The Impeachment of Trump?

[Ten oz]

Well, in some respect it kind of does if the people elected in the last election refuse to do the due diligence that the public wants them to do.

'A constitutional crisis is a situation which a legal system's constitution or other basic principle of operation appears unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis

 

That is why I called it a constitional crisis and not a "bypass". Asking for due diligence does not disrepect our system. That was the point of my post.

[KipIngram]

My point is simply that there are rules for all of this. I don't know what they all are, myself; I wouldn't presume that becoming President makes it so that the only law enforcement that can be carried out against you is Congress-driven impeachment. But I don't know.

 

If the public is unhappy with the Senators and representatives that they elected (because they won't impeach Trump or for any other reason), then the public is free to vote them out the next go round. Our process simply does not allow for en masse recall of elected officials from office. You're certainly free to promote the idea of changing the rules so that it does, but I for one like the relative stability that our system has compared to some others, so you won't have my support.

 

Just remember that any change you campaign for and get implemented will then cut in both directions, both when you want them to and when you don't.

Edited May 14, 2017 by KipIngram

[swansont]

My point is simply that there are rules for all of this. I don't know what they all are, myself; I wouldn't presume that becoming President makes it so that the only law enforcement that can be carried out against you is Congress-driven impeachment. But I don't know.

 

That's what the impeachment clause implies, at least for violations while president. We know that civil actions can proceed for actions prior to becoming president.

[KipIngram]

Thanks, swansont. I'm a bit ashamed I didn't know that, but now I do. So ok, then, that means it's on Congress, and we get to judge them based on how well they do their jobs and make a new decision about them at a future time.

[Airbrush]

If the public is unhappy with the Senators and representatives that they elected (because they won't impeach Trump or for any other reason), then the public is free to vote them out the next go round.

 

At the RATE that Trump is creating crises and embarrassing the USA on the world stage, it will be interesting to see how many more crises like the firing of Comey with strange surrounding circumstances, it will take before more republicans change their minds. Was it not a republican congress that impeached Nixon? Anyone know? How much more abuse from their voters can republican representatives take at town hall meetings?

Edited May 14, 2017 by Airbrush

[KipIngram]

Well, please don't take my posts as being necessarily pro-Trump. I'm fairly shocked by some of the stuff he pulled, and recently I saw a story that claimed he more or less said that our constitutional checks and balances are "bad for the country." Later I decided I was unsure whether the quotes had been placed in proper context; I think may news outlets absolutely distort things. So I retracted my initial reaction to that one and put it in the "watchfully cautious" category instead.

 

What I am trying to convey in my posts is support for sane, rational process for government goings-on. We have such processes and they provide mechanisms for dealing with problems. While I don't like every single thing about all of our processes, and don't imagine there is any such process that everyone thinks is perfect, I still support sticking to them in the name of order. It's a bit like disagreeing with the outcome of an election to start with. I can wish a candidate hadn't been elected while still recognizing him or her as the duly elected person - I can dislike an individual while still loving the fact that we choose our leaders via a democratic process.

 

The bottom line is that the country's still going to be here and more or less in one piece when Trump's administration is over. When Obama was elected you got the same sort of howling and consternation from the right, and yet here we are. I disagreed with many, many of Obama's policies, but I accepted him as my duly elected President.

[iNow]

My point is simply that there are rules for all of this. I don't know what they all are, myself; I wouldn't presume that becoming President makes it so that the only law enforcement that can be carried out against you is Congress-driven impeachment. But I don't know.

It kind of is.

 

Laws are enforced by the Department of Justice. The DOJ is part of the executive branch, and head of the DOJ (our Attorney General) is appointed by the President. The AG can be ignored by the President, and the AG can be fired by the President.

 

So, it's basically up to a Congress to impeach when otherwise historical norms are being ignored and laws are being broken.

[Delta1212]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

 

Trump was bragging about the "great intel" he gets to Lavrov during their meeting and accidentally revealed a bunch of highly classified information about ISIS that had been passed along by an ally and which we did not have permission to share, had not, in fact, even shared with most of our own allies. It was detailed enough that Russia will likely be able to identify the source of the information, which is likely also positioned to provide intel on Russian interests in Syria. White House officials and intelligence officers are scrambling to limit the damage insofar as that is possible as this not only places the intelligence operation of our ally at risk but also makes it less likely that they will share vital information with us in the future.

[iNow]

Sad

[MigL]

IIRC, R M Nixon also fired the guy investigating him several months before he left office in shame.

Maybe this is the beginning of the end for D Trump also.

[DrmDoc]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

 

Trump was bragging about the "great intel" he gets to Lavrov during their meeting and accidentally revealed a bunch of highly classified information about ISIS that had been passed along by an ally and which we did not have permission to share, had not, in fact, even shared with most of our own allies. It was detailed enough that Russia will likely be able to identify the source of the information, which is likely also positioned to provide intel on Russian interests in Syria. White House officials and intelligence officers are scrambling to limit the damage insofar as that is possible as this not only places the intelligence operation of our ally at risk but also makes it less likely that they will share vital information with us in the future.

 

The incompetency of this man is astounding. Before this revelation, I believed the depths of his stupidity couldn't surprise me much more than it already has. Clearly, I was mistaken.

[Airbrush]

 

The incompetency of this man is astounding. Before this revelation, I believed the depths of his stupidity couldn't surprise me much more than it already has. Clearly, I was mistaken.

 

It will be interesting to see how many more crises Trump can create before the republicans have had enough.

[iNow]

They want their tax cuts, to take away healthcare from millions of people, and to deregulate mines before they push him out... That, or they'll wait until it's no longer in their self-interest to step up and act with the patriotism they feature so prominently in all of their campaign materials.

.

"For Trump to fall, for a scandal to end his presidency, what’s needed isn’t a new, massive scandal. What’s needed is for Ryan and McConnell to decide that investigating and prosecuting Trump is important, and the right thing to do." — Dylan Matthews

[Ten oz]

They

 

 

It will be interesting to see how many more crises Trump can create before the republicans have had enough.

Republicans currently have good odds heading into the midterms of keeping both houses. Triple the democratic Senate seats up for election than Republican and House districts are so gerrymandering that regardless of the political enviroment the overwhhelming major of seats are safe. Impeaching Trump could change that.Less people vote in the midterms as is. If the GOP impeach Trump it is possible Trump's far right fringe base, the "build the wall" chanters & Tea Party birther types, might stay home. Bad as things seem to be going for Trump his base of supporters have not abondoned him. Even the few Trump supporters on this site still support him.They are too important to midterm election success for Republican House members to risk turning them away. Trump being impeached by his own party would be egg on the faces of his red hat wearing supporters and a block of them might just stay home on election next year.

[swansont]

IIRC, R M Nixon also fired the guy investigating him several months before he left office in shame.

Maybe this is the beginning of the end for D Trump also.

 

 

He told the AG to do it, and he refused. The deputy AG refused as well, and both resigned. The Solicitor General, Robert Bork, was then the acting head of the Justice Department and sworn in as the acting AG, fired him.

 

The difference here is that there were GOP members willing to put country above party, and draw a line regarding the President's abuse of power. That's not happening these days.

[steveupson]

He doesn't have the courage or endurance to last out the week. He'll take his marbles and go home leaving a mess in his wake. He believes that he's too special to have to put up with being treated as if he isn't above the law. There'll be a mass of pardons for all his family and all his cronies on his way out the door. He never would have signed onto the job if it weren't for the pardon powers.

[Airbrush]

Recent development about Trump meeting with the Russians in the Oval Office, Putin is offering the US transcripts of their meeting. Does this mean that the Russians were allowed to bring sound recording devices into the Oval Office? Or does it mean the Russians have photographic memories and can reconstruct the meeting?

 

Obstruction of justice is looming in front of Trump as he sets off on his trip abroad.

[dimreepr]

Undeniable evidence is key to his impeachment, sorry, for undeniable read political.

[Delta1212]

Recent development about Trump meeting with the Russians in the Oval Office, Putin is offering the US transcripts of their meeting. Does this mean that the Russians were allowed to bring sound recording devices into the Oval Office? Or does it mean the Russians have photographic memories and can reconstruct the meeting?

 

Obstruction of justice is looming in front of Trump as he sets off on his trip abroad.

There was a Russian reporter in the meeting that the White House thought was Lavrov's personal photographer.

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

I hate to burst bubbles, but Trump's not being impeached, nor is he resigning. This is all a continuation of the "Drumpf's done this time" fantasy that's been pervading liberal thought for about two years now.

 

It's not happening, ladies and gentlemen. Now, please, instead of trying to sabotage our president, and harming out country in the process, let's start working together to build a more prosperous America.

[Ten oz]

So many unresolved issues:

 

- Russian interference in the Election

- Accusations of collusion with Russia

- Tax Returns

- Conflicts of Interests

- Nepotism

- Firing Yates

- Firing Flynn

- Sessions lying to the Senate

- Pressuring Comey

- Firing Comey

- Giving classified info to Russia

 

To date the White House has been successful in changing the narrative and keeping people focused on other things. The list of unresolved issues just keeps growing. Even if no wrong doing exists in any of the situations the Whites House's inability to even present a consistent response to them and Congress's refusal to acknowledge and look into them is extremely disheartening and creates a real crisis. While failure to honestly investigate Trump isn't proof that Trump is guilty it is proof that Congress is either unwilling or unable to do their constitutional duty.

[Delta1212]

I hate to burst bubbles, but Trump's not being impeached, nor is he resigning. This is all a continuation of the "Drumpf's done this time" fantasy that's been pervading liberal thought for about two years now.

 

It's not happening, ladies and gentlemen. Now, please, instead of trying to sabotage our president, and harming out country in the process, let's start working together to build a more prosperous America.

Working together to do what, exactly? There is literally nothing in all of the specific things that Trump has actually done or tried to do that I actually want to see done.

 

I do not oppose Trump because he is Trump. I oppose the things he says and does. If he starts doing and saying things that I support, I will continue to support those things getting done.

[KipIngram]

How about we forget Trump (I don't mean that literally - not "forget" but rather cease making him the distracting center of attention) and focus on the fact that we are all Americans (in America at least) and are in this together. The Cop Lives Matter people and the Black Lives Matter people and this group and that group and the other group? We're all Americans and we share life in this country. How about we start focusing on recognizing that and trying to be more understanding to our opponents, while at the same time not just rolling over and playing dead?

 

I remember a time in this country when the Democrats and the Republicans worked together. Tip O'Neill was a Democrat - a very liberal one - and Ronald Reagan was, well... *not* liberal at all. The opposed each other on many many issues. But they could go off into a room, hammer out a compromise, and come out smiling and cracking jokes to one another.

 

In other words, if we could approach the issues that divide us with an attitude of "none of us are going to get exactly what we want, but we'll work something out we can live with" instead of being intent on total destruction of the adversary we'd be a lot better off.

 

This total polarization we've acquired in the last decade or two is terribly, terribly unhealthy.

Edited May 17, 2017 by KipIngram

[Delta1212]

I have zero interest in "destroying the adversary."

 

I would rather everyone succeed.

 

However, that also means that if you want my cooperation in fucking over some other group of people, I'm going to give you the finger. I've heard too many comments from people who think Muslims are all terrorists, black people are all criminals, gay people are going to hell, poor people are lazy, sick people are irresponsible and liberals should all be killed to take "Let's all come together as Americans" as anything more than an empty platitude.

 

You want to come together as Americans to solve the problems we face? I'll do whatever I can to help you. You want to solve your own problems by screwing over some other group? No, thanks. Call me when you're serious about helping everyone and not just the "right" Americans.

[KipIngram]

I have to agree with you 100% on your second paragraph. The problem is on both sides. That's why I deliberately listed both "Cops Lives Matter" and "Black Lives Matter." The bottom line is that *lives matter*. I'm fully supportive of appropriate law enforcement, but that does not mean I don't think there are bad apples in the police barrel, for example. One of the things that happens here is that the news media focuses on the extremes; people that actually do have a well-balanced attitude on these things just aren't sensational enough to make good news.

 

I don't want to screw anyone over - I'm happy to let other people lead whatever life they want to lead. But anyone who wants my good will has to offer me the same (i.e., let me lead whatever life *I* want to lead). And I don't expect anyone to help me make my life what I want it to be - that's on me. Honestly, I think "live and let live" is really the only moral obligation we have to one another. (I do support a basic sustenance welfare program, but I regard it as a gift of compassion, not a moral obligation).

 

I could not care less who someone else sleeps with. And I couldn't care less how someone else worships. That has nothing to do with me. However, the ones that interpret that religion as calling for the death of me and those dear to me because we don't share their faith? That does have to do with me - those people are problems. It's just never appropriate to stereotype a whole group based on the actions of a few, though.