Discussion Impeachment

[jackstar7]

Given the many instances laid out in the Mueller report where the president acted criminally, or simply against the interests of the country for his own gain, what are the reasons for the House to not begin the process of hearings and investigations that would grow from the impeachment process?

 

[Iron Woode]

Probably because he hasn't been charged or convicted in a court of law?

 

[Blackjack200]

Probably because he hasn't been charged or convicted in a court of law?

The POTUS is immune from prosecution while in office. What are you talking about?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Probably because he hasn't been charged or convicted in a court of law?

Neither was Nixon and yet articles of impeachment were drawn. The only reason it didn’t go forward was he resigned in disgrace. The reason he resigned was his own party telling him he was a corrupt piece of shit and he needed to go. That’s the missing piece in all of this.

 

[kage69]

Probably because he hasn't been charged or convicted in a court of law?

Dude.

How are people still saying this shit? 'Cannot prosecute a pres in office' has been over all media for months if not years.

 

[Iron Woode]

Dude.

How are people still saying this shit? 'Cannot prosecute a pres in office' has been over all media for months if not years.

Dudes, I don't know how it works there. I assumed you need to be charged with something.

 

[sandorski]

Dude.

 

[Indus]

Dudes, I don't know how it works there. I assumed you need to be charged with something.

Yes but a sitting president cannot be charged - according to the Justice Department (which is made up of the people the President appointed himself).

But the constitution says no one is above the rule of law.

That's the dilemma we as a country are having.. do we listen to the bullshit made up by the Justice Department, do we listen to the constitution or do we let the voters decide come Nov 2020.

 

[Iron Woode]

Yes but a sitting president cannot be charged - according to the Justice Department (which is made up of the people the President appointed himself).

But the constitution says no one is above the rule of law.

That's the dilemma we as a country are having.. do we listen to the bullshit made up by the Justice Department, do we listen to the constitution or do we let the voters decide come Nov 2020.

We have a similar type scandal going on here with our Prime Minister. We have an election coming this fall so things will sort themselves out, I guess.

 

[compuwiz1]

This would be an extremely stupid move to try this, from a political standpoint. In the best case, the house votes to impeach. Then what? Still requires 2/3 senate to get the job done. This is a waste of time and not gonna happen. The next election will bring a new POTUS, if that's the will of the voters. Impeachment moves will just cost the dems the election and reelect Trump.

 

[balloonshark]

If Trump doesn't deserve to be impeached then what the hell else does it take to be impeached? Are we ready to accept that there are elites that are above the law? Is that going to be our reality from now on?

 

[Yeroon]

We have a similar type scandal going on here with our Prime Minister. We have an election coming this fall so things will sort themselves out, I guess.

If you're talking about Canada, you are massively misunderstanding whats going on here.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This would be an extremely stupid move to try this, from a political standpoint. In the best case, the house votes to impeach. Then what? Still requires 2/3 senate to get the job done. This is a waste of time and not gonna happen. The next election will bring a new POTUS, if that's the will of the voters. Impeachment moves will just cost the dems the election and reelect Trump.

Sadly I think you’re right. At least right now there could be fracture in the GOP voter pool. Some willing to just sit it out. With the current congressional situation and complete unwillingness by the gop to do actual oversight I’m afraid impeachment will just solidify the GOP base, not just his base. I’m not sure he would win either way but he won’t be going down.

 

[sandorski]

If Trump doesn't deserve to be impeached then what the hell else does it take to be impeached? Are we ready to accept that there are elites that are above the law? Is that going to be our reality from now on?

Get Trump to lie about a BJ. Should be easy.

 

[compuwiz1]

If Trump doesn't deserve to be impeached then what the hell else does it take to be impeached? Are we ready to accept that there are elites that are above the law? Is that going to be our reality from now on?

Are we? Elites have been above the law for a long time. This didn't start with Trump and it won't end with Trump. Were you asking that when Clinton deleted 30,000 emails, or when Comey obstructed her prosecution for actual crimes? Have you asked those questions when servers were wiped, even though people were told to preserve evidence? It works both ways, at least it should. There should be the same standard for everyone. There isn't.

 

[Jhhnn]

This would be an extremely stupid move to try this, from a political standpoint. In the best case, the house votes to impeach. Then what? Still requires 2/3 senate to get the job done. This is a waste of time and not gonna happen. The next election will bring a new POTUS, if that's the will of the voters. Impeachment moves will just cost the dems the election and reelect Trump.

That's the current GOP line, no doubt. It's not like they welcome the opportunity to stand up for their so-called "values".

 

[dank69]

This would be an extremely stupid move to try this, from a political standpoint. In the best case, the house votes to impeach. Then what? Still requires 2/3 senate to get the job done. This is a waste of time and not gonna happen. The next election will bring a new POTUS, if that's the will of the voters. Impeachment moves will just cost the dems the election and reelect Trump.

Yup, that way when even more information comes out you can criticize Democrats for not even trying to impeach him the same way you are trying to criticize Obama now for not doing more to stop Russian interference in 2016.

 

[Indus]

Are we? Elites have been above the law for a long time. This didn't start with Trump and it won't end with Trump. Were you asking that when Clinton deleted 30,000 emails, or when Comey obstructed her prosecution for actual crimes? Have you asked those questions when servers were wiped, even though people were told to preserve evidence? It works both ways, at least it should. There should be the same standard for everyone. There isn't.

Clinton is not and was never the President. And if deleting emails is obstruction, the statute of limitations hasn't run out on that yet.

If there's a case try it. If not STFU!

 

[baydude]

How will a failed impeachment process when it reaches Senate vote impact Democrats chances for 2020? I assume probably negatively.

 

[dank69]

Are we? Elites have been above the law for a long time. This didn't start with Trump and it won't end with Trump. Were you asking that when Clinton deleted 30,000 emails, or when Comey obstructed her prosecution for actual crimes? Have you asked those questions when servers were wiped, even though people were told to preserve evidence? It works both ways, at least it should. There should be the same standard for everyone. There isn't.

Literally none of that happened. Her lawyers segregated work related emails from personal emails and deleted the personal ones in accordance with the law. Clinton did not delete them. Servers were also wiped in accordance with department policy. The closest you came to the truth was the subordinate who was told to destroy data in accordance with department policy, forgot to, and then when it was subpoenaed rushed to delete it before anyone found out he forgot to do it like he was asked, without Hillary's knowledge.

 

[dank69]

How will a failed impeachment process when it reaches Senate vote impact Democrats chances for 2020? I assume probably negatively.

How will it affect Republicans whose votes explicitly state that it is okay for the President of the United States to issue unlawful orders?

 

[Jhhnn]

Are we? Elites have been above the law for a long time. This didn't start with Trump and it won't end with Trump. Were you asking that when Clinton deleted 30,000 emails, or when Comey obstructed her prosecution for actual crimes? Have you asked those questions when servers were wiped, even though people were told to preserve evidence? It works both ways, at least it should. There should be the same standard for everyone. There isn't.

Both sides! Crooked Hillary! Lock her up! Blah-blah-blah.

 

[ivwshane]

There are two schools of thought on this, in my opinion, the political ramifications for not doing it and the constitutional duty for doing it.

As has already been discussed, impeaching could cause a backlash, especially since its unlikely the senate would vote for impeachment as well. We already know how trump and Republicans would spin it and we know how terrible the Democrats are at messaging, so it would be a political loser.

However, if the president meets the threshold for bringing impeachment then it is the house's constitutional duty to impeach trump. If a president is unfit for office then it doesn't matter what the political cost might be. Doing nothing is an invitation to do worse and sets an awful precedent.

I think the dems should impeach and lay out their case for the American people, if Republicans want to put their party before country then let them hang themselves.

 

[JSt0rm]

this is amazing...

https://imgur.com/YoMCtM6

 

[kage69]

Dudes, I don't know how it works there. I assumed you need to be charged with something.

Canuck Pass?

Date looks valid. Yeah sorry, looks like you're good to go. Carry on.