US imposes sanctions on Russia

[Gaidin]

When was the last time Republicans tried to impeach a Republican President?

The signs were there for a bipartisan attempt to be made on Nixon, but he resigned first.

[His Divine Shadow]

I watched this video way before russian involvement ever became a thing, and since doing that I can't say I have ever given much weight to the idea that russia could have had any real influence on the election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUhR3ZvRj74

[Iroscato]

When was the last time Republicans tried to impeach a Republican President?

The signs were there for a bipartisan attempt to be made on Nixon, but he resigned first.

The Nixon era is ancient history though. US politics has mutated into quite a different beast nowadays. Trump could juggle decapitated kitten heads during his first State of the Union address and the GOP would probably emit little more than a wry chuckle.

[Gaidin]

When was the last time Republicans tried to impeach a Republican President?

The signs were there for a bipartisan attempt to be made on Nixon, but he resigned first.

The Nixon era is ancient history though. US politics has mutated into quite a different beast nowadays. Trump could juggle decapitated kitten heads during his first State of the Union address and the GOP would probably emit little more than a wry chuckle.

Hey, impeachment is rare enough in America that any god damn occurrence of it getting past the committee is fair game. Much less ten republicans saying they voted for Nixon saying they''ll publicly vote against Nixon on the floor vote after new evidence turns up provoking his resignation is god damn astonishing as far as how parties behave typically.

It was asked. I answered. Be specific next time and say "in the past twenty years" and maybe I'll stay silent as there was only one impeachment in our history books.

[Tribble]

The signs were there for a bipartisan attempt to be made on Nixon, but he resigned first.

The Nixon era is ancient history though. US politics has mutated into quite a different beast nowadays. Trump could juggle decapitated kitten heads during his first State of the Union address and the GOP would probably emit little more than a wry chuckle.

Hey, impeachment is rare enough in America that any god damn occurrence of it getting past the committee is fair game. Much less ten republicans saying they voted for Nixon saying they''ll publicly vote against Nixon on the floor vote after new evidence turns up provoking his resignation is god damn astonishing as far as how parties behave typically.

It was asked. I answered. Be specific next time and say "in the past twenty years" and maybe I'll stay silent as there was only one impeachment in our history books.

I wasn't being specific as I wanted to know, I thought it was Nixon but I wasn't sure.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump should be impeached immediately. Ditto Pence.

on what grounds? being an sociopathic asshole isn't a crime in USA (or at least wasn't last I checked). Unless there's an actual crime that Trump has commited impeaching him would be the equivelent of voting so many times that the "correct" candidate won.

Personal distaste for a candidate cannot determine if a person should be removed from office, as doing so would do more harm to democracy is US then anything Trump will be realistically able to accomplish is 4 years.

Their are quite a few ambiguities about the legitimacy of that election, but its doubtful any of them will ever be definitively proven, especially since any fair investigation will probably be hindered under Trump. So let's look at the rampant examples of conflict of interest already popping up, the ties between his businesses and the government. That seems a good place to start.

It may be, of course, that he will give more grounds for impeachment with blatantly unConstitutional acts, if he follows certain of his stated objectives.

Obviously, their would have to be grounds for impeachment, but I am fairly confident that such grounds could be found if Congress cared to find them.

[mr friendly guy]

Ash Carter has now said that Russia has done nothing to fight IS. WTF? Palmyra anyone? I wouldn't call it nothing. I guess if this is the state of US intelligence agencies, then all I can say is they suck and at this stage I would be fact checking if US intelligence say that water is wet.

[aerius]

Their are quite a few ambiguities about the legitimacy of that election, but its doubtful any of them will ever be definitively proven, especially since any fair investigation will probably be hindered under Trump.

Name them. Complete with direct citations of the election laws and/or procedures which were allegedly violated.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ash Carter has now said that Russia has done nothing to fight IS. WTF? Palmyra anyone?

They let ISIL retreat from Palmyra with all heavy weapons, tanks and artillery FYI. That's why suddenly that wasn't a battle. Also that remains the only thing they've done other then carpet bombing some shutdown oil plants. Something like 97% of Russian air raids have been against all other rebel groups. It might as well be nothing, now that ISIL retook Palmyra anyway while Russia was busy carpet bombing Aleppo.

[mr friendly guy]

Ash Carter has now said that Russia has done nothing to fight IS. WTF? Palmyra anyone?

They let ISIL retreat from Palmyra with all heavy weapons, tanks and artillery FYI. That's why suddenly that wasn't a battle. Also that remains the only thing they've done other then carpet bombing some shutdown oil plants. Something like 97% of Russian air raids have been against all other rebel groups. It might as well be nothing, now that ISIL retook Palmyra anyway while Russia was busy carpet bombing Aleppo.

I realise a lot of their attacks were against groups other than ISIS. This does not negate what they did against IS. This is pretty straight forward logic since those are 2 separate propositions (fighting IS and fighting other rebel groups). However if what they did was enough to make ISIS retreat the first time, its rhetorical of the very high order to say nothing. Its also pretty hyperbole on your part to say it may as well been nothing (as opposed definitely nothing ) just because war has sides moving back and forth along positions. Using that logic, if two sides ground to stalemate with no change in positions, both sides "may as well have done nothing" to each other irregardless of how much damage equipment is damaged or how many troops are killed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their are quite a few ambiguities about the legitimacy of that election, but its doubtful any of them will ever be definitively proven, especially since any fair investigation will probably be hindered under Trump.

Name them. Complete with direct citations of the election laws and/or procedures which were allegedly violated.

Well, their were the irregularities in certain states which prompted the recount demands in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. As full recounts were never held, it is likely that the validity of these concerns will never be known.

Their's also the blatant FBI violation of the Hatch Act shortly before election day, which considering how close the outcome was, likely cost Hillary Clinton the race. This, in my opinion, amounts to a bloodless coup of the Federal Government by the FBI, on Trumpolini's behalf.

Then their's all the well-documented technically legal maybe but shady as hell stuff like voter suppression/strict voter ID laws that Republicans love so much.

Of course, all this is well-known, and I can't believe you are ignorant of it. More likely, you dismiss it as fabricated or incompetence because it doesn't fit the conclusion you've already reached, or because you simply don't care if the election was fair or not.

[Tribble]

Their are quite a few ambiguities about the legitimacy of that election, but its doubtful any of them will ever be definitively proven, especially since any fair investigation will probably be hindered under Trump.

Name them. Complete with direct citations of the election laws and/or procedures which were allegedly violated.

Well, their were the irregularities in certain states which prompted the recount demands in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. As full recounts were never held, it is likely that the validity of these concerns will never be known.

Their's also the blatant FBI violation of the Hatch Act shortly before election day, which considering how close the outcome was, likely cost Hillary Clinton the race. This, in my opinion, amounts to a bloodless coup of the Federal Government by the FBI, on Trumpolini's behalf.

Then their's all the well-documented technically legal maybe but shady as hell stuff like voter suppression/strict voter ID laws that Republicans love so much.

Of course, all this is well-known, and I can't believe you are ignorant of it. More likely, you dismiss it as fabricated or incompetence because it doesn't fit the conclusion you've already reached, or because you simply don't care if the election was fair or not.

So how does that lead to a Trump impeachment? From what you've said so far there is no evidence to actually impeach him for anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't expect them to, unless his personal complicity in any of them can be proven (and probably not even then). I pretty much said as much before.

That's why I said they should focus on conflict of interest. The ties between his family and government, the government and his businesses. His giving his son in law a prominent White House post. The way that he's using his Presidency to profit the Trump businesses, both by charging the Secret Service rent to guard Trump tower when he's their, and by encouraging visiting dignitaries to stay at Trump hotels. Any business ties with foreign governments.

Edit: Unless collusion in Russian election interference can be proven, of course. In that admittedly unlikely event, I dare say the appropriate charge would be something like espionage.