Should Donald Trump be impeached?

[bilateralrope]

I want to ask a question.

especially this close to an election.

Considering American politics are always close to an election, do you have an appropriate time period? Can you speculate on one?

More specifically, this close to a Presidential Election. Sometime between post-Presidential election and midterms would be the best window for an impeachment. Then there is the fact that 2020 is shaping up to be a repeat of 2018, just with a bad map for the GOP this time around.

So the time most likely to have Congress and the Senate under the control of the presidents party ?

Sounds like the worst time to impeach to me.

Still, no need to draw up the articles of impeachment yet. Just start an impeachment investigation. Start the public hearings.

[Ace Pace]

Civil War Man, exactly what I was aiming at. It's never the right time to rock the boat for some people.

[The Romulan Republic]

Civil War Man, exactly what I was aiming at. It's never the right time to rock the boat for some people.

Meanwhile the Republicans are gleefully punching holes in the bottom of the boat while making sure that they're the only ones with life jackets.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

So the time most likely to have Congress and the Senate under the control of the presidents party ?

Sounds like the worst time to impeach to me.

Still, no need to draw up the articles of impeachment yet. Just start an impeachment investigation. Start the public hearings.

Given that the map for 2020 is pretty bad for the GOP, that things are looking to be a repeat of 2018 in 2020, among other conditions...

[The Romulan Republic]

I take nothing for granted about this election. Obama soft-peddled calling out Russian election interference in 2016 because he didn't want to look partisan, and (most likely) because he assumed it wouldn't matter when Hillary easily beat him.

Look how that turned out.

[bilateralrope]

So the time most likely to have Congress and the Senate under the control of the presidents party ?

Sounds like the worst time to impeach to me.

Still, no need to draw up the articles of impeachment yet. Just start an impeachment investigation. Start the public hearings.

Given that the map for 2020 is pretty bad for the GOP, that things are looking to be a repeat of 2018 in 2020, among other conditions...

How often has a president won the presidential election without his party also getting Congress and/or the Senate ?

[The Romulan Republic]

Often enough. All but two of Obama's eight years had the Congress under opposition control.

IIRC, projections right now have the most likely outcome of 2020 being Dem President and House, Republican Senate.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

How often has a president won the presidential election without his party also getting Congress and/or the Senate ?

Try most of the Cold War for the GOP for one. Hell, they weren't even in control of the House for good portions of the Cold War period.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yeah, it's a sort of normal that the party that gets into the WH has a pretty good chance of not being able to have the house or senate with the rare occasion of both...

So... yeah.

I take nothing for granted about this election. Obama soft-peddled calling out Russian election interference in 2016 because he didn't want to look partisan, and (most likely) because he assumed it wouldn't matter when Hillary easily beat him.

Look how that turned out.

Actually this came up in Spacebattles. In one of the June meetings, Obama was told by the Republican he had on these meetings that if he ever went forward with the Russians were going to interfere with the 2016 elections, he'll make sure that the GOP propaganda machine will turn it into partisan bullshit.

After that meeting, Comney authorized the investigation...

[The Romulan Republic]

I still think Obama should have been more upfront with the public about what was going on. But he didn't want to appear partisan or antagonize the Republicans. And look where that turned out.

The Centrist Democrats never learn, do they? Their only redeeming feature is that they're better than the Republicans by virtue of not actively pushing a fascistic state, and occassionally mustering a weak opposition to it when their backs are to the walls. That's enough to get them my vote in the general, given the alternative- but I'll always vote for those with backbones in the primaries.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I still think Obama should have been more upfront with the public about what was going on. But he didn't want to appear partisan or antagonize the Republicans. And look where that turned out.

The Centrist Democrats never learn, do they? Their only redeeming feature is that they're better than the Republicans by virtue of not actively pushing a fascistic state, and occassionally mustering a weak opposition to it when their backs are to the walls. That's enough to get them my vote in the general, given the alternative- but I'll always vote for those with backbones in the primaries.

You are actually blind of the situation. Just having Obama going out with Russia doing interference with the elections would have been a bad move because it would become a partisan issue by the virtue of the GOP propaganda machine turning it into a partisan issue, it could also cause far more problems that it would otherwise, making the Trump-Russia Investigation that much harder to do anything of note.

[Ziggy Stardust]

How is that any different from the current situation, where the Russia investigation and its fall-out are a partisan issue being ground through the GOP propaganda machine, which made it difficult for it to achieve anything of note (so far)?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

How is that any different from the current situation, where the Russia investigation and its fall-out are a partisan issue being ground through the GOP propaganda machine, which made it difficult for it to achieve anything of note (so far)?

The only reason that it has been going (relatively) smoothly by US grand investigation standards is that the guys that are under investigation don't even know they're being investigated, hence why a lot of the inner circle got their asses thrown in jail.

[Gandalf]

The only reason that it has been going (relatively) smoothly by US grand investigation standards is that the guys that are under investigation don't even know they're being investigated, hence why a lot of the inner circle got their asses thrown in jail.

Who said that?

[Ziggy Stardust]

The only reason that it has been going (relatively) smoothly by US grand investigation standards is that the guys that are under investigation don't even know they're being investigated, hence why a lot of the inner circle got their asses thrown in jail.

What are you even referring to, here? "Grand investigation" isn't a thing. Are you referring to the Mueller investigation overall? Or the broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections of which Mueller was only one component of? Are you referring to the grand jury investigating the Trump Tower meeting?

Who didn't know they were being investigated? Are you implying that Trump and/or specific members of his team had no idea the investigation was happening? Where on earth did you get this idea?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

What are you even referring to, here? "Grand investigation" isn't a thing. Are you referring to the Mueller investigation overall? Or the broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections of which Mueller was only one component of? Are you referring to the grand jury investigating the Trump Tower meeting?

Anything that has a Grand Jury at the top level of the justice system is a grand investigation by most standards.

Who didn't know they were being investigated? Are you implying that Trump and/or specific members of his team had no idea the investigation was happening? Where on earth did you get this idea?

The biggest reason that the investigation got as much ground as it did was that Trump and friends literally didn't know that much of an investigation existed until Trump got into office. Comney kept it on the down low and ensured that the investigation hit a critical mass that made it impossible to shut down.

Who said that?

Anyone who actually kept an eye on the investigation of course. Trump and Friends didn't know that the investigation existed until Trump came into office, thus all of Trump's shenanigans.

[The Romulan Republic]

I still think Obama should have been more upfront with the public about what was going on. But he didn't want to appear partisan or antagonize the Republicans. And look where that turned out.

The Centrist Democrats never learn, do they? Their only redeeming feature is that they're better than the Republicans by virtue of not actively pushing a fascistic state, and occassionally mustering a weak opposition to it when their backs are to the walls. That's enough to get them my vote in the general, given the alternative- but I'll always vote for those with backbones in the primaries.

You are actually blind of the situation. Just having Obama going out with Russia doing interference with the elections would have been a bad move because it would become a partisan issue by the virtue of the GOP propaganda machine turning it into a partisan issue, it could also cause far more problems that it would otherwise, making the Trump-Russia Investigation that much harder to do anything of note.

"turning it into a partisan issue"? It already was a partisan issue. Did the last three years look non-partisan to you?

With all due respect: your attitude is everything wrong with the Democratic Party leadership's approach. No, its worse. You do not back up your assertions that the Centrist, non-confrontational road is always the right path, and that any principled stand against rising fascism will result in defeat- you simply repeat the assertion ad nauseum, and insult those who don't simply take it at face value. You ignore contrary evidence and just repeat the assertions.

You seem to think that if we refrain from calling the fascists out, that they will meet us half-way by being less fascist. Fascists don't work like that though. Try to compromise, and they'll villify your for not conceding more and then try to push the envelope even further next time, because they smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water. And the electorate picks up on it, and turns on us for it, because voters by and large don't like weak, waffling candidates. Why do you think there's so little support for impeachment? Why do you think its so easy to sell the idea that further investigation is just the Democrats being partisan? Maybe because the Democrats have been so cautious in actually taking the actions that Trump's crimes warrant, that to many people it looks like there really is nothing there. After all, wouldn't the Democrats have impeached if Trump were really that bad?

We've seen this pattern again and again- Republicans go far Right, Democratic leadership hesitates to confront them due to fear of seeming "too partisan" and a belief ingrained from the '90s that "Centrist=victory", Republicans take advantage of this weakness to push even further while still attacking the Democrats for being socialists and tyrants, and the Democratic base becomes increasingly disillusioned, which the Right uses to drive down turnout and split the party (a tactic which has worked to the point that the "anti-establishment" Left in America is now virtually indistinguishable from Trumpers on many issues).

Seems like sweeping abolition of free speech rights is the only radical move you're ever willing to entertain.

[Gandalf]

Who said that?

Anyone who actually kept an eye on the investigation of course. Trump and Friends didn't know that the investigation existed until Trump came into office, thus all of Trump's shenanigans.

So... nobody in any position of authority to make that sort of statement. Cool.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

"turning it into a partisan issue"? It already was a partisan issue. Did the last three years look non-partisan to you?

With all due respect: your attitude is everything wrong with the Democratic Party leadership's approach. No, its worse. You do not back up your assertions that the Centrist, non-confrontational road is always the right path, and that any principled stand against rising fascism will result in defeat- you simply repeat the assertion ad nauseum, and insult those who don't simply take it at face value. You ignore contrary evidence and just repeat the assertions.

You seem to think that if we refrain from calling the fascists out, that they will meet us half-way by being less fascist. Fascists don't work like that though. Try to compromise, and they'll villify your for not conceding more and then try to push the envelope even further next time, because they smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water. And the electorate picks up on it, and turns on us for it, because voters by and large don't like weak, waffling candidates. Why do you think there's so little support for impeachment? Why do you think its so easy to sell the idea that further investigation is just the Democrats being partisan? Maybe because the Democrats have been so cautious in actually taking the actions that Trump's crimes warrant, that to many people it looks like there really is nothing there. After all, wouldn't the Democrats have impeached if Trump were really that bad?

We've seen this pattern again and again- Republicans go far Right, Democratic leadership hesitates to confront them due to fear of seeming "too partisan" and a belief ingrained from the '90s that "Centrist=victory", Republicans take advantage of this weakness to push even further while still attacking the Democrats for being socialists and tyrants, and the Democratic base becomes increasingly disillusioned, which the Right uses to drive down turnout and split the party (a tactic which has worked to the point that the "anti-establishment" Left in America is now virtually indistinguishable from Trumpers on many issues).

Seems like sweeping abolition of free speech rights is the only radical move you're ever willing to entertain.

Now you are putting words into my mouth there, the thing is that we've got a bigger picture than just Dems and GOP here, you have to include the 'Goldfish' voters in this entire shingdig as well. If you alienate the 'Goldfish' voters, you'll loose, and that is the problem in this current environment. The Dems have done more to blunt and stop Trump and the GOP's excesses just by doing it by the book.

The investigation only became a partisan issue when put it into the spotlight and that he was one of the Persons of Interest. Before then, no one outside the FBI knew that it was even happening.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Well, in other news, the Dems have activated the INHERENT CONTEMPT card instead of the Criminal Contempt Card, thus completely bypassing the DoJ in it's entirety.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Anything that has a Grand Jury at the top level of the justice system is a grand investigation by most standards.

No, it's not, because "GRAND INVESTIGATION" IS NOT A FUCKING PHRASE. God, damn, how fucking thick are you? I literally just explained in my last post how "grand investigation" is not a phrase that is used at any level of the political or judicial system. That's why I had to fucking ask you to clarify, but you're such a momentous donkey-fucking moron that this is all you can say?

And since your conception of reality is shaky at best, I have to now explain to you that there is also no grand jury at the "top level of the justice system" either, you glorified shit-stain. Is your pathetic slug brain really too feeble to understand why I had to ask you a dozen clarifying questions about which investigation you were referring to?

Why do you expect anybody to take any of your bullshit seriously when you are spewing this sort of pathetic diarrhea all over the board? The Mueller investigation was not a "Grand Jury at the top level of the justice system", nor was any component of the Russia investigation. There are of course multiple different grand juries that have come out of the investigation, but none are at the "top level of the justice system". And none of them are a "grand investigation" because THAT'S NOT A FUCKING THING.

Seriously, please just shut the fuck up and get out of this discussion. It's not worth any of our time to try and penetrate your wall of ignorance and smarmy attempts at rebuttals. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it is painfully obvious to all of us.

[The Romulan Republic]

The first Republican member of Congress has called for Trump's impeachment:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Michigan GOP Rep. Justin Amash said Saturday he had concluded President Donald Trump committed "impeachable conduct" and accused Attorney General William Barr of intentionally misleading the public.

Amash's comments recommending Congress pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump were the first instance of a sitting Republican in Congress calling for Trump's impeachment.

Amash is a rare GOP critic of Trump and previously said Trump's conduct in pressuring then-FBI Director James Comey could merit impeachment. In a Twitter thread on Saturday, Amash said he believed "few members of Congress even read" special counsel Robert Mueller's report and that the report itself established "multiple examples" of Trump committing obstruction of justice.

"Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment," Amash said in a string of messages on Twitter.

While many Democrats have called for impeachment proceedings against Trump, many members of the GOP have agreed with Trump's assertions about the Mueller report and defended his conduct. For his part, Barr said the report established no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and that he and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not believe its findings sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

Amash's comments on Saturday with regard to impeachment went further than even many members of House Democratic leadership. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday that "every day gives grounds for impeachment," while at the same time arguing that she doesn't want to impeach, though she did not rule out the possibility.

• CNN found 77 instances of lies and false assertions in Mueller's report. Trump told the greatest number

• 77 lies and falsehoods Mueller called out

• What Trump associates told the public vs. what they told Mueller

• 4 times Barr twisted and cherry-picked Mueller's report

Amash -- a libertarian conservative elected during the Tea Party wave of 2010 -- was a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, a key bloc of Republicans who worked to shift the GOP caucus to the right on many issues, but in the Trump era, he has found himself breaking with his conservative allies who have embraced the President.

Amash said on Saturday that he made his conclusions "only after having read Mueller's redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis."

He said Barr misled the public in a range of venues regarding the Mueller report, a charge Democrats and others have made repeatedly that the attorney general has disputed.

"Barr's misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice," Amash said.

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

Amash said "contrary to Barr's portrayal," Trump's actions "meet the threshold for impeachment" and that anyone without the unique legal protections of the presidency would be facing an indictment.

He argued that it was Congress' role to move forward with impeachment and accused people on both sides of the aisle of political motives, saying they had shifted "their views 180 degrees ... depending on whether they're discussing (former President) Bill Clinton or Donald Trump."

"Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch's jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution," Amash tweeted. "When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law -- the foundation of liberty -- crumbles."

CNN's Clare Foran and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.

At first, I thought this might be just an attempt to bait the Democrats by Trump, but this guy appears to be serious.

Got to say, this makes every Democrat who is still dragging their feet look really, really bad, because their critics can now point to this guy and say "A Republican is more willing to hold Trump accountable than you are":

Particularly striking his the allegation that most members of Congress haven't bothered to read the fucking report. If that level of dereliction of duty isn't criminal, it damn well SHOULD BE.

[The Romulan Republic]

More high ranking Democrats are reportedly privately pressuring Pelosi to begin impeachment hearings, following former White House Counsel McGahn's ignoring a subpoena and refusing to testify on Trump's orders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqWyg6BQiVY

Reportedly 80-90% of the Judiciary Committee (who would initiate impeachment hearings) now support it (I assume that means just the Democrats).

Pelosi will be meeting with the whole Democratic caucus tomorrow to discuss the state of the investigation. She will likely face intense pressure from fellow Democrats to begin impeachment hearings.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ex-Republican Congressman Tom Coleman (R-Mo.) has written an op-ed calling for Trump's impeachment:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -impeached

Former Rep. Tom Coleman (R-Mo.) has penned an op-ed calling for President Trump to be impeached.

Coleman's Thursday op-ed in the Kansas City Star comes as calls for impeachment heat up from both Democratic lawmakers and at least one Republican, with Coleman amplifying Rep. Justin Amash's (R-Mich) comments from over the weekend.

Coleman’s reasoning echoes Amash’s, arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report showed Trump and members of his campaign “on multiple occasions welcomed Russian interference on his behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

The 75-year-old former lawmaker, who left the House in 1993 after more than 15 years in Congress, noted that there are “political reasons” against pushing for impeachment, but wrote that “politics should not rule the day.”

“Partisan politics is what got us to this dangerous place — so dangerous, I believe, that the survival of our democracy is at risk,” he wrote.

Coleman noted that Mueller’s report not only identified several instances in which Trump’s campaign was open to receiving assistance from Russia, but said Trump also attempted to hinder the investigation.

“Mueller declined to charge the sitting president because of current Department of Justice regulations that prohibit it,” Coleman wrote. “That policy is wrong in my opinion, and must be changed in the future when reason and rationality return to our politics.”

Coleman concluded that the responsibility now falls on the House to move forward with impeachment proceedings against Trump.

“There is a trove of evidence in the Mueller report indicating Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, including abuse of power and lying to the American public,” Coleman wrote. “Both were part of the articles of impeachment brought against President Richard Nixon.”

Coleman also cautioned that should House Democrats choose not to proceed with impeachment proceedings, both the country and the future may not look fondly on the decision.

“I believe the public would conclude Democrats are no better than the Republicans who have enabled Trump for the past two years, putting party above country. It could hand Trump a second term. Failure to pursue impeachment is to condone wrongdoing. To condone wrongdoing is to encourage more of it,” he warned.

Very, very slowly, some Republicans are starting to move towards impeachment. Not enough to matter much, except for one thing: every Republican who expresses support for impeachment will put infinitely more pressure on Democrats to back it, because they will now have to answer for why they are less willing to hold the President accountable than those Republicans.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The thing with any impeachment attempt is that we have Mitch choosing what evidence is used in the proceedings. You can see why that would be problematic.