Trump Impeachment: What crimes to include

[theprestige]

What's more interesting is how the Repugnicans do nothing in response to same.

That's not interesting at all. The Republicans are underreacting, the Democrats are overreacting. That is pretty boring, politics as usual type stuff. The specifics of which charge(s) the Democrats are going to commit to as the The One Thing For Real This Time, are kind of interesting.

Ranting about how the Republicans are unwilling to impeach might have been interesting a couple years ago, when it had some chance of being a novel insight.

And "Repugnicans" must have been interesting for all of about 30 seconds after it was first coined.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's not interesting at all. The Republicans are underreacting, the Democrats are overreacting.

No, no they aren't overreacting.

All evidence points to one thing: That Trump has committed serious crimes (both before and during his presidency). Crimes can and should be investigated, and if appropriate, punished (regardless of who the criminal is).

That it has taken Democrats this long to respond doesn't mean they are over-reacting. If anything, they were under-reacting, since many Democrats think there was enough to impeach Trump months ago.

 

[theprestige]

No, no they aren't overreacting.

Are too!

All evidence points to one thing: That Trump has committed serious crimes (both before and during his presidency). Crimes can and should be investigated, and if appropriate, punished (regardless of who the criminal is).

See this? Banalities that are not actually in dispute. Not interesting.

That it has taken Democrats this long to respond doesn't mean they are over-reacting. If anything, they were under-reacting, since many Democrats think there was enough to impeach Trump months ago.

Or many Democrats have been overreacting for months, and the Democratic leadership has been finally lost control of them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe we should see the evidence first?
I hate Trump as much as anybody, but am really concerned about impeachment backfiring and giving him a second term in the white house.

Read the Mueller report for one. The evidence of many of the felonies he has committed is a public record, hell an investigation ended because the justice department figured he was guilty but they don't indict presidents.

Sure for Ukraine we can't definitively say he broke the law, or violated high crimes and misdemeanors which do not have to be specifically illegal.

Is obstruction of justice a presidential prerogative like republicans claim, or a crime even for the president?

 

[ponderingturtle]

There're a lot of questions about whether Trump would've won if this or that hadn't happened. With the coverage the Russian fake news had, that's my main question about that.

With him bragging about committing sexual assault, why on earth would a little side piece be a big deal to anyone?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think the difference between Trump and Clinton is that Trump seems to have major crimes that he was involved in before he took office (such as potential money laundering). Clinton may not have been perfect, but there wasn't much in the way of potential criminal activity prior to the presidency. (There was whitewater but as of yet there doesn't seem to be evidence that they themselves were involved.)

The Stormy daniels stuff could get messy from a P.R. point of view (with the whole sexual aspect outweighing Trump's criminal activity.) But what other reasons can you see for omitting them?

The problem is that whatever 'precedent' provided by the Clinton impeachment is rather ill fitting.

Clinton's impeachment was based almost completely on Republican's attempts to score political points. (The fact that Starr couldn't pin any whitewater stuff on him and had to go searching for stuff from Clinton's sexual history is evidence of this.)

On the other hand, there are real, serious, and numerous crimes that Trump has engaged in. Even without the politics, there are serious legal issues here.

And if Clinton was paying illegal hush money and committing felonies with his fixer and the owner of the national enquirer he certainly would have been convicted in the senate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not interesting at all. The Republicans are underreacting, the Democrats are overreacting.

Yea I mean sure as a felon Trump shouldn't be allowed to own guns but nukes are fine for all felons. Felonies are like raping some drunk chick just a thing that all rich powerful men do, not something that should be held against them.

I mean god immagine if you were prosecuted for every single felony everyone admits you did!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or many Democrats have been overreacting for months, and the Democratic leadership has been finally lost control of them.

Yea like Republicans were overreacting merely because Obama had Trump bugged to try to cost him the election, that is just presidential prerogatives there.

 

[Donal]

I think the difference between Trump and Clinton is that Trump seems to have major crimes that he was involved in before he took office (such as potential money laundering). Clinton may not have been perfect, but there wasn't much in the way of potential criminal activity prior to the presidency. (There was whitewater but as of yet there doesn't seem to be evidence that they themselves were involved.)

Fair enough. I just think the Dems will want to KISS so the general public doesn't get disinterested too quickly. As much as I want to believe this is purely about right and wrong, there is a political calculus involved.

The Stormy daniels stuff could get messy from a P.R. point of view (with the whole sexual aspect outweighing Trump's criminal activity.) But what other reasons can you see for omitting them?

Mainly because it happened before he took office (the major stuff anyway). I don't think it is a good idea to go after something that can get bogged down on a technicality. This process is going to be muddy enough.

The problem is that whatever 'precedent' provided by the Clinton impeachment is rather ill fitting.

Clinton's impeachment was based almost completely on Republican's attempts to score political points. (The fact that Starr couldn't pin any whitewater stuff on him and had to go searching for stuff from Clinton's sexual history is evidence of this.)

On the other hand, there are real, serious, and numerous crimes that Trump has engaged in. Even without the politics, there are serious legal issues here.

You're right and in a world where our elected officials were acting in the best interest of the country, I'd be 100% with you. I just think keeping this in line with what has already been done gives the Republicans less room to maneuver.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think the difference between Trump and Clinton is that Trump seems to have major crimes that he was involved in before he took office (such as potential money laundering). Clinton may not have been perfect, but there wasn't much in the way of potential criminal activity prior to the presidency. (There was whitewater but as of yet there doesn't seem to be evidence that they themselves were involved.)

The Stormy daniels stuff could get messy from a P.R. point of view (with the whole sexual aspect outweighing Trump's criminal activity.) But what other reasons can you see for omitting them?

The problem is that whatever 'precedent' provided by the Clinton impeachment is rather ill fitting.

Clinton's impeachment was based almost completely on Republican's attempts to score political points. (The fact that Starr couldn't pin any whitewater stuff on him and had to go searching for stuff from Clinton's sexual history is evidence of this.)

On the other hand, there are real, serious, and numerous crimes that Trump has engaged in. Even without the politics, there are serious legal issues here.

Lying under oath is a real serious crime.

 

[Ryokan]

Looks like we will get the answer to this hypothetical question sooner than we thought....

House Speaker Pelosi to announce formal impeachment inquiry of Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6f735a-dedf-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

 

[JoeMorgue]

I just hope they know what they are doing. I really do.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I just hope they know what they are doing. I really do.

How would anyone know what to do?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How would anyone know what to do?

By your... ahem "standards" I'm sure nobody does Bob.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Read the Mueller report for one. The evidence of many of the felonies he has committed is a public record, hell an investigation ended because the justice department figured he was guilty but they don't indict presidents.

Sure for Ukraine we can't definitively say he broke the law, or violated high crimes and misdemeanors which do not have to be specifically illegal.

Is obstruction of justice a presidential prerogative like republicans claim, or a crime even for the president?

Trumpers believe that obstruction of justice is a perfectly justified response when someone who is so obviously innocent is so unfairly attacked with suspicions of doing anything wrong. So yeah, it's only the prerogative of Republican presidents.

 

[plague311]

I just hope they know what they are doing. I really do.

At some point you can't cross your fingers and pray people will support the Dem party anymore. They need to take action. How blatantly he's breaking the law is disgusting.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Lying under oath is a real serious crime.

It's a real crime, but how serious is another matter. That's why judges have leeway in sentencing.

 

[dudalb]

At some point you can't cross your fingers and pray people will support the Dem party anymore. They need to take action. How blatantly he's breaking the law is disgusting.

Agreed, but the huge problem I have with Impeahcment is the chances of getting a conviction are zero.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So what are we gonna hear at 5 from Pelosi? Just a vague "We're going forward" or actual like detailed "Here's what we are starting impeachment proceedings on, bullet form, accusations X, Y, and Z, the whole show starts a 8:00 on this day" kind of thing?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Mainly because it happened before he took office (the major stuff anyway). I don't think it is a good idea to go after something that can get bogged down on a technicality. This process is going to be muddy enough.

Yea like that stopped white water and would have preventing anything had they turned up clear felonies on the part of clinton. If Bill committed felonies in white water he would have been impeached and convicted. Seriously "sure he committed some felonies and should go to prison for years because of it but they were before he was president." 5 years ago anyone saying such crap would be thought of as truly insane.

Are we sure we want to turn into Italy where becoming President turns out to be a good way to prevent you from going to prison?