Impeachment

Oh, no you don't. We have to suffer the full four years -- and maybe eight. Then again, I didn't think we could do worse than the awesomely ignorant W, so maybe the public doesn't learn from these disasters.
 
What do you think "Whataboutism" is?

You're entire argument is "But the other side got to do it!" (or do something similar, or literally did anything ever.)

Yeah, no it isn’t for the reasons I just explained in detail, but the “but what about the children” “argument?

That is not, has not, and will never be a basis for impeachment.
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with whataboutism, it has to do with precedent. You went for the ”will no one think about the children” claim. To be perfectly honest, you would be hard pressed to find a president that someone has not claimed has scarred shildren, most recently Obama scarred plenty of children (hell in Yemen he didn’t just scar them, he blew them into tiny bits on the way to a wedding).

Now if you were calling for Obama’s impeachment for scarring children, I will withdraw my comment.

Y’all got a link?

As if you care about that. It's only because Obama did it that you're mad. If Trump did the same thing you'd thing the sun shone out of his every orifice and wonder why Obama didn't have the guts. There's no morality to your argument the isn't defined by whether or not there's a D or an R in parenthesize behind someone's name.
 
In practical terms the Democrats have to have a slam dunk with evidence so bad it would force enough vulnerable Republicans to vote for impeachment. They really need the pee video. Esoteric banking violations and campaign finance violations won't do. They need, a smoking gun on Russia qui pro quo. It's got to be a smoking gun even the people who go to his rallies would understand (not that their kind would care).


I don't think "smoking gun" is the right word. What the American people need is something easy to understand. Whitewater, whatever the hell it was about, was far too complicated for anyone to care. You couldn't get anybody to stay awake long enough to decide if the Clintons were victims of a scam or somehow the beneficiaries of it. But rubbing up against your intern while your wife is in the other room, that'll grab a headline.
 
It has nothing to do with whataboutism, it has to do with precedent. You went for the ”will no one think about the children” claim. To be perfectly honest, you would be hard pressed to find a president that someone has not claimed has scarred shildren, most recently Obama scarred plenty of children (hell in Yemen he didn’t just scar them, he blew them into tiny bits on the way to a wedding).
....

Do you actually think Obama ordered anybody to kill children? Trump in fact ordered cops to rip children from their parents.
 
Last edited:
If a majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate agree, wearing white after Labor Day is an impeachable offence...
 
If a majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate agree, wearing white after Labor Day is an impeachable offence...
Which makes sense, when you think about it. If that much of the country feels that strongly about it, then yeah, the president probably should go along or get out.
 
Which makes sense, when you think about it. If that much of the country feels that strongly about it, then yeah, the president probably should go along or get out.

On the other hand, it means that if a majority of the House or slightly more than a third of the Senate is okay with the President of the US being a Russian intelligence asset who is building concentration camps for kids, then the President stays.
 
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!

:D
Broken it so bad that every candidate Trump has endorsed has lost to a Dem in deep, DEEP red states where Dems haven't been elected in decades.

That's the most ********** up version of "broken" I've ever seen. Then again, Trump supporters don't generally understand things very well.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
Impeach him for sodomy, he's... well, you get the picture.

This picture?

usa_small.jpg
 
I don't think "smoking gun" is the right word. What the American people need is something easy to understand. Whitewater, whatever the hell it was about, was far too complicated for anyone to care. You couldn't get anybody to stay awake long enough to decide if the Clintons were victims of a scam or somehow the beneficiaries of it. But rubbing up against your intern while your wife is in the other room, that'll grab a headline.


I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Bonus question: If a Fortune 500 CEO had an office affair, was sued for sexual harassment, and then lied about it under oath, had other people lie under oath about it, and concealed evidence, would that be acceptable? Why or why not? Would it depend on the political affiliation of the CEO?
 
I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

In the same way you can arrest someone for no reason and still arrest them for resisting arrest if they resist, sure.
 
I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Bonus question: If a Fortune 500 CEO had an office affair, was sued for sexual harassment, and then lied about it under oath, had other people lie under oath about it, and concealed evidence, would that be acceptable? Why or why not? Would it depend on the political affiliation of the CEO?

We all kind of accept lying under certain circumstances, and perhaps that is where people go off the rails to deciding it's okay to lie under oath. But lawyers are officers of the court, and so for a lawyer to lie under oath is treated as an especially serious offense.

That said, I generally agree with the outcome of the Clinton impeachment. It was a serious matter and deserved a trial, but at the same time, it was not the kind of thing a President should be removed for.
 
In the same way you can arrest someone for no reason and still arrest them for resisting arrest if they resist, sure.


Your position seems to be that if Trump perjures himself, suborns perjury, or obstructs justice, you would be against his impeachment? Is that correct?
 
Your position seems to be that if Trump perjures himself, suborns perjury, or obstructs justice, you would be against his impeachment? Is that correct?

*Sighs* I'm saying that the validity and point of the question being asked matters, nothing more, nothing less.
 
We all kind of accept lying under certain circumstances, and perhaps that is where people go off the rails to deciding it's okay to lie under oath. But lawyers are officers of the court, and so for a lawyer to lie under oath is treated as an especially serious offense.

That said, I generally agree with the outcome of the Clinton impeachment. It was a serious matter and deserved a trial, but at the same time, it was not the kind of thing a President should be removed for.


I disagree. Other posters are correct that impeachment is a political act, so Congress can define "high crimes and misdemeanors" any way they please, but I also firmly believe in equality under the law. If, instead of Bill Clinton the President of the United States, the defendant in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case had been Bill Clinton the college professor or whatever, he would have been looking at ten to fifteen years in prison.

To just say that the sitting president is above the law strikes me as profoundly Un-American.
 
*Sighs* I'm saying that the validity and point of the question being asked matters, nothing more, nothing less.


I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Can you cite anywhere in the law where it's acceptable to perjure yourself? Or tell other people to perjure themselves? Or to obstruct justice?

Let's take politics completely out of it. My hypothetical question about the Fortune 500 CEO, let's assume he's completely apolitical. Never donated a dime to either party, not registered with any party, he's never voted in an election. Should he be prosecuted or not?
 
I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Can you cite anywhere in the law where it's acceptable to perjure yourself? Or tell other people to perjure themselves? Or to obstruct justice?

The "Using 80 million dollars of tax payer money to determine if the President had the chubby girl who brought in the mail blow him is unnecessary" precedent was clearly set in the "No Crap Sherlock Act of Two Thousand and Always."

I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing politics.

ETA: Or not even politics, base reality. Look at it this way... what did the Clinton impeachment accomplish? What problem did the country have before that it didn't have after other than too much free time and enough not enough political drama to make it happy?

Again if you just have to pat one side on the back for being "technically correct, the best kind of correct".... you do you.

Outside of providing the always super important "Whataboutism" I don't really care what happened to Clinton to justify anything that should or shouldn't happen to Trump.
 
Last edited:
Technically speaking we have had two presidents impeached--both Clinton and Johnson. Impeachment is essentially like an indictment; a finding that sufficient evidence exists to warrant a trial. It is true that neither Clinton nor Johnson was convicted in the trial or removed from office, but both were impeached.

And there it is right there. People are counting on this Impeachment thing to save the nation from Trump, as if it could bring him down. But there isn't a president that it has brought down.

Sorry, folks, but I don't see anything going on with this but some political posturings.
 
The "Using 80 million dollars of tax payer money to determine if the President had the chubby girl who brought in the mail blow him is unnecessary" precedent was clearly set in the "No Crap Sherlock Act of Two Thousand and Always."

I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing politics.

ETA: Or not even politics, base reality. Look at it this way... what did the Clinton impeachment accomplish? What problem did the country have before that it didn't have after other than too much free time and enough not enough political drama to make it happy?

Again if you just have to pat one side on the back for being "technically correct, the best kind of correct".... you do you.

Outside of providing the always super important "Whataboutism" I don't really care what happened to Clinton to justify anything that should or shouldn't happen to Trump.


Can you cite where Clinton was impeached for his affair with Lewinsky?

It's not "Whataboutism", it's precedent. And hypocrisy. And the rule of law. To set the standard that a president can commit multiple felonies (note: multiple felonies, not just an affair) and just have it shrugged off as unimportant is a terrible precedent.

Clinton should have been impeached. If it's proven that Trump has committed felonies, he should be impeached. To have the standard of "Well, this president is part of my tribe so I'm going to support him but this other president is not part of my tribe so we should hammer him into the ground" is a large part of what's wrong with the political system in this country.
 
And there it is right there. People are counting on this Impeachment thing to save the nation from Trump, ....
I'm counting on Congress to hold Trump accountable. We are not a nation aligned with dictators and despots. We are a nation aligned with the free world even if it is flawed.

We need to change the majority in both the House and the Senate to hold Trump accountable.

Now, depending on the crimes Mueller turns up, impeachment should be on the table. It certainly looks like the Trump campaign conspired with Russian agents. It looks like Trump has been running a money laundering criminal enterprise for decades.

But we don't have that definitive evidence yet. One can't decide until Mueller finishes his report.

Impeach him on the emoluments clause, maybe not, but at a minimum there should be Congressional hearings to hold him accountable.

What I think is Trump knows that the Mueller report is going to be bad. So what does he do? Attempt to end the investigation and risk an even bigger blue wave? Or hope the GOP holds the Congress and end the investigation after the midterms?
 
Last edited:
That's what people always hide their Whataboutism behind.

So precedent has no place in your concept of jurisprudence? Anyone pointing to the history of previous similar cases is engaging in "Whataboutism"?


Cool.

You are aware we're talking about Trump, not Clinton, right?


Yes. You are aware that Clinton was President, right?
 
I just think people are seeing a Trump Impeachment as accomplishing a lot more than it would.

It wouldn't be a totally symbolic feel good victory, but it would be mostly one.

1. Impeaching Trump wouldn't put the fear of Impeachment into the other Republicans / Members of Government. You wouldn't have them running scared. If anything the surge of support from the side of the aisle that didn't support impeachment would probably work in their favor short term, make them look like the underdogs.

2. Because of #1 Pence or whoever winds up in charge wouldn't feel any real pressure to undue anything Trump did.
 
So precedent has no place in your concept of jurisprudence? Anyone pointing to the history of previous similar cases is engaging in "Whataboutism"?

When it's the only argument, and the discussion of "precedent" and "hypocrisy" never advances beyond "But the other side did / got away with" then yes.

What legal precedent do you really think needs to be set? Impeachment is spelled out in the Constitution. That's peak "Precedent has been set."
 
When it's the only argument, and the discussion of "precedent" and "hypocrisy" never advances beyond "But the other side did / got away with" then yes.

What legal precedent do you really think needs to be set? Impeachment is spelled out in the Constitution. That's peak "Precedent has been set."


You said yourself it's not about legal precedent. It's about politics. It's really a very simple question. If Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for committing multiple felonies, why should Trump (assuming, for the sake of argument that Mueller actually comes up with some evidence) be impeached?

My position is entirely consistent. Any president that commits multiple felonies should be impeached. The very least we should expect of presidents is be able to follow the law. It really shows how far this country has fallen into tribalism that this is considered a controversial opinion. "You really think the law should apply to both sides? What's wrong with you?" is pathetic as a political position.
 
Last edited:
I just think people are seeing a Trump Impeachment as accomplishing a lot more than it would.

It wouldn't be a totally symbolic feel good victory, but it would be mostly one.

1. Impeaching Trump wouldn't put the fear of Impeachment into the other Republicans / Members of Government. ...
Let's not forget we are talking about serious crimes here. Nixon broke laws to spy on the Democrats. Trump may have (and looks like he did) encouraged and took advantage of a foreign country hacking into the DNC servers. And it looks like he was well aware and probably involved in (via Cambridge Analytica) the Russian troll farms and bots that flooded social media with false stories and fake accounts.

So this business of brushing this off as just a partisan attempt to overturn an election is bull ****. Let's keep some perspective.
 
This is something I don't get about the "both sides do it" people. Is quality the only metric, or does quantity factor into deciding which side is actually worse?

Neither quantity or quality matters, only that both sides do it. They want to believe they are taking the fair/balanced position.
 
Let's not forget we are talking about serious crimes here. Nixon broke laws to spy on the Democrats. Trump may have (and looks like he did) encouraged and took advantage of a foreign country hacking into the DNC servers. And it looks like he was well aware and probably involved in (via Cambridge Analytica) the Russian troll farms and bots that flooded social media with false stories and fake accounts.

So this business of brushing this off as just a partisan attempt to overturn an election is bull ****. Let's keep some perspective.

Even if Trump did not collude with Russia, he is clearly Putin's boy now. The only reason he isn't being impeached is because the GOP are loyal to him and his base.
 

Back
Top Bottom