Impeach Trump. Now.

[RickJay]

@asahi

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.

This just doesn’t make sense.

Impeachment will destroy the brand, period; it doesn’t matter if you’re in the first or second term, you’re making Mike Pence the President and setting the Republicans up for either letting him run for re-election (and he’d be a dreadful candidate) or the public spectacle of a party infight. That scenario plays out in either 2018 or 2022. Maybe the Dems win in 2020 but then who cares?

Gerald Ford was a great contrast to Richard Nixon; he was honest and upright, but he still couldn’t outrun the stench, even had he not pardoned Nixon.

[RTFirefly]

(ETA: Responding to Shodan.)

So you’re saying that Trump’s efforts* to demand Comey’s loyalty, his firing of Comey, and his attempt to threaten Comey - none of these were an attempt to obstruct justice?

And I suppose the blatant use of the office of the Presidency for monetary gain by Trump, Ivanka, and Jared is imaginary as well.

Finally, we have a metric ton of evidence that the President of the United States is the functional equivalent of an undisciplined, needy toddler who governs by whim. The danger of this should be obvious to even hardened conservatives. Got any other way of dealing with this?

Look, the outcome of removing Trump from office would be President Pence. It’s not like that would be exactly a win for liberalism or a loss for conservatism.

Rather, it would be an upgrade (from a liberal POV) from a horrible conservative nutcase to a horrible but sane conservative.

Seriously, why don’t you regard that as an improvement?

If it were all about scoring partisan points, I’d say: leave Trump in there until the next Congress checks in. Because Trump will continually remind people on my side of things of why it’s important to vote next November.

But the chance that Trump could do something disastrous for America between now and then (especially through some misguided saber-rattling) is a chance I’d rather not take. This is a guy who already came within an ace of pulling us out of NAFTA - and whatever one’s take on NAFTA, an abrupt withdrawal from it would be a major economic disruption that would likely throw millions out of work.

If he’d done that, the Dems would surely have made political hay over the disaster in people’s lives, and it would have improved the chances of a Dem landslide in 2018.

You know what? I’d rather just avoid such disasters in people’s lives in the first place.
*Sure, the alleged efforts. But whose account would you believe, Trump or Comey?

[RTFirefly]

@RickJay

Gerald Ford was a great contrast to Richard Nixon; he was honest and upright, but he still couldn’t outrun the stench, even had he not pardoned Nixon.

Well, the ‘WIN’* buttons, and the general impression of Ford as a doofus (with an assist from Chevy Chase), didn’t help either.
*That’s ‘Whip Inflation Now,’ for folks under 55. Yes, Ford thought that inflation could be addressed by people wearing anti-inflation buttons.

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

(ETA: Responding to Shodan.)

So you’re saying that Trump’s efforts* to demand Comey’s loyalty, his firing of Comey, and his attempt to threaten Comey - none of these were an attempt to obstruct justice?

Correct. None of these meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

And I suppose the blatant use of the office of the Presidency for monetary gain by Trump, Ivanka, and Jared is imaginary as well.

Yes. The idea that any of these are crimes by any reasonable definition is the product of an overheated imagination. Many over-heated imaginations, as a matter of fact.

Seriously, why don’t you regard that as an improvement?

Because a duly elected President should not be removed from office without evidence of some high crime or misdemeanor.

But the chance that Trump could do something disastrous for America between now and then (especially through some misguided saber-rattling) is a chance I’d rather not take.

You said the same thing when Bush was President - that he needs to be impeached before he does something disastrous.

Look - Trump is President. The country decided that was a chance they wanted to take. “But he shouldn’t have been elected!” is not a reason to impeach him. At least not for anybody who can stop “but he SUX!!!” from crowding out any consideration for the rule of law.

Yes, any sane person would prefer Pence to be President, and so would I ( :D). But Pence was not elected. Neither was Hillary, and neither was Sanders, and neither was my Aunt Ethel. Trump was. Deal with it.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

I, for one, would welcome Aunt Ethel as our new Overlady.

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

Correct. None of these meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Nobody is potentially being deprived of life, liberty, or property. A layman’s definition is good enough.

Yes. The idea that any of these are crimes by any reasonable definition is the product of an overheated imagination. Many over-heated imaginations, as a matter of fact.

But it most certainly is an abuse of Presidential power. In 1974, abuse of that power, independent of any statutory violation, was good for a 28-10 majority in the House Judiciary Committee that had just a 21-17 Dem majority.

You said the same thing when Bush was President - that he needs to be impeached before he does something disastrous.

Feel free to dig up the link. I remember coming up with grounds for impeachment based on what Bush had already done.

Look - Trump is President. The country decided that was a chance they wanted to take. “But he shouldn’t have been elected!” is not a reason to impeach him.

A lot of people (I’m not one of them, but still a LOT of people) expected him to become more rational and ‘Presidential’ once he was in office.

We’ve learned otherwise, haven’t we?

So, what should we do with this new information? Should we, as a nation, just say, “sucks to be us”? Or should we do something about it before Trump does something really disastrous?

I’ve never been one for “you’ve made your bed, now you’ve got to lie in it.” I’m more of the “let me try to get the fuck out of this bed” school of thought. But if patriotism means defeatism, then you’re a patriot.

[CurtC]

@Shodan

Look - Trump is President. The country decided that was a chance they wanted to take. “But he shouldn’t have been elected!” is not a reason to impeach him.

So then you can think of impeachment (& conviction) as a Presidential Lemon Law.

A large number of the people who voted for him in November didn’t realize what they were buying.

[Shodan]

@John_Mace

I, for one, would welcome Aunt Ethel as our new Overlady.

You haven’t met my family.

I don’t really have an Aunt Ethel. I do have several relatives who voted for Trump. Be careful what you wish for.

Regards,
Shodan

[Procrustus]

@Shodan

Neither was Hillary, and neither was Sanders, and neither was my Aunt Ethel. Trump was. Deal with it.

Regards,
Shodan

One way to “deal with it” it to try to remove him from office. The godlike founders gave us an escape hatch for when things go terribly wrong. The election of Trump can’t be viewed as anything other than things going “terribly wrong.” It’s like a pardon for a person who was lawfully convicted. You could say, “he was given a fair trial and we should just deal with it.” Or you could say, “he’s not actually guilty and it would be good to pardon him.” Yes, Trump was (probably) lawfully elected. But fuck him and the horse he road in on. He’s got to go.
Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

To fire someone who is conducting an investigation into your own campaign cannot help but be seen as an interference with the rule of law. It is to cast doubt on the integrity of that investigation, and its future. It undermines public confidence that the executive branch can enforce the law against itself. It politicizes what should not be politicized. It crosses a clear line.

[HurricaneDitka]

I have a hard time taking the “impeach Trump” cries seriously. It seems like more fevered leftist fantasies, along the lines of the “Hamilton Electors” or the PA / MI / WI recounts or Sheila Jackson Lee’s objections to the certification, and about as likely to succeed, but it is entertaining, so please continue. In fact, the effort to persuade electors to go faithless was also presented as an “escape hatch” at the time.

Our Founders were familiar with that history, and they left us an escape hatch we must use today.

source

In hindsight, does that look like a silly waste of time to you, or do you think it was a net positive?

[Procrustus]

@HurricaneDitka

I have a hard time taking the “impeach Trump” cries seriously. It seems like more fevered leftist fantasies, along the lines of the “Hamilton Electors” or the PA / MI / WI recounts or Sheila Jackson Lee’s objections to the certification, and about as likely to succeed, but it is entertaining, so please continue. In fact, the effort to persuade electors to go faithless was also presented as an “escape hatch” at the time.

source

In hindsight, does that look like a silly waste of time to you, or do you think it was a net positive?

Hey, stranger things have happened. I’m not predicting a Trump impeachment, but I sure would support it.

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Nobody is potentially being deprived of life, liberty, or property. A layman’s definition is good enough.

It’s a legal and political proceeding. A layman’s definition is not going to be good enough, unless it convinces a large number of laymen that it fits the Constitutional clause about high crimes and misdemeanors.

Something I don’t understand is Dems who insist that the Clinton impeachment was purely partisan, and who also crow over the boost it gave him in the polls - and then insist that impeachment of Trump is not partisan, and will definitely have the opposite effect on the polls and the chances for the Democrats.

Democrats who want to impeach need to make a good enough case to convince non-partisan voters and/or Republicans that a real crime or misdemeanor has been committed. And that lying under oath doesn’t count, even with evidence, but firing the FBI director does, even with no evidence. Or “his daughter got a trademark approved” or “he did a business deal with Russia twenty years ago” or whatever.

Feel free to dig up the link. I remember coming up with grounds for impeachment based on what Bush had already done. A lot of people (I’m not one of them, but still a LOT of people) expected him to become more rational and ‘Presidential’ once he was in office.

Here’s the link I was talking about. Your OP talks about impeaching both Bush and Cheney to head off a war with Iran.

So, what should we do with this new information?

What new information do you mean? If you mean new evidence that he has committed a crime or misdemeanor, then Democrats need to present their case to Congress. If you’re Larry Tribe, you don’t have any new information, and there is no need to wait - impeach him now without it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Okrahoma]

@CurtC

So then you can think of impeachment (& conviction) as a Presidential Lemon Law.

A large number of the people who voted for him in November didn’t realize what they were buying.

And yet, according to WaPo/ABC poll at the end of April, 96% of people who voted for Trump would vote for him again. And only 2% of people who voted for Trump “regret” their vote. Which is within the margin of error of being 0.

[HurricaneDitka]

@RTFirefly

… I say we should impeach them and remove them from office, simply because it’s too dangerous to leave them in power. …

RTFirefly, you do seem to have a bit of a pattern of calling for impeachment whenever there’s a Republican in the Oval Office. Can you offer us any reason we should take you more seriously this time than the last time?

[Czarcasm]

What is the definition of “High crimes and misdemeanors” when it comes to impeachment of the Prez?
To those who say we haven’t reached that point, what would it take for you to say “Now that falls under the category of High crimes and misdemeanors!”

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

What is the definition of “High crimes and misdemeanors” when it comes to impeachment of the Prez?

Whatever Congress thinks it is.

To those who say we haven’t reached that point, what would it take for you to say “Now that falls under the category of High crimes and misdemeanors!”

Evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

[CarnalK]

@HurricaneDitka

RTFirefly, you do seem to have a bit of a pattern of calling for impeachment whenever there’s a Republican in the Oval Office. Can you offer us any reason we should take you more seriously this time than the last time?

You’re seeing a pattern? You mean the current Republican President and the one from four years before you joined the SDMB?

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Whatever Congress thinks it is.

So if they wanted to cut their losses on this immoral Forrest Gump clone right now, they would legally have enough to do so, correct?

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Evidence.

Could you maybe clarify-Evidence of What specifically?

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

So if they wanted to cut their losses on this immoral Forrest Gump clone right now, they would legally have enough to do so, correct?

Sure, legally they could.

@Czarcasm

Could you maybe clarify-Evidence of What specifically?

Evidence of one or more high crimes or misdemeanors. As in
[ol][li]Here is what Trump did[/li][li]Here is the evidence proving that he did it[/li][li]Here is why we think it rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.[/ol]Pro tip: ‘Because he sux and he lost the popular vote and he won’t let us dig thru his taxes and he joked about pussy grabbing and he SUX’ doesn’t go very far towards 3.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan