I don’t find that an unlikely scenario at all. The man is stupid, greedy, and completely unethical. I’m starting to look forward to the next few years.
Do not namecall in this fashion. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
The last time that included charges this serious was Reagan and yes, they all skated.
I’ve bene telling people this for some time.
This thread has devolved into a partisan snipefest that missed the point. Trump’s impeachment is not a matter of partisanship. It’s mathematics. It cannot happen. It is not possible for the Democrats to hold 67 seats in the Senate during Trump’s term, and no Republican will vote to impeach Trump for any reason, no matter how damning the evidence. Math is math.
I don’t know about Shodan personally, if if he is a Trumpist, that is unlikely. The great, great majority of Trumpists will oppose impeachment on any grounds. In that particular scenario, they will simply state either that the acts you describe aren’t a crime, or that Mueller falsified all the evidence.
First of all, Green isn’t doing that to impeach Trump, he’s just doing it to symbolically express his displeasure. He knows his little act won’t fly.
Secondly, of course Trump has done something to warrant impeachment; he has obstructed justice by firing James Comey, and made attempts to obstruct justice by trying to fire other people. If they want to impeach him for that it’s a perfectly good reason. “High Crimes” are whatever you want them to be as long as they’re related to the President not doing his duty correctly, or at all. He is also rather obviously violating the Emoluments Clause.
But let’s continue with CarnalK’s claim. Suppose Robert Mueller unveils clear evidence (evidence that is quite incontrovertible unless you say Mueller fabricated it, and assume there is no evidence whatsoever of such fabrication, but Trump, his supporters, and Fox News just say Mueller did that) Donald Trump promised Russian agents that he would lift sanctions in return for personal debt relief. Would you demand his impeachment?
As the subpoenas and indictments keep rolling in …
I have no doubt you thought so.
You misspelled Serbia rather badly. I think you know that had to be done in spite of the hyenas.
No, I spelled Iraq correctly.
Regards,
Shodan
Comparing Pence with Agnew? … Spiro Agnew had blood splattered on him …
May 4th, 1970, the National Guard took the vice president’s advice at Kent State University … the bribery and tax evasion charges were just lame excuses to get him to resign …
“Wag the dog” timeline for Clinton wrt impeachment:
The Serbia bombing came after impeachment.
I believe you are mistaken on this narrow point, as the OP referenced Democratic behavior in 2019, which plausibly occurs after Mueller issues his report.
My take is that we shouldn’t pre-judge the evidence, the polling, or the fear in Republican hearts after a possible November 2018 clubbing. So I don’t accept that getting to 67 is impossible. Nor do I accept that getting to 62 would be pointless.
Your point about foreign reactions to impeachment proceedings is worthy, but too pat. It’s a consideration but as Vinyl Turnip noted, it seems to rule out any sort of impeachment proceedings in the nuclear age, which you have indicated is not your intent. I am unconvinced, for example, that N Korea or Iran will take the opportunity of such a distraction to invade their neighbors. Maybe Iraq might have done that during 1998, but even then it’s an unlikely scenario.
Let me explain something that conservatives have trouble grasping about morality.
If someone punches you in the face, you hit back. Hard. And you don’t stop punching until they start learning. To do otherwise, to enable bad behavior, is immoral.
Punching back to defend yourself, with reasonable force to halt danger from attack? Moral.
Punching somebody out of nowhere? Innovating new methods of sleaze? Immoral.
At the same time, it would be entirely appropriate if, in exchange for acknowledgement of wrongdoing, public assurances of future good behavior, and mass resignations the Dems agree to forgo obstructionism. Otherwise, I would hope that they consider doing the right and proper thing and punch back. Repeatedly and hard. Not out of enjoyment, but out of concern for the well being of their adversaries.
Tough love.
Yes, Math is math.
But Politicians often do the politically expedient thing. And if the GOP thinks that Trump is a liability, I think they will throw him to the wolves. Trump has already proven he cant bring in the support for other GOP candidates.
Let me explain something to you that internet warriors don’t understand: not everyone who disagrees with you is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. Sometimes they are just normal people pointing out something stupid you said.
No offense taken. Both of us are neither internet warriors nor conservatives after all.
(And just FTR, you were originally replying to Airbeck, who was advocating a, “Save the country” mode, something that I and thoughtful experts on authoritarianism deem appropriate.)
Setting aside the obvious obstruction of justice, and whether Mueller can find a smoking gun, what if he overturns money-laundering by Trump before he was elected? Is that likely impeachable?
The prospect of either a president or an ex-president being brought up on felony charges is interesting in itself.
Straw man city. Quote anyone in this thread who said that, other than you.
You know I hate to say it, but you should take offense because I was insulting you. Your comment to me was either meant as an insult because I’m a conservative or despite being here 18 years, I need your lame ass explanation of “the Chicago way” of politics.
I am a centrist. A Canadian one so maybe a little left by US standards but still. But I am an angry centrist. I am tired of you guys standing in a circle jerk explaining how dumb the other side is. I am tired of you letting bullshit potshot takers like ElvisL1ves get a free ride so you can spend all your time diddling around with Shodan’s lame potshots.
In short, your attempts at discourse suck cock. Ugly cock.
I’m not your mom or anything but can we cool it off a bit? I don’t start a lot of threads, but I think this topic is VERY important. This impeachment talk is just flying around everywhere, but we don’t have the votes to make it happen, nor do we (yet at least) have the evidence for the kind of argument that could change that. It is a serious discussion, but politics these days has everyone so divided and on edge that the talk gets personal and accusatory, blowing up the whole endeavor. Forces are playing upon our anger, folks, intentionally seeking to drive us all apart. Read your history.
Anyhoo, there is a looming chance that our government is going to do something Really Stupid. I don’t care how the Clinton impeachment turned out or that Reagan should have drawn one. This one would be a capper to a long and growing history of increasing dysfunction. As things stand, it wouldn’t succeed in removing Trump but would all but shut down Congress and generate more uncertainty, tension, accusation, division and anger.
We don’t need that. We’ve got real problems. Does anyone know- How big of a population of heroin junkies does it take to support 64,000 overdose deaths in one year? How the eff did we get to the point that all these people are gladly shooting up fentanyl? How can our people be poisoned literally to death like this? Do you think anybody who made a fortune peddling oxycontin or dialudid or what have you is a major political donor?
Don’t you think this, and many other issues, are the kinds of problems that a functional government can address on behalf of and in representation of its people? Wouldn’t that be good for the country, now and in the future? Should we just toss all that possibility in the crapper because we’d rather stay mad at Trump?
I think we’d be better served with more precise focus on blocking the dumb proposals and trying to pass good ones. Since the Rs are in charge it will be better for them than for the Ds, for now, and I think Trump has put together a stupid government like he’s a saboteur, but getting the results we can is the best we can do. We should work towards that. Maybe the “shut it all down!” guys who don’t mind a failed impeachment can say a few words about what is so great about their opinion.
One other thing- anybody notice that CNN hardly ever talks about anything but Trump these days? The opiod crisis, just for one, does get mentioned, but it gets nowhere near the depth of treatment it deserves. I don’t think this mono-focus of an audience’s attention on Trump all the time is healthy.
Sorry, Measure for Measure. You really shouldn’t have been the recipient of my rant.
I think this is valid.
I don’t know if this is the appropriate thread, but…
What are some other issues where there seems to be a broad political consensus that a problem needs to be addressed? Where bipartisan action could actually work? It seems that we could reduce some of the current rancor and divisiveness if we could get both parties working on the opiod crisis, or emergency mental health treatment, or veteran’s care, or… ?
A few successes with both parties working together would go a long way to cutting some of the current tensions.
DACA?