Should Trump be impeached?

[merithyn]

So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

[Sophie Scholl]

Should he be?  Yes.  Will he be?  No.

[Admiral Yi]

I would vote to impeach, based on obstruction of justice, but I would not condemn out of hand someone who voted not to impeach on the basis of the president's constitutional powers to hire and fire.

[Barrister]

I voted yes, he should be impeached.

I can also respect the views held by Pelosi of 'well impeachment might backfire, and the election isn't that far off'.

But the idea of impeaching him if he wins the next election is absolutely terrible.  Look, the Mueller report is public.  I'm sure its contents will be made subject to many a TV ad.  If the voters, despite all that, still chose to re-elect Trump you can't so baldly go against their wishes as to impeach Trump based on material from 2-4 years earlier.

[Valmy]

Should? Should is a difficult concept.

If our system was functioning as designed then he would be. However, under the circumstances I think it would be a mistake. We have to beat him in the election. So I vote to indict him as a private citizen after he is out of office.

Yes I understand this sets up a situation similar to the Roman Republic in its decadence.

[ulmont]

So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

There's no point in impeaching without being able to count at least close to 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.  Right now the Senate is nowhere near there and not going to move based on what we've seen.

So continue investigating.

[merithyn]

So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

There's no point in impeaching without being able to count at least close to 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.  Right now the Senate is nowhere near there and not going to move based on what we've seen.

So continue investigating.

Um. An impeachment includes investigation as I understand it.... It's the Grand Jury for Presidential concerns. The Senate is the actual jury.

By impeaching, the House will have the authority to demand certain figures be interviewed, like, say, Trump.

[Barrister]

So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

There's no point in impeaching without being able to count at least close to 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.  Right now the Senate is nowhere near there and not going to move based on what we've seen.

So continue investigating.

That of course is the lesson from the Clinton impeachment.  It was a grand waste of time because Senate Democrats were never going to vote for impeachment.

But there is the counter example of Nixon.  Early 1974 Nixon still had the support of the GOP as impeachment hearings were going on.  It was only later on, with the release of the "smoking gun" recording, that Nixon lost that support and he then quickly resigned.

The question is whether or not the impeachment hearings themselves would drive public opinion on the matter or not.

[Maladict]

Yes. Do it now, even if it fails. Even if it gets him reelected.

I just hope I live long enough to eventually find out what happened.

[Admiral Yi]

Um. An impeachment includes investigation as I understand it.... It's the Grand Jury for Presidential concerns. The Senate is the actual jury.

By impeaching, the House will have the authority to demand certain figures be interviewed, like, say, Trump.

This sounds a lot like a fishing expedition.  Or in other words, a...witch hunt.

[Legbiter]

Beat him at the ballot box or let him finish his term of office. Even if he could be impeached the cure would be worse than the disease. Too much like late Roman republic decadence.

Of course if the Democrats in Congress actually believe their own hysterics they'd vote to impeach, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

[Admiral Yi]

Excellent troll Legbiter.  Top notch.

[Legbiter]

Yes I understand this sets up a situation similar to the Roman Republic in its decadence.

Exactly.

[11B4V]

No. The juice is not worth the sqeeze.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm having trouble thinking of a Roman figure as ridiculous as Trump. Pompey had the ego, but backed up by some actual accomplishments. Crassus, the predatory financial practices, but at least he did his military service. Cicero was too smart, Cato too much strength of will.