Trump Impeachment: What crimes to include

[PhantomWolf]

Trumps not going to be impeached. He has too much dirt on the people who want to impeach him. If he is impeached he will take most of the impeachers with him.

The last I heard there were 215 Democrats and 1 ex-Republican for Impeachment. They need 218 votes.

 

[Stacyhs]

Could we include his fake tan as grounds for impeachment?

 

[Meadmaker]

He won the election. He has gotten some (but not all) of his policies enacted. But his victories have largely been accomplished through the efforts of others: election interference by Russians, complicity by the GOP. And his popularity is wallowing in the 40% range. When historians look back at his presidency, they will probably judge him to be among the worst to hold the office; not exactly a very good legacy to leave.

(emp. added)

Yeah, but they'll be too busy working to repay their student loans to publish their results.


Ok, but seriously. I agree. His support stays strong because the economy is strong. I think presidents get far too much credit and far too much blame for that, but it is what it is. If there's an economic downturn come next November, he's out.

What I was getting at though with my "he keeps winning" comment is really that his enemies constantly think this latest revelation/scandal/faux pas is going to be the one that does him in. It never is, and then people say that all those other people are just too stupid to realize how bad Trump is.

I wish people would consider an alternative, which is that people might not be concerned about the same things that they are, and it doesn't have anything, or at least not much, to do with being stupid. I wish that people might consider the possibility that they, not Trump, are the ones that are out of touch with what's really important. I don't like Trump and he's unfit to be president, in my opinion, but he is a fantastic marketer, and part of that is just understanding what people want. (The rest of it is lying to them in order to promise they'll get it, but Democrats can't even get that far, because they didn't get to the first step.)

But, since that's not really a popular message around here, do carry on.

 

[dudalb]

I'm sure Trump thinks of them that way. Snitches need stitches.

Lots of ratting ahead.
Remember the final shot in "The Departed"?

 

[Stacyhs]

(emp. added)

Yeah, but they'll be too busy working to repay their student loans to publish their results.


Ok, but seriously. I agree. His support stays strong because the economy is strong. I think presidents get far too much credit and far too much blame for that, but it is what it is. If there's an economic downturn come next November, he's out.

What I was getting at though with my "he keeps winning" comment is really that his enemies constantly think this latest revelation/scandal/faux pas is going to be the one that does him in. It never is, and then people say that all those other people are just too stupid to realize how bad Trump is.

I wish people would consider an alternative, which is that people might not be concerned about the same things that they are, and it doesn't have anything, or at least not much, to do with being stupid.
But, since that's not really a popular message around here, do carry on.

True. Many people don't give a damn if their president is a pathologically lying narcissist who tried to extort a foreign government to get dirt on his political rival and obstructed justice as long as they get theirs.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just reminder that we are not limited to the very open concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors", the full quote is:



Bribery is a stand alone constitutional grounds for removal. Was his extortion attempt Bribery? I don't know. But wouldn't you love to have the next three months of FoxNews dedicated to the definition of bribery.

Here's my take. If you have to look at what happened and say that when he did this that fits the definition of this other thing, what you have is a nothingburger.

So, when he used the word "though" in a sentence, that clearly meant that there was a connection between this and that, and that means it was extortion, which is really bribery, which is impeachable and...……..where were we?

Nixon held out a long time against that sort of thing. Finally, though, he had to release a tape where he was saying, "What if we gave this guy a million dollars to not testify?" (Not a direct quote, but not a distortion of what was said, either.) At that point, his public support vanished, and his congressional support dried up at the same time.

Find a crime that The Donald has committed that you don't have to explain to ordinary people why it's a crime, and then you'll have something that can win.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here's my take. If you have to look at what happened and say that when he did this that fits the definition of this other thing, what you have is a nothingburger.

So, when he used the word "though" in a sentence, that clearly meant that there was a connection between this and that, and that means it was extortion, which is really bribery, which is impeachable and...……..where were we?

Nixon held out a long time against that sort of thing. Finally, though, he had to release a tape where he was saying, "What if we gave this guy a million dollars to not testify?" (Not a direct quote, but not a distortion of what was said, either.) At that point, his public support vanished, and his congressional support dried up at the same time.

Find a crime that The Donald has committed that you don't have to explain to ordinary people why it's a crime, and then you'll have something that can win.

I think most Americans can figure out that extortion is a crime. What matters is if they give a damn.

 

[Meadmaker]

True. Many people don't give a damn if their president is a pathologically lying narcissist who tried to extort a foreign government to get dirt on his political rival and obstructed justice as long as they get theirs.

Well, yes. At least sort of.

And, well, there's some argument about whether "extort" is the right word, and whether "obstructed justice" really happened. Yes, I've read the Mueller Report. See the post after the one you quoted.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, yes. At least sort of.

And, well, there's some argument about whether "extort" is the right word, and whether "obstructed justice" really happened. Yes, I've read the Mueller Report. See the post after the one you quoted.

No, "extort" is the right word and obstruction happened as detailed in the Mueller Report. Mueller was clear as to why he could not come right out and say Trump committed obstruction but he sure as hell was clear that Trump was not 'exonerated' as Barr and Trump claimed.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But, since that's not really a popular message around here, do carry on.

Well, if it's any consolation, I think everyone here already knows the "conventional wisdom" version.

 

[kellyb]

Here's what Zephyr Teachout says:
https://twitter.com/ZephyrTeachout/status/1177375849592643584

Re: the argument for a "narrow" impeachment inquiry on Ukraine election interference request only because that weakens the country's security.

Trump taking substantial foreign cash from the Saudi government weakens the country's national security.

Impeach on #Emoluments

 

[xjx388]

Here's what Zephyr Teachout says:
https://twitter.com/ZephyrTeachout/status/1177375849592643584

The problem with including things from the past is that when those things were revealed, the Dems didn’t move on impeachment. From a public perception perspective, I think it looks bad. Like, “why didn’t you impeach on emoluments/obstruction when you learned about it? Must be because you didn’t think there was enough evidence back then. Well, there’s not any better evidence now.” This whistleblower thing is new and hasn’t been hashed out to death. If they can make a good case for extortion/bribery/whatever, then it’s the strongest play they currently have and it’s fresh enough to make an impact without the “witch hunt” baggage.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The problem with including things from the past is that when those things were revealed, the Dems didn’t move on impeachment. From a public perception perspective, I think it looks bad. Like, “why didn’t you impeach on emoluments/obstruction when you learned about it? Must be because you didn’t think there was enough evidence back then. Well, there’s not any better evidence now.” This whistleblower thing is new and hasn’t been hashed out to death. If they can make a good case for extortion/bribery/whatever, then it’s the strongest play they currently have and it’s fresh enough to make an impact without the “witch hunt” baggage.

The main answer to that is "Well we hadn't finished investigating that at the time." This is quite true because they don't have access to the things they need to make a case for breach of the emoluments act yet, i.e. Trump's Financial Records and Tax Returns, and they have not had all the testimony of those that could talk to the Obstruction efforts.

It is a bit hard to start Impeachment proceedings before you finish investigating, and in fairness, the Committee was already throwing around the "I" word prior to the Ukraine Incident being made public.

 

[dudalb]

I think most Americans can figure out that extortion is a crime. What matters is if they give a damn.

I also think that , crime or not, most Amereican who are not the GOP base think that a POTUS seeking the help of a foreign country to attack a domestic political opponent is really, really, bad.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I also think that , crime or not, most Amereican who are not the GOP base think that a POTUS seeking the help of a foreign country to attack a domestic political opponent is really, really, bad.

I think that most of the GOP Base would agree than a POTUS seeking the help of a foreign country to attack a domestic political opponent is really, really, bad too, as long as that President was a Democrat.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think that most of the GOP Base would agree than a POTUS seeking the help of a foreign country to attack a domestic political opponent is really, really, bad too, as long as that President was a Democrat.

Exactly. As it's Trump, it's all fake news and not really extortion. He's just misunderstood.

 

[smartcooky]

Here's my take. If you have to look at what happened and say that when he did this that fits the definition of this other thing, what you have is a nothingburger.

So, when he used the word "though" in a sentence, that clearly meant that there was a connection between this and that, and that means it was extortion, which is really bribery, which is impeachable and...……..where were we?

Nixon held out a long time against that sort of thing. Finally, though, he had to release a tape where he was saying, "What if we gave this guy a million dollars to not testify?" (Not a direct quote, but not a distortion of what was said, either.) At that point, his public support vanished, and his congressional support dried up at the same time.

Find a crime that The Donald has committed that you don't have to explain to ordinary people why it's a crime, and then you'll have something that can win.

If you have to explain to your people that soliciting help from a foreign government (under threat of withholding funds if they won't) to attack a political opponent then your country is in a very sorry state.

 

[xjx388]

The main answer to that is "Well we hadn't finished investigating that at the time." This is quite true because they don't have access to the things they need to make a case for breach of the emoluments act yet, i.e. Trump's Financial Records and Tax Returns, and they have not had all the testimony of those that could talk to the Obstruction efforts.



It is a bit hard to start Impeachment proceedings before you finish investigating, and in fairness, the Committee was already throwing around the "I" word prior to the Ukraine Incident being made public.

Mueller did all the investigating and made the case for obstruction; all they had to do was start the impeachment inquiry. They didn’t. Even though they arguably had more and better quality evidence than they do for the Ukraine affair.

They’ve been throwing around the “I” word almost since Trump took office. At some point they had to **** or get off the pot. I think they waited too long to ****.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mueller did all the investigating and made the case for obstruction; all they had to do was start the impeachment inquiry. They didn’t. Even though they arguably had more and better quality evidence than they do for the Ukraine affair.

They’ve been throwing around the “I” word almost since Trump took office. At some point they had to **** or get off the pot. I think they waited too long to ****.

disagree.

Impeachment is a political process, and the Mueller Report was an attempt to make it judicial ... which in hindsight was bound to fail with a President who only cares about what he can get away with. Moreover, there was a strong sense in many voters to let bygones be bygones.

The Ukraine Scandal is political in a way that is of immediate urgency, something that cannot be solved by waiting to get Trump voted out, because, unlike the Mueller Report, it concerns the Future, not the Past.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Mueller did all the investigating and made the case for obstruction; all they had to do was start the impeachment inquiry. They didn’t. Even though they arguably had more and better quality evidence than they do for the Ukraine affair.

They’ve been throwing around the “I” word almost since Trump took office. At some point they had to **** or get off the pot. I think they waited too long to ****.

Uh huh, heads Republicans win, tails Democrats lose. Maybe.