Should Trump be impeached?

[Eddie Teach]

As someone who also opposes his policies, you can't be certain of that.

[frunk]

There also seems to be an assumption that the Mueller report is the be all and end all of investigating Trump.  It was narrowly focused on Russian involvement in the election (which Trump still bizarrely denies) not on Trump's misdeeds.  Mueller did a great job of staying away from a wondering away from that, unlike certain other mid 90's ones.  There's still many other things that should be investigated.  Near the top of the list would be whatever happened with Kushner, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

[The Minsky Moment]

To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

As bad as Trump's conduct in office has been, it's not remotely comparable to a Jim Crow era lynching.

[merithyn]

I'm not sure. Removing thousands of children from their parents without cause and with no mechanism in place to return them seems pretty close. Not to mention keeping said children in cages for months at a time.

[Legbiter]

There also seems to be an assumption that the Mueller report is the be all and end all of investigating Trump.  It was narrowly focused on Russian involvement in the election (which Trump still bizarrely denies)

You want bizarre? Check out the cited examples of "Russian interference" as revealed by some Senate committee a while back.



"Let's beat it together".



It's like a bunch of 12 year olds made this. Oh, and Podesta's gmail got spearfished. Thus was the Republic brought down.

[frunk]

You want bizarre? Check out the cited examples of "Russian interference" as revealed by some Senate committee a while back.

And?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

[Legbiter]

And?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Well yeah that's about it. And then you have deranged pundits and journalists with "anonyomous sources" producing gem after gem like how the Russians hacked utilities in Vermont and my absolute personal favourite, Rachel Maddow and her Russian polar vortex.  https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1090814057089826822?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090814057089826822&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsputniknews.com%2Fsociety%2F201901311072008402-MSNBCs-Maddow-Russia-Attack-US-Polar-Vortex%2F

[DGuller]

To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

As bad as Trump's conduct in office has been, it's not remotely comparable to a Jim Crow era lynching.

The concept is the same.  Crimes are committed brazenly with the expectation of impunity, because the jury will have your back.

[frunk]

And?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Well yeah that's about it.

The answer to a multiple choice question is yeah?

[viper37]

Impeachment is a political process.  Whether political support exists to sustain a conviction is a relevant consideration.  Whether an impeachment from the House helps or hurts the electoral prospects of the President is a relevant consideration.  Congress does not need to impeach to hold hearings on executive conduct, to investigate suspected misconduct, and to hold the Executive accountable for its conduct.

Sensible prosecutors do not bring cases if they do not think they can secure a conviction and the House should guide itself accordingly. 

This.

[Zoupa]

And?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Well yeah that's about it.

The answer to a multiple choice question is yeah?

Don't feed the troll. His fedora gets bigger each time we feed it.

[jimmy olsen]

What exactly do you mean by impeachment?

Should the House vote today to impeach and have the senate start the trial tomorrow? No, they should not.

Should the House open a formal investigation for impeachment, and start calling witness, issuing subpoenas, etc. They should.

Uncover as much dirt as possible, while parading his wrong doing in public, bait him to publicly react and generally make it as politically damaging as possible, then after you've done all that vote to impeach.

That makes it sound like they're holding impeachment hearings as a campaign tactic.  That would set a terrible precedent.

Why would exposing actual wrongdoing by the president and the administration be any worse than the made up crimes of Obama and Clinton we've been hearing about for the past several years?  How many Benghazi investigations were there?  As far as I'm concerned Congress has a duty to expose any such activity.  The Senate not doing anything about it doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Exposing actual wrongdoing I have no problem with.  But Timmay didn't say that, he was talking about digging up dirt, baiting Trump, and doing as much political damage as possible.

What do you think dirt means? It means crimes.

[jimmy olsen]

To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

As bad as Trump's conduct in office has been, it's not remotely comparable to a Jim Crow era lynching.

Separating many thousands of children from their parents and interning them in desert camps, many of whose parents where then deported and effectively orphaning said children. Several of said children have died under mysterious or disputed circumstances, and it is a known fact that the people staffing these camps have not been screened to prevent abuse, with over a thousand children claiming they have been sexually assault, as per the NYTimes. All in all, I would consider the results of this one policy of Trump's to vastly over shadow a singular murder.

[dps]

What do you think dirt means? It means crimes.

It can also mean stuff that is embarrassing but not criminal.  It also has some connotation of being as much about rumors an innuendo as being about facts.

[The Minsky Moment]

Separating many thousands of children from their parents and interning them in desert camps, many of whose parents where then deported and effectively orphaning said children. Several of said children have died under mysterious or disputed circumstances, and it is a known fact that the people staffing these camps have not been screened to prevent abuse, with over a thousand children claiming they have been sexually assault, as per the NYTimes. All in all, I would consider the results of this one policy of Trump's to vastly over shadow a singular murder.

Yes merithyn said the same thing.  And yet no one is proposing impeaching Trump for this.  The separation happened a year ago - there was no need to wait for the Mueller report which has no bearing on it. Has Congress even passed legislation to address the problem?  I don't think so.  And if Congress can't even pass simple legislation to get the executive under control, it is silly to talk about impeaching.