Yes to both, even though, politically speaking, I think the Democrats are better off with Trump to run against in 2018 and 2020.
Perhaps. But it’s a bit odd to remove someone from office based on things you think might be said.
I’m good with impeaching our way down the line until we get to a Democrat.
The constant lying and manipulating of facts, the complete lack of self-control or comprehension of why one csn’t blurt out every piece of information one is privy to with his office, lead me to believe that, like Nixon, what we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg. On that basis alone, I am sure that a body of missteps already exists that may have formed a critical pattern of behavior and speech that jeopardizes the country.
If there is not yet a Democrat taking in depth and comprehensive notes of all the hanky panky that is going on in this administration, then allow me to volunteer.
My gut tells me that Trump may not be brought down by one egregious mistake, but by a continuing pattern of lies and incompetence which is every bit as dangerous in the long term.
The House may rally to keep Trump if he is challenged with an impeachment proceeding, but the Senate has just enough disaffected Republicans that it could take him down.
Thus the word expect. I suppose another way of saying what I meant to convey would have been:
Meh, this thread is a bit premature, give it a week or two and then we’ll see.
But this is Trump we’re talking about here and we’ve all seen enough to know how he operates. We all saw how events unfolded and how he reacted in his tweets and elsewhere. I see no reason to give him the benefit of doubt. I expect that he commits impeachable offenses every day as a matter of course.
As for Comey, my expectations are also derived from observations of his actions and MO. He’s been preparing for this since before Trump was even preparing to be POTUS, and it really, really shows.
There arent any Dems. James Mattis Secry of Def, is the first non Repub at sixth in line and he’s listed as Independent. Then we go to #16 for another Ind with David Shulkin Secry of V.A… . .
mc
I voted to impeach but not convict. Like many other Dopers, I fear Pence more than Trump. Trump is stupid and evil and all that, but also incompetent. Pence is the competent version who would get his antediluvian agenda through. I voted to impeach just to let Trump know how disliked he is.
Eh, I’m less worried about Pence. He has his own reasons to be impeached.
The thing here is that the currently on-going investigations have to be very thorough. They need to nail down everyone involved and it would not be productive to start with the little people. No, when they come (and they will), they’ll come for Trump first, then start nailing down all the lesser rats. Otherwise you’d just have Trump issuing pardons and doing more to obstruct justice and destroy evidence.
I agree.
I think there’s a substantial body of evidence to prove that Trump attempted to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation and then fired him when he wouldn’t. I believe the President has a duty not to interfere with law enforcement investigations, especially when there is a political motivation for doing so. This is what the framers meant by “high crime,” and therefore he should be impeached for the good of the country in order to preserve the rule of law.
I support this even though I think impeachment would be a political disaster for democrats, as the Republicans would have a much more effective President in Pence or Ryan as well as an enraged base.
I would very much like him to be removed from office. I don’t think I would vote for such a removal yet.
I think he is a disaster and has already damaged this country to a huge, grotesque degree. We will be feeling the aftershocks of this for years. I’m not sure anything strikes me as impeachable yet. I don’t think “impeachable” has a definition other than “I know it when I see it.” The Comey stuff is definitely getting into the ballpark.
Perhaps, but he hasn’t testified yet. Therefore I could not vote to impeach at this time. An impeachment is not a popularity contest.
The Comey interference and inhibiting an investigation- that is the only impreachable and prosecutable offense to date and the evidence is very weak, but I think the SDMB would vote to oust him on it.
If the House says no to impeachment, there will be no impeachment proceeding.
If the House says yes to impeachment, and finds insufficient evidence to proceed, the issue never goes before the Senate.
If the House says yes to impeachment, and finds sufficient evidence/reason to proceed, the Senate will then decide whether the President is to be removed from office.
The House could hold impeachment proceedings, find sufficient evidence to send it to the Senate, and the Senate can chose not to remove the President from office. Ask Billy Clinton. He was impeached and eventually acquitted on all charges in 1999.
Insightful summary there. Does that add anything to the conversation or are you just working on a junior high school civics paper?
well my immediate solution got me warned last time when I suggested it so I voted yes to both
I think** doorhinge** was pointing out to** mudshark** that if the House votes no then the Senate doesn’t even get a vote.
mc
(post shortened)
Thank you. I thought it was both necessary and useful.
If I were a member of the SDMB House, I would with some reluctance vote to impeach the President (that is, charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors). I could not yet say if, as a member of the SDMB Senate, I would vote to convict him, as I have not heard evidence in the context of a fair and open trial which might lead me to that verdict.
The charges on which the President might now be impeached (not to say that there is necessarily sufficient evidence for conviction yet) include:
- failing to take reasonable steps to avoid financial conflicts of interest, in possible violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
- suspected tax evasion
- obstruction of justice in asking the FBI Director to drop his investigation of the former national security advisor
- keeping the aforementioned national security advisor on the job for several weeks before firing him, with ongoing access to classified information in the meantime, after becoming aware that he had had improper contact with officials of a foreign country
- improperly disclosing highly classified information to Russian diplomats and the president of the Philippines
I am certainly open to further suggestions. Andrew Johnson was charged with 11 offenses; no reason that many or more couldn’t be brought against Trump and later dropped.
While it is not an open-and-shut case, Trump’s possible violation of the Emoluments clause by directing foreign governments to rent space in Trump owned buildings has the potential to be an impeachable offense.
Beyond that openly discussed issue, Robert Reich lists his four reasons to justify impeachment: http://www.salon.com/2017/04/07/robert-reich-there-are-at-least-four-grounds-to-impeach-trump_partner/.
Not enough poll options. I think it’s premature to vote on either.
There’s a lot of stuff floating around, but I think a full investigation by a House or Senate committee is needed before deciding whether to take the momentous step of beginning impeachment proceedings.
ETA: assuming you let Canucks sit in the SDMB Congrees, of course. 