Be honest, and I will be, Do you think Trump abused his power in ways that rise to impeachment?

Author: billbatard ,

Posts

Total: 94
billbatard
billbatard's avatar
Debates: 75
Posts: 135
0
2
7
billbatard's avatar
billbatard
0
2
7
to be honest i  think Trump is dirty as hell he is a tax cheat their is credible evidence he is a child rapist cheats people at business by  declaring bankruptcy, he colluded with Russia and the only reason there is no evidence is he has his crooked Republocrats cover up for him and the Democrats are a clown car full of incompetant demogogues sure Hillary is corrupt as hell but no where as dangerous as Trump is to our society, i think the ukraine thing stinks to high hell but the democrats are so divided corrupt and incompetant they may blow even this
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
The whole Russia thing I never considered something impeachable... Russia did not tamper with voting machines like some are led to believe, they mainly just sponsored misinformation to try to dupe the dumber half of society into thinking stuff like Democrats will take away your freedoms, Millions of refugees will flood into the country if Trump loses, stuff like that.... There was never an active coordination between Trump and Russia on this, Russia just did it anyways and Trump figured 'well it benefits me so ill just let them continue and not call them out on it'.... Is it immoral and somewhat corrupt, sure, but its not really an impeachable thing.

The Ukraine thing on the other hand, is much more problematic. Using presidential power to threaten to withhold funding to a nation unless they provide political dirt on a primary opponent is disturbingly close in comparison to using presidential power to hire guys to break into the office of your primary opponent to get political dirt on them (The exact thing that happened with Watergate which Nixon 100% would have been impeached over)...

I still only think there's 30% odds impeachment actually takes place though, for a couple reasons:

1 - If Trump loses in 2020, there wont be a need for impeachment. 

Democrats are inquiring about information as part of a possible impeachment indictment, but there sure as shit wont be an attempt to remove Trump from office before the next election takes place. Its much easier for Dems to frame the election as a referendum on Trump's presidency as a whole, rather then making it a referendum on whether what he did with Ukraine is acceptable or not. Since we are still in the infancy stage of the investigation, it's highly unlikely something truly damming will be uncovered soon enough to justify a full on impeachment process. If Trump wins re-election, then there might be an impeachment process in his second term, but there def wont be one before then. 

2 - Im not sure how loyal/disloyal congressional Republicans are. 

While Dems control the house, the GOP still controls the senate and probably will still control the Senate after 2020.... The odds of Dems getting a supermajority 60 seats in the Senate is damn near impossible, meaning that in order for Trump to be impeached, several GOP senators would have to be willing to risk their political careers by voting against their own party, which I dont see them doing. 

Romney might support impeachment out of Utah since his career has already peaked, Cory Gardner in Colorado might support impeaching just to preserve his seat he holds in Colorado which grows bluer by the day, Susan Collins in Maine has been a swing vote on a few issues before..... I don't see anyone else flipping though at the current stage.... 

If there is going to be an attempt at an impeachment, Democrats will have to figure that there is enough potential Republican Senators who would flip their support and agree with impeachment, and I don't think there will be enough to even be considered potential flippers, let alone senators who actually would vote to overthrow a member of their own party. 

3 - I dont think a lot of people would like Mike Pence as president

For the longest time, I considered Trump to be only the second worst possible candidate to become president out of the GOP primary field in 2016, Ted Cruz being the worst.... Trump could be manipulated and corrupt, but Cruz arguably believes he has the support of God himself and would see himself as the leader of a religious crusade to restore his idea of morality back to the country..... Id accept a manipulative trainwreck as president over a religious zealot almost any day. Mike Pence is kind of in the same boat as Trump, a super Christian ball of dough who would cling to faith as strength rather then show any chance to compromise and consider things outside his rigid state of beliefs. A Pence administration would be far more stable and less scandalous than a trump administration, and would make things a lot easier for congressional Republicans to campaign on their own stances rather then defending Trumps daily fuckups, but Pence's ultra-conservative beliefs on issues may also be just as problematic to defend to congressional senators who hold office in more liberal swing states, and I think a few senators would rather deal with Trump as president over Pence just because theyve managed to survive with Trump as president up to this point already. 


Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
(TLDR version)

Does it rise to impeachment? I believe so, this is somewhat similar to what happened with Watergate which would have resulted with impeachment 

Do I think an impeachment will happen? Probably not, it depends on if Trump even survives reelection in 2020 which i am willing to bet against, and even if he wins re-election the Senate will be still be fairly Republican and could serve as a firing wall against any attempt at actual impeachment
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
Trump's own memo spells out that he asked a foreign government to interfere in the election. If all there was was the government released memo (please note it was not a full transcript) that would probably be enough to impeach as it is a straight out confession. 

There was never an active coordination between Trump and Russia on this
This is still unclear. A total of 272 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia-linked operatives were identified, including at least 38 meetings. Trump's team claimed repeatedly that they had no contact with any russians. Paul manafort gave internal polling data to people with close ties to the Kremlin. So there was clearly some form of mutual assistance. Unfortunately, Mueller was not able to find an indisputable smoking gun. Just a whole lot of smoke.

they mainly just sponsored misinformation
They hacked the DNC computers and released emails they thought were incriminating. It isn't all that different than what trump wanted Ukraine to do. 

there sure as shit wont be an attempt to remove Trump from office before the next election takes place
The latest info I've seen says dems want to draft the articles of impeachment by the end of october. It is extremely likely the vote will take place before the election. 

it's highly unlikely something truly damming will be uncovered soon enough to justify a full on impeachment process
The information they already have justifies impeachment. It likely isn't enough to sway republicans, but it is more than enough to impeach him. (please note that impeachment and removal from office are not the same thing)

Trumps team has tried hard to cover this stuff up. They put the transcripts of the call in a computer intended for highly classified material and only gave key members of staff paper hard copies so they couldn't leak it. They knew how bad this was. But Trump has already said there were more calls. It's possible that there is more evidence that would constitute a smoking gun that they are still hiding. 

I would say at this point the odds of trump being impeached by the house before the election is pretty high. The odds that he gets removed from office by the senate are hard to say. I saw an comment from Jeff Flake where he said that there were at least 35 republican senators that would love nothing more than to convict trump. But they are almost certainly too gutless to do so. So the critical factor will be whether or not the republican base see the evidence that comes out as compelling. If the republican base turns on Trump you can be sure the senate will convict. And they would enjoy watching Trump go down in flames. If not, he will be impeached by the house but given a pass by the senate. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Imabench
The whole Impeachment thing is solely to maintain congressional seats.

We know from history that when it ever gets to a vote as it did with Clinton, the Dems will lose congressional seats like the Republicans did in 2000.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Imabench
Also, even if it does come out that Zelensky was lying and he was pressured by Trump, it will still be hard to find sympathetic Republicans after what they did to Kavanaugh and the Meuller fiasco.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
We know from history that when it ever gets to a vote as it did with Clinton, the Dems will lose congressional seats like the Republicans did in 2000.
You are drawing a very tenuous connection here. The reason that blew up in the republicans' face is that they impeached over an affair. It had absolutely nothing to do with the office or with the country. It was an extremely stupid thing to try to impeach someone for. Trump's crimes are exactly why impeachment was included in the constitution. He has abused the powers of his office in an attempt to get a foreign power to attack his opponent. This is in no way similar to the impeachment of Clinton. 


it will still be hard to find sympathetic Republicans after what they did to Kavanaugh and the Meuller fiasco
Kavanaugh lied under oath in front of congress and had multiple credible accusations of rape and sexual assault. Mueller found multiple crimes committed by trump, he just decided he didn't have the power to press charges. These are examples of how the republicans have been able to slow walk issues by stone walling and lying the whole time to get people to think issues are less serious than they are. It doesn't look like that is going to happen this time. The subpoenas are already going out. They plan to have articles of impeachment drawn up by the end of october. Trump might not be able to slow walk and lie his way through this one. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,444
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Trump is a fucking joke, not the funny kind.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
It's still hard to believe the Dems are serious about this when they have yet to take a vote on the house floor over impeachment inquiry. (after 3 years mind you... that's one hell of a filibuster)

It's very likely Pelosi is bluffing to appease people like you to think there might actually be a vote on the floor. Many of the moderates would soon after lose their seats when they are forced to explain their vote to their districts...many districts that Trump won.

Forget an actual impeachment vote, It's highly unlikely there will even be an inquiry vote. Certainly not any time soon as key members have taken 2 weeks off for Jewish holy days. It's not a pressing issue apparently.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
It's still hard to believe the Dems are serious about this when they have yet to take a vote on the house floor over impeachment inquiry
What do you mean? The vote is the end of the process in the house. The 1st part is the official impeachment investigation, which started this week. Then they drawn up the articles of impeachment (which are planned for late October) and then they proceed to a vote. This process is already ongoing. 

Many of the moderates would soon after lose their seats when they are forced to explain their vote to their districts...many districts that Trump won.
It's still too early to say definitively, but the reporting I have saw was that it is the moderates that pushed her to do it. The moderates got hammered by their own constituents and they put pressure on pelosi to proceed. But, I don't have references for that as it just happened this week. 

Forget an actual impeachment vote, It's highly unlikely there will even be an inquiry vote.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't believe there is any such thing as an inquiry vote. Am i missing something? There is the inquiry, which is happening right now. The articles of impeachment that are coming next month, then the vote on the floor. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Imabench
I would be really worried about a House flip in 2020. The Dems got really lucky in 2018 because there were quite a few congressional never-Trumper GOP candidates that lost to Democrats in districts that Trump won. Many of the never-Trumper old guard GOP that refused to advance healthcare to spite Trump (McCain et alia) paid the price for it. The GOP is not going to field those kinds of candidates for congressional races in 2020. The Dems are looking at a much, much more difficult path to maintain the House. We know how harsh the electorate can be when Congress fails to pass critical legislation like healthcare and MCA trade deals. They don't want to hear excuses "well the other guy..." it certainly didn't work for the GOP in 2018 and it won't work for Dems in 2020. Most of all, the GOP is starting to understand why the people voted Trump in office despite his ridiculous showmanship over statesmanship. The people want the government to work for the people, not as a power-grabbing circus.

That being said I find it very likely MCA will be passed and perhaps an attempt at a bi-partisan effort for healthcare, but McConnel has already been firm about bi-partisan support going out the window as long as endless impeachment inquiries are in effect.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
As of now, there are 4 tabled resolutions for an impeachment inquiry, and theres no guarantee that the house has a majority for any single one of these resolutions, of which they will have to get consolidated around one of them. They cant have 4 resolutions open at the same time and expect to get a majority consensus on one of them.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
2 votes have to happen. One for inquiry and a 2nd one for impeachment.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
I would be really worried about a House flip in 2020.
I don't see any evidence that this would occur. In order for that to happen they would need to hold everything they have now and pick up, i think it was 20 more. Dems also have a solid chance of increasing their lead. Republicans seem to be worried about that too. They have had 19 republican members of congress either retire already or announced they wont run again so far this year. They are already ahead of the number of republicans who retired before the 2018 election when they saw the blue wave coming. And 2018 saw the highest numbers of republicans retiring since 1930. 

If republicans are retiring at record rates ahead of the election, you can bet they don't think they are likely to do well. Those retirements also make it harder to win. Incumbents are more likely to win than someone new. So the more republicans that retire, the worse the Republicans are likely to do. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
2 votes have to happen. One for inquiry and a 2nd one for impeachment.
Could you provide a source for that? I can't find any information that says they need a vote to start the inquiry. The information I am able to find says the inquiry has already started. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Lol what is this a basic civics lesson? Go google wiki and impeachment.

Public schools...sheesh..
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Go google wiki and impeachment.
I did, there is no reference to an inquiry vote. 

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.
  • First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
  • Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
  • Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Do you understand that resolutions have to be voted on? This is sad.

The process was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Nixon[1] of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to Watergate. This investigation was undertaken one year after the United States Senate established a select committee to investigate the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon Administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement.


Do you even know what the 4 resolutions on the table are right now?
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Do you even know what the 4 resolutions on the table are right now?
No, that is why I asked you to provide a source like 3 comments ago. If you had provided a source for your assertion we could have avoided this detour where I needed to try to find evidence to prove or disprove your point. You could simply answer me and not be a dick about it. That would make this discussion much easier to have. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Do you understand that resolutions have to be voted on? This is sad.
I have read numerous articles on the subject. Every one of them says the impeachment inquiry has already begun. There is no reference to a vote being needed to begin the inquiry. If you think that this is incorrect please provide a source. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Sorry for coming across as a dick, I was drinking beer yesterday.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Sorry for coming across as a dick, I was drinking beer yesterday.
no worries. I can get dickish sometimes as well. Could you direct me to a source where they say there needs to be a vote on starting an inquiry? As far as i can tell the inquiry is ongoing right now, so if I am missing something I would like to read up on it. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff

Watch this...it covers the points about why a vote would be risky.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
I think he is talking about the actual vote to impeach, not to start an inquiry. 

and wow, that guy is really out of touch. The moderate dems starting pushing pelosi to impeach too. That is why she pulled the trigger on it. Of the 223 house democrats, only 12 have not come out publicly supporting impeachment. Only 11 democrats in seats that are considered toss ups do not support impeachment. 

He is also underplaying the response of republicans. Virtually no one is saying trump did the right the thing on that call. They all know it's bad. The argument they have tried to make is that it isn't bad enough to warrant impeaching him, or that there isn't a smoking gun. The republicans don't really want to back trump on this. If they think they can get away with turning on him, politically, they will do it in a heart beat. 

This guy is basing his opinion on very little. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff

Pelosi is worried that this is all going to devolve into a circus. Starting up an impeachment with a parody skit is really bad optics for a Congress losing street cred.

As far as the GOP turning their back..it's pure bait to get an actual vote on the floor.