Exiled wrote:Maybe, if something can be shown that resulted from this discussion
The whole point of doing that is to prevent people from knowing what, if anything, could result from those discussions. You're being told that Trump is concealing evidence of something, and your take on it is if any evidence of something bad turns up, you might care.
Kevin Graham wrote:Political Grandstanding would be insisting the investigators be investigated.
I don't agree with this statement. Prosecutorial misconduct is a thing and should be investigated. The political grandstanding would be to insist on repeated review when the answer is clear. The incessant questioning of Obama's birth certificate by Trump comes to mind.
On impeachment, I think that might backfire as I think the public wants to move on and like Bill Clinton, the impeachment could be turned into making Trump out to be a victim. He'll claim no collusion and witch hunt and probably gain in popularity when he wins in the Senate. He can be beaten on the issues.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Exiled wrote:Maybe, if something can be shown that resulted from this discussion
The whole point of doing that is to prevent people from knowing what, if anything, could result from those discussions. You're being told that Trump is concealing evidence of something, and your take on it is if any evidence of something bad turns up, you might care.
Yes, because this is part of the political hysterics that both parties love to whip up. Let's look at Trump closely, but, I'm not quite ready to say it's treason like Brennan said.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
a.k.a., the DNC platform and policy for 2016 through 2020.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
And yours was? Why don't you address something of substance instead of throwing around your baseless assertions? It isn't like this thread and others haven't already argued in detail why impeachment is a constitutional duty. Have waving Trump's constant constitutional violations by saying Democrats just want to "grand stand" flies in the face of the fact that this ISN'T what they're doing.
Political Grandstanding would be insisting the investigators be investigated. Or holding a sixth Benghazi investigation because you just don't like the results of the first five. You make it sound like there is no basis whatsoever for impeachment, which says plenty about where you bury your head.
There is no set definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Due to that the fundamental meaning is something that Congress agrees amounts to that. At the present time what I see is that the house could impeach but the Senate will not convict. It is when the Presidents party in the Senate starts seeing offenses worthy of removal as with Nixon that the process can succeed in removing the monster.
huckelberry wrote:I do not see how starting an impeachment drive now will accomplish anything good. I do not see how it will protect the constitution or democracy. I see futile grandstanding signifying nothing.
1) Trump has committed impeachable offenses and people in Congress have a professional duty to address them through the Constitutional mechanism afforded them to do so.
2) Aside from the ethical obligation, by failure to do this, it gives license for Trump to continue to commit and expand upon impeachable offenses. It also gives future presidents a belief that they may do so as well. It is a profound moral hazard. Once presidents believe they can behave without lawful restraint so long as they have 34 people in the Senate politically backing them, dictatorship is just a matter of time. It will be sooner rather than later. You have to at least attempt to maximize risk for extreme misconduct from a president.
Second Amendment) Given Trump's current and past behavior, this includes actions that affect whether democracy itself can function. If there isn't scrutiny, you are increasing the odds Trump's team will encourage criminal behavior to tilt elections in their favor. They have shown they are not above this. They may do it anyway, but we should at least try to stop them.
3) It will bring to public attention just what Trump has done. You may assume that this is widely known, but it isn't, because it's a complicated subject and right-wing propaganda has a vast hold on public attention that obscures criticisms of Republican actions. By having impeachment hearings and the direct, extensive media attention this brings, you very well might create public pressure that will "accomplish something" such as increasing electoral pressure on those who block attempts to remove Trump from office. Public opinion didn't turn against Nixon until after there were impeachment hearings outlining just what he did, which at this point is child's play compared to the Trump admin.
EAllusion, I should admit that I am actually quite torn on this issue. As a matter of setting precedent a failed removal effort might be precedent for allowing the bad behavior. Or it might be seen as notice that the behavior is unacceptable.
Your next points focus on bringing public attention to the matter. There are hearings in Congress and yes rightwing media color them their way. They will continue to do so with or without impeachment. I see in terms of the situation Trump's approval rating nation wide is gawdawful high. I have serious difficulty comprehending that fact without seeing malignant intent in the voters.(staring that down is to my mind a good argument for impeachment)
Nixon was more popular to start with. The foundation of the matter was simpler and more concrete. There was a breaking and entry and people arrested. There was a smoking gun linking the white house and Mr Nixon.At that point his Republican support fell apart.
I am aware that if the majority party decides to give its preferred leader vastly expanded power as in Germany with Hitler it is difficult to stop. It certainly makes sense to worry.
The House impeaching Trump is pointless. There is no way that there will be as many as 67 Senators that will vote to remove him from office. When Trump did his unconstitutional emergency declaration there were 59 Senators that voted against it, 8 Senators short of 67. Impeaching Trump will increase his chances of reelection. And I don't want to see him reelected.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Brackite wrote:The House impeaching Trump is pointless. There is no way that there will be as many as 67 Senators that will vote to remove him from office. When Trump did his unconstitutional emergency declaration there were 59 Senators that voted against it, 8 Senators short of 67. Impeaching Trump will increase his chances of reelection. And I don't want to see him reelected.
Why do people keep repeating this? It doesn't matter if the Senate won't convict. The House can still impeach and the House should impeach. This is like saying I'm not doing my duty because I know you won't do yours. What kind of BS is that? HC lost because people found out she was simply being investigated and they didn't like the prospect of voting for someone who could be immediately impeached. But if Trump goes into 2020 as a candidate who is an already impeached President, why do you think people will see him as a poor victim instead of the criminal that he is? A man so privileged from birth that he has been getting away with everything all his life.
When the House impeaches Trump it will bring public attention in the form of multiple hearings that involve testimony from numerous witnesses detailing the corruption of this administration. When the Country sees this on TV every day for 15 months it will put pressure on the Republicans in the Senate to distance themselves from this despicable person. And if they choose to keep being his lapdogs then that will be something they can account for during their next election cycle.
Brackite wrote:The House impeaching Trump is pointless. There is no way that there will be as many as 67 Senators that will vote to remove him from office. When Trump did his unconstitutional emergency declaration there were 59 Senators that voted against it, 8 Senators short of 67. Impeaching Trump will increase his chances of reelection. And I don't want to see him reelected.
Bracki can they censure him and if so, why haven't they? Or am I not understanding the purpose of censure?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb