Impeachment / 2020 Theories

[oh8sti]

All in all - very destructive for the democrats. I don’t see a way in which this is bad at all for Trump.

 

Either they send it to senate and he’s acquitted, or they stall and it looks like they don’t even believe in what the articles say. I honestly don’t know what’s worse.

 

I do know they just fired up one of the most reliable political bases in the world to go out and vote red down the ticket no matter what. Also, every President from here on out will get impeached if the opposing party rules the house. Impeachment just doesn’t mean anything unless it goes to the senate.

 

Win win?

[Dammit Charlie]

I think so. This has been a waste of tax payer money and voters tolerance for BS. I see this ending poorly for the left in November.

 

Praying they get Pelosi out of the seat and office as well.

[Cordell]

Political Theater.

 

Wish these people would stop wasting money and time, and start working on real problems.

[Sully]

Can someone please explain this because I'm thoroughly confused? All news sites are reporting that Trump has been impeached. My understanding is that the House has voted to impeach him and now it has to go to the Senate for them to vote on it as well. So, he's not technically been impeached, just voted by the House to be impeached.

 

Yes, I'm politically stupid. I don't understand any of this shit. Someone please explain.

[Mitch]

Nope you're not stupid, you've got it right.

[zeitgeist57]

Can someone please explain this because I'm thoroughly confused? All news sites are reporting that Trump has been impeached. My understanding is that the House has voted to impeach him and now it has to go to the Senate for them to vote on it as well. So, he's not technically been impeached, just voted by the House to be impeached.

 

Yes, I'm politically stupid. I don't understand any of this shit. Someone please explain.

 

My understanding is that he’s been impeached, but the Senate determines if he is to be removed from office. Same process with Bill Clinton...and like Clinton, the Senate will save Trump.

 

As a GOP member who voted for Trump, I’ve been really disappointed with his behavior on Twitter and the global stage. However, it baffles me more that the Dems cannot galvanize themselves around both the impeachment process and a good candidate for 2020 (elections less than 12 months away!!). Impeachment hasn’t done much to tarnish Trump and he’ll likely survive in 2020.

[iwashmycar]

This whole thing just makes me bit angry. Can someone legitimately tell me if a crime was committed? I dont follow this stuff like a hawk, but it seems like ultimately all general speculation no?

 

Maybe a little "you shouldnt have done that", or "thats not really right"....but a crime? Is that not what the grounds for Impeachment were?

 

I also voted for the man, and I am still pleased with that decision. Now and again I find myself a bit disappointed by his general manner, but I never fully regret my decision. If there was a dem candidate for 20 that actually made me comfortable id likely have no problem giving them a shot, but this whole situation kind of fires me up to back Trump more.

[STEVE-O]

Can someone please explain this because I'm thoroughly confused? All news sites are reporting that Trump has been impeached. My understanding is that the House has voted to impeach him and now it has to go to the Senate for them to vote on it as well. So, he's not technically been impeached, just voted by the House to be impeached.

 

Yes, I'm politically stupid. I don't understand any of this shit. Someone please explain.

 

Impeached yes, removed from office no.

Same situation as Bill

[TTQ B4U]

All of the above.

 

IMO it was a bad move but they were damned if they didn't as the Dems have a base of people that wanted them to take action, even if that action was harmful to their cause. The eye opener for me these past several years is how thoroughly corrupt the system has become from Washington right through most of the media. For all that has been said, Orange man has been correct on that since day one.

 

In the end, I see more disdain for him as a person than for his policies but if that's what determines which candidate people support so be it. We all knew what he was like as a person going in. He has my vote again in 2020.

[Geeto67]

Can someone please explain this because I'm thoroughly confused? All news sites are reporting that Trump has been impeached. My understanding is that the House has voted to impeach him and now it has to go to the Senate for them to vote on it as well. So, he's not technically been impeached, just voted by the House to be impeached.

 

Yes, I'm politically stupid. I don't understand any of this shit. Someone please explain.

 

It's not an exact 1:1 correlation but think of it in the context of the criminal justice system:

 

In the criminal justice system there is a grand jury trial, a jury trial, and then a sentencing hearing. To oversimplify it the grand jury trial determines whether a crime exists based on the evidence that warrants a trial on the facts, the jury trial determines whether the accused actually committed the crime, and the sentencing hearing (if necessary) imposes punishment.

 

The House of Representatives review of impeachment is similar to a grand jury trial. The house representatives acted as the jurors in reviewing the evidence and interrogating the witnesses to see if formal charges are warranted. Then the representatives act as the prosecutor and draft the issue to be resolved in the form of "articles of impeachment" which moves it to the senate for an impeachment trial. The articles of impeachment defines the charges and accuses the president.

 

The Senate impeachment proceeding acts as a jury trial and a sentencing hearing. The purpose of the senate trial is to review the charges, evidence and findings from the house, and then call any supplemental witnesses. The key difference from a criminal trial is the question being answered - instead of "did the president rob this bank" it is "Was the president robbing the bank in the interest of all Americans and not for personal gain" (yes I know it's not about bank robbery - I just thought it would be clearer this way).

 

Where we are now in the process is that the House of Representatives has filed articles of impeachment. Once a president has had AoI filed against them they are considered impeached in the same way once a person has criminal charges laid against them they go from being a suspect to a defendant.

 

What is confusing is that most people also use "impeached" as a term for "removed from office" or sanctioned as well. So Andrew Johnson was impeached when he was removed from office and Bill Clinton was "impeached" when he was charged with lying under oath and acquitted of those charges. Two very different outcomes with one word to describe them.

[carl1647545492]

In a court of law a good attorney could argue and win either way imo.

[Geeto67]

This whole thing just makes me bit angry. Can someone legitimately tell me if a crime was committed? I dont follow this stuff like a hawk, but it seems like ultimately all general speculation no?

 

Maybe a little "you shouldnt have done that", or "thats not really right"....but a crime? Is that not what the grounds for Impeachment were?

 

I also voted for the man, and I am still pleased with that decision. Now and again I find myself a bit disappointed by his general manner, but I never fully regret my decision. If there was a dem candidate for 20 that actually made me comfortable id likely have no problem giving them a shot, but this whole situation kind of fires me up to back Trump more.

 

So "crime" is maybe the wrong word. Crime means an activity prohibited by law, and honestly a sitting president cannot be tried for a crime. I think the better question is what is the harm.

 

The standard that presidents are held to is their oath of office and responsibility to the people - which boils down to "presidents can't put their own self interests above the needs of the people they represent".

 

In this case American is funding the Ukraine side of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. It has already been determined that the US has a national security stake in the conflict and therefore it is in the interests of the american people to maintain that. Any action that interferes with that is subject to scrutiny. If Trump withheld military aid because the transfer of funds was not secure, or for some other related reason, I don't think anybody would have questioned his actions. The fact that he held it up for an unrelated reason and that it appears it was more for his own benefit than the american people still needs to be decided by the senate in their hearing.

 

 

That's the question at issue in this case - As the president, did he use his power for personal gain (information on a political rival) against the detriment of the american people. The House of representatives says that yes it happened no senate figure out if this a breach of his oath of office which the senate will decide.

 

now if you want my subjective opinion:

 

- yes he held up military aid for the benefit of his election, yes that is an impeachable offence to his office. Even Nixon, who used the FBI to spy on his political rivals knew that involving a foreign country was a bridge too far.

 

- The republican defense to this is largely procedural and bullshit. When the investigation was closed, they complained it wasn't open, when it was open they complained it isn't closed. They compliant they don't have representation yet there has been representation by their party on every committee. They complain the "right " people aren't included and when those people do get included all they do is disrupt the hearing and run afoul of it's procedures.

 

- the unspoken shame of this process is that it is an impartial process that requires a political majority of an opposing party to get traction. That is not how oversight works because it introduces bias where there should be none. Republicans know that there is no defense to the merits of this case, so they cry publicly about how political and unfair it is as a way to convince their base to continue to vote for them. votes are the political currency of Washington and as long as it looks like being on the wrong side of history will keep them in office they are unified.

[iwashmycar]

That makes sense! Thank you for spelling that out!

[Geeto67]

By the way, the federal government has convicted members of organized crime of "racketeering" quid pro quo charges on less evidence than has been presented in this case. The only reason it is even a question here is that while our justice system operates impartially without political bias, this proceeding has political bias from both sides.

 

The real shame of the republican party is that many of those who would have opposed the republican party line either voluntary removed themselves or were forced out from their positions to avoid having to go against the republican party line and do the right thing.

 

If you were a juror in a criminal trial and you publicly stated you were not going to be impartial you would be removed from that trial - but here we have seen more than one senator go on television and state they have no intent to be impartial against their oath of office.

[Geeto67]

if anyone wants to read the actual articles of impeachment you can do so here:

 

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6567-read-the-articles-of-impeachme/5d0f5a8d150481cbb981/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

 

I encourage everyone to read it and asks questions. IMHO it spells out pretty clearly the charges but it may not be readily apparent to people not used to reading government documents, so ask questions here.

[TTQ B4U]

If you were a juror in a criminal trial and you publicly stated you were not going to be impartial you would be removed from that trial - but here we have seen more than one senator go on television and state they have no intent to be impartial against their oath of office.

 

 

there were several democratic house members showing the same bias against him and for impeaching him after he was inaugurated. they've had their minds made up for years and that was evident in the vote.

[Geeto67]

there were several democratic house members showing the same bias against him and for impeaching him after he was inaugurated. they've had their minds made up for years and that was evident in the vote.

 

I didn't say the bias was running only with one party....

 

 

....however, the looming threat of impeachment is the kind of the danger of any president in office and what keeps a lot of them "honest" to the role. Plenty of Republicans called for Obama's impeachment during his administration, but even when republicans controlled both the house and the senate they didn't because there weren't any grounds to - Obama understood the role of his office and made sure not to tread lightly. Same with both Bushes, Carter, Kennedy, Ford, etc...

 

Clinton was impeached not for his sexual transgression but lying about it in a sworn deposition by a majority led republican house, and acquitted in the senate. I mean any claim of bias now against democrats makes the same argument against republicans in 1998.

 

Nixon...well let's not talk about nixon because if there was ever a clearer example of politically burning your own house down I don't know if it exists.

 

So yes you can claim that the other side was always looking for him to "slip up" and then nail him, but really that is what happens to every president and one of the things that keeps them in check. They can't just "impeach" a president him for no reason, just like you can't try someone in criminal court without a crime, and impeachment is part of the due process of this country written into the constitution.

 

You are basically making the argument that police shouldn't arrest criminals because they are always watching and waiting for people to commit crime.

 

despite the political noise, the proceedings and the evidence has been pretty fair and makes a pretty good case for this at least going through the proper procedure. If you want to make the case that what the president did isn't grounds for removal from office well at least that is an honest opinion. If you are railing against a process that has been spelled out in the constitution and the precedent of 3 prior times - well you aren't being honest with yourself and buying into the louder noise machine.

[zeitgeist57]

It amazes me how many of Trump's close advisors covered up for his ignorance - and a few got burned for it - yet nothing sticks to Trump. Throughout the Impeachment hearings, the fact that Trump skated away from directly incriminating himself because all of his people just "knew what he meant/wanted" seems so crazy to me.

 

When Trump complains that NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TREATED THIS WAY!!1!1, he needs to get it through his head that no other President has BEHAVED this way in modern history. If you guys haven't seen his Michigan rally comments from yesterday, or his 6-page letter to Pelosi...the stuff he says/does gets more and more cringe-worthy.

 

What ultimately pisses me off about him is he's a bitch:

- he talks a lot of game, but when people start to get close to calling him out for bullshit, he levers Executive Privledge more than the last 3 presidents to cover his ass.

- he complains about other Presidents' behavior, then golfs and sloughs off more than anyone.

- he criticizes past performance, then racks up more debt (Trillions) and can't get the wall going.

 

He has landed a few good wins, but then takes 15 steps back through his other McSteaks. STILL.....stocks are up, people will be happy. It's the economy, stupid. Perception is reality these days and his fake-it-til-ya-make-it actions seem to work at least in the short-term.

 

As I've been saying: if this is his version of "winning", it's a shame that it makes the country so divided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still can't bring myself to vote for Warren, Sanders, or most of the Dem candidates for 2020. :gabe:

[oh8sti]

Kerry what do you think about holding up the articles in the house?

 

Looks like the public views it as a weakness in the case.

[wagner]

2020 election options....

 

[Geeto67]

Kerry what do you think about holding up the articles in the house?

 

Looks like the public views it as a weakness in the case.

 

I see how it could appear that way, and politicians have certainly seized upon that to their advantage.

 

There are two way to look at this:

 

- procedural:

 

Even in regular american criminal trials there are a lot of bureaucratic issues that need to be settled before a trial begins such as jury selection, agreeing on jury instructions, and 1000 different nitpicky rules of evidence, even order of witnesses.

 

But criminal trials are very structured and their rules are pretty laid out, with an impeachment hearing since there isn't a lot of procedure and jurisprudence, the structure of the trial itself needs to be agreed to by both parties to be considered fair. In the clinton impeachment the senate was able to vote on and ratify the rules of trial unanimously in one day but it took two weeks to agree to whether witnesses were to be called (eventually it was decided they would be), For nixon it didn't get this far because he resigned, and for Johnson it took them about two weeks as well.

 

The differences in this case and all previous ones are:

 

1) The impeachment was submitted and then the rules of procedure were debated/drafted/voted after.

 

2) Never before have any congressmen publicly said they were not going to be call witnesses or impartial in an impeachment hearing and had the votes to back that up. Usually the senate waits to hear the evidence to decide to call witnesses.

 

strictly from a procedural standpoint I don't think it speaks to the merits of the case, but I do think it is a creative way to address a situation where the majority has already threatened to deviate from past process.

 

 

- Political

 

Well of course there is a political strategy component to this for both sides. you already brought up the "weak case" republican point of view so I will address the democrat strategy:

 

1) it signals a lack of confidence in the senate to hold an impartial trial. This sets up the framework for a challenge to the process later if the outcome is not in the favor of the democrats.

 

2) it buys those who might defect from the republican party line some time to break ranks. If some republicans break ranks the tone of the proceeding could change.

 

3) It gives the GOP the opportunity to restore at least the appearance of impartiality. Based on McConnell's and Graham's statements in the press this is a bit of a trap for them because either they have to recant their public statements and agree to procedure, or they bully ahead potentially have to take the hit to their reputation that they are corrupt.

 

If you want my opinion it's a smart political move by the House. I don't think anybody expects the 2/3rds majority vote to impeach and remove in the senate, but the democrats only need 4 GOP senators to break ranks to change the tone of proceedings and damage the GOP's allegations that this was a railroading, witch hunt, etc.... The change in tone might be enough to sway moderate on the fence voters for the next election, something the GOP can't afford to lose going into 2020.

 

 

TL/DR: I don't think there is a weak case, I think the move is a smart political one for democrats, but also objectively the right move in light of a congress that has said it has no intention of acting impartially. In the end it will only divide us further. It has an equal chance of strengthening the democrats or backfiring and pulling public opinion toward the GOP, all depending on who shouts loudest in the media.

 

Either way it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[spankis]

 

Looks like the public views it as a weakness in the case.

 

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[Otis Nice]

As a GOP member who voted for Trump, I’ve been really disappointed with his behavior on Twitter and the global stage.

 

If only he'd acted a fool on Twitter and in general before/during running so you could have had some sort of warning.

[zeitgeist57]

If only he'd acted a fool on Twitter and in general before/during running so you could have had some sort of warning.

 

Well played. I went with the Businessman who will focus on continuing on strengthening our economy.

 

Did not think. it. would. get. this. ugly.

 

Also, Howard Stern's interview of Hillary Clinton...look it up. I'm surprised at how much I enjoyed it.

[unfunnyryan]

Trump on twitter is what makes Trump, Trump.

 

We elected this brazen asshole and he is pulling out the worst in others and exposing them. Is it a good thing? Maybe. Is it "presidential" ??? Hell no. Is it driving the economy like fucking mad? Yes.

 

This guy is the opposite of Jimmy Carter who I'd say is a super great person, bad president.

 

 

 

FOUR MORE YEARS