Poll: How long before Trump is gone?

[Londo_Jowo]

Then again, most midterms aren't preceded by record-setting protests, high-ranking officials resigning a few weeks in over scandals... you could be right, but the midterms will also be the first chance for many to make their displeasure felt in the voting booth.

I seriously doubt the protests or one person resigning will make a big impact come the midterms. The interviews of protesters do more to hurt the cause as they're all over the place or are protesting things that haven't occurred.

 

[kage69]

The sooner the better. This asshat and his collection of criminally incompetent and corrupt morons need to go.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't think he'll be impeached regardless of what happens in the mid-term elections. I think he'll get voted out in 4 years.

However, my personal preference is that he'd be gone immediately. Throw him and Pence out, and if you want a Republican to take his place, put someone like McCain in there instead. McCain can be inept sometimes, but at least he has a little bit of integrity.

McCain is not in line for President, if Trump and Pence are forced out Speaker of the House Ryan would become President

 

[Eug]

McCain is not in line for President, if Trump and Pence are forced out Speaker of the House Ryan would become President

Yes, I am aware he is not in line for the presidency. Just saying that from what we have seen in the first few weeks of the current administration, it seems the Republican Party went way out there for their choices for leadership.

But then again, it got them elected, against whom many had thought was a sure thing, that being Hillary.

 

[fskimospy]

So far Trump has not done anything to warrant thinking about impeachment. I can't think of many things for our government to legally do excepting amending the Constitution and even that has happened more often.

"He's a threat". No
"He's a traitor" Prove it, and the legal standard applies, not the loosely tossed about concept with no real meaning in court. No.
"He's doing things against the Constitution". No he's not until the legal process plays out and they agree. Then he rewrites his Order. Rinse, repeat. Absolutely nothing illegal.

So on what LEGAL basis do we have for removal of not Trump per se, but a properly elected President? "He lost the popular vote"? No.

So the question for anyone is what do you know (not speculated about) that is criminal in the strict legal sense that is of such magnitude to remove a sitting President? Having control of Congress is not one of them.

I got nuttin'

Impeachment is a political question, not a legal one, so 'losing control of Congress' is one of the only things that matters. He is impeached when Congress says he is, what the courts think doesn't matter much outside of super extreme cases, which this wouldn't be.

As to what he has done that would be impeachable that's easy: the emoluments clause. Foreign diplomats have made it abundantly clear that they are staying at Trump owned properties and having events there to curry favor with the president. Trump is aware of this and has done effectively nothing to divest himself from his business. That's a textbook violation and impeachment city if they wanted to.

In a more practical sense though I think impeachment would happen if the Democrats retake a house of Congress. They will start subpoenaing and investigating him left and right and I think we both know he has a lot to hide. If I had to guess at a scenario for that it would be that he will refuse the most damaging subpoenas which will set off a crisis that ends in impeachment.

 

[Commodus]

I seriously doubt the protests or one person resigning will make a big impact come the midterms. The interviews of protesters do more to hurt the cause as they're all over the place or are protesting things that haven't occurred.

Because we all know a few TV interviews negate millions of people taking to the streets! And Flynn is (currently) just the most prominent failure in an administration with serious problems beyond Trump himself. There's department leads who are clearly unqualified or have vested interests in undermining their divisions, the anti-woman and anti-Muslim policies, spokespeople who lie virtually every time they open their mouths...

 

[fskimospy]

I seriously doubt the protests or one person resigning will make a big impact come the midterms. The interviews of protesters do more to hurt the cause as they're all over the place or are protesting things that haven't occurred.

Protests aren't a cause, they are a symptom. The country already dislikes Trump at a level that's never been seen for a new president in all of US history and his bad behavior is just making it worse. He has lots of time to improve but if he doesn't he's looking at a very bad midterm.

 

[Pens1566]

I suspect it will be at whatever time the republicans in congress deem the "point of no return" in respect to their re-election chances in '18. The longer this shit show keeps up, and it's rapidly escalating, the less likely they are to look the other way. You're already seeing it with the no show town halls, etc.

Current admin polling is a HEAVY correlation to # seat turnover in midterms.

And spare me the obligatory "he's going to pivot" talk. No. He won't.

 

[Sea Ray]

He's here for 4 yrs. Get used to it

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think the real question is "How long before the hysteria and outrage overload overwhelm the left?"

 

[fskimospy]

I think the real question is "How long before the hysteria and outrage overload overwhelm the left?"

Probably never? The more outrage there is the more electoral success the left is likely to see. Democrats strongly outnumber Republicans in term of partisan ID, they just struggle with turnout. The angrier Democrats are the higher turnout is, so outrage just makes them stronger.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

yesterday would be too late, but I fear he will stay through his current presidency. Sad.

 

[IronWing]

The traitor Reagan made it through eight years, no reason Trump can't. Congress is even more craven now than it was during Reagan's terms.

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe a few more months. They're not going to let up now. Flynn resigned within 30 minutes of the story coming out that the Trump admin knew about his Russian interactions and had not done anything, even went ahead and confirmed him and gave him security clearance.

Doubtful it ends there. If there is an avenue of discovery for the intelligence people that leads them down the Russian trail from Flynn to Trump, they'll follow it. If you look at the way the leaks came out about Flynn, the whole thing looks orchestrated and we now can see it was all very real. The intelligence people are on them like flies on shit and just brought one down.

If there is a link that they can prove, he could be out on his ass in weeks.

It took a little more than a year, including an election cycle to remove Nixon, right? Though, Nixon was already an established president with a competent (if not morally repugnant) group of sycophants in place to work with him.

Trump will never be weaker than he is now and through the next year. So, if things continue like they are, it might sound like less of a fantasy and it will actually happen. Though I think that if serious prosecution comes his way, he will simply quit and blame it on PC liberals that hate freedom, all the while claiming that he never quit. The problem here is Pence. This country can't be stuck with that guy. Investigations need to route out the problems within the entire administration and, if it comes to it, let the GOP-led Congress vote for some other unqualified boob to carry the torch for 3 more years.

 

[zinfamous]

I wouldn't count on midterms changing control of either house, more of the people who tend to turn out for midterms don't vote Democrat. Eight Senators who are up for reelection are in states Trump won.

You're right, but you do yourself a disservice by miscalculating the actual anger in this country right now. and..which states are you referring to? If any of them are PA, WI, MI, NC (pretty sure that isn't one), hell, even FL or SC--you could easily see those seats stay or flip to Dems.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Impeachment is a political question, not a legal one, so 'losing control of Congress' is one of the only things that matters. He is impeached when Congress says he is, what the courts think doesn't matter much outside of super extreme cases, which this wouldn't be.

As to what he has done that would be impeachable that's easy: the emoluments clause. Foreign diplomats have made it abundantly clear that they are staying at Trump owned properties and having events there to curry favor with the president. Trump is aware of this and has done effectively nothing to divest himself from his business. That's a textbook violation and impeachment city if they wanted to.

In a more practical sense though I think impeachment would happen if the Democrats retake a house of Congress. They will start subpoenaing and investigating him left and right and I think we both know he has a lot to hide. If I had to guess at a scenario for that it would be that he will refuse the most damaging subpoenas which will set off a crisis that ends in impeachment.

"That's easy". I'm going to say that nothing will be easy as many would want. So what is the criminal penalty for a sitting President and how do you know (not believe) you could make a case in a trial that would withstand scrutiny?

Impeachment is more than a political question. One cannot say "We're in control of Congress- yer out". It is a matter of formal charges for unlawful conduct which meets a standard involving applicable offenses, evidence and trial. It is very, very much a matter of law. That it happens in Congress instead of a court changes nothing.

If you can show where the Constitution allows party to negate facts and due process then that would be nice, but there is no such thing.

It is political in the sense that the majority provides motivation, but remember when it was "fact" that having friends and family involved in government affairs was "impeachable"? That didn't turn out to be guaranteed either.

Can he be impeached? Of course but being a Democrat does nothing to make it so. It's a matter of violation which rises to the level of the legal standard to remove a sitting President. If for example an investigation provides damning evidence that Trump has sold or willingly conspired to have government secrets bled to Putin then there is no choice but for the Republicans (who traditionally hate the Russians) to go forward, especially if there are two or more witnesses to the act. That by Constitutional definition is treason.

Back to the slam-dunk emolument suits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wsuit-against-president-trump-stand-a-chance/

Don't bet the farm.

 

[fskimospy]

"That's easy". I'm going to say that nothing will be easy as many would want. So what is the criminal penalty for a sitting President and how do you know (not believe) you could make a case in a trial that would withstand scrutiny?

There is no criminal penalty for violating the emoluments clause that I am aware of but that doesn't change the fact that he can be impeached for violating it.

Impeachment is more than a political question. One cannot say "We're in control of Congress- yer out". It is a matter of formal charges for unlawful conduct which meets a standard involving applicable offenses, evidence and trial. It is very, very much a matter of law. That it happens in Congress instead of a court changes nothing.

It is really not a matter of law much at all. Congress is given the sole authority to determine what an impeachable offense is and Congress has the sole authority to convict. The 'law' is basically whatever they say it is, and this is backed up by SCOTUS precedent. Basically the only limit SCOTUS put on them was if they thought Congress was removing the president for literally no reason other than they didn't like him that it might present a constitutional problem. That certainly wouldn't be the case here as the emoluments clause would provide all the justification needed.

If you can show where the Constitution allows party to negate facts and due process then that would be nice, but there is no such thing.

There's no due process outside of the impeachment proceeding itself.

It is political in the sense that the majority provides motivation, but remember when it was "fact" that having friends and family involved in government affairs was "impeachable"? That didn't turn out to be guaranteed either.

Can he be impeached? Of course but being a Democrat does nothing to make it so. It's a matter of violation which rises to the level of the legal standard to remove a sitting President. If for example an investigation provides damning evidence that Trump has sold or willingly conspired to have government secrets bled to Putin then there is no choice but for the Republicans (who traditionally hate the Russians) to go forward, especially if there are two or more witnesses to the act. That by Constitutional definition is treason.

Back to the slam-dunk emolument suits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wsuit-against-president-trump-stand-a-chance/

Don't bet the farm.

You're confusing the courts with Congress. It is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not that suit succeeds in the courts as to whether or not he could be impeached for it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no criminal penalty for violating the emoluments clause that I am aware of but that doesn't change the fact that he can be impeached for violating it.



It is really not a matter of law much at all. Congress is given the sole authority to determine what an impeachable offense is and Congress has the sole authority to convict. The 'law' is basically whatever they say it is, and this is backed up by SCOTUS precedent. Basically the only limit SCOTUS put on them was if they thought Congress was removing the president for literally no reason other than they didn't like him that it might present a constitutional problem. That certainly wouldn't be the case here as the emoluments clause would provide all the justification needed.



There's no due process outside of the impeachment proceeding itself.



You're confusing the courts with Congress. It is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not that suit succeeds in the courts as to whether or not he could be impeached for it.

Your argument is that there need to be no basis for impeachment other than "you are impeached". That's nice and Trump goes back to whatever he considers his job. I don't think so, but it doesn't really matter. Impeach him daily then and he'll finish his term.

Which President has been removed by Congress who did not commit a crime? Actually no President has been removed. Andrew Johnson was almost done in and wasn't. Clinton was brought up on criminal charges which were well known and revealed. Nope. Nixon quit, but based on criminal actions.

Sorry you can't remove a sitting President like you imply and if you tried there is the very real and unpleasant possibility that the SCOTUS may void the proceedings based on political motivations of Congress.

I'm going with this perspective over yours as to how clear cut this isn't.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...achment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You're right, but you do yourself a disservice by miscalculating the actual anger in this country right now. and..which states are you referring to? If any of them are PA, WI, MI, NC (pretty sure that isn't one), hell, even FL or SC--you could easily see those seats stay or flip to Dems.

Guess we'll have to see how long the anger lasts and who shows up to vote in 2018. I get the chance to vote against Ted Cruz again but seriously doubt it will make a difference.

 

[zinfamous]

Guess we'll have to see how long the anger lasts and who shows up to vote in 2018. I get the chance to vote against Ted Cruz again but seriously doubt it will make a difference.

aye, the notoriously short-term memory of the average voter. 😀

I'm starting to think that Trump calculated that the public is so easily distracted by Reality TV and bullshit entertainment that he can skate buy with anything he wants to do, because "he knows" perfectly well how to distract them from the reality behind the scenes.

The problem seems to be that the public really does find that the genre of Reality TV and all the manufactured chaos and terrible human relationships and personalities that make up this entertainment, is wholly unsuitable for actual, non-fake leadership. He seems to think that people really are this dumb, and I think that is biting him in the ass.

People escape to shitty entertainment to get away from the world, but they have a distaste for this kind of thing if their entire world is replaced by non-stop reality TV.

Trump's Reality Administration is exactly the Pepsi/Coke blind taste-test issue that led to the disaster that was New Coke during the "Cola Wars."
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8472539/new-coke-cola-wars

The public prefers certain "things" (sweetness/chaos) in doses. They can't tolerate the whole can of that thing.

 

[agent00f]

Protests aren't a cause, they are a symptom. The country already dislikes Trump at a level that's never been seen for a new president in all of US history and his bad behavior is just making it worse. He has lots of time to improve but if he doesn't he's looking at a very bad midterm.

In all fairness it's not as if the kind of people who vote for trump can be accused of letting his bad behavior affect their opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument is that there need to be no basis for impeachment other than "you are impeached". That's nice and Trump goes back to whatever he considers his job. I don't think so, but it doesn't really matter. Impeach him daily then and he'll finish his term.

I didn't say that, I said that the basis is determined by Congress and no one else, affirmed by SCOTUS precedent.

Which President has been removed by Congress who did not commit a crime? Actually no President has been removed. Andrew Johnson was almost done in and wasn't. Clinton was brought up on criminal charges which were well known and revealed. Nope. Nixon quit, but based on criminal actions.

Sorry you can't remove a sitting President like you imply and if you tried there is the very real and unpleasant possibility that the SCOTUS may void the proceedings based on political motivations of Congress.

I'm going with this perspective over yours as to how clear cut this isn't.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...achment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

Your link actually backs up what I'm saying, as does the SCOTUS precedent it cites. Nixon v. United States is pretty clear that the courts do not have the power to review impeachments because it is a power granted solely to Congress by the Constitution. The only limits SCOTUS was willing to place on it was if the Senate basically removed someone for literally no reason (a coin toss is cited) then they might intervene, which is about as close to a blank check as you could ever get.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/case.html

The majority opinion (the court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published) held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I. Sec. 3 of the Constitution gave the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word "sole" it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word "try" was originally understood to include fact finding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.

Furthermore the Framers believed that representatives of the people should try impeachments, and the Court was too small to justly try impeachments. Also, the judicial branch is "checked" by impeachments so judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

So yes, they could absolutely remove Trump if they wanted to as violation of the Emoluments Clause would not come even remotely close to the standard SCOTUS cited as a cause to intervene.

You may not like the standard, but SCOTUS was very clear as you'll see if you read the full opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I didn't say that, I said that the basis is determined by Congress and no one else, affirmed by SCOTUS precedent.



Your link actually backs up what I'm saying, as does the SCOTUS precedent it cites. Nixon v. United States is pretty clear that the courts do not have the power to review impeachments because it is a power granted solely to Congress by the Constitution. The only limits SCOTUS was willing to place on it was if the Senate basically removed someone for literally no reason (a coin toss is cited) then they might intervene, which is about as close to a blank check as you could ever get.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/case.html



So yes, they could absolutely remove Trump if they wanted to as violation of the Emoluments Clause would not come even remotely close to the standard SCOTUS cited as a cause to intervene.

You may not like the standard, but SCOTUS was very clear as you'll see if you read the full opinion.

You didn't mention that the SCOTUS did not rule out future impeachments as being off limits. The article no where says this process is clear cut, in fact there are a number of issues to consider.

You make a categorical statement of fact for an event which has not happened in our history, that is the removal of a sitting President, and where many who have far more knowledge that you or I are doubtful.

In what material sense are you superior to them to pronounce an absolute determination of the hypothetical process never undertaken, the removal of a President from office?

 

[Yakk]

Obe may or may not like it, but the way things are going I can't see why Trump won't make it through 2 full terms with the amount of support and electoral seats he has.

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't mention that the SCOTUS did not rule out future impeachments as being off limits. The article no where says this process is clear cut, in fact there are a number of issues to consider.

I explicitly mentioned that, actually. I even expressly stated the standard that SCOTUS said it would apply to examining future impeachments, which was that they consider them unreviewable unless the Senate were to take an action that was incredibly extreme and irrational like deciding impeachment based on a coin flip. You can read the opinion and the concurrences yourself and see what I mean.

You make a categorical statement of fact for an event which has not happened in our history, that is the removal of a sitting President, and where many who have far more knowledge that you or I are doubtful.

In what material sense are you superior to them to pronounce an absolute determination of the hypothetical process never undertaken, the removal of a President from office?

I'm not superior to them, but the Supreme Court is and I'm taking their statements on the issue basically verbatim. Again, I strongly suggest you read the opinion of the court as it is not ambiguous. Congress decides what an impeachable offense is and Congress decides whether to convict or not. Unless Congress goes completely off the rails to the extent that their actions are either irrational or an attempt to usurp the powers of the presidency their decisions are unreviewable.