Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[HomerJS]

Yes but want to wait for the Mueller report. Make sure there is enough shit out there to make this stick and leave no doubt to the people who voted for this dirtbag how much they fucked up.

After midterms is fine. Pence will pardon him and be toast for 2020.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Maybe you are joking? You tell teh truth always? what president has not lied ? maybe you all are waiting for jesus christ to be prez right ? ;P honestly i dont know any of the crimes anyone has committed why not spell it out for those of us that dont watch the news.

Sure past Presidents have lied. But do you not agree that Trump has taken it to a new extreme? If we want our government to improve we have to take a stand and demand a higher ethics from our officials. If we allow the argument 'others have done it too' we are just giving license for the corruption to continue and to just keep getting worse. Every time we excuse a new act we have let the bar slide a little lower and then we can use that argument to excuse a even lower bar next time. At some point we have to say enough is enough.

I'm perfectly okay with saying that if a President lies to the American people he is taking the risk that he will be impeached for it.
I'm perfectly okay with saying that yes others have gotten away with it, but not any more. That starting today we will no longer stand for this.
I'm perfectly okay with expecting improvement from our government and not being resigned to it getting worse.

 

[brandonbull]

How about impeached for treason for being a Russian agent undermining American interests? Then it'd be a real poll.

I don't think the OP is talking about Democrats.

 

[Bitek]

1. Does Trump deserve to be? Absolutely.

He has brought shame to the country, corruption and criminal behavior flourish, and his unstable personality cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

2. Should Dems pressure persue it? I'd rather see aggressive investigation and containment.

His presidency has shown there are too many weak controls on the powers of the presidency. Tossing Trump out doesnt fix that, but will distract from the issue.

 

[VRAMdemon]

In principal, Yes..But I rather see him neutered than impeached.. as it stands right now (that could change, of course)..Which means the GOP loses in the mid terms. That way he'd just run around the country holding unhinged rallies whining over how the Dems. are obstructing him.

 

[Sunburn74]

Sure past Presidents have lied. But do you not agree that Trump has taken it to a new extreme? If we want our government to improve we have to take a stand and demand a higher ethics from our officials. If we allow the argument 'others have done it too' we are just giving license for the corruption to continue and to just keep getting worse. Every time we excuse a new act we have let the bar slide a little lower and then we can use that argument to excuse a even lower bar next time. At some point we have to say enough is enough.

I'm perfectly okay with saying that if a President lies to the American people he is taking the risk that he will be impeached for it.
I'm perfectly okay with saying that yes others have gotten away with it, but not any more. That starting today we will no longer stand for this.
I'm perfectly okay with expecting improvement from our government and not being resigned to it getting worse.

Lying is a big part of political corruption. You will not find a honest but corrupt politician, someone who's openly frank about his corrupt deeds and motivations.

That's why if you're against corruption, you need to get rid of current legal and politcal sanctuaries for willfully misleading the public (aka lying).

 

[VRAMdemon]

1. Does Trump deserve to be? Absolutely.

He has brought shame to the country, corruption and criminal behavior flourish, and his unstable personality cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

2. Should Dems pressure persue it? I'd rather see aggressive investigation and containment.

His presidency has shown there are too many weak controls on the powers of the presidency. Tossing Trump out doesnt fix that, but will distract from the issue.

I agree...Trump is not Nixon. He will never actually resign. That would require admitting he did something wrong, something he will not do no matter the stakes. Yes, even including Don Jr. going to the slammer. Trump truly doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Con jobs and crooked deals are just a part of doing business for him. Always has been. We are not living in Nixon's time. Nixon did not have a 24/7 very popular propaganda machine behind him in 1974. It will take a hell of a lot more than anything we know about to significantly erode his base, and until that happens, there is NO WAY the senate convicts.

 

[BoomerD]

Yes but want to wait for the Mueller report. Make sure there is enough shit out there to make this stick and leave no doubt to the people who voted for this dirtbag how much they fucked up.

After midterms is fine. Pence will pardon him and be toast for 2020.

Pretty much this. I despise the great Orange one...but want to see actual legal proof od illegal acts...not just opinions and "OMG TRUMP!" shit. Impeachment (and the subsequent removal from office) is a serious matter and shouldn't even be considered lightly.
Me, I have popcorn to munch watching reruns of him getting frogmarched into court! (I just hope it doesn't get stale before it happens)

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty much this. I despise the great Orange one...but want to see actual legal proof od illegal acts...not just opinions and "OMG TRUMP!" shit. Impeachment (and the subsequent removal from office) is a serious matter and shouldn't even be considered lightly.
Me, I have popcorn to munch watching reruns of him getting frogmarched into court! (I just hope it doesn't get stale before it happens)

On the ‘actual legal proof’ scale where do you consider sworn statements by his personal lawyer that he directed him to make illegal payments to multiple women along with recordings to back it up that show Trump was lying about his denials?

 

[rise]

He will be, imo, though I don't think this is the straw. We'll see it its enough but I'm certain what WILL come out will be the end of this crime spree.

 

[Amused]

I don't think the OP is talking about Democrats.

It is absolutely hilarious how right-wing cult media sheep are being brainwashed with doublethink.

It is fully opposite from reality.

People who protest fascism are fascist
People who protest racism are racist.
Political parties who have passed the harshest resolutions against Russia are Russian agents while parties that have colluded with Russia are not.
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Science is a belief system.
Intellectualism is stupid.

They really have you in opposite land, don't they?

Break out. The right-wing media is not conservative. It is not about individual freedom. It is not capitalist.

It is a training party for autocracy.

And you're a useful idiot because of your biases and fears.

 

[fskimospy]

He will be, imo, though I don't think this is the straw. We'll see it its enough but I'm certain what WILL come out will be the end of this crime spree.

I think we've had what should be sufficient evidence to impeach Trump for more than a year now on a whole host of things. That aside, I agree this will not be the final straw. What it looks like now is that Trump is under siege from three or four different directions for various criminal activities he's engaged in over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if it's some combination of a bunch of them that ends up bringing him down.

It really does bear mentioning right now though that if he were not the president he would be under indictment as we speak. Right now, today. Under indictment.

 

[BoomerD]

On the ‘actual legal proof’ scale where do you consider sworn statements by his personal lawyer that he directed him to make illegal payments to multiple women along with recordings to back it up that show Trump was lying about his denials?

I think that shows what a lying piece of shit he is...but (AFAIK) he didn't make those statements in court and under oath...

 

[fskimospy]

I think that shows what a lying piece of shit he is...but (AFAIK) he didn't make those statements in court and under oath...

That's not correct - Cohen made the statement that directly implicated Trump in multiple felonies in court and under oath.

I'm not kidding - if Trump were not the president he would be under indictment right now.

 

[Sunburn74]

Can someone explain again, why a sitting president can't be indicted?

 

[glenn1]

I think we've had what should be sufficient evidence to impeach Trump for more than a year now on a whole host of things. That aside, I agree this will not be the final straw. What it looks like now is that Trump is under siege from three or four different directions for various criminal activities he's engaged in over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if it's some combination of a bunch of them that ends up bringing him down.

It really does bear mentioning right now though that if he were not the president he would be under indictment as we speak. Right now, today. Under indictment.

If he were not the President there would be no Special Counsel Mueller and thus no reason why he'd be under indictment. Unless in counterfactual land you think President Clinton would have spent significant resources and political capital having the executive branch investigate campaign finance violations for the amounts we're talking about which I think is crazy to believe she would do.

 

[fskimospy]

Can someone explain again, why a sitting president can't be indicted?

The fundamental reason is if he were in jail he couldn't fulfill the duties of the presidency so it would be unconstitutional. It's never been tested though.

 

[fskimospy]

If he were not the President there would be no Special Counsel Mueller and thus no reason why he'd be under indictment. Unless in counterfactual land you think President Clinton would have spent significant resources and political capital having the executive branch investigate campaign finance violations for the amounts we're talking about which I think is crazy to believe she would do.

That's meaningless though. I was referring to if the judicial system were aware of the facts it is aware of now he would be under indictment. Duncan Hunter is under indictment for campaign finance violations in similar amounts right now, for example.

 

[glenn1]

Can someone explain again, why a sitting president can't be indicted?

Among other things, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

In practice it's entirely practical if not unsurprising the Justice Department whose executives are appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure would say they wouldn't indict the President who would just turn around and fire them for doing so. Congress hasn't seen fit to fill the legal problems this creates so there is little appetite for them to make a big stand in front of an abstract principle absent such legal protections to backstop them.

 

[UNCjigga]

I voted no--at this point in time, I think we're still awaiting a solid case showing "high crimes and misdemeanors". Before impeachment, I think a number of other things need to happen:
- More subpoenas of witnesses and public hearings by Intel Committees and Judiciary Committees on both Russian collusion and attempts at obstruction of justice
- Mueller provides to Congress direct evidence of Trump committing crimes (hearsay from Cohen isn't enough at this point)

However, I do think after this week that it is more unlikely that Trump serves out a full term.

 

[glenn1]

That's meaningless though. I was referring to if the judicial system were aware of the facts it is aware of now he would be under indictment. Duncan Hunter is under indictment for campaign finance violations in similar amounts right now, for example.

Duncan Hunter is a sitting member of Congress, in your world Trump would be a former failed candidate and private citizen. What purpose would it have served in alternative history world to expend the resources to prosecute non-President Trump? To achieve a settlement fining him some token amount of money he wouldn't care about anyway? If he was willing to stroke a check for $150k to Stormy Daniels to make her go away do you think he'd hesitate to stroke another $150k check the Federal Election Commission to make any charges of campaign finance violations go away with a "no admission of guilt" press release?

 

[fskimospy]

I voted no--at this point in time, I think we're still awaiting a solid case showing "high crimes and misdemeanors". Before impeachment, I think a number of other things need to happen:
- More subpoenas of witnesses and public hearings by Intel Committees and Judiciary Committees on both Russian collusion and attempts at obstruction of justice
- Mueller provides to Congress direct evidence of Trump committing crimes (hearsay from Cohen isn't enough at this point)

However, I do think after this week that it is more unlikely that Trump serves out a full term.

Cohen's statements are not hearsay. Hearsay is testimony to facts that a witness was not present to see. Cohen is testifying to events he has personal knowledge of and was an eyewitness to.

So why isn't eyewitness testimony direct evidence?

 

[snoopy7548]

I voted yes because when you get right down to it, he's 100% unfit for office. That's not even debatable.

 

[fskimospy]

Duncan Hunter is a sitting member of Congress, in your world Trump would be a former failed candidate and private citizen. What purpose would it have served in alternative history world to expend the resources to prosecute non-President Trump? To achieve a settlement fining him some token amount of money he wouldn't care about anyway? If he was willing to stroke a check for $150k to Stormy Daniels to make her go away do you think he'd hesitate to stroke another $150k check the Federal Election Commission to make any charges of campaign finance violations go away with a "no admission of guilt" press release?

So it has to be a failed candidate? I guess we need to go all the way back to John Edwards then. What purpose did it serve to expend the resources to prosecute non-president John Edwards? And guess what? The government wasn't interested in a financial settlement with Edwards. Writing checks to the FEC wouldn't save him anyway. Duncan Hunter is under indictment by federal law enforcement.

So basically all the 'what if's' you're saying are wrong.

Regardless, this is all irrelevant anyway. If Trump were not the president and law enforcement was made aware of these activities he would be under indictment. We don't need an alternate history for this, we know the president is implicated in several felonies that he would have to answer for criminally otherwise. That's a good reason to impeach him.

 

[glenn1]

I voted yes because when you get right down to it, he's 100% unfit for office. That's not even debatable.

No one here has debated that, some (like me) have said that's not a "high crime or misdemeanor" which is supposed to be the justification for impeachment. If you want Congress to pass a law criminalizing incompetence then Trump would qualify but then again so would most of Congress and many progressives here on this forum.