Impeach Trump. Now.

[HurricaneDitka]

@CarnalK

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

Yes.

[Czarcasm]

[quote=“Shodan, post:200, topic:780327”]

Sure, legally they could.

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][/QUOTE]

And I am asking you, for the third time, what would count as “high crimes and misdemeanors” in your opinion, not what wouldn’t-“No, that ain’t it. No, not that either. Nope, try again” is a game I got tired of years ago.

[CurtC]

@Shodan

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.

I haven’t seen anyone who advocates for impeachment using any of your straw man reasons.

We have obstruction of justice now as a charge.

[Shodan]

@CurtC

I haven’t seen anyone who advocates for impeachment using any of your straw man reasons.

We have obstruction of justice now as a charge.

OK, then let’s see your evidence. Especially your evidence for #3.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

OK, then let’s see your evidence. Especially your evidence for #3.

If this hoop is jumped through, would you say it qualifies in your mind as a “high crime and misdemeanor”?

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

And I am asking you, for the third time, what would count as “high crimes and misdemeanors” in your opinion, not what wouldn’t…

Some violation of law. For instance, show me the law that says “No President may fire the FBI director, and if he or she does, that will constitute a crime”. You probably already know the basis for the very first impeachment of a President was over who he could or couldn’t fire. You probably also know the results.

If you want to continue with the back-and-forth of “you got nothing - what would be enough - more than nothing”, we can do that too.

Regards,
Shodan

[Aspenglow]

@Shodan

Sure, legally they could.

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

There is and has been ongoing, flagrant evidence of Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clause since the day he took office. It’s everywhere. From The Atlantic.

The fact that Congressional Republicans have normalized this by simply ignoring it doesn’t invalidate the evidence.

It sure makes Republicans look like they don’t care about the Constitution, though. And it’s obscene.

[Muffin]

@Shodan

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

Impeachment is one way of dealing with it.

Regards.

[Shodan]

@Aspenglow

There is and has been ongoing, flagrant evidence of Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clause since the day he took office. It’s everywhere. From The Atlantic.

From your linked article -

…the ACLU is hoping to find a hotel or bed-and-breakfast owner that can prove he or she has lost business to one of Trump’s hotels during his presidency.

And this is what you would consider flagrant evidence of a violation of the Constitution.

This has the genius of really good parody - that little nagging idea that they might not be kidding.

Regards,
Shodan

[Aspenglow]

@Shodan

From your linked article -
And this is what you would consider flagrant evidence of a violation of the Constitution.

This has the genius of really good parody - that little nagging idea that they might not be kidding.

Regards,
Shodan

I see your cherry-picking skills are superb. You basically ignored the entire article in order to find that one line.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@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 is the same kind of party-before-country thinking that I abhor in the Republican party. In no way would I think it’s a good thing just because the sides changed.

[D_Anconia]

@Aspenglow

I see your cherry-picking skills are superb. You basically ignored the entire article in order to find that one line.

Do you recognize that the article is opinion, and not fact?

[Aspenglow]

@D_Anconia

Do you recognize that the article is opinion, and not fact?

I recognize that it is a lengthy, well sourced article full of facts. You obviously wish to see something different. I think folks can read the link and decide for themselves. I hope they do. It’s a pretty jaw-dropping compendium.

[Velocity]

Suppose that McConnell tells Trump he wouldn’t get more than 15 Senate votes against conviction, a’la Goldwater to Nixon. Resign?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Shodan

The issue is too important to wait for evidence.

I guess that Trump’s own words doesn’t count as evidence. Oh wait, they do and should? Then no need to wait for evidence. We have it.

With his own words over the past two days, President Trump has vastly escalated the stakes and potential consequences of his decision to fire James B. Comey as FBI director, provoking questions about whether his motivations and tactics may have run afoul of the law.

In an interview with NBC News’s Lester Holt on Thursday, the president said: “I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.” He also said that he had pressed Comey during a private dinner to tell him if he was under investigation.

Trump further revealed that the ongoing probe into questions of Russian influence on the 2016 election, which includes a look at the possibility that Moscow was coordinating with the Trump campaign, was one of the factors he considered before firing Comey.

“In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,’ ” he said.

“If shown that Trump removed Comey to avoid being investigated? Yes impeachable: abuse of power, corruption, undermines rule of law,” Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman tweeted Friday.

The questions about Trump’s motives are being fueled, increasingly, by his own words in interviews and on Twitter.

[Czarcasm]

@Velocity

Suppose that McConnell tells Trump he wouldn’t get more than 15 Senate votes against conviction, a’la Goldwater to Nixon. Resign?

Not before he pulls some jaw-droppingly asinine moves to keep Congress occupied and muddy the waters as much as possible.

[Shodan]

@Aspenglow

I see your cherry-picking skills are superb. You basically ignored the entire article in order to find that one line.

I could also have mentioned that one of the allegedly nonpartisan folks involved in the other lawsuit is on record as saying he sees no need to wait for the results of any investigations, but wants to impeach Trump now. But the ‘bed and breakfast fails - impeach Trump NOW!’ was too delicious to ignore.

Another quote from the same article -

Trump has attempted to deflect criticism by repeatedly asserting that the law barring executive-branch officials from maintaining financial holdings or business ties that overlap with their duties does not apply to the president or vice president. In this, he is correct; the law, passed in 1989, exempts the two chief executives from conflict-of-interest rules on the understanding that their purview is so broad that it would be impossible for them to completely disentangle themselves.

So, apart from that little niggling detail about not breaking the law, he has clearly broken the law. Because reasons.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

I guess that Trump’s own words doesn’t count as evidence.

Yes, they certainly count as evidence.

Congratulations, you have proven pretty conclusively that Trump is accused of firing the FBI director, and he clearly did do so.

Now about number 3…

Regards,
Shodan

[Aspenglow]

@Shodan

I could also have mentioned that one of the allegedly nonpartisan folks involved in the other lawsuit is on record as saying he sees no need to wait for the results of any investigations, but wants to impeach Trump now. But the ‘bed and breakfast fails - impeach Trump NOW!’ was too delicious to ignore.

Another quote from the same article -
So, apart from that little niggling detail about not breaking the law, he has clearly broken the law. Because reasons.

Regards,
Shodan

Of course your cherry-picked quote would have more meaning within the context of what follows:

*Regardless, legality does not imply propriety. Unless Trump acts to put actual distance between himself and his business ventures, these questions are likely to continue throughout his time in the Oval Office. **On top of the aforementioned legal actions, the director of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, has declared Trump’s efforts insufficient, remarking, “I don’t think divestiture is too high of a price to pay to be the president of the United States,” and a number of Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would force Trump to divest or face impeachment. ** (Emphasis mine.) Below is an attempt to catalogue the more clear-cut examples of conflicts of interest that have emerged so far. The most recent entries appear at the top:

That Caribbean Villa
Those Condos for Sale
Those Reelection-Campaign Funds
That Second Hotel in Washington, D.C.
That Property in Azerbaijan
That Trump Tower Penthouse
That Resort in the Dominican Republic
That Chinese Trademark
That Meeting at Mar-a-Lago
That Defense Department Trump Tower Rental
That Red Cross Ball
That D.C. Labor Dispute
That Estate in Palm Beach
Those Expansion Plans
That Hotel in Vancouver
That Reality-Television Show
That Pipeline
Those HUD Grants
That Golf Course in Aberdeen
That Other Billionaire New York Real-Estate Developer
Those Indonesian Politicians
That Emirati Businessman
That Virginia Vineyard
That Las Vegas Labor Dispute
That Kuwaiti Event
Those Certificates of Divestiture
That Carrier Deal
That Blind-Trust Issue
Those Fannie and Freddie Investments
That Phone Call With Taiwan
That Deutsche Bank Debt
That Secret Service Detail
That Property in Georgia (the Country)
That Phone Call With Erdogan
That Hotel in Washington, D.C.
That Argentinian Office Building
Those Companies in Saudi Arabia
That British Wind Farm
Those Indian Business Partners
That Envoy From the Philippines * 

It is also worth noting that every single instance of the above is linked and sourced. From a publication that is not exactly celebrated as a “leftie” resource.

It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to ignore the totality of it, but certainly you are free to do what you wish with the information.

[D_Anconia]

@Aspenglow

I recognize that it is a lengthy, well sourced article full of facts. You obviously wish to see something different. I think folks can read the link and decide for themselves. I hope they do. It’s a pretty jaw-dropping compendium.

I disagree that it is well-sourced. The fact that Liberal Groups A, B, and C filed lawsuits is not evidence of anything.

Besides, it’s a literary and cultural COMMENTARY magazine. By definition, that’s opinion.