actually turn out to offer crushing testimony for the dems? And what possible reason could Bolton have for offering damaging testimony on Trump, now that Trump is doing exactly what he wanted all along?
Click to expand...
Doesn't swearing in require that the individual set to testify stand when physically able? That could present an awkward moment given the raging hard-on he's surely sported since these events commenced.
 
The impeachment dam seems like it may be getting ready to break wide open.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Wednesday that the Senate will start its impeachment proceedings next week, signaling an end to the stalemate over the articles which have sat in the House since December.

"Hats off to Mitch McConnell for playing this very well. We'll take the trial up next week," Graham said during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity.

Graham argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) "impeachment dam has broken," pointing to growing calls from some Senate Democrats for her to transmit the two articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477470-graham-senate-will-take-up-impeachment-trial-next-week

 
TexRex
The GOP-led Senate is ready to acquit their guy and nothing is going to stop them, not even what's in the best interest of the American people. "**** 'em all."
Click to expand...

When was the last time the government did something for the people, instead of for themselves?
 
Rallywagon
Are you sure that was for the people though, or just a coincidence?
Click to expand...
Any supposed additional reasoning behind it notwithstanding, it's very much in the interest of the people.

As much as I'd like for Clinton to have been properly held accountable, which is to say by removal from office, I can understand the notion that the acts for which he was impeached didn't affect the public as a singular entity, rather they impacted individuals' ability to seek justice. Still, a not insignificant role of the president is to see that laws are enforced, and a president that violates those laws is demonstrably unfit to serve in that capacity.

Trump's actions, however, directly affected the ability of other branches of government to operate as intended, specifically by circumventing Congress' will with regards to the purse, of which Congress is to have control, and by impeding investigation into the executive branch; him. These actions directly affect the people as a singular entity and he should be held accountable--the House held him accountable to the extent that they have power. That the Senate will fail to do so doesn't change that.
 
TexRex
Any supposed additional reasoning behind it notwithstanding, it's very much in the interest of the people.

As much as I'd like for Clinton to have been properly held accountable, which is to say by removal from office, I can understand the notion that the acts for which he was impeached didn't affect the public as a singular entity, rather they impacted individuals' ability to seek justice. Still, a not insignificant role of the president is to see that laws are enforced, and a president that violates those laws is demonstrably unfit to serve in that capacity.

Trump's actions, however, directly affected the ability of other branches of government to operate as intended, specifically by circumventing Congress' will with regards to the purse, of which Congress is to have control, and by impeding investigation into the executive branch; him. These actions directly affect the people as a singular entity and he should be held accountable--the House held him accountable to the extent that they have power. That the Senate will fail to do so doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting that many people considered the impeachment in the House to be politically bad for the democrats. Pelosi herself said that Trump wants to be impeached. I personally think she was wrong, but it's not exactly a slam dunk that the only motivation here was partisan. Certainly some of it would have been. I think if it was entirely a partisan decision, it might not have happened.
 
Danoff
I think it's worth noting that many people considered the impeachment in the House to be politically bad for the democrats. Pelosi herself said that Trump wants to be impeached. I personally think she was wrong, but it's not exactly a slam dunk that the only motivation here was partisan. Certainly some of it would have been. I think if it was entirely a partisan decision, it might not have happened.
Click to expand...
I think the idea that it would damage the Democrats only really gives it more credibility dont you? As has already been pointed out, Republicans are acting way, way more partisan than the Democrats. And if they are only going to lose face, but moved forward with the impeachment anyway, I think it more likely they did so because it was their duty than to throw a partisan attack on Trump.
 
Danoff
I think it's worth noting that many people considered the impeachment in the House to be politically bad for the democrats. Pelosi herself said that Trump wants to be impeached. I personally think she was wrong, but it's not exactly a slam dunk that the only motivation here was partisan. Certainly some of it would have been. I think if it was entirely a partisan decision, it might not have happened.
Click to expand...
As nice as it would be to think impeachment was a selfless act, that it would be bad for the Democrats to follow through, I've never really thought that to be the case.

Frankly, the idea that it would be bad for those seeking impeachment has always struck me as a Fox/Republican/Trump narrative; that if you get enough people who want it to be true to repeat it, maybe those with the power (indeed the directive) to impeach will think twice. Maybe it worked...ish? Pelosi certainly appeared to be on the fence, but those who wanted to see Trump impeached weren't going to be swayed, and neither were those who didn't, so perhaps she was trying to appeal to those who themselves were on the fence.

The thing is...I don't really think anyone ever questioned whether Trump should be held accountable. People either want him to be held accountable or don't. The former is obvious, but the latter requires that those who seek to defend him look beyond the acts for which they don't want him to be held accountable and instead distract through attacks on those who want him held accountable and obfuscate through creative and intentionally misleading interpretation of the process. We've seen plenty of both right here, not to mention from those who ostensibly represent us in government.

A common tactic seems to be to claim that those seeking impeachment most recently have been wanting Trump gone since the beginning. Maybe that's true, but it certainly doesn't absolve him of the misdeeds that actually got him impeached. And it was so nice of him to commit those acts so brazenly and justify that supposed want.

As for Trump wanting to be impeached, I'm on the fence.

On the one hand, I genuinely don't believe he wants to be president. The lure of the bully pulpit is real, and we all know he loves the spotlight, plus there's the undeniable crony factor that ultimately benefits him and the opportunity to benefit himself, either directly or indirectly through associates, by implementing policies. And the ability to affect the market in 140 characters or less, a significant portion of them subject to caps lock, is just gravy. But the other stuff--all that responsibility--is such a burden. I don't think the other stuff is worth it to somebody like him.

When it comes to no longer being president, losing re-election is tantamount to death. It's pure failure. Completing a second and final term probably isn't so great a prospect either because it just shows he's subject to the same limitations as nearly everyone who preceded him. But impeachment? All that attention? The martyrdom without that pesky death bit? That's got to be appealing to someone who would so obviously want to go out in a blaze of glory, or, as glory seems unlikely at this point, a blaze of any kind.
 
TexRex
As nice as it would be to think impeachment was a selfless act, that it would be bad for the Democrats to follow through, I've never really thought that to be the case.

Frankly, the idea that it would be bad for those seeking impeachment has always struck me as a Fox/Republican/Trump narrative; that if you get enough people who want it to be true to repeat it, maybe those with the power (indeed the directive) to impeach will think twice. Maybe it worked...ish? Pelosi certainly appeared to be on the fence, but those who wanted to see Trump impeached weren't going to be swayed, and neither were those who didn't, so perhaps she was trying to appeal to those who themselves were on the fence.

The thing is...I don't really think anyone ever questioned whether Trump should be held accountable. People either want him to be held accountable or don't. The former is obvious, but the latter requires that those who seek to defend him look beyond the acts for which they don't want him to be held accountable and instead distract through attacks on those who want him held accountable and obfuscate through creative and intentionally misleading interpretation of the process. We've seen plenty of both right here, not to mention from those who ostensibly represent us in government.

A common tactic seems to be to claim that those seeking impeachment most recently have been wanting Trump gone since the beginning. Maybe that's true, but it certainly doesn't absolve him of the misdeeds that actually got him impeached. And it was so nice of him to commit those acts so brazenly and justify that supposed want.

As for Trump wanting to be impeached, I'm on the fence.

On the one hand, I genuinely don't believe he wants to be president. The lure of the bully pulpit is real, and we all know he loves the spotlight, plus there's the undeniable crony factor that ultimately benefits him and the opportunity to benefit himself, either directly or indirectly through associates, by implementing policies. And the ability to affect the market in 140 characters or less, a significant portion of them subject to caps lock, is just gravy. But the other stuff--all that responsibility--is such a burden. I don't think the other stuff is worth it to somebody like him.

When it comes to no longer being president, losing re-election is tantamount to death. It's pure failure. Completing a second and final term probably isn't so great a prospect either because it just shows he's subject to the same limitations as nearly everyone who preceded him. But impeachment? All that attention? The martyrdom without that pesky death bit? That's got to be appealing to someone who would so obviously want to go out in a blaze of glory, or, as glory seems unlikely at this point, a blaze of any kind.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what happens, Trump is not going to go away. We're stuck with him. It's possible that he's fed up with the trials (literally) & tribulations of being President & wouldn't mind a way out ... but his ego LOVES the attention.

I don't think he likes the idea of being an impeached president, but there's something about it that appeals to his sense of "beating the odds". Even if he runs for re-election & loses, he will hang around with his army of followers, possibly starting a Trump news organization to cater to the Trumpist cultists. The implications for the GOP of Trump losing could be dire, which is why they feel they have no alternative but to stand behind him.

(IMO)
 

Similar threads

Earth
Things You Want To See In GT6 Besides Vehicles and Tracks
167 168 169
Replies
5K
Views
354K
GTV0819
GTV0819

Latest Posts

Back