# Impeach Trump. Now. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327 "2017-02-20T16:47:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/161 "2017-02-22T01:32:22Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > No, meaning he’s done a lot of business with the Russians and knows them very well. You’d have been a wow grilling suspected commies in the 50s on the House Unamerican Activities Committee. “So you admit that you did business with the Russians and knew some of them well? Gentlemen, I rest my case,” As **enipla** helpfully noted you are the one putting words in the mouths of others. No, I would not had been grilling suspects commies, in fact I know that a lot of the accused were innocent and not going to be a threat to America even if they had weird ideas (there were some exceptions, but the vast majority were railroaded). And really? You want to deny what Trump said on National Television? Bastards like Joe McCarty had to fabricate their evidence. With Trump it is already clear why one needs to investigate now. Impeachment **may** come later. And I already mentioned that no impeachment could be considered at all right now, investigations are needed, but clearly here you are just wanting to tell others that I’m not asking for investigations, that was a silly thing to say because I did it in the post you cited. I prefer to investigate first, and I do suspect that with a piñata like Trump I do think that a lot of evidence against him will fall out just by slightly shaking the so-called president. No need to even hit hard. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/162 "2017-02-22T01:35:27Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re reading it broadly. I’m reading it narrowly. Time will tell who is right. But if they put these questions to a single senior administration official under oath I’ll eat a bug. And just who, and under what pretext, would be asking questions of administration officials under oath? You can have law enforcement officials question them, but to get someone under oath you need a legal proceeding. I doubt the Rep controlled Congress would allow it and its Trumps Justice Dept. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/163 "2017-02-22T02:07:53Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > . . . What exactly would “a plenary system” be in this context? 😕 A plenary system is like the College of Cardinals: there isn’t any actual district representation, but everyone represents the whole. Imagine if the entire U.S. voted for Senators and Congressmen, rather than by regions. I note you didn’t actually answer the question: what realistic proposals do you have to my the U.S. system of government better? It isn’t enough to say it’s a rotten system. We all know that already. ALL systems are rotten systems. How do you think it can be made less rotten? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/164 "2017-02-22T02:09:20Z")
[Looks like Firtash is failing in his bid to avoid extradition](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39043117), so perhaps more of the [Trump/Ukraine/Russia](https://youtu.be/-8GIVHivbkI) web will be exposed as Firtash is prosecuted in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/165 "2017-02-22T02:23:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > A plenary system is like the College of Cardinals: there isn’t any actual district representation, but everyone represents the whole. Imagine if the entire U.S. voted for Senators and Congressmen, rather than by regions. Probably the dumbest idea ever. It would take hours to vote and the ballot would look like a roll of toilet paper. And, would there be one enor,ous list of candidates for office and we would vote for 100 of em for the Senate and 435 of em for the House? Regions is an ideal system for a massive and diverse country. It means just about any statistically significant part of the whole gets at least a small voice in government. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/166 "2017-02-22T03:49:42Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > So sex is only for procreation. In which world? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/167 "2017-02-22T04:01:01Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Bolding mine. It’s 3% of what they support. But I suspect that’s too much for you. Please don’t think they are in the abortion business though. They provide health care. If that were true, and they wanted to ensure themselves funding in the future, they could give up that 3% of their business and virtually all the protests against them would evaporate overnight. The movement to defund them would be stopped dead in it’s tracks. I know they’re not going to do that, and I suspect you do too, and the reality is that it’s because abortion is WAY more significant than 3% of what Planned Parenthood does (even if the actual abortion procedure, when counted among all the IVs and blood draws and administering of anesthesia, only accounts for 3% of the procedures performed). > [@enipla](#): > > Ok. But why would you oppose it at all? Unwanted children causes everyone grief and money. Because I don’t think the FF and Constitution ever intended a federal government that was paying for family planning counseling. It’s more on the same level that I oppose the school lunch program or the NEA or most of the myriad other things the federal government does today that the Constitution doesn’t mention. I’m a small-government conservative. > [@enipla](#): > > You are arguing against yourself. That’s not religious freedom. Would you like Christion only stores? Buddhist only stores? > > Chic-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby and others are FREE to express their feelings. Should they be able to refuse access to anyone that they think may not follow their beliefs? OK let them, but that business plan doesn’t seem to work to well. I don’t believe I am. I agree with your last sentence. I have a very broad view of the freedom of association, one that would force the government to tolerate viewpoints in private industry that I personally disagree with and find distasteful. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/168 "2017-02-22T04:08:52Z")
A piece of fact - while 3% of Planned Parenthood’s “business” is from abortions, 0% of Federal funding goes to that part. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/169 "2017-02-22T14:40:20Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > A piece of fact - while 3% of Planned Parenthood’s “business” is from abortions, 0% of Federal funding goes to that part. Yes, that’s true. Planned Parenthood provides facilities, light, heat, and receptionist services to the abortion providers, and these costs are covered by federal funding. And the abortion providers’ costs are consequently lower. Is that a piece of fact, also? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/170 "2017-02-22T15:17:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s true. > > Planned Parenthood provides facilities, light, heat, and receptionist services to the abortion providers, and these costs are covered by federal funding. And the abortion providers’ costs are consequently lower. Is that a piece of fact, also? Perhaps. But how do you counter the argument that PP prevents many more abortions than it performs with contraceptive services? Defund PP, you get more abortions. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/171 "2017-02-22T15:26:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s true. > > Planned Parenthood provides facilities, light, heat, and receptionist services to the abortion providers, and these costs are covered by federal funding. And the abortion providers’ costs are consequently lower. Is that a piece of fact, also? The govt also provides roads, as well as police and fire protection to the clinics, lowering their costs from what they would be without that subsidy. Is this not also a fact? If you want to make the fungibility of money subsidy argument, you can make it all the way down, even just the fact that you get a tax deduction for donating to PP is the federal govt subsidizing abortion. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Perhaps. But how do you counter the argument that PP prevents many more abortions than it performs with contraceptive services? Defund PP, you get more abortions. Well, you make abortions illegal, then there won’t be any abortions at all, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/172 "2017-02-22T15:43:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The govt also provides roads, as well as police and fire protection to the clinics, lowering their costs from what they would be without that subsidy. Is this not also a fact? Yes. I argue that the nexus between PP’s receptionist services reducing abortionists’ costs is much more immediate than roads, police, and fire: if the abortionist were required to open their own storefront, they would be responsible for the receptionist’s salary. But the roads, police, and fire protection would remain free. > [@](#): > > If you want to make the fungibility of money subsidy argument, you can make it all the way down, even just the fact that you get a tax deduction for donating to PP is the federal govt subsidizing abortion. That, too, is a weak example. I have no real concern about PP’s ability to receive tax-deductible donations, or indeed in imagining a completely separate PP-Abortion corporate entity also getting tax-deductible contributions, as long as the entity was a non-profit corporation. In other words, these are generally applicable benefits; all non-profits are entitled to tax-deductible contributions. But the government funding of PP is not generally applicable, and in my ideal world PP would be required to implement accounting procedures that assessed abortion providers a pro-rata share of the shared infrastructure costs. In this way, the feds could continue to fund PP’s many good health care contributions but truly avoid subsidizing abortion. Well, you make abortions illegal, then there won’t be any abortions at all, right? [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/173 "2017-02-22T15:44:29Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Perhaps. But how do you counter the argument that PP prevents many more abortions than it performs with contraceptive services? Defund PP, you get more abortions. True. I don’t counter it; I don’t favor defunding PP. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/174 "2017-02-22T16:01:28Z")
The issues regarding Planned Parenthood funding are not really germane to the thread, although it could be argued that they arose from it. The issues regarding abortion and contraception are irrelevant to this thread and should be taken to their own thread if anyone wishes to continue to pursue them. [Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/175 "2017-05-14T23:57:38Z")
Laurence Henry “Larry” Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University. He also works with the firm Massey & Gail LLP on a variety of matters. Tribe is a scholar of constitutional law and co-founder of American Constitution Society. He is the author of _American Constitutional Law_ (1978), a major treatise in that field, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court 36 times. And he makes the case in a Washington Post opinion piece that [Trump must be impeached](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-must-be-impeached-heres-why/2017/05/13/82ce2ea4-374d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?). > [@](#): > > Ample reasons existed to worry about this president, and to ponder the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, even before he fired FBI Director James B. Comey and shockingly admitted on national television that the action was provoked by the FBI’s intensifying investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia. > > Even without getting to the bottom of what Trump dismissed as “this Russia thing,” impeachable offenses could theoretically have been charged from the outset of this presidency. One important example is Trump’s brazen defiance of the foreign emoluments clause, which is designed to prevent foreign powers from pressuring U.S. officials to stray from undivided loyalty to the United States. Political reality made impeachment and removal on that and other grounds seem premature. > > No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader. > > Comey’s summary firing will not stop the inquiry, yet it represented an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security matters vastly more serious than the “third-rate burglary” that Nixon tried to cover up in Watergate. Tribe is not naive to the political will needed for this. > [@](#): > > It will require serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty, for a Congress of the president’s own party to initiate an impeachment inquiry. Even though Tribe has said that impeachment should be an option for Trump, the termination of Comey moved him from saying it’s something that could be done to something that _should_ be done. Sadly if it takes getting House Republicans to make a “serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty,” I think it will take they losing seats in droves (or having it look like they will) in the midterms for them to even consider this option. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/176 "2017-05-15T00:56:55Z")
If they lose seats in droves during the midterms, they won’t need to consider the option. The Democrats will. Be careful what you wish for. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/177 "2017-05-15T02:36:47Z")
Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political one. There is not going to be an impeachment until at least 2018, and even then, they might not actually want to follow through with it. Let’s say Trump’s approval rating drops from 37% to say 20-25%. If you’re the DNC, do you want to remove Trump’s circus and take a chance on the country electing a relatively sane and stable (even if Puritanical) Mike Pence? I wouldn’t – I’d let the Republicans suffer the consequences. Now if it’s term 2, then it’s a different story – they’d impeach him (or threaten to) in order to destroy the republican brand in the run up to an election as they did in 1976. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/178 "2017-05-15T02:46:53Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > … > Sadly if it takes getting House Republicans to make a "serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty,… Yeah, that shit ain’t ever gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/179 "2017-05-15T13:13:21Z")
> [@Larry Tribe](#): > > No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader. > [@That Noted Legal Scholar](#): > > Sentence first. Verdict afterwards. The issue is too important to wait for evidence. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/180 "2017-05-15T14:39:24Z")
> [@Kimera757](#): > > IME, as someone who lived under Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto, is that eventually the leader’s power is removed and they’re effectively replaced by a more rational person. Ford was effectively replaced by his deputy mayor. Other leaders would pay court to the deputy, not the mayor himself. Unfortunately that took more than a year to happen. Trump is screwing up much faster, having a disastrous first month (publicly, that is; I’m sure Ford was screwing things up just as much behind the scenes from the start). The comparison to Rob Ford doesn’t make any sense. I know it’s tempting to make because Ford was a terribly spoken clown, just like Trump, but 1. The difference in importance and impact between the President of the United States and the mayor of Toronto is about a bazillion to one. The President isn’t just more important than the Mayor of Toronto; **he is more important to the people of Toronto than the Mayor of Toronto is.** What’s literally the worst thing that happened as a result of Rob Ford’s mayoralty? Some project got delayed? The worst thing that could happen as a result of Donald Trump’s Presidency is Toronto is incinerated by a nuclear weapon. A worldwide depression that causes incredible economic devastation to Toronto, far worse than any city decision, is maybe the THIRD worst thing Trump could do. It was NOT critically important to extract Rob Ford from office. It IS critically important to get Trump out of office is there is any legal means to do so. 1. Rob Ford was in over his head, and did things in-over-their-heads people do, but he wasn’t nearly as far in over his head as Trump was. Ford, at least, was a long-serving city councillor in the same government, one where the differen e in power between a councillor and a mayor is surprisingly modest. Ford understood how the city government worked. Trump, by contrast, clearly doesn’t understand the Presidency and the Constitution as well as I do, which is “Sad!” 1. As you’ve pointed out, fairly quickly, it became the case that Rob Ford was being bypassed for important or complicated things. This cannot happen with Trump. The mayor of Toronto has very limited specific powers and no legal protections. You CAN go around the mayor; it’s theoretically possible for Toronto to run fairly smoothly with no substantial input from the mayor at all. Mayors govern more by influence and political capital than anything else; hell, the provincial government could dissolve the council if they were sufficiently motivated to do so. But the President of the United States has huge Constitutional powers that can only be withdrawn from him if he is removed from office through legal means that are designed to be difficult to accomplish. Though limited in many ways by the judicial and legislative branches, the President’s powers are really quite enormous, and he wields an incredible level of influential power as well. 1. I’ve mentioned this before but it bears constant repetition; Trump is not a “bad” executive in the sense most comparisons you can draw are. Rob Ford was a dull witted man and a bad mayor, but he did want to be a good mayor. He loved his city, and he tried his best, and he genuinely cared about his constituents. George W. Bush was a bad President, but he loves his country and tried to do well by it, and still does try to help people to this day. Name any bad head of government or state and that’s usually the case - they were the wrong person at the wrong time but they wanted to do well and that mitigates the damage a lot. Trump does not want to be a good President; he wants you to think he is, but he has no intention of helping America or Americans. His plan is to use his position to loot his constituents. Lots of politicians steal from the till, but in Trump’s case, uniquely among all Presidents, it’s his only real goal. Trump would cheerfully let ten million Americans die in a nuclear attack if he could make money off it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=10)