Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[fskimospy]

Okay, I'm flailing. Gotcha. So even though Edwards was acquitted of one charge and the News reports that the jurors had a supermajority to acquit on the rest (but not unanimity) you think Trump is s slam-dunk case on the same type of charges. Your personal political distaste for Trump is making you say things unsupported in reality because you wish they would be true.

I didn't say anything about a slam dunk or anything else. Your desire not to lose an argument is making you say things unsupported in reality because you wish they were true. I said that if Trump were not the president he would be indicted given the evidence against him. This is not simply my opinion, this is the opinion of numerous legal analysts. It also has precedent with John Edwards, Duncan Hunter, and other people. You've now made a number of clearly false and easily disproven claims in order to refute my point. When each one has been shown to be nonsense you've just ignored it and moved on to a new one, creating new straw man positions on the way.

I'm not sure why you're continuing to flail like this except that you're trying to find a way to save face. You were wrong and that's okay, we're all wrong sometimes.

You'd be much better off saving your mental energy to actually vote against Trump in 2020 instead of not bothering to vote like you've said here repeatedly that you can't bother yourself to do.

I guess you haven't been paying attention but I specifically said I chose to vote in 2016 out of distaste for Trump. Regardless, only an idiot would think that one person voting means anything as to whether or not Trump is the president. What a silly idea.

I get it, you're angry at me for calling you out. This isn't personal with me and you can't make me angry so I'm not sure why you're bothering to try and make it about me.

 

[glenn1]

Are you honestly this obtuse?

Feel free to present your "evidence" of said charges. Honestly we ought to remove the provision for impeachment from the Constitution because it seems to make both sides stupid and creates ideas they can have a deus ex machina event to bail them out of situations where they lost at the ballot box.

 

[fskimospy]

You've ignored that the facts and the crimes in either situation are the same, but injected a hypothetical non-existent timeline to discount the relevance of the same facts. You ignored the premise of the question, created your own, and dishonestly dismissed it.

I still find it rather embarrassing that you aren't recognizing the fact that Trump had been under investigation anyway, and that somehow, the FBI would just "stop looking into foreign bank fraud and information exchange between foreign enemies" because, stuff. What a deplorable view you hold regarding our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

It would be nice if glenn could just come out and say 'you know what? My bad.' The odds of him doing this are close to zero though, I predict more fanciful hypotheticals.

 

[zinfamous]

@fskimospy, he's talking about actual crimes. Remember the point of the investigation? Russia.
Lanny Davis is claiming that Cohen can deliver on that.

The Russia stuff is already there, and it is already coming out. But again: the actual point of the investigation doesn't matter. It never did. The mandate for this investigation spelled this out, exactly.

IF the dishonest GOP cocksuckers in Congress that yesterday said "we won't do anything until the purpose of the investigation--Russian collusion--is addressed" were honest about this stance, then they never would have impeached Bill Clinton for perjury regarding a blowjob, which only happened as a result of the Whitewater Investigation, which ended with what, 1 indictment, years later, and no evidence of wrong-doing regarding the purpose of the investigation.

Why are the GOP such pants-shitting hypocrites?

 

[Younigue]

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.

But putting himself in the spotlight running for presidency may very well have lit a fire under New York's ass to nail that fu*ker to the wall.

 

[glenn1]

I didn't say anything about a slam dunk or anything else. Your desire not to lose an argument is making you say things unsupported in reality because you wish they were true. I said that if Trump were not the president he would be indicted given the evidence against him. This is not simply my opinion, this is the opinion of numerous legal analysts. It also has precedent with John Edwards, Duncan Hunter, and other people. You've now made a number of clearly false and easily disproven claims in order to refute my point. When each one has been shown to be nonsense you've just ignored it and moved on to a new one, creating new straw man positions on the way.

I'm not sure why you're continuing to flail like this except that you're trying to find a way to save face. You were wrong and that's okay, we're all wrong sometimes.



I guess you haven't been paying attention but I specifically said I chose to vote in 2016 out of distaste for Trump. Regardless, only an idiot would think that one person voting means anything as to whether or not Trump is the president. What a silly idea.

I get it, you're angry at me for calling you out. This isn't personal with me and you can't make me angry so I'm not sure why you're bothering to try and make it about me.

You created a hypothetical where Trump isn't President and then get angry when someone points out the problems with that counterfactual. Again the fix is easy, just rephrase your statement to be in accordance with our reality - "I wish Trump were not President and that he would be indicted." That doesn't require any counterfactuals and is a more accurate statement of your mindset.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem with impeaching a vile yet incompetent moron like Trump is that his successors, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan, would be just as vile and evil (if not more) but also competent at enacting unpopular policies, lying and getting away with it. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I’d rather have the moron in chief stay and fuck his party some more.

Until he decides to take down the basic elements of our system of justice, which for all I share concerns about Pence I don't think he's the plague ridden, bomb jacketed, radioactive fallout bull in the chinashop Trump is.

 

[fskimospy]

You created a hypothetical where Trump isn't President and then get angry when someone points out the problems with that counterfactual. Again the fix is easy, just rephrase your statement to be in accordance with our reality - "I wish Trump were not President and that he would be indicted." That doesn't require any counterfactuals and is a more accurate statement of your mindset.

So wait, this is all because you lack basic reading comprehension?

I did not create a counterfactual, I was stating that any other individual in the United States would be indicted with the same facts against them. It had nothing to do with imagining a world where Trump was not the president - it was to state that his actions were significant enough to warrant indictment for regular people and therefore warranted impeachment for a president. The entire thread is about if we should impeach Trump or not, how on earth you conjured up an imaginary world where Trump wasn't the president is beyond me.

This was not a complicated thought pattern to understand and it seems that literally everyone other than you has had no problem grasping it. What's the deal? Can you at least admit your arguments were based on a faulty understanding of mine or is even that minor admission of fault too much?

 

[zinfamous]

Feel free to present your "evidence" of said charges. Honestly we ought to remove the provision for impeachment from the Constitution because it seems to make both sides stupid and creates ideas they can have a deus ex machina event to bail them out of situations where they lost at the ballot box.

--Trump has purchased and sold condemned luxury castles in FL (with something like 200% profit, within a year), to a Russian oligarch with known ties to organized crime, and condos in Manhattan.
--A Russian mob boss has lived in Trump tower and operated there for at least 10 years. The FBI has been tracking this dude (the "Trump tower server" that has been monitored--which is hilarious, because that's Trump admitting some connection to this guy)
--Tweedle dickless and Tweedle Chinless admitting publicly that the majority share of Trump Inc profits are tied to Russia.
--The known Mafia boss dude that he was very chummy with at the Moscow Mrs Universe pageant, that set up various meetings between Trump Inc, other Russian mob bosses, and some other criminals that represent the Iranian National Guard and some Azerbaijani mob bosses.

These are actual things that are actually documented. It's public information. What it is, is evidence. That's exactly what it is. It doesn't mean that all of it is completely relevant to the other, but it remains evidence. That's what evidence is. This is evidence. It is absolutely not the absence of evidence.

Please, provide evidence for the psycho alt-right pizza parlor rape ring. Please do. Your comparison is ignorant and childish. It's fucking pathetic and paints you as an ignorant fool.

 

[glenn1]

--Trump has purchased and sold condemned luxury castles in FL (with something like 200% profit, within a year), to a Russian oligarch with known ties to organized crime, and condos in Manhattan.
--A Russian mob boss has lived in Trump tower and operated there for at least 10 years. The FBI has been tracking this dude (the "Trump tower server" that has been monitored--which is hilarious, because that's Trump admitting some connection to this guy)
--Tweedle dickless and Tweedle Chinless admitting publicly that the majority share of Trump Inc profits are tied to Russia.
--The known Mafia boss dude that he was very chummy with at the Moscow Mrs Universe pageant, that set up various meetings between Trump Inc, other Russian mob bosses, and some other criminals that represent the Iranian National Guard and some Azerbaijani mob bosses.

These are actual things that are actually documented. It's public information. What it is, is evidence. That's exactly what it is. It doesn't mean that all of it is completely relevant to the other, but it remains evidence. That's what evidence is. This is evidence. It is absolutely not the absence of evidence.

Please, provide evidence for the psycho alt-right pizza parlor rape ring. Please do. Your comparison is ignorant and childish. It's fucking pathetic and paints you as an ignorant fool.

Trump sold real estate to Russians is your evidence that would lead a jury to convict under standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for money laundering?

 

[trenchfoot]

After all that Trump has done to damage himself, the integrity of the office he holds and the nation he supposedly leads, the fact that we're here contemplating whether he should be impeached or not and not when he should be impeached indicates to me how far the Repubs have moved the goal posts outside of the stadium in reference to what is acceptable behavior by our POTUS.

Would they be willing to accept the same behavior from a Democrat? When looking back at how they went after the Clintons and how they tried their ultimate best to figure out every which way they could do it to Obama, it's actually hilarious to look at them give Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.

 

[zinfamous]

You created a hypothetical where Trump isn't President and then get angry when someone points out the problems with that counterfactual. Again the fix is easy, just rephrase your statement to be in accordance with our reality - "I wish Trump were not President and that he would be indicted." That doesn't require any counterfactuals and is a more accurate statement of your mindset.

glenn1:

Did Trump commit the crimes or did he not? Fuck it, forget that: Cohen testified to a thing that Trump did; Trump is now an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime. That is an unimpeachable fact. You can only accept that this is reality. And, regardless of that, it still happened. The state of the crime under question, occurred. It occurred before he was president. Nothing changes the fact that it occurred, whether or not Cohen testified to that fact, or if it was never discovered. It's irrelevant. Nothing, NOTHING changes the fact that it happened.

The only relevant question, in this debate, is whether or not his current status as POTUS affects whether or not he would currently be sitting in a courtroom, under indictment. Agree or disagree? "Just because they found it!" is, in no way, relevant to the actual act having happened. It happened. Full stop.

What is your answer?

 

[Sunburn74]

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.

Yeah but can't the same argument be made for a senator: somehow senators are indicted all the time and still are in DC voting on stuff whilst fighting the charges (see for example the recent New Jersey senator menendez case).

I don't really see why he wouldn't be able to face trial, post bail, and still do both or have the VP step in. Plus he is allowed to be sued and may have to deal with civil stuff.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump sold real estate to Russians is your evidence that would lead a jury to convict under standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for money laundering?

Trump "sold real estate to russians." Yes, because that's all I said. Clearly. You are so smart.

You illiterate sock puppet. Do you not fucking read anything? Do you just tunnel into a single source or information? Have you not learned a fucking thing about the public information that is freely, and thoroughly available, when you choose to read?

And hell, as laughable as your dishonest mis-characterization is, here: you didn't address the simplest of all points: Is that more evidence than pizza gate? Well, glenn: is it? Answer your own fucking question.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If he were not the President there would be no Special Counsel Mueller and thus no reason why he'd be under indictment.

If Trump and his campaign had not acted in corrupt and illegal ways there would be no Special Counsel required. Trump could have operated as every other President in our lifetimes (excepting Nixon) and he'd be fine. For that matter so would Nixon except he didn't care about the law as it applied to himself. Trump doesn't understand that can't be above the law.

Let's parse his latest nonsense.

You know, I guess it says something like high crimes and all—I don’t know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job,” Trump said. “If I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor. You would see numbers that you wouldn’t believe.”

The first part? "I guess it says something like high crimes and all"- He doesn't have the least idea of that he's talking about but then it effectively continues with "I'm an A+ guy. That thing that says something I guess I'M THE GREATEST PERSON IN HISTORY AND EVERYONE WILL BE LIVING ON THE STREETS".

WTF? This alone is sufficient grounds established by the Founders in their various papers to remove any President, and demonstrates a genuine disconnect from reality that warrants the application of the 25th to kick in. This isn't hyperbole, this is a continuation of a pattern of megalomania, a sense of his self-importance far beyond any reasonable argument to deny and that makes him of unsound mind. He is "obnoxious" in the way Franklin stated as requiring the ability to impeach and remove. His politics aside his self-centered pathology is a dangerous mental instability all on it's own. "It" says something like...? An absolute inability to understand the fundamental concepts of our nation as outlined in "IT".

Non compos mentis

 

[UNCjigga]

He plead guilty before a federal judge, in court. There won't be a public trial. His statements made during his guilty plea are the same as any statements made during a public trial before a jury.

I'm not talking about Cohen's crimes or even campaign finance violations that were directed by Trump. Yes, those white collar crimes should be enough to impeach and cleanse the office, but they are not pardon-proof and will not result in any jail time.

I'm talking about the crimes Cohen/Lanny Davis are alluding to--colluding with a foreign power to hack a political opponent and/or covering up said crimes/obstructing the investigation into said crimes. AFAIK Cohen hasn't yet testified to this under oath or else those indictments are sealed and not public. I'd prefer that Justice has a solid case they can bring publicly, that forces impeachment, immediate indictments and zero chance of a pardon if the crimes are as severe as expected.

 

[alien42]

Trump sold real estate to Russians is your evidence that would lead a jury to convict under standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for money laundering?

trump helped Russians launder over a hundred million dollars, and that's just what we know about.

details matter.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'm not talking about Cohen's crimes or even campaign finance violations that were directed by Trump. Yes, those white collar crimes should be enough to impeach and cleanse the office, but they are not pardon-proof and will not result in any jail time.

I'm talking about the crimes Cohen/Lanny Davis are alluding to--colluding with a foreign power to hack a political opponent and/or covering up said crimes/obstructing the investigation into said crimes. AFAIK Cohen hasn't yet testified to this under oath or else those indictments are sealed and not public. I'd prefer that Justice has a solid case they can bring publicly, that forces impeachment, immediate indictments and zero chance of a pardon if the crimes are as severe as expected.

Cohen got 4 years for the campaign violation. To give Trump less would be a slap in the face.
It's like giving a hitman 20 years for a murder, but the person who ordered the murder gets probation only or a small fine.

 

[glenn1]

glenn1:

Did Trump commit the crimes or did he not? Fuck it, forget that: Cohen testified to a thing that Trump did; Trump is now an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime. That is an unimpeachable fact. You can only accept that this is reality. And, regardless of that, it still happened. The state of the crime under question, occurred. It occurred before he was president. Nothing changes the fact that it occurred, whether or not Cohen testified to that fact, or if it was never discovered. It's irrelevant. Nothing, NOTHING changes the fact that it happened.

The only relevant question, in this debate, is whether or not his current status as POTUS affects whether or not he would currently be sitting in a courtroom, under indictment. Agree or disagree? "Just because they found it!" is, in no way, relevant to the actual act having happened. It happened. Full stop.

What is your answer?

That's not the relevant question at all. Relevant would be "should a sitting President be subject to indictment"? You don't need to resort to hypotheticals about "if Trump weren't President" to answer that question anymore than you need to ask a hypothetical about "if Trump's grandmother had wheels would she be a wagon"? Introducing the hypothetical only muddies the basic question as I've pointed out, I don't see why you and @fskimospy seem unwilling to grasp that basic concept. The only reason why it was introduced at all was to avoid the basic constitutional and separate of powers questions inherent in the question about indicting a sitting President. Since that question is difficult to answer he's resorted to the "well if Trump wasn't President" counterfactual as if that matters whatsoever - "what if I were married to a supermodel, would I get blow jobs every night" is just as relevant because Trump is President in reality world. I don't like that fact either but it is reality. You can't get to the hypothetical about Trump not being president unless/until you impeach so the entire premise of the statement is stupid anyway, sort of an exercise in wishful thinking that we can be rid of Trump without needing to worry about the political considerations of actually having to convict in the Senate via impeachment. Like I said before, a deus ex machina. Just as pointless to discuss here as someone saying "if Clinton were President then Trump would be indicted."

 

[fskimospy]

Serious question - did glenn even read the subject of the thread?

It's about if Trump should be impeached, not indicted you crazy idiot. Stop inventing magical hypotheticals out of thin air because you don't know how to read.

 

[UNCjigga]

Cohen got 4 years for the campaign violation. To give Trump less would be a slap in the face.
It's like giving a hitman 20 years for a murder, but the person who ordered the murder gets probation only or a small fine.

...and Dinesh D'Souza was just pardoned for essentially the same crime. Why would you expect Pence to act differently?

Edit: Dont forget that NY still needs to fix the double jeopardy issue in case of a pardon.

My whole point is that for Trump to be held accountable, the Mueller investigation needs to be complete and a final report delivered to Congress. Anything less, he'll be impeached, immediately pardoned by Pence, and then he'll run to Russia in order to avoid extradition while we wait on Mueller.

It sucks that justice is burdened with playing by the rules, but that's also the point of having rule of law.

 

[glenn1]

Serious question - did glenn even read the subject of the thread?

It's about if Trump should be impeached, not indicted you crazy idiot. Stop inventing magical hypotheticals out of thin air because you don't know how to read.

Yes and I addressed it 170ish posts ago before you chimed in with your 'if Trump wasn't President' line of "logic."

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/quick-poll-should-trump-be-impeached.2552971/#post-39546269

 

[fskimospy]

Yes and I addressed it 170ish posts ago before you chimed in with your 'if Trump wasn't President' line of "logic."

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/quick-poll-should-trump-be-impeached.2552971/#post-39546269

You mean the line of logic you invented for me and continued to claim I was using despite me showing you otherwise repeatedly? Hahaha.

The line of logic is very simple. A person who is not the president would be indicted for this, therefore we should impeach the president for this.

You then went off on some bizarre tangent, presumably because you didn't understand what was written.

 

[interchange]

You are smarter than being this obtuse. Without Trump being President we would not have gotten a Special Counsel and thus your premise of "if law enforcement was made aware" would not have happened. And John Edwards is an interesting example for you to raise since his prosecution failed miserably.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/how-the-edwards-prosecution-stumbled-076942

Oh my God, do you hear yourself? It would have been OK that he's clearly attempted to gain the Presidency through felony crimes because no one would have found out about them? And the reason why it's OK now is because he won?

Your defense assents that Trump committed felonies for the purpose of winning an election. How in any world would anyone possibly consider that insufficient grounds for removing them from the office?????

 

[Amused]

Surely "alternative facts" and "truth isn't truth" fit in here somewhere.

And when reality doesn't jibe with their propaganda, they have a nebulous, un-quantifiable "derp state" "illuminutty" to blame for it. The political version of "the devil."

Frankly, it's scary how cult-like the right has become. It's a full on religion with devils and demons and counterfactual realities