Impeaching President Trump?

[Elixir]

He also COULD Be impeached for "I just know he did something! I just know it!" If enough of Congress became convinced it was damaging the office (and more importantly, damaging their election prospects for being associated with him). It's all about the votes, and only the votes.

Like continuously and incessantly lying to his constituents.

Half Life, I know you cannot defend that.

Meh. Ten thousand lies and counting. Big deal. Bob Mueller the Angry Democrat does that before breakfast. Everyone knows that. That's what people are saying. Lots of people - good people. They're saying that. Just look at what they're saying. When you look at what they're saying, it's incredible. Ten thousand lies before breakfast. Incredible.

 

[Ford]

This is very simple.

Could the House begin impeachment proceedings? Yes.

Could they actually vote to impeach? Yes.

Will the Senate convict? No.

In fact, given McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland, I would not be surprised if he simply refused to bring impeachment to a vote. He refused to allow the Senate to consider Garland's nomination precisely because he thought there was a chance of confirmation. As it stands, there's a pretty much zero percent chance that enough GOP senators would jump ship and vote to convict, but if there were a chance of that, Mitch would simply refuse to allow it to proceed.

 

[PyramidHead]

This is very simple.

Could the House begin impeachment proceedings? Yes.

Could they actually vote to impeach? Yes.

Will the Senate convict? No.

In fact, given McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland, I would not be surprised if he simply refused to bring impeachment to a vote. He refused to allow the Senate to consider Garland's nomination precisely because he thought there was a chance of confirmation. As it stands, there's a pretty much zero percent chance that enough GOP senators would jump ship and vote to convict, but if there were a chance of that, Mitch would simply refuse to allow it to proceed.

It's still their job though. How many times did the Republican house pass bills to repeal Obamacare while knowing they would never pass the Senate? Politics is about demonstrating one's principles through public action and forcing the other side to demonstrate theirs. Bringing all of the impeachable shit Trump has done into public record and having everyone in Congress commit their names to the "yea" or "nay" column would energize the large anti-Trump sentiment that exists in the electorate and expose the allegiances of the politicians who continue to support him. Pelosi doesn't want to do that, because that would put the Democratic establishment in the uncomfortable position of having a spinal cord, which might lead to their being expected to govern.

 

[Ford]

Bringing all of the impeachable shit Trump has done into public record and having everyone in Congress commit their names to the "yea" or "nay" column would energize the large anti-Trump sentiment that exists in the electorate and expose the allegiances of the politicians who continue to support him.

And Mitch knows that he has nothing to lose by opposing impeachment. Trump's approval among Republicans remains absurdly high. The base will not abandon him no matter what. If you "expose the allegiances" of the Senators by having them vote "nay" on impeachment their supporters will not bat an eye. I'm fairly well certain that when it comes to Trump and his allies, there's nothing they can do that supporters will look at and say "that's a bridge too far."

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes, the Senate will either acquit Orangey or refuse to deliberate. But the airing of Dear Leader's endless corruption, pettiness, and his juvenile mind may be useful. Remember, it took years and years of GOP vitriol against Hillary to make her the figure she was in 2016 (yes, I know, she STILL outpolled Fatso by 2.8 million votes, but what do those voters matter? This here's a representative democracy!) Let's counteract Trump by putting on public display the witnesses who told Mueller what Trump does every day in the Oval Office.

 

[ZiprHead]

This is very simple.

Could the House begin impeachment proceedings? Yes.

Could they actually vote to impeach? Yes.

Will the Senate convict? No.

In fact, given McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland, I would not be surprised if he simply refused to bring impeachment to a vote. He refused to allow the Senate to consider Garland's nomination precisely because he thought there was a chance of confirmation. As it stands, there's a pretty much zero percent chance that enough GOP senators would jump ship and vote to convict, but if there were a chance of that, Mitch would simply refuse to allow it to proceed.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, I do believe McConnell would block impeachment, I wouldn't put anything past that turtle-faced fucker. But I also think him giving Trump a pass on his crimes will help Democrats in the 2020 election. Getting his crimes out in the open, on the nation's televisions daily, the way they did with Clinton, and watching the Republicans continue to make their ridiculous excuses and lies about what has happened would be a good thing.

Impeaching Clinton back-fired on the Republicans. I don't think that will happen to the Democrats in this case.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bringing all of the impeachable shit Trump has done into public record and having everyone in Congress commit their names to the "yea" or "nay" column would energize the large anti-Trump sentiment that exists in the electorate and expose the allegiances of the politicians who continue to support him.

And Mitch knows that he has nothing to lose by opposing impeachment. Trump's approval among Republicans remains absurdly high. The base will not abandon him no matter what. If you "expose the allegiances" of the Senators by having them vote "nay" on impeachment their supporters will not bat an eye. I'm fairly well certain that when it comes to Trump and his allies, there's nothing they can do that supporters will look at and say "that's a bridge too far."

No one expects the base to change. It's the undecideds in the middle that need to be exposed to Trumps crimes and make them want to vote.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bringing all of the impeachable shit Trump has done into public record and having everyone in Congress commit their names to the "yea" or "nay" column would energize the large anti-Trump sentiment that exists in the electorate and expose the allegiances of the politicians who continue to support him.

And Mitch knows that he has nothing to lose by opposing impeachment. Trump's approval among Republicans remains absurdly high. The base will not abandon him no matter what. If you "expose the allegiances" of the Senators by having them vote "nay" on impeachment their supporters will not bat an eye. I'm fairly well certain that when it comes to Trump and his allies, there's nothing they can do that supporters will look at and say "that's a bridge too far."

It's not for the benefit of Trump supporters that the House should impeach Trump. It's to energize his critics who have been sick of the Democrats caving to Republicans and giving ground to their framing of every issue, term after term.

 

[Treedbear]

GOP impeachment champion gets a hero's welcome back home

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Rep. Justin Amash is a lonely man in Congress, the sole Republican to back Donald Trump’s removal from office. But back home on Tuesday night, the Michigan lawmaker got the red-carpet treatment in his first face-to-face encounter with voters since his call for impeachment.

During a packed town hall in Grand Rapids, attendees in the mostly-friendly audience gave Amash several standing ovations and heaps of praise for his solo rebellion against Trump.

 

[southernhybrid]

The Speaker just said that nothing was off the table, but she wanted to have an airtight case before she went much further. The Dems are in a difficult position and Mueller isn't really helping. He keeps insisting that he can't charge a sitting president, but that's just a policy. It's has nothing to do with the constitution. He keeps implying that Trump did something illegal but then goes on to say that only Congress can do anything about it. What a mess.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The Dems are in a difficult position and Mueller isn't really helping. He keeps insisting that he can't charge a sitting president, but that's just a policy. It's has nothing to do with the constitution.

Not entirely accurate. It is based on analysis of SCOTUS decisions and had he attempted it, the focus then would have been on him and the role of the special prosecutor and it would have given Barr the excuse to simply fire him and bury the report, etc., etc., etc.

He knew all of this, which is why he brilliantly (imo) figured out a way to (a) booby-trap the report and (b) force Barr to send it/force Congress to act. At least to the best of his abilities.

He keeps implying that Trump did something illegal

Not in legal terms. He is outright stating it, just in the negative.

but then goes on to say that only Congress can do anything about it.

Which is accurate from where he was able to go.

 

[Gun Nut]

I think it is still unclear whether Meuller could have indicted or not.
While the OLC's opinion has been codified into "policy", that policy is not "law". The DoJ has what they call "regulations" on abiding to policy

Policy < Regulation < Law

Sure, it's complicated. But it doesn't have to be.

Trump has consistently taken the position, "If it isn't blatantly illegal, then I can do it, regardless of custom, tradition, ethics, or wisdom".
So I believe Meuller could have indicted and just went with, "wasn't illegal". But he didn't... something about the die in those white hats that makes the brain numb.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is still unclear whether Meuller could have indicted or not.

Mueller said he couldn't. That pretty much ends it there. His job as a prosecutor isn't necessarily to head to SCOTUS to change his boss's rules.

So I believe Meuller could have indicted and just went with, "wasn't illegal". But he didn't... something about the die in those white hats that makes the brain numb.

He says Trump abused power and Congress has an unquestioned Constitutional authority to deal with it. For him to deal with it in court could possibly take years.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think it is still unclear whether Meuller could have indicted or not.

Well, he could have recommended it to the AG--and/or gone rogue and tried to do it himself without the AG--but either way it would have instantly been shot down and then the investigation itself would have likely ended and the report buried.

Mueller took the only action possible to him to ensure that Congress had everything they needed to impeach. Which is where it needs to go no matter what.

Make no mistake, Mueller concluded that Trump's actions were illegal. That's what it means to say, "I couldn't disprove it." The reason he said it that way--and laid out what he did in the report--was to knowingly circumvent any actions against his report or the findings by Barr. He even told Barr his findings three weeks before the official submission of the report for precisely that reason. To ensure that Barr would not bury the report or his findings, regardless of the fact that Barr tried to spin the findings, but could not due to Mueller's carefully chosen wording.

The report was not for citizens to read on their porches; it was for Congress and the AG to read and act upon. He knew the AG would not act no matter what he reported, which left him with the problem of how to word the report so that Barr wouldn't bury it, but at the same time give the House what it needed to act.

It's actually very simple. He knew he needed to hurdle Barr. So he did.

 

[Gun Nut]

I think it is still unclear whether Meuller could have indicted or not.

Mueller said he couldn't. That pretty much ends it there. His job as a prosecutor isn't necessarily to head to SCOTUS to change his boss's rules.

So I believe Meuller could have indicted and just went with, "wasn't illegal". But he didn't... something about the die in those white hats that makes the brain numb.

He says Trump abused power and Congress has an unquestioned Constitutional authority to deal with it. For him to deal with it in court could possibly take years.

what does the SCOTUS have to do with the OLC opinion? This wasn't tested in the Supreme Court... I trust it would have eventually been if he was indicted, but it has yet to.

 

[Gun Nut]

I think it is still unclear whether Meuller could have indicted or not.

Well, he could have recommended it to the AG--and/or gone rogue and tried to do it himself without the AG--but either way it would have instantly been shot down and then the investigation itself would have likely ended and the report buried.

Mueller took the only action possible to him to ensure that Congress had everything they needed to impeach. Which is where it needs to go no matter what.

Make no mistake, Mueller concluded that Trump's actions were illegal. That's what it means to say, "I couldn't disprove it." The reason he said it that way--and laid out what he did in the report--was to knowingly circumvent any actions against his report or the findings by Barr. He even told Barr his findings three weeks before the official submission of the report for precisely that reason. To ensure that Barr would not bury the report or his findings, regardless of the fact that Barr tried to spin the findings, but could not due to Mueller's carefully chosen wording.

The report was not for citizens to read on their porches; it was for Congress and the AG to read and act upon. He knew the AG would not act no matter what he reported, which left him with the problem of how to word the report so that Barr wouldn't bury it, but at the same time give the House what it needed to act.

It's actually very simple. He knew he needed to hurdle Barr. So he did.

I believe there was a better way to tell congress to do their jobs than to speak in riddles. He did say, "I couldn't disprove it".. which is a stupid way to talk to stupid people (those that congress rely upon to keep their jobs)... because that sounds precisely like, "this witch hunt is over because we found no evidence of any illegal activity at all" - which is exactly what Fox is saying and non-critical thinking people are believing... which is over 70% of the nation. Even if he wanted to remain prim and proper and follow every TRADITION (not law), he still could have said, "Trump was found guilty of several crimes for which we are prevented from indicting him on due to technicalities, so I am referring these crimes to congress to lawfully act, as per Constitutional provisions". His whole entry into "fairness" about not having a court to defend himself in was STUPID. He doesn't get a court to defend himslef in because he is tried in congress.. not a court... he gets that venue to defend himself. fairness my ass.
"

 

[ZiprHead]

My wife noticed in the Amash townhall from a couple nights ago one woman who commented that she hadn't heard about all these charges against Trump before. I suspect she is a Fox News viewer.

 

[starwater]

Mueller was speaking in code.

"Trump is guilty as sin, but please don't make me prove it and please don't make me testify." Chicken shit. He could have been a huge paragraph in the History books, but now it's just a footnote.

 

[Gun Nut]

My wife noticed in the Amash townhall from a couple nights ago one woman who commented that she hadn't heard about all these charges against Trump before. I suspect she is a Fox News viewer.

oh did she notice that?... the little clip of that woman played a billion times over and over on MSNBC? She picked that up did she?
the amount of play that got tells me that woman was a plant.... a setup. plot device... call it what you want... just don't try to tell me it was authentic.

 

[ZiprHead]

My wife noticed in the Amash townhall from a couple nights ago one woman who commented that she hadn't heard about all these charges against Trump before. I suspect she is a Fox News viewer.

oh did she notice that?... the little clip of that woman played a billion times over and over on MSNBC? She picked that up did she?
the amount of play that got tells me that woman was a plant.... a setup. plot device... call it what you want... just don't try to tell me it was authentic.

I happen to watch quite a bit of MSNBC and I have never once seen the clip. She was a plant? Why? The reasons you used above don't cut it.