Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[Moonbeam]

The projection here is really hard core.

It is very telling that you think other people would only think multiple felonies committed to win an election should have consequences out of partisanship. Sad to see you have such a diseased view of the world.

Long before he began to project that he was told that about himself, that he's worthless and without character. What is telling is that in fact he is miserable. The damage is done and only he can undo it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again if you want to argue that lying about campaign expenditures is worse than lying under oath to a grand jury (about the same subject mind you) then be my guest.

I forget so maybe you would help me. What was the timeframe where Clinton illegally paid money to subvert an election?

Oh, he didn't. Thanks.

Clinton did one thing that cost him, lie to the government about him having sex with Monica. It was enough to get him impeached. Yes the Dems stood by him for what was an impeachable offense.

Now we have a person who is lied and criminally conspired to influence an election in his favor. Perhaps you think Clinton getting a pass means Trump should because there was sex involved. I don't. I think Trump should pay the penalty for the attempted manipulation for the Office of the President of the United States, with a margin close enough that his opponent won the popular vote but won the EC. Would knowing the truth have cost him the election? We'll never know because we were all deceived by his illegal actions.

For all Clinton was factually found to have done wrong, he didn't win with the aid of intentional election fraud of his own doing.

 

[Bitek]

Vs. lying under oath to a grand jury, you say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe. It's lying about sex, the pearl clutching about "well it was BEFORE the election" is completely insincere.



Which is why my initial response directly spoke to the possibility (if not probability) there would be more to come which would make a stronger case for impeachment than currently exists. Considering the rate at which Trump says stupid things the projected timeframe for him saying something which is unequivocably impeachable is probably a few months but could be weeks or even days seeing how clueless the man is. With what we know *now* the consistent and correct answer is a Congressional censure. The better answer would have been for both Clinton and Trump to resign but Clinton already set that precedent of not resigning with the enthusiastic support of Democrats.

I agree with your second part, but I think you are mischaracterizing the "lying" charges.

The specific charges are perjury vs fraud and campaign finance violations.

Just saying "lying about sex" does not equate the issues.

Is either acceptable? No. But are we going to put conspiracy to commit felonies and election fraud on the same plane as lying to a grand jury about an affair?

Who was harmed here? Ultimately Clinton harmed his wife and embarrassed the nation.

Trump did that, but also defrauded the voter in his actions by criminally circumventing election laws.

Going on to win the election isn't a defense if you were cheating.

 

[Bitek]

I forget so maybe you would help me. What was the timeframe where Clinton illegally paid money to subvert an election?

Oh, he didn't. Thanks.

Clinton did one thing that cost him, lie to the government about him having sex with Monica. It was enough to get him impeached. Yes the Dems stood by him for what was an impeachable offense.

Now we have a person who is lied and criminally conspired to influence an election in his favor. Perhaps you think Clinton getting a pass means Trump should because there was sex involved. I don't. I think Trump should pay the penalty for the attempted manipulation for the Office of the President of the United States, with a margin close enough that his opponent won the popular vote but won the EC. Would knowing the truth have cost him the election? We'll never know because we were all deceived by his illegal actions.

For all Clinton was factually found to have done wrong, he didn't win with the aid of intentional election fraud of his own doing.

Didn't read your post as I wrote mine, but agree completely.

The only other thing i can think to add is that Trump is still lying about all this.

I can't keep track if he's specifically admitted the affairs with Stormy and Mc Dougal in his latest version, but he certainly hasn't come clean if there were any others, and all indications point that there are. Listening to Cohen's tape, you would think they had a written SOP for these NDAs and hush money payments.

 

[interchange]

If we removed the party labels and decided proper justice with no knowledge of the defendant you'd likely be arguing vehemently against the very position you're taking. Hell your side who spent Clinton's 1992 election effort defending him against sexual misconduct charges. And if you want to use the "well he did so to get fraudulently elected" then so did Clinton as his grand jury lie under oath was in 1994, thus influencing the course of his 1996 election. But spin away on that one too and imagine reasons why that's somehow different and what Trump did was a trillion times worse.

I suppose the one thing that's not surprising in all this is that your side is still choosing to defend Clinton over the women even after all this time however, I guess they're just the acceptable collateral damage of keeping a Democratic president in power. Maybe one day the "Me Too" movement might even make you reconsider throwing your support behind sexual predators just because you expect some political gain from it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

That sounds compelling until you look at actual history and not made up history. Clinton's perjury charges relate to testimony in 1998, 2 years after his reelection.

 

[zinfamous]

I have changed my vote from "impeachment" to "crucifiction"

no fair! you can do that?

 

[soulcougher73]

no fair! you can do that?

So "drawn and quartered" is off the table?

 

[Ventanni]

A crime is a crime, and if Trump is guilty, he should be held accountable for it. No questions in that regard.

The real question though is how do you want to handle it? We're two years into the Trump presidency, and about the time it would take to both impeach and convict Trump, he could be elected out of office. Impeaching a president is a long, arduous process that is extremely disruptive in all aspects of American life (economically, politically, socially, and foreign policy). And whether we like it or not, there are senators and congressmen who will vote in favor of their own opportunistic career advancement over actual justice, so even if real evidence is brought to the table, it doesn't mean he's going to be convicted for it.

If he's guilty, he'll be found guilty and brought to justice. Period. End of story. But it'll be a lot cleaner if that happens after he's out of office. In other words, don't vote for him again.

 

[Ventanni]

Revelation 19:20
The false prophet of the end times is described in Revelation 13:11-15. He is also referred to as the “second beast” (Revelation 16:13, 19:20, 20:10). Together with the Antichrist and Satan, who empowers both of them, the false prophet is the third party in the unholy trinity.

His name is Donald Trump

I thought it was the Muslim black guy with the forged birth certificate?

 

[fskimospy]

I thought it was the Muslim black guy with the forged birth certificate?

Yeah wait, whatever happened with that? It was somewhere around 15% of evangelicals were SURE Obama was the antichrist and about another 15% were concerned he was. Did they change their minds?

 

[Ventanni]

Yeah wait, whatever happened with that? It was somewhere around 15% of evangelicals were SURE Obama was the antichrist and about another 15% were concerned he was. Did they change their minds?

When you allow fear to control your life, you constantly look for the next thing to justify yourself living in it. Also, it's a heck of a lot easier to point at a problem than it is to be a solution.

 

[BurnItDwn]

no fair! you can do that?

It's a write in

 

[BurnItDwn]

So "drawn and quartered" is off the table?

I believe that is usually done on a table, no?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I believe that is usually done on a table, no?

No, being drawn and quartered is traditionally done in a street at a crossroads.

 

[Viper1j]

I thought it was the Muslim black guy with the forged birth certificate?

Hmm.. Didn't know Donny was Muslim.

 

[BurnItDwn]

No, being drawn and quartered is traditionally done in a street at a crossroads.

Right, but, part of it happens .... "on a table. Still alive, the victim was cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed"

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

 

[zinfamous]

Right, but, part of it happens .... "on a table. Still alive, the victim was cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed"

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

well that's just a little absurd to do this after all that!

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah wait, whatever happened with that? It was somewhere around 15% of evangelicals were SURE Obama was the antichrist and about another 15% were concerned he was. Did they change their minds?

He got better?

 

[Guurn]

What he did was far more direct actually if you remember the history of it.

In 1996 Chinese Intelligence Agents paid for Clinton's legal defense, and campaign, and offered direct money for influence in the WH, as well as agreeing to aid in future DNC media campaigns--which they all confessed openly before Congress (Confessions here). The FBI began investigating, not over "collusion" (no one was dumb enough back then to believe you could Collude.)--but due to campaign finance.

Reno then removed the FBI's normal DOJ liason leading the investigation under orders of Bill Clinton (Rahm Emanuel was openly saying he was telling Reno what to do for Clinton)-why? Because the FBI agent was questioning people in the Clinton Campaign, and Ms Ingersoll (The DoJ lawyer) was allowing it to spread too much. So Reno appointed someone hand picked by her and Bill Clinton. Charles La Belle, specifically to kill the case.

One problem. Labelle found so much dirty money, and literally video evidence of Gore and Clinton fund raising illegally ( the tapes were shown to the public at one point), that La Belle had no choice but to file a 17 page report stated unequivocally the Clintons had brazenly and wantonly violated campaign finance law, and that special counsel was needed due to the overwhelming interference by the WH, the Director of the FBI also said this. (Page 1376)

''It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel,'' the Director, Louis J. Freeh

Reno's response? Lol. No.

"I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress," she said. "If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute.


Reno closed down the investigation without prosecuting anyone in the WH, or even questioning anyone. The evidence was so overwhelming, that just a couple months of Congressional investigations found millions...MILLIONS in illegal fund raising, from foreign accounts, and payments to advertisers, and other entities.

 

[fskimospy]

What he did was far more direct actually if you remember the history of it.

In 1996 Chinese Intelligence Agents paid for Clinton's legal defense, and campaign, and offered direct money for influence in the WH, as well as agreeing to aid in future DNC media campaigns--which they all confessed openly before Congress (Confessions here). The FBI began investigating, not over "collusion" (no one was dumb enough back then to believe you could Collude.)--but due to campaign finance.

Reno then removed the FBI's normal DOJ liason leading the investigation under orders of Bill Clinton (Rahm Emanuel was openly saying he was telling Reno what to do for Clinton)-why? Because the FBI agent was questioning people in the Clinton Campaign, and Ms Ingersoll (The DoJ lawyer) was allowing it to spread too much. So Reno appointed someone hand picked by her and Bill Clinton. Charles La Belle, specifically to kill the case.

One problem. Labelle found so much dirty money, and literally video evidence of Gore and Clinton fund raising illegally ( the tapes were shown to the public at one point), that La Belle had no choice but to file a 17 page report stated unequivocally the Clintons had brazenly and wantonly violated campaign finance law, and that special counsel was needed due to the overwhelming interference by the WH, the Director of the FBI also said this. (Page 1376)

''It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel,'' the Director, Louis J. Freeh

Reno's response? Lol. No.

"I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress," she said. "If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute.

Reno closed down the investigation without prosecuting anyone in the WH, or even questioning anyone. The evidence was so overwhelming, that just a couple months of Congressional investigations found millions...MILLIONS in illegal fund raising, from foreign accounts, and payments to advertisers, and other entities.

It sounds like you think what Clinton did was really bad and should have been investigated by an independent counsel. Presumably that means you similarly agree that Trump should be vigorously investigated?

 

[Guurn]

If he had done anything remotely that bad, yes. Right now it looks like the reasons for the special council are nothing and nothing they have found so far has made it seem like Trump did anything illegal with the Russia thing(incoming wave of OMG TDS). List a crime related to Russia that anyone has been convicted of breaking in this investigation. What the investigation has shown is that Clinton gave China access to her server, likely leading to many agent deaths and that she paid for the dossier and that she took many millions from foreign governments, likely breaking the same laws? that Trump is accused of (collusion isn't illegal, not that he did that). Keep calling names and bringing up the same old divisive arguments though.

I have no clue if Trump will be considered a good President (30 years from now) and I'm not sure if his policies are going to lead to anything other than a good economy. What I do know is that we will all find that out in the next 6 months.

 

[fskimospy]

If he had done anything remotely that bad, yes. Right now it looks like the reasons for the special council are nothing and nothing they have found so far has made it seem like Trump did anything illegal with the Russia thing(incoming wave of OMG TDS). List a crime related to Russia that anyone has been convicted of breaking in this investigation.

You realize Trump's campaign chairman is going on trial for multiple felonies about just that in a few weeks, right? Regardless, the crimes you listed relating to Clinton and Gore were campaign finance crimes. As of today Trump is directly implicated in a sworn statement as having committed at least four campaign finance felonies. Are you saying you don't find four felonies bad? If so, why? Are you saying it's fine for candidates to commit felonies, just not with other countries? If so, why?

What the investigation has shown is that Clinton gave China access to her server, likely leading to many agent deaths and that she paid for the dossier and that she took many millions from foreign governments, likely breaking the same laws? that Trump is accused of (collusion isn't illegal, not that he did that). Keep calling names and bringing up the same old divisive arguments though.

This is all crazed, conspiracy theory nonsense. Clinton did none of those things other than pay in some way for the dossier which was unarguably completely legal. Where are you getting these insane ideas from?

Also collusion is not a crime but conspiracy is. You might be surprised how similar those two things are.

I have no clue if Trump will be considered a good President (30 years from now) and I'm not sure if his policies are going to lead to anything other than a good economy. What I do know is that we will all find that out in the next 6 months.

So far his policies look to be mostly incoherent flailing. There's little reason to think they are in any way responsible for current economic conditions and are probably a long term drag on growth. I guess we will see though!

 

[CrackRabbit]

If he had done anything remotely that bad, yes. Right now it looks like the reasons for the special council are nothing and nothing they have found so far has made it seem like Trump did anything illegal with the Russia thing(incoming wave of OMG TDS). List a crime related to Russia that anyone has been convicted of breaking in this investigation. What the investigation has shown is that Clinton gave China access to her server, likely leading to many agent deaths and that she paid for the dossier and that she took many millions from foreign governments, likely breaking the same laws? that Trump is accused of (collusion isn't illegal, not that he did that). Keep calling names and bringing up the same old divisive arguments though.

I have no clue if Trump will be considered a good President (30 years from now) and I'm not sure if his policies are going to lead to anything other than a good economy. What I do know is that we will all find that out in the next 6 months.

Oh hey look, another compromised account.
Have fun comrade, you are going on ignore like all the others...

 

[Sunburn74]

Right, but, part of it happens .... "on a table. Still alive, the victim was cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed"

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

Well that escalated rapidly...

The evidence was so overwhelming, that just a couple months of Congressional investigations found millions...MILLIONS in illegal fund raising, from foreign accounts, and payments to advertisers, and other entities.

Go ahead and write your congressmen then. There is a GOP president, house, and senate. They could completely go ahead and destroy the democratic party with this information especially after as you stated just 2 months of congressional investigations found "MILLIONS in illegal fund raising, from foreign accounts, and payments to advertisers, and other entities". What congressman or reporter or attorney general or journalist or people aspiring to any of these positions doesn't want to make a name for himself by destroying the opposing party by clearly standing for good and justice, this imprinting their name in the history books for eternity?

 

[Jhhnn]

The revisionist "but Clinton" history from 20 years ago hasn't changed a bit, has it? It makes a nice dih-version if anybody goes for the shiny object, however.