I can see a line of fashionable coats with that written on the back.
I’m starting to think that impeachment is on the table, but like in the Clinton case, it may be sort of a bankshot.
Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) primarily because Republicans had a political agenda to do so. The route by which to achieve this was the perjury – but let’s get real, the issue was about politics, not the perjury itself.
Similarly, I’m starting to think that an impeachment of Trump would really be about the damage he is doing to the country for our standing in the world – crapping on our alliances and cozying up to Putin, not to mention his intention to destroy our trade-based economy. But the route to do this runs through his corruption. I do not think that more than a couple Republicans would vote for removal based solely on Trump’s corruption – but if voting on the charge of corruption helps fix our international relationships, I think we’re starting to get close to something that more Republicans could see their way to doing. Like I said, it’s more of a bankshot.
[quote=“Shodan, post:40, topic:818231”]
Yes, I care very much if the means by which Trump is removed from office are legal or not.
We have the rule of law in this country. Anyone who suggests an exception to that in the case of Trump is committing a betrayal of this country much worse than Trump.
OK, hypothetical time. The usual magic genie presents you with a choice -
[list=A][li]Trump serves out his full term, is re-elected, and serves out his second term as well.[/li][li]Anti-Trump progressives have located a Lone Nut who will assassinate Trump next Tuesday.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
The problem is primarily that Trump has no respect for the rule of law. Expecting everyone else in the country to behave with more integrity than the President is an inherently screwed up idea.
However, given the situation as presented, I’m going to stab that fucking genie in the eye and take a chain saw to his nuts. He’s clearly an emissary from Satan, and I don’t put up with that shit.
More realistically perhaps, it would be about him causing more damage to his party’s electoral prospects than the party can tolerate. When that point is reached, in the calculations of enough R Senators to reach the minimum vote, then the process can and will proceed quickly. Without it, it can be seen as an act and will backfire on the patriots. Nixon’s impeachment didn’t proceed until months of hearings put enough of his party-mates on board.
What, you think there’s enough Republican Senators who can still publicly put country first and still have hopes of re-election? We may disagree on that, but the dam may break at some point.
Yes. His submissiveness to foreign autocrats can be explained as the Executive branch’s prerogative in foreign policy. His post-inauguration corruption can also get explained away well enough to satisfy the base. But the criminal corruption of his pre-election career would be the heart of it, with the others piled on to prevent trying to explain it away too.
As I remember it he was convicted, but the sentence was censure. If he was not convicted there would be no sentence.
The Senate acquitted Clinton.
Impeachment can only result in acquittal or conviction. An impeachment conviction can only result in removal from office, or in removal from office and disqualification to hold future federal office. This is a matter of black-letter constitutional law.
“Censure,” is not a possible outcome of an impeachment proceeding.
So your memory is inaccurate.
No, it’s not. It’s the only chance we have for a future.
Maybe you don’t think it is possible for the anti-Trumpers to be better than him. I do.
Regards,
Shodan
No. Censure resolutions by Congress are free of actual consequence, but merely express the disapproval of the institution for acts committed by some public official. There was some serious discussion among the Republicans of doing that to Clinton, but Gingrich and Frist were insistent on hanging a historic fact on him out of the same simple vindictiveness that drove them throughout his tenure.
How about the pro-Trumpers? Have you given up on them already?
I actually agree with your point here. With one exception.
I would change “much worse” to “as bad as.”
If it involved a political opponent and Trump was making the choice, I think he’d pick B. He did, after all, say during his campaign that some Second Amendment supporter should “stop” Hillary Clinton.
Trump doesn’t give a damn about the rule of law. If he could, he’d rather be a dictator than a democratically elected leader. And a lot of his supporters would be happier to have him as a dictator. So the rest of us need to work extra hard on defending the rule of law from people like Donald Trump and his supporters and not give in and become like them.
Anti-Trumpers are better than Trump because, in general, they don’t engage in widespread fraud and sexual assault. But your allegedly heartfelt appeal for Trump’s opponents to play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules, while maintaining your steadfast support for a dangerous and psychologically damaged President despite all his support for racism, divisiveness, and stupidity, makes your suggestion very petty.
Call me when you turn against Trump, and then we can discuss the above-board ways to neuter his presidency.
Tell me about all these people who are seeking to have Trump assassinated, because you seem to be taking the prospect awfully seriously.
Hell, it’s more than we can do right now to get Dem Congresscritters to say there might be circumstances under which they’d consider impeachment.
A Democrat tried to assassinate Republicans at a freaking softball game, not that long ago. Do you remember?
Nope. Altho the assassin was a Sanders supporter and a political gadfly, there is nothing that shows he was actually a Democrat.
Senator Sanders ran as a Democrat. That makes his supporters Democrats, almost by definition.
Sanders is a registered Independent, and has been so since 1981 when he won his first election as one, if not before.
Technically Trump could have run as a Democrat. You do not have to be a registered Democrat to run as one.
He ran in the Democratic primary, did he not?
If we asked Sanders himself, would he say he is a Democrat?