Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate

[Revan]

I might be! If I knew what that meant?

Essential I think the Democrats have 'cocked this up'.
As others have said previously, its not a fair impeachment, the time taken of 12 weeks far to short; they should not have used the 'abuse of power' approach and instead gone to court over subpoenas (if successfully acquitted Trump can now come back on this point).

The way its been handle by the Democrats does give the impression of an... attempted coup!

It is not a coup cause it was done constitutionally. It has been an attempt to remove him, but I agree that it was not done rightly by Democrats. At the very least they should have gone to courts for subpoenas.

 

[Maticmaker]

It is not a coup cause it was done constitutionally. It has been an attempt to remove him

Done under the constitution agreed; but as you agree also done unfairly and some what 'cak-handedly', therefore isn't that an attempt at a, 'constitutional coup'?

 

[Revan]

Done under the constitution agreed; but as you agree also done unfairly and some what 'cak-handedly', therefore isn't that an attempt at a, 'constitutional coup'?

Constitution doesn’t explain how it needs to be done except that the House impeaches and the senate does the trial. They can make their own rules as they see fit. So no, it has not been a constitutional coup more than that of any impeachment ever.

Just that it could and should have done much better from Dems. In the end it is a political issue and mostly to get votes, not sure that either party has been doing things right in this case.

 

[RedPed]

Constitution doesn’t explain how it needs to be done except that the House impeaches and the senate does the trial. They can make their own rules as they see fit. So no, it has not been a constitutional coup more than that of any impeachment ever.

Just that it could and should have done much better from Dems. In the end it is a political issue and mostly to get votes, not sure that either party has been doing things right in this case.

Why are you giving this clown oxygen? He's obviously taking the piss.

 

[Maticmaker]

In the end it is a political issue and mostly to get votes, not sure that either party has been doing things right in this case.

I agree, highly political it terms of its aims and objectives. Trump has always been a maverick type character, in both business and politics but the Democrats don't seem to have any idea on how to handle him and have in my opinion (but clearly not many on here agree) got 'sloppy' in their desire to remove him from office and have resorted to 'coup-like' tactics, by trying to make use of the constitutional impeachment process.

As you say it does say something that both parties are 'lowering the tone' of American politics so to speak. Trump bringing in what might be viewed as 'shady', business type approaches in order to pressurise and 'seal the deal' i.e. the quid pro quo option, and the Democrats in going after him half-cocked' abusing the constitutional process to oust him and replace him with an easier political target.

'Politics is a dirty business' someone once observed, and sadly these activities on Capitol Hill do nothing to abuse us of that view!

 

[2cents]

Politics is a dirty business' someone once observed

How profound.

 

[Maticmaker]

How profound.

Indeed it is, but often overlooked.

 

[Revan]

I agree, highly political it terms of its aims and objectives. Trump has always been a maverick type character, in both business and politics but the Democrats don't seem to have any idea on how to handle him and have in my opinion (but clearly not many on here agree) got 'sloppy' in their desire to remove him from office and have resorted to 'coup-like' tactics, by trying to make use of the constitutional impeachment process.

As you say it does say something that both parties are 'lowering the tone' of American politics so to speak. Trump bringing in what might be viewed as 'shady', business type approaches in order to pressurise and 'seal the deal' i.e. the quid pro quo option, and the Democrats in going after him half-cocked' abusing the constitutional process to oust him and replace him with an easier political target.

'Politics is a dirty business' someone once observed, and sadly these activities on Capitol Hill do nothing to abuse us of that view!

Agree mostly with the post. I think that Trump clearly did a quid pro quo and by asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent made a clearly impeachment offense.

Democrats knowing that Senate won’t ever remove him, didn’t bother to make a fair impeachment in the first place and fight for the evidence with all the tools they have. What they did was do a half-arsed impeachment process with the verdict known before it even started. Knowing what will happen in the senate, they did this to play the card of high morale ground and hopefully win the next election. However, by doing so they didn’t change the opinion of the public, and gave the Republicans a penalty to make an unfair trial. At the same time, Republicans didn’t do themselves any favor with McConnell saying that he will coordinate with the White House, and him and Graham (chair of justice) saying that they aren’t going to be fair jury.

Everyone in the process (Trump, Republicans and Democrats) look really bad, and all could have played this much better.

It remains to be seen how this will play out in the end. Pelosi’s threat to delay sending the articles to the senate (or even not sending them at all) won’t play with McConnell who is easily the best at doing politics (not policies) in the country. However, Trump has a big ego and won’t like not being acquitted, so Pelosi is essentially talking to him. So while I think that for McConnell the best scenario is for the House to never send the articles of the impeachment, Trump won’t like it and will want to get acquited, which in turn might force McConnell to reach a deal with Schumer where they meet in the middle.

Nevertheless, it has been a very bad episode for American politics and all it has achieved is making the Congress even more partisan than before.

 

[The Firestarter]

Agree mostly with the post. I think that Trump clearly did a quid pro quo and by asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent made a clearly impeachment offense.

Democrats knowing that Senate won’t ever remove him, didn’t bother to make a fair impeachment in the first place and fight for the evidence with all the tools they have. What they did was do a half-arsed impeachment process with the verdict known before it even started. Knowing what will happen in the senate, they did this to play the card of high morale ground and hopefully win the next election. However, by doing so they didn’t change the opinion of the public, and gave the Republicans a penalty to make an unfair trial. At the same time, Republicans didn’t do themselves any favor with McConnell saying that he will coordinate with the White House, and him and Graham (chair of justice) saying that they aren’t going to be fair jury.

Everyone in the process (Trump, Republicans and Democrats) look really bad, and all could have played this much better.

It remains to be seen how this will play out in the end. Pelosi’s threat to delay sending the articles to the senate (or even not sending them at all) won’t play with McConnell who is easily the best at doing politics (not policies) in the country. However, Trump has a big ego and won’t like not being acquitted, so Pelosi is essentially talking to him. So while I think that for McConnell the best scenario is for the House to never send the articles of the impeachment, Trump won’t like it and will want to get acquited, which in turn might force McConnell to reach a deal with Schumer where they meet in the middle.

Nevertheless, it has been a very bad episode for American politics and all it has achieved is making the Congress even more partisan than before.

What more evidence do you need? Ambassadors directly involved in the process stated 'there was quid pro quo'.

 

[Revan]

What more evidence do you need? Ambassadors directly involved in the process stated 'there was quid pro quo'.

Considering that it is about the president, it should have been more. They should have either tried to reach a settlement with Trump, or go to courts to force the subpoenas on Bolton, Giuliani and Malarkey. Yes, it is not convenient to do so, but that is precisely the point of the removal of the president, it has been done deliberately hard to do so, and in order to succeed it needs to be bipartisan.

Democrats did this only to portray Republicans as the bad guys, but they managed to look bad in the process, and essentially the public opinion on the removal of Trump hasn’t changed at all. If Trump wins again, Pelosi and Schumer should retire.

 

[Kentonio]

Considering that it is about the president, it should have been more. They should have either tried to reach a settlement with Trump, or go to courts to force the subpoenas on Bolton, Giuliani and Malarkey. Yes, it is not convenient to do so, but that is precisely the point of the removal of the president, it has been done deliberately hard to do so, and in order to succeed it needs to be bipartisan.

Democrats did this only to portray Republicans as the bad guys, but they managed to look bad in the process, and essentially the public opinion on the removal of Trump hasn’t changed at all. If Trump wins again, Pelosi and Schumer should retire.

They were never going to come to a settlement but I totally agree about forcing testimony. They HAD to get those people on oath, and instead just acted like it didn’t matter and they could shortcut it instead. Fecking stupidity, and the worst part is having to listen to so many Dems talking about Pelosi like she’s some political genius and should be trusted 100%. She’s let the GOP off the hook so many goddamn times now.

 

[The Firestarter]

Considering that it is about the president, it should have been more. They should have either tried to reach a settlement with Trump, or go to courts to force the subpoenas on Bolton, Giuliani and Malarkey. Yes, it is not convenient to do so, but that is precisely the point of the removal of the president, it has been done deliberately hard to do so, and in order to succeed it needs to be bipartisan.

Democrats did this only to portray Republicans as the bad guys, but they managed to look bad in the process, and essentially the public opinion on the removal of Trump hasn’t changed at all. If Trump wins again, Pelosi and Schumer should retire.

They did it because a president's string of illegal activities finally culminated in a single irrefutable act big enough that can be considered impeachable by the legal experts. It's not just playing politics, it's actual oversight.

 

[Revan]

They were never going to come to a settlement but I totally agree about forcing testimony. They HAD to get those people on oath, and instead just acted like it didn’t matter and they could shortcut it instead. Fecking stupidity, and the worst part is having to listen to so many Dems talking about Pelosi like she’s some political genius and should be trusted 100%. She’s let the GOP off the hook so many goddamn times now.

Yup. I don’t think that they would have managed to get them in the court anyway (in the end, this is to a large degree a political issue, and the Supreme Court tends to stay neutral in these cases), but they should have done everything in their power to try so (and maybe would have managed to get some of them under oath which might have opened different paths). This way the public might have swayed a bit, in turn forcing Republicans to make more concessions. A fast tracked impeachment did nothing bar showing both sides that they care only about politics.

 

[Revan]

They did it because a president's string of illegal activities finally culminated in a single irrefutable act big enough that can be considered impeachable by the legal experts. It's not just playing politics, it's actual oversight.

Illegal according to who?

The fact that polls show the same results about his removal now and before the process started showed that they failed at the process. By doing a totally partisan impeachment they gave all the means to Republicans to do the same in the senate (which very likely was going to happen anyway), so nothing in the process changed. Democrats think that he is antichrist, Republicans think that he is Christ, 85% of Democrats want him removed, 90% of Republicans don’t want him removed, the independents seem in the middle, all things that were before the impeachment.

Just that Democrats cannot play a sympathy card or claim high morale ground when they didn’t do things right themselves. And in a dirty game, good luck at winning against McConnell.

 

[The Firestarter]

Illegal according to who?

The fact that polls show the same results about his removal now and before the process started showed that they failed at the process. By doing a totally partisan impeachment they gave all the means to Republicans to do the same in the senate (which very likely was going to happen anyway), so nothing in the process changed. Democrats think that he is antichrist, Republicans think that he is Christ, 85% of Democrats want him removed, 90% of Republicans don’t want him removed, the independents seem in the middle, all things that were before the impeachment.

Just that Democrats cannot play a sympathy card or claim high morale ground when they didn’t do things right themselves. And in a dirty game, good luck at winning against McConnell.

The constitution of the United States.

 

[GiddyUp]

They did make them happy, thank you.

Which is more than can be said for my 'coup' theory, which I tried out on some family members... it seems we have a lot of budding/wanabe Democrats in our family.

I was made to go and sit on the 'naughty step'!

Did it ever occur to you that you are wrong?

 

[Revan]

The constitution of the United States.

Uh, no.

 

[The Firestarter]

Uh, no.

You should be a supreme court justice.

 

[Revan]

You should be a supreme court justice.

Supreme Court justices don’t take positions in these cases.

Constitution is very vague on what is an impeachable offense. It says that ‘treason, bribery and other high crimes’ are impeachable offenses, but that is it. It is in the hands of the house to really decide what is an impeachable offense and to impeach a federal officer, and for the senate to try it, but let’s not pretend that the constitution is crystal clear here and that the Democrat white knights are fighting to defend it while the evil Republicans are destroying it.

Which makes the issue very much political.

 

[Precaution]

Didnt Trump purposely obstruct congress i.e the process? Because that is what Nixen was about to be impeached on, so unless something has changed in the rule of law in the last 50 years or so, that's breaking the law and definately impeachable conduct and that's way before the other crap he's up against.

 

[The Firestarter]

Supreme Court justices don’t take positions in these cases.

Constitution is very vague on what is an impeachable offense. It says that ‘treason, bribery and other high crimes’ are impeachable offenses, but that is it. It is in the hands of the house to really decide what is an impeachable offense and to impeach a federal officer, and for the senate to try it, but let’s not pretend that the constitution is crystal clear here and that the Democrat white knights are fighting to defend it while the evil Republicans are destroying it.

Which makes the issue very much political.

No such claim has been made, and that comment was in jest in relation to your rather succinct post.
The constitution as you point out says 'bribery': which is precisely what he was impeached for. Look up the Hobbs act if you want more detailed legal justification.

 

[Revan]

No such claim has been made, and that comment was in jest in relation to your rather succinct post.
The constitution as you point out says 'bribery': which is precisely what he was impeached for. Look up the Hobbs act if you want more detailed legal justification.

The only precedent is that of Nixon case when the Court decided that they do not have the authority to judge if the Senate properly tried a defendant. Essentially, the court won’t intervene if the impeachment and trial are ‘just’ or not and consequently don’t have any authority in deciding if the president broke the constitution or not.

Obviously, the bribery is one of the high crimes and it is the House’s duty to justify it. The Democrats should have either (ideal case, wouldn’t have happened) to get enough evidence that the Republicans actually remove Trump, or provide enough evidence to change the public opinion which would have resulted in a very big win for them next year. By doing a rushed process, they achieved neither. But we wouldn’t have been on time cause of elections, is not a proper excuse.

 

[The Firestarter]

The only precedent is that of Nixon case when the Court decided that they do not have the authority to judge if the Senate properly tried a defendant. Essentially, the court won’t intervene if the impeachment and trial are ‘just’ or not and consequently don’t have any authority in deciding if the president broke the constitution or not.

Obviously, the bribery is one of the high crimes and it is the House’s duty to justify it. The Democrats should have either (ideal case, wouldn’t have happened) to get enough evidence that the Republicans actually remove Trump, or provide enough evidence to change the public opinion which would have resulted in a very big win for them next year. By doing a rushed process, they achieved neither. But we wouldn’t have been on time cause of elections, is not a proper excuse.

This (bolded part) is never happening , not in this universe. Haven't you seen that already ?

 

[Revan]

This (bolder part) is never happening , not in this universe. Haven't you seen that already ?

Republicans are loyal to Trump only cause Republican voters like Trump. McConnell and co don’t like him, so if the public opinion changes, they won’t hesitate to backstab him.

Nixon was much more popular than Trump, but when the public opinion on him changed, his once loyal party leadership told him that he is going to be removed. Democrats should have deployed the same strategy, not do a rush process which helps nobody and gives more ammunition to Trump.

 

[The Firestarter]

Republicans are loyal to Trump only cause Republican voters like Trump. McConnell and co don’t like him, so if the public opinion changes, they won’t hesitate to backstab him.

Nixon was much more popular than Trump, but when the public opinion on him changed, his once loyal party leadership told him that he is going to be removed. Democrats should have deployed the same strategy, not do a rush process which helps nobody and gives more ammunition to Trump.

The public opinion is against him since the beginning. More people are disapproving of him than approving. What you probably refer to is the republican core base, who is beyond salvation.They live in a different reality devoid of critical thinking. No republican is going to vote against that based whatever the evidence.

 

[Eboue]

Done under the constitution agreed; but as you agree also done unfairly and some what 'cak-handedly', therefore isn't that an attempt at a, 'constitutional coup'?

will you please just stop

 

[Revan]

The public opinion is against him since the beginning. More people are disapproving of him than approving. What you probably refer to is the republican core base, who is beyond salvation.They live in a different reality devoid of critical thinking. No republican is going to vote against that based whatever the evidence.

He still has approval ratings in the four ties. And while I agree that Republicans are beyond salvation, if Dems did this right they could have won much more independents and bank on it for the next election. Yet polls don’t show that this is happening, and it isn’t even clear that more Americans want Trump removed than not.

 

[The Firestarter]

He still has approval ratings in the four ties. And while I agree that Republicans are beyond salvation, if Dems did this right they could have won much more independents and bank on it for the next election. Yet polls don’t show that this is happening, and it isn’t even clear that more Americans want Trump removed than not.

Polls are still all over the place and some of them blatantly manipulated. It's too early to tell what the result (w.r.t public opinion) of this impeachment is: the actual Senate trial still has not even started.

 

[Maticmaker]

Did it ever occur to you that you are wrong?

Not really, I recognise that in my family I am in the minority on this, but I've been there before and still come out on top.

Its an opinion that's all; my opinion. I do generally believe the Democrats couldn't find their way out of a paper -bag, they have handled Trump all wrong from the beginning. Trump has on the face of it committed an act that if true could result in his impeachment and eventual removal from office and would have done so had the Democrats laid the ground for a bi-partisan approach.

It should have been a God send to the Democrats, who so far haven't laid a glove on Trump or his political leanings; but this is my point, instead of taking it slowly, getting the testimony's through the court, not invoking the second article etc. they did handle this in a rushed manner and very like a 'coup', "lets get rid of him fast, lets have Pence in the Whitehouse in time for the election next year". That has been the Democrats obvious target, not bringing a recalcitrant President to book.

I don't expect many, if any, on here to agree with me, as I say a large portion of my own family doesn't agree with me, but each to his own!

 

[Pexbo]

Not really, I recognise that in my family I am in the minority on this, but I've been there before and still come out on top.

Its an opinion that's all; my opinion. I do generally believe the Democrats couldn't find their way out of a paper -bag, they have handled Trump all wrong from the beginning. Trump has on the face of it committed an act that if true could result in his impeachment and eventual removal from office and would have done so had the Democrats laid the ground for a bi-partisan approach.

It should have been a God send to the Democrats, who so far haven't laid a glove on Trump or his political leanings; but this is my point, instead of taking it slowly, getting the testimony's through the court, not invoking the second article etc. they did handle this in a rushed manner and very like a 'coup', "lets get rid of him fast, lets have Pence in the Whitehouse in time for the election next year". That has been the Democrats obvious target, not bringing a recalcitrant President to book.

I don't expect many, if any, on here to agree with me, as I say a large portion of my own family doesn't agree with me, but each to his own!

It’s the Republicans who have refused to make this a bipartisan protest. There is literally nothing the Democrats could have done differently to get the Republicans to partake in the process with good faith.

 

[Maticmaker]

There is literally nothing the Democrats could have done differently to get the Republicans to partake in the process with good faith.

If this is believed to be true within the Democratic Party then I suggest the Democrats are bereft of insight and of leadership, and might as well give up on the next Presidential election, let Trump have a walkover!

 

[Pexbo]

If this is believed to be true within the Democratic Party then I suggest the Democrats are bereft of insight and of leadership, and might as well give up on the next Presidential election, let Trump have a walkover!

The executive branch and the senate are currently complicit in enabling Trump’s corruption. The only way this can be overcome is via an election which they are currently doing their best to win by any means possible including voter suppression and refusing to protect the election infrastructure from outside interference.

The GOP is absolutely rotten to its core.

 

[Revan]

It’s the Republicans who have refused to make this a bipartisan protest. There is literally nothing the Democrats could have done differently to get the Republicans to partake in the process with good faith.

Nah, they did not even try to agree a settlement with the White House, they didn’t allow the White House prosecutors to take part in the impeachment, they didn’t try to force subpoenas via the courts, and so on.

It had nothing to do with justice and the Ukraine, it was all a way of quickly scoring political points and finalizing the impeachment before the elections. Very poorly handled from them and unsurprisingly it seems that it didn’t change the opinion of anyone, neither drop the favorability of Trump (and it will probably have negative net effect if his base gets energized).

 

[Redplane]

Nah, they did not even try to agree a settlement with the White House, they didn’t allow the White House prosecutors to take part in the impeachment, they didn’t try to force subpoenas via the courts, and so on.

It had nothing to do with justice and the Ukraine, it was all a way of quickly scoring political points and finalizing the impeachment before the elections. Very poorly handled from them and unsurprisingly it seems that it didn’t change the opinion of anyone, neither drop the favorability of Trump (and it will probably have negative net effect if his base gets energized).

I'd suggest you look up the number of subpoenas already working it's way through the court systems.

One thing I will agree with to an extent is that the Ukraine should have been the least of the concerns. Dude should have never been allowed to serve in office giving his past dealings as well as those his organization and kids have already been found guilty of. Let alone the criminal proceedings waiting for him when he gets out of the WH. So yes, the Ukraine thing in a way is arguably the lesser evil.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I might be! If I knew what that meant?

Essential I think the Democrats have 'cocked this up'.
As others have said previously, its not a fair impeachment, the time taken of 12 weeks far to short; they should not have used the 'abuse of power' approach and instead gone to court over subpoenas (if successfully acquitted Trump can now come back on this point).

The way its been handle by the Democrats does give the impression of an... attempted coup!

You do know that the first impeachment ever by the United States Congress was concluded in about 2 weeks, right?

 

[The Firestarter]

"The Ukraine" . Just why...

 

[Redplane]

You do know that the first impeachment ever by the United States Congress was concluded in about 2 weeks, right?

I had the same discussion with my in laws. They don't care. It's literally Hannity and Co talking points. Much like how London s stabbings have been played up as if crime there is out of control - all while ignoring the issues on this side of the pond as a roundabout way of saying guns are good, etc etc. It's scripted.

 

[Revan]

I'd suggest you look up the number of subpoenas already working it's way through the court systems.

Tough luck, it is not supposed to be easy and convenient.

You do know that the first impeachment ever by the United States Congress was concluded in about 2 weeks, right?

To be fair, that happened 150 years ago. The more recent cases of Clinton and Nixon (who resigned just before the impeachment) took more than a year. Republicans actually went via the court to enforce subpoenas and more evidence, something that Democrats should have done this time too.

In the end, like in Clinton’s case, this is done for purely political reasons with the result being pre-determined in both chambers. I don’t think that Democrats actually gained much here bar looking as partisan as Republicans. Unlike Republicans who wear the partisanship as a badge of honor, the Democrats actually claim that they are trying to be bipartisan, that this is not political but it is about justice etc, something that no one really believes.

 

[Pexbo]

Nah, they did not even try to agree a settlement with the White House, they didn’t allow the White House prosecutors to take part in the impeachment, they didn’t try to force subpoenas via the courts, and so on.

It had nothing to do with justice and the Ukraine, it was all a way of quickly scoring political points and finalizing the impeachment before the elections. Very poorly handled from them and unsurprisingly it seems that it didn’t change the opinion of anyone, neither drop the favorability of Trump (and it will probably have negative net effect if his base gets energized).

I’m not sure where you get your information from but the White House declined the option to have their own attorneys as part of the impeachment process.

They also have loads of subpoenas which have been ignored heading up to the Supreme Court. They chose to add obstruction as an impeachment article rather than wait for the Supreme Court to make a ruling, this you could question but it’s already precedent that ignoring congressional subpoenas is unlawful and obstruction of justice so all the Supreme Court ruling will decide is whether the Democrats will be able to compel the testimonies and the documents, it won’t change the obstruction of justice article as it’s based on more than just the blocked subpoenas.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

To be fair, that happened 150 years ago. The more recent cases of Clinton and Nixon (who resigned just before the impeachment) took more than a year. Republicans actually went via the court to enforce subpoenas and more evidence, something that Democrats should have done this time too.

In the end, like in Clinton’s case, this is done for purely political reasons with the result being pre-determined in both chambers. I don’t think that Democrats actually gained much here bar looking as partisan as Republicans. Unlike Republicans who wear the partisanship as a badge of honor, the Democrats actually claim that they are trying to be bipartisan, that this is not political but it is about justice etc, something that no one really believes.

‘Impeachment is a political process.’
-Thaddeus Stevens-