Impeach Trump

[colddiesel]

Pence is being looked at on the same Russian collusion and obstruction of justice issues. He has lots of public statements on this that are lies according to a growing lists of testifiers. The arrangement could be to sweep them both out on the same charges. Then it D) goes to the speaker of the house in the succession plan. A good reason for dragging feet on this into the new year.

I reckon Harry Truman was pretty smart when he switched those two jobs around at the top of the list.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What do you call the forces we have overseas, if not a regular army?

Unconventional combatants.

Mercenaries

That's closer to the truth.

I do not want trump impeached but rather have the election results over turned based on Russian interference so we don't end up with Pence as president. Clinton would be better than Bitch McConnell.

What "Russian interference?"

Yea....what Russian interference?

No, you're too funny. And maybe that stupid.

Ad hominem.....sure sign of a loser who can't defend his position.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Unconventional combatants.

They deploy in regular units -- they sleep at a base -- what's unconventional about them?

 

[BotanyBoy]

They deploy in regular units --

"regular" compared to what? Our military has NEVER been structured/operated the way it has been in the last 15-20 years.

they sleep at a base --

No they don't.


I'm talking about combat troops, infantry, engineers, arty, fisters, C-med and FO's......not POG's who live on some uber base and never meet a single LN on their deployment.

Being deployed to a buried steel box with A/C to play with computers on some super FOB with 24/7 chow, internet cafes, night clubs, running water and weekly USO shows doesn't make you a combat troop.
http://www.navymemes.com/uploads/posts/t/l-760.jpg

what's unconventional about them?

Structure and operation.

SF basically re-wrote the book, now our standard light/air-whatever infantry units are all heavily trained in MOUT (urban combat), work in much smaller elements than they ever have and tend to work in a far more surgical manner than ever before.

That's why we kept most of our light/air-whatever units but shrank our heavy armor....it's just not as effective on the modern battlefield. It's not 1940 or even 1960 anymore.

A couple of fire teams dropped in to kill/capture key players in the middle of the night is a better way to do things than sending brigade upon brigade of tanks and troops marching through the streets to intimidate and occupy.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Right now, I think in general, an attempted impeachment would damage the Democrats more than it would help them. Set aside for a moment all the media talking heads, who are more interested in generating eyes-on for commercial reasons, either personal or organizational.

Someone can only be impeached when the official has somehow abused the power of his office and is unfit to serve. Over the history of the US only 17 federal officials have actually been impeached. In each case it was for conduct that occurred while they were in office.

So, in the history of the US, no one has ever been impeached for conduct that occurred before they entered office, which in the case of the Trump campaign, rules out any campaign related offenses that may or may not be proven, including violations of campaign law. We might not like it, but that is the precedent. Congress does not have the authority to impeach for crimes that occurred outside of their jurisdiction. (Which doesn't mean that they won't try it, just that neither law nor precedent is on their side.)

Now, the whole "obstruction" thread does fall into their jurisdiction, since it took place after Trump took office. However, as has been discussed in other threads, obstruction is legally a reach for firing Comey, who served at the President's pleasure and could be legally fired for any reason or no reason, and there were ample reasons to let him go. Trump did not fire investigators, agents, lawyers, judges, grand jury members, or witnesses, as much as he has blustered.

If firing Comey was obstruction, then every single leadership position in any investigative agency would be immune to firing, since then it would count as "obstruction" for any of the many investigations that fall under their authority. Obstruction hangs on corrupt intent and "I wanted a better person in the job" isn't going to prove corrupt intent in any court.

 

[KeithD]

Ad hominem.....sure sign of a loser who can't defend his position.

This has you written all over it.

I'm not interested in your denial/distract/deflect posting technique. Your dial shows "empty."

 

[Kirkrapine]

Now, the whole "obstruction" thread does fall into their jurisdiction, since it took place after Trump took office. However, as has been discussed in other threads, obstruction is legally a reach for firing Comey, who served at the President's pleasure and could be legally fired for any reason or no reason, and there were ample reasons to let him go. Trump did not fire investigators, agents, lawyers, judges, grand jury members, or witnesses, as much as he has blustered.

If firing Comey was obstruction, then every single leadership position in any investigative agency would be immune to firing, since then it would count as "obstruction" for any of the many investigations that fall under there theory. Obstruction hangs on corrupt intent and "I wanted a better person in the job" isn't going to prove corrupt intent in any court.

Congress, sitting on an impeachment, is not bound by the standards or tests of evidence applicable in a court of law. Impeachment is a purely political, not judicial, process.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This has you written all over it.

I'm not interested in your denial/distract/deflect posting technique. Your dial shows "empty."

Can't really do those things against name calling.

And ad hominem is STILL not an argument.


Why don't you try posting something of substance for once??

 

[bestone4ever]

Ad hominem.....sure sign of a loser who can't defend his position.

Hypocritical retard says what.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Congress, sitting on an impeachment, is not bound by the standards or tests of evidence applicable in a court of law. Impeachment is a purely political, not judicial, process.

Next month, the House could prepare articles of impeachment, but I am certain they won't or, at least, will not pass them. For one thing, they know the Senate would never vote to convict, meaning the whole thing would be a waste of time and money and energy. Second, they know they will just succeed in pissing off the GOP, so the next time there is a Dem. president and a GOP majority in the House, the same thing will be done against that POTUS in a tit for tat action. Third, the constituents of those Dem congress critters will see and recognize the stupidity and will vote against the incumbents.

 

[KeithD]

Hypocritical retard says what.

Precisely. BB's denial/distraction/deflection technique just isn't working.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Congress, sitting on an impeachment, is not bound by the standards or tests of evidence applicable in a court of law. Impeachment is a purely political, not judicial, process.

That is a common misconception. By process any impeachment proceeding is bound by Congresses own rules. It begins in the judiciary committee, with a mini-trial, where the representatives sit as judges. That hearing is bound by the federal rules of evidence and by the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

The government is represented by the Majority Counsel acting as prosecutor and the minority counsel acting as defense. Evidence is presented and considered, with both the prosecution and defense presenting and cross-examining witnesses. The committee then drafts the articles of impeachment, which are presented to the House for debate.

If the House approves, it goes to the Senate for another trial, where they repeat the whole process again, this time with the Senate sitting as a sort of super jury, with the whole hearing presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (in the case of a Presidential impeachment). This trial also adheres to the federal rules of evidence and the prosecution and defense model using the majority and minority counsels.

When it concludes, the Senate then votes guilty or not guilty.

Unlike the Advice and Consent or Oversight Hearings that we see on CSPAN and cable TV, an impeachment process is handled as a trial, not a hearing seeking information. Witnesses are presented and questioned by counsel, not the Senators or Representatives. They do get to weight in during the debate portions, which happen in both bodies, but they are silent through the trials themselves, speaking only through counsel.

 

[Paul_Chance]

That is a common misconception. By process any impeachment proceeding is bound by Congresses own rules. It begins in the judiciary committee, with a mini-trial, where the representatives sit as judges. That hearing is bound by the federal rules of evidence and by the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

The government is represented by the Majority Counsel acting as prosecutor and the minority counsel acting as defense. Evidence is presented and considered, with both the prosecution and defense presenting and cross-examining witnesses. The committee then drafts the articles of impeachment, which are presented to the House for debate.

If the House approves, it goes to the Senate for another trial, where they repeat the whole process again, this time with the Senate sitting as a sort of super jury, with the whole hearing presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (in the case of a Presidential impeachment). This trial also adheres to the federal rules of evidence and the prosecution and defense model using the majority and minority counsels.

When it concludes, the Senate then votes guilty or not guilty.

Unlike the Advice and Consent or Oversight Hearings that we see on CSPAN and cable TV, an impeachment process is handled as a trial, not a hearing seeking information. Witnesses are presented and questioned by counsel, not the Senators or Representatives. They do get to weight in during the debate portions, which happen in both bodies, but they are silent through the trials themselves, speaking only through counsel.

The accused then has the option to appeal to the full Supreme Court. (By precedent there, only one impeached person has ever appealed - and the full court opted not to intervene - however they did reserve the right for themselves to intervene in the future in the event there was procedural misconduct or factual inaccuracies by making that case non-precedent setting.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hypocritical retard says what.

Except I wasn't the one who's failing to openly claim a position and back it up and just shit talking around it.

So...that doesn't apply smart guy.

Precisely. BB's denial/distraction/deflection technique just isn't working.

You're the only one in denial and deflecting.

What Russian influence?

Are you saying the Russians illegally tampered with our election?

*more deflection and ad hominem incoming*

 

[Kirkrapine]

Third, the constituents of those Dem congress critters will see and recognize the stupidity and will vote against the incumbents.

I think they would pay a higher electoral price for not trying.

 

[CandiCame]

Right now, I think in general, an attempted impeachment would damage the Democrats more than it would help them. Set aside for a moment all the media talking heads, who are more interested in generating eyes-on for commercial reasons, either personal or organizational.

Someone can only be impeached when the official has somehow abused the power of his office and is unfit to serve. Over the history of the US only 17 federal officials have actually been impeached. In each case it was for conduct that occurred while they were in office.

So, in the history of the US, no one has ever been impeached for conduct that occurred before they entered office, which in the case of the Trump campaign, rules out any campaign related offenses that may or may not be proven, including violations of campaign law. We might not like it, but that is the precedent. Congress does not have the authority to impeach for crimes that occurred outside of their jurisdiction. (Which doesn't mean that they won't try it, just that neither law nor precedent is on their side.)

Now, the whole "obstruction" thread does fall into their jurisdiction, since it took place after Trump took office. However, as has been discussed in other threads, obstruction is legally a reach for firing Comey, who served at the President's pleasure and could be legally fired for any reason or no reason, and there were ample reasons to let him go. Trump did not fire investigators, agents, lawyers, judges, grand jury members, or witnesses, as much as he has blustered.

If firing Comey was obstruction, then every single leadership position in any investigative agency would be immune to firing, since then it would count as "obstruction" for any of the many investigations that fall under their authority. Obstruction hangs on corrupt intent and "I wanted a better person in the job" isn't going to prove corrupt intent in any court.

I mean...

https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/

And

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/donald-trump-house-democrats-president-impeach-no-confidence-resolution-a7850006.html

And

https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Impeachment-FAQ-revised-12-13-17.pdf

Like... it's super bizarre that dude is president. Jimmy Carter couldn't grow peanuts.

 

[HisArpy]

I think they would pay a higher electoral price for not trying.

Which only goes to show that the D's have fucked themselves into a corner. To appease the howling mob, they have to bring articles of impeachment. Bringing the articles of impeachment without cause will cost them votes and seats in 2020. Not bringing the articles will also cost them votes and seats in 2020.

 

[Luk]

Which only goes to show that the D's have fucked themselves into a corner. To appease the howling mob, they have to bring articles of impeachment. Bringing the articles of impeachment without cause will cost them votes and seats in 2020. Not bringing the articles will also cost them votes and seats in 2020.

Really? How many Dem leaders have called for his impeachment?

 

[KeithD]

Which only goes to show that the D's have fucked themselves into a corner. To appease the howling mob, they have to bring articles of impeachment. Bringing the articles of impeachment without cause will cost them votes and seats in 2020. Not bringing the articles will also cost them votes and seats in 2020.

Fake position. Deflection, distraction, deception, denial. Your usual post.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Which only goes to show that the D's have fucked themselves into a corner. To appease the howling mob, they have to bring articles of impeachment. Bringing the articles of impeachment without cause will cost them votes and seats in 2020. Not bringing the articles will also cost them votes and seats in 2020.

Bringing the articles will also win them votes from a lot of people who will be grateful that they at least tried.

 

[KeithD]

The mere threat of impeachment is driving Trump (further) batty. Anything that makes him suffer as he is making others suffer . . .

Each day he needs to consider how stupid it was for him to run for president and upend his cozy world as it has.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The mere threat of impeachment is driving Trump (further) batty. Anything that makes him suffer as he is making others suffer . . .

Each day he needs to consider how stupid it was for him to run for president and upend his cozy world as it has.

He obviously has not enjoyed the job from day one. I think the only reason he does not resign is that that could be construed as losing, and Trump cannot bear to lose.

 

[Paul_Chance]

The threat, the talk, the speculation about impeachment is a useful political tool to drum up engagement and donations.

The actual impeachment is another story. During impeachment proof has to be provided and it brings to people thoughts on whether it's the right thing to do or not. Forget about preaching to the choir, at that stage, they'll be trying to convince the unconvinced.

The cautionary tale out there is the Clinton impeachment. Even though Clinton was successfully impeached by the house, he was not convicted in the Senate (due to the math of the Senate at the time and the sixty vote threshold).

Through the process Clinton's approval numbers rose and he skated to re-election.

There is something fundamental in the American character that a.) roots for the underdog and b.) dislikes government over-reach. So what the leadership has to consider carefully before they start down the path is a.) is it provable to the skeptics and undecided voters and b.) will it have the effect we desire.

If the answer to either of those question is no and at this point, the math is prohibitive on getting the Senate to agree on impeachment just on strict party lines. They will have to have solid enough evidence to compel a good number of Republicans to vote for it, politicians who are NOT inclined to support impeachment.

So the very real risk is that a failed attempt at impeachment is interpreted by the undecideds as political shenanigans and simple insures his re-election in 2020.

However, they could talk and bluster to their hearts content, raise millions of dollars, mobilize the base - and never actually make the run at impeachment. They can make all the noise without having to actually "put up or shut up".

Ah, the political calculations that drive democracies.

 

[Kirkrapine]

There is something fundamental in the American character that a.) roots for the underdog and b.) dislikes government over-reach.

Well, the POTUS is never an underdog, and an internal, intramural governmental process like impeachment is never government overreach.

 

[CandiCame]

The threat, the talk, the speculation about impeachment is a useful political tool to drum up engagement and donations.

The actual impeachment is another story. During impeachment proof has to be provided and it brings to people thoughts on whether it's the right thing to do or not. Forget about preaching to the choir, at that stage, they'll be trying to convince the unconvinced.

The cautionary tale out there is the Clinton impeachment. Even though Clinton was successfully impeached by the house, he was not convicted in the Senate (due to the math of the Senate at the time and the sixty vote threshold).

Through the process Clinton's approval numbers rose and he skated to re-election.

There is something fundamental in the American character that a.) roots for the underdog and b.) dislikes government over-reach. So what the leadership has to consider carefully before they start down the path is a.) is it provable to the skeptics and undecided voters and b.) will it have the effect we desire.

If the answer to either of those question is no and at this point, the math is prohibitive on getting the Senate to agree on impeachment just on strict party lines. They will have to have solid enough evidence to compel a good number of Republicans to vote for it, politicians who are NOT inclined to support impeachment.

So the very real risk is that a failed attempt at impeachment is interpreted by the undecideds as political shenanigans and simple insures his re-election in 2020.

However, they could talk and bluster to their hearts content, raise millions of dollars, mobilize the base - and never actually make the run at impeachment. They can make all the noise without having to actually "put up or shut up".

Ah, the political calculations that drive democracies.

This post made me sad.

Because you're right. He can do whatever he wants and McConnel and everyone under him will still line up for the chance to suck his dick.

And presidents don't ride in open motorcades anymore so I... I just don't know what to do here.

Hail Caesar?

Stabbing. I'm talking about stabbing. Stab him 23 times.