Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[glenn1]

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.

You're inserting your line of "logic" about "in another dimension where Trump isn't POTUS" and then complaining other people didn't read the title of the thread? Here's similar logic that's much more relevant to the thread, "what if @fskimospy hadn't introduced a non-sequitur counterfactual into the thread'?

 

[Viper1j]

We're in a situation where he almost HAS to be impeached. All former presidents, and their first ladies, (in his case the third lady) gets Secret Service protection for life. The only exception to this is those that are impeached AND convicted by the Senate.

If he's not impeached, and then indicted and convicted once he's out, can you imagine seeing an inmate with a Secret Service protective detail walking the yard?

 

[fskimospy]

You're inserting your line of "logic" about "in another dimension where Trump isn't POTUS" and then complaining other people didn't read the title of the thread? Here's similar logic that's much more relevant to the thread, "what if @fskimospy hadn't introduced a non-sequitur counterfactual into the thread'?

So instead of just admitting you were wrong your new strategy is to continue to insist that other people's arguments are whatever ones you invented for them to have.

glenn, this sort of embarrassing stupidity is what happens when you let your anger and your pride get in the way of your brain. There's nothing more for me to say here because you're just stubbornly insisting on a world and an argument by me that doesn't exist. Best of luck with that, I'm not going to respond to you any more here until you've calmed down and started thinking more rationally.

 

[glenn1]

We're in a situation where he almost HAS to be impeached. All former presidents, and their first ladies, (in his case the third lady) gets Secret Service protection for life. The only exception to this is those that are impeached AND convicted by the Senate.

If he's not impeached, and then indicted and convicted once he's out, can you imagine seeing an inmate with a Secret Service protective detail walking the yard?

Impeachment is a reasonably easy bar to meet, it's removal from office via conviction on impeachment charges that's hard. As compared to indictment where the common saying is "I could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" thus it's basically meaningless.

So instead of just admitting you were wrong your new strategy is to continue to insist that other people's arguments are whatever ones you invented for them to have.

glenn, this sort of embarrassing stupidity is what happens when you let your anger and your pride get in the way of your brain. There's nothing more for me to say here because you're just stubbornly insisting on a world and an argument by me that doesn't exist. Best of luck with that, I'm not going to respond to you any more here until you've calmed down and started thinking more rationally.

Gotcha, so brushing aside the question you wouldn't answer about "how do we resolve the Constitutional question of whether we can indict a sitting POTUS," what difference does your hypothetical about indictment matter anyway? It won't remove him from office or impact him in any way so why even bring it up?

 

[Viper1j]

Impeachment is a reasonably easy bar to meet, it's removal from office via conviction on impeachment charges that's hard. As compared to indictment where the common saying is "I could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" thus it's basically meaningless.

Which is why a conviction in the Senate is needed as well, in order to avoid the dilemma I just posed.

 

[fskimospy]

Gotcha, so brushing aside the question you wouldn't answer about "how do we resolve the Constitutional question of whether we can indict a sitting POTUS," what difference does your hypothetical about indictment matter anyway? It won't remove him from office or impact him in any way so why even bring it up?

I've already told you this several times and I'll answer it once more to be crystal clear:

1) This thread is about whether or not we should impeach the president.
2) The evidence currently presented against him would lead to the indictment of any citizen who was not the president.
3) Because this offense would merit his indictment if he were not the president, it merits his impeachment because he is.

 

[glenn1]

I've already told you this several times and I'll answer it once more to be crystal clear:

1) This thread is about whether or not we should impeach the president.
2) The evidence currently presented against him would lead to the indictment of any citizen who was not the president.
3) Because this offense would merit his indictment if he were not the president, it merits his impeachment because he is.

Why does an indictment matter given the ease of achieving one (as referenced by the "ham sandwich" common wisdom)? That would be akin to saying an impeachment was justified because you could get a single digit number of people to agree on something. Considering that such a precedent would invariably be used in the future by opportunistic Republicans to seek an indictment (on whatever charges) on a future Democratic President and use that to justify a subsequent impeachment, are you sure you want to go down that route?

 

[fskimospy]

Why does an indictment matter given the ease of achieving one (as referenced by the "ham sandwich" common wisdom)? That would be akin to saying an impeachment was justified because you could get a single digit number of people to agree on something. Considering that such a precedent would invariably be used in the future by opportunistic Republicans to seek an indictment (on whatever charges) on a future Democratic President and use that to justify a subsequent impeachment, are you sure you want to go down that route?

Yet again, I'm not talking about indicting Trump. Why are you so hung up on this?

The evidence here is strong enough that it's no marginal case at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with impeaching any future president that has a similar standard of evidence of criminal activity to what is presented here presented against them. That's a big positive for the country that such an individual would be removed, regardless of party. I'm certainly a liberal guy but I care far more about good governance than I care about any party. Someone committing multiple felonies in order to help themselves get into elected office? I would hope we would all be super on board with making sure they are removed from that office.

 

[jackstar7]

Indicted under the same charges that John Edwards was just acquitted of recently despite the Edwards case involving larger amounts? That seems to be a foolish thing to do since the Edwards trial went so badly. Or would you follow the model of similar campaign finance violations that happened during the Clinton administration and a Special Counsel wasn't even appointed much less a suggestion that Clinton be indicted? I daresay your opinion might just be tainted by your political views of the current POTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Quick! Those goalposts aren't gonna move themselves!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why does an indictment matter given the ease of achieving one (as referenced by the "ham sandwich" common wisdom)? That would be akin to saying an impeachment was justified because you could get a single digit number of people to agree on something. Considering that such a precedent would invariably be used in the future by opportunistic Republicans to seek an indictment (on whatever charges) on a future Democratic President and use that to justify a subsequent impeachment, are you sure you want to go down that route?

Yeah, let's go down that road because if a President commits a serious crime he should be answerable for his actions. If the SCOTUS says "yes a President can be indicted" that's not all they will say. In matters where they have to insert themselves into the business of the Executive Branch, they are without doubt completely understand the uniqueness of the situation. This isn't going to court for refusing to appear for a speeding ticket and you ought to know that. If a Democrat is found to have engaged in seditious acts such that a court trial by the Judiciary is warranted? Please, do it.

But in some ways impeachment is a proper way to shorten the tenure of a person who is not fit for office.

Whether this happens or not and Trump is gone in 2020 or next month (Mueller's investigation is significantly more popular than the President after all), then it is not Mueller who is the name to watch for but Barbara Underwood. Who?

You can start at about 5 minutes in.

 

[Younigue]

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

I just saw a tweet by a former cult member and she says that Trumpers absolutely behave like a cult. It is scary and dangerous. They've lost their minds.

I also watched this 14 minute video of a preacher preaching to his congregation about praying for Trump because the devil is trying to make America horrible again. That they should pray pray pray because a newer stronger evil force is shifting into position to hurt their messiah (he didn't say messiah, I took creative liberty). He then spoke in tongues along with his shaking and convulsing congregation in prayer. There wasn't a single sane person among those nuts.

 

[Maxima1]

Yet again, I'm not talking about indicting Trump. Why are you so hung up on this?

The evidence here is strong enough that it's no marginal case at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with impeaching any future president that has a similar standard of evidence of criminal activity to what is presented here presented against them. That's a big positive for the country that such an individual would be removed, regardless of party. I'm certainly a liberal guy but I care far more about good governance than I care about any party. Someone committing multiple felonies in order to help themselves get into elected office? I would hope we would all be super on board with making sure they are removed from that office.

He's being quite ridiculous. Yes, conviction takes a lot of Senators, but our constitutional system relies on a Congress with sufficient integrity to check a tyrannical or crazy president either by impeachment or via the 25th Amendment. Trump definitely meets the standard for it. Just because they can disregard it all and be complicit in covering up for him doesn't mean that the Framers would approve of what the congressional Republicans are doing.

 

[glenn1]

Yet again, I'm not talking about indicting Trump. Why are you so hung up on this?

The evidence here is strong enough that it's no marginal case at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with impeaching any future president that has a similar standard of evidence of criminal activity to what is presented here presented against them. That's a big positive for the country that such an individual would be removed, regardless of party. I'm certainly a liberal guy but I care far more about good governance than I care about any party. Someone committing multiple felonies in order to help themselves get into elected office? I would hope we would all be super on board with making sure they are removed from that office.

So even though you said this....

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.

....you're not talking about indicting Trump despite just talking about it. But even though you're not talking about indicting Trump despite talking about it (because you simply don't want to I suppose?) the idea that "he would be indicted" is your basis for saying he should be impeached. Leaving aside the level of effort needed to obtain an indictment, let's talk practical here - given the last person with a similar "standard of evidence presented against him" was Clinton who was acquitted by the Senate on a 55-45 vote, 22 short of the needed margin, is this something you really think is going to lead to removal? If you want to spend your time and energy on an impeachment that's not going to result in a guilty Senate verdict (absent some huge wave election or news we've not heard yet) then go for it. After all it worked out so well for the GOP when they impeached Clinton, right?

 

[Younigue]

Impeachment is a reasonably easy bar to meet, it's removal from office via conviction on impeachment charges that's hard. As compared to indictment where the common saying is "I could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" thus it's basically meaningless.



Gotcha, so brushing aside the question you wouldn't answer about "how do we resolve the Constitutional question of whether we can indict a sitting POTUS," what difference does your hypothetical about indictment matter anyway? It won't remove him from office or impact him in any way so why even bring it up?

Ok so glenn, fsk was saying anyone (not Trump) would have been indicted already. You absolutely misunderstood what he was saying. You then inserted the hypothetical because you thought he meant if Trump weren't president he'd be indicted by now. You really should concede. Seriously everything you have said since the initial misunderstanding is, well, tedious. Move on, fsk is.

* correct me if I'm wrong @fskimospy

 

[jackstar7]

So even though you said this....



....you're not talking about indicting Trump despite just talking about it. But even though you're not talking about indicting Trump despite talking about it (because you simply don't want to I suppose?) the idea that "he would be indicted" is your basis for saying he should be impeached. Leaving aside the level of effort needed to obtain an indictment, let's talk practical here - given the last person with a similar "standard of evidence presented against him" was Clinton who was acquitted by the Senate on a 55-45 vote, 22 short of the needed margin, is this something you really think is going to lead to removal? If you want to spend your time and energy on an impeachment that's not going to result in a guilty Senate verdict (absent some huge wave election or news we've not heard yet) then go for it. After all it worked out so well for the GOP when they impeached Clinton, right?

Pedantry is your new brand, isn't it? It fits.

The likes of buckshot and cybrsage haven't been here to handle that workload.

 

[fskimospy]

So even though you said this....

....you're not talking about indicting Trump despite just talking about it. But even though you're not talking about indicting Trump despite talking about it (because you simply don't want to I suppose?) the idea that "he would be indicted" is your basis for saying he should be impeached. Leaving aside the level of effort needed to obtain an indictment, let's talk practical here - given the last person with a similar "standard of evidence presented against him" was Clinton who was acquitted by the Senate on a 55-45 vote, 22 short of the needed margin, is this something you really think is going to lead to removal? If you want to spend your time and energy on an impeachment that's not going to result in a guilty Senate verdict (absent some huge wave election or news we've not heard yet) then go for it. After all it worked out so well for the GOP when they impeached Clinton, right?

Exactly - I am not talking about indicting Trump. Please reference my previous posts.

I do want to spend the time and energy on an impeachment of Trump, yes. I suspect the evidence that can be brought to bear against him will be orders of magnitude and frankly it's a good governance issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok so glenn, fsk was saying anyone (not Trump) would have been indicted already. You absolutely misunderstood what he was saying. You then inserted the hypothetical because you thought he meant if Trump weren't president he'd be indicted by now. You really should concede. Seriously everything you have said since the initial misunderstanding is, well, tedious. Move on, fsk is.

* correct me if I'm wrong @fskimospy

Yes, I am saying that because Trump has committed serious offenses he would be under indictment for if he were not the president - we should make him not the president.

Not sure how to make this any clearer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I just saw a tweet by a former cult member and she says that Trumpers absolutely behave like a cult. It is scary and dangerous.

I occasionally catch up on what the enemy is doing and there was a Fox article about how we're going to be punished at the voting booths for wanting Trump impeached.

Well, that's all bull and we know it but the fun is in the comments. Here's a fine example.

"The mob keeps attacking President Donald Trump but it never pans out . All Lies ! Looks like Treason against our President Donald J Trump."

If the idiot had a decent education or was a proper but now extinct Conservative he or she would have known that it is not possible to commit treason against Trump or any other President. The very wording of Treason in the Constitution was to prevent an accusation of treason against a sovereign which happened all too often in England. One can commit treason proper against our nation, but no person or group of individuals.

This is a prime example of the ignorance Monarchists exhibit, AKA Trump supporters.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, I am saying that because Trump has committed serious offenses he would be under indictment for if he were not the president - we should make him not the president.

Not sure how to make this any clearer.

You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think.

 

[JTsyo]

At this point even if the Democrats win in the mid-terms, they should wait for Muller to be done before moving for impeachment.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Trump also said if he's impeached, the stock market will crash and everybody will be poor...

So now he's taking hostages...

 

[BurnItDwn]

Yes, though I worry Pence would be worse.

 

[Younigue]

Trump also said if he's impeached, the stock market will crash and everybody will be poor...

So now he's taking hostages...

He's been doing that for a while. Babies in Cages.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Yes, though I worry Pence would be worse.

Pence may be a hateful religious zealot, owned by the corporatocracy and the gun lobby, but he's a stable one, and he'd be contained. The world and the country would definitely be safer with him as President, as wretched a situation as it would be for as long as it lasts.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, though I worry Pence would be worse.

People thinking Pence will be worse... are you appreciating where things are right now?

I'm baffled. Are you worried about the construction of an actual Thunderdome?