Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

impeachment in general

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • impeachment in general

    An interesting article on impeachment. I would recommend reading the whole thing.

    It provides a fairly unbiased of how impeachment sets consistutional law.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ses/ar-BBWKVVB

  • #2
    Much like an election, impeachment revolves as much around public opinion and politics as it does around legality. Successful impeachments usually involve a politician who is both unpopular--highly unpopular-- and who can be demonstrated to have conducted clear criminal acts. Once that politician loses public support and both parties are in agreement to a good degree that that person must go you end up with a successful impeachment.

    The current Trump impeachment has none of that. The Republicans are not onboard with impeachment at all. Without their support the Democrats can't carry one to a successful conclusion. The public isn't onboard either. At best there's a slim majority that want Trump impeached, and when you break it down by political party, it's only the Democrat voters in general that want Trump gone.
    To change that, the Democrats have to show Trump is or was engaged in clear criminal conduct. A phone call to a foreign head of state where he does some horse trading, even if it involves the Bidens, isn't going to cut it.
    Worse, Schiff is the last person the Democrats should have leading this parade. By roughly the same margins as oppose impeachment, the public sees Schiff as engaged in a witch hunt. This comes after three years of Mueller and other investigations to get Trump that didn't with Schiff cheerleading impeachment the whole time.

    I seriously doubt that the current hearings will change anyone's mind much. They're being all but ignored by most of the public. The testimony, such as it is, is overwhelmingly weak and based on hearsay and opinion. Schiff's handling of things isn't gaining any significant support for the Democrats either.

    If by the end of these hearings the Democrats can't lay out a case the Republicans, and for that matter some in their own party, can buy into, and haven't seen a very significant rise in the polls for public support, they are finished. They may still impeach Trump but history shows, like the Republicans impeaching Clinton, that they will pay dearly for it at the voting booth.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Much like an election, impeachment revolves as much around public opinion and politics as it does around legality. Successful impeachments usually involve a politician who is both unpopular--highly unpopular-- and who can be demonstrated to have conducted clear criminal acts. Once that politician loses public support and both parties are in agreement to a good degree that that person must go you end up with a successful impeachment.

      The current Trump impeachment has none of that. The Republicans are not onboard with impeachment at all. Without their support the Democrats can't carry one to a successful conclusion. The public isn't onboard either. At best there's a slim majority that want Trump impeached, and when you break it down by political party, it's only the Democrat voters in general that want Trump gone.
      To change that, the Democrats have to show Trump is or was engaged in clear criminal conduct. A phone call to a foreign head of state where he does some horse trading, even if it involves the Bidens, isn't going to cut it.
      Worse, Schiff is the last person the Democrats should have leading this parade. By roughly the same margins as oppose impeachment, the public sees Schiff as engaged in a witch hunt. This comes after three years of Mueller and other investigations to get Trump that didn't with Schiff cheerleading impeachment the whole time.

      I seriously doubt that the current hearings will change anyone's mind much. They're being all but ignored by most of the public. The testimony, such as it is, is overwhelmingly weak and based on hearsay and opinion. Schiff's handling of things isn't gaining any significant support for the Democrats either.

      If by the end of these hearings the Democrats can't lay out a case the Republicans, and for that matter some in their own party, can buy into, and haven't seen a very significant rise in the polls for public support, they are finished. They may still impeach Trump but history shows, like the Republicans impeaching Clinton, that they will pay dearly for it at the voting booth.
      Did you read the article. It was mainly why to or not impeach What is says is if Trump was not impeached the new norm would be established and future presidents could have other governments use there agencies to did up dirt and use it legally. (since congress has gone through the process it makes what I described potentially impeachable)

      It main point is those what congress does not object establishes a new norm and makes future impeachment or challenge impossible because it is considered the norm. Another point was since Congress did nothing with emergency dec and transfer of funds by Trump. In the future all a president has to do declare an emergency and wallah you can move money how every you want for a pet project. (unless congress gets smart and refines the rule.)

      Also the other most important fact is I liked is that part about how High crimes got added.


      btw your right about Schiff I would of picked a low profile person to lead it. On the other hand Nunes and Meadows are idiots also.
      Only in congress do the guys I think are the biggest empty heads end up being in charge all the time.


      If I was testifying I would constantly hammer Jordan for not reporting the abuse he knew about possibly.







      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by craven View Post

        Did you read the article. It was mainly why to or not impeach What is says is if Trump was not impeached the new norm would be established and future presidents could have other governments use there agencies to did up dirt and use it legally. (since congress has gone through the process it makes what I described potentially impeachable)
        Like the Obama or Clinton administrations did, and many before them? This isn't new to politics and it certainly isn't like Trump is doing something other Presidents didn't. If anything, the extent to what Trump has done in this realm is peanuts compared to Obama's or Clinton's administrations. Yet, nether was held accountable for those actions. Why suddenly is Trump, other than he's a Republican...?

        Look at LBJ. Now there was a corrupt administration. Did he get impeached over the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was completely manufactured and a convenient political lie that got us into Vietnam big time and cost America over 57,000 lives?

        It main point is those what congress does not object establishes a new norm and makes future impeachment or challenge impossible because it is considered the norm. Another point was since Congress did nothing with emergency dec and transfer of funds by Trump. In the future all a president has to do declare an emergency and wallah you can move money how every you want for a pet project. (unless congress gets smart and refines the rule.)
        I'd say a successful impeachment here will put a serious damper on future President's ability to conduct foreign policy. Horse trading, exchanging favors, and the like are part of any successful dealing with other nations. If this becomes off limits to Presidents, they will have far fewer avenues to approach foreign leaders and make deals.
        On executive movement of money for emergencies: Congress abrogated their responsibility by giving the President power to declare national emergencies. They gave him broad reach to do so, and now that Trump is using that power in a way Democrats don't like, they're upset with his ability to do so. That's just getting the fruits of unintended consequences of Congress' past actions.

        Also the other most important fact is I liked is that part about how High crimes got added.
        Bribery and extortion are nonsense. Any reasonable person knows that. The Democrats are simply grasping at straws for a reason to justify their actions.

        btw your right about Schiff I would of picked a low profile person to lead it. On the other hand Nunes and Meadows are idiots also.
        Only in congress do the guys I think are the biggest empty heads end up being in charge all the time.
        Schiff is too partisan and far too much of a "bomb thrower" to be running this investigation. His actions make it look all the more partisan, petty, and vengeful. That isn't helping the Democrats make their case one iota.

        If I was testifying I would constantly hammer Jordan for not reporting the abuse he knew about possibly.
        If I had to testify on this matter, I'd try to avoid it like the plague. You can't win showing up. No matter how honest you are, no matter how you testify, you are going to end up making enemies from it and wreck your future career. Better to clam up, avoid the whole mess, and take one for the team that way, than have both sides upset with you and looking at you as a snitch.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Like the Obama or Clinton administrations did, and many before them? This isn't new to politics and it certainly isn't like Trump is doing something other Presidents didn't. If anything, the extent to what Trump has done in this realm is peanuts compared to Obama's or Clinton's administrations. Yet, nether was held accountable for those actions. Why suddenly is Trump, other than he's a Republican...?

          Look at LBJ. Now there was a corrupt administration. Did he get impeached over the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was completely manufactured and a convenient political lie that got us into Vietnam big time and cost America over 57,000 lives?



          I'd say a successful impeachment here will put a serious damper on future President's ability to conduct foreign policy. Horse trading, exchanging favors, and the like are part of any successful dealing with other nations. If this becomes off limits to Presidents, they will have far fewer avenues to approach foreign leaders and make deals.
          On executive movement of money for emergencies: Congress abrogated their responsibility by giving the President power to declare national emergencies. They gave him broad reach to do so, and now that Trump is using that power in a way Democrats don't like, they're upset with his ability to do so. That's just getting the fruits of unintended consequences of Congress' past actions.



          Bribery and extortion are nonsense. Any reasonable person knows that. The Democrats are simply grasping at straws for a reason to justify their actions.



          Schiff is too partisan and far too much of a "bomb thrower" to be running this investigation. His actions make it look all the more partisan, petty, and vengeful. That isn't helping the Democrats make their case one iota.



          If I had to testify on this matter, I'd try to avoid it like the plague. You can't win showing up. No matter how honest you are, no matter how you testify, you are going to end up making enemies from it and wreck your future career. Better to clam up, avoid the whole mess, and take one for the team that way, than have both sides upset with you and looking at you as a snitch.
          well I cant wait till we have a dem president and I get to go told ya so on a constant basis

          Because you view is giving carte blanche to a future dem president.

          why bring up gulf of Tonkin incident. yep non impeachable. why because you do not have a transcript of him admitting it.


          btw I would recommend giving Schiff some credit here. He is not wrong in this case. Yes he would be complaining if Trump had not crossed the line. But we could just ignore him. Don't let your hate of the messengers get in the way of the message. A blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut

          So my question in regards to what Trump did where is the line to be impeached. Or are you saying the guy in office can use his office as he see fits for personal benefit when it comes to foreign policy.

          What if Trump held up money unitl he got a building permit. According to the pro Trump side perfectly legal.




          Comment


          • #6
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              um where am I in this

              I get my news from fox and a conservative.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Much like an election, impeachment revolves as much around public opinion and politics as it does around legality. Successful impeachments usually involve a politician who is both unpopular--highly unpopular-- and who can be demonstrated to have conducted clear criminal acts. Once that politician loses public support and both parties are in agreement to a good degree that that person must go you end up with a successful impeachment.

                The current Trump impeachment has none of that. The Republicans are not onboard with impeachment at all. Without their support the Democrats can't carry one to a successful conclusion. The public isn't onboard either. At best there's a slim majority that want Trump impeached, and when you break it down by political party, it's only the Democrat voters in general that want Trump gone.
                To change that, the Democrats have to show Trump is or was engaged in clear criminal conduct. A phone call to a foreign head of state where he does some horse trading, even if it involves the Bidens, isn't going to cut it.
                Worse, Schiff is the last person the Democrats should have leading this parade. By roughly the same margins as oppose impeachment, the public sees Schiff as engaged in a witch hunt. This comes after three years of Mueller and other investigations to get Trump that didn't with Schiff cheerleading impeachment the whole time.

                I seriously doubt that the current hearings will change anyone's mind much. They're being all but ignored by most of the public. The testimony, such as it is, is overwhelmingly weak and based on hearsay and opinion. Schiff's handling of things isn't gaining any significant support for the Democrats either.

                If by the end of these hearings the Democrats can't lay out a case the Republicans, and for that matter some in their own party, can buy into, and haven't seen a very significant rise in the polls for public support, they are finished. They may still impeach Trump but history shows, like the Republicans impeaching Clinton, that they will pay dearly for it at the voting booth.
                As further evidence of what you said, the channel carrying The Impeachment Hearings: Live has changed the title to The Impeachment Show!

                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craven View Post
                  um where am I in this

                  I get my news from fox and a conservative.
                  You're fine.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    well I cant wait till we have a dem president and I get to go told ya so on a constant basis

                    Because you view is giving carte blanche to a future dem president.

                    why bring up gulf of Tonkin incident. yep non impeachable. why because you do not have a transcript of him admitting it.


                    btw I would recommend giving Schiff some credit here. He is not wrong in this case. Yes he would be complaining if Trump had not crossed the line. But we could just ignore him. Don't let your hate of the messengers get in the way of the message. A blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut

                    So my question in regards to what Trump did where is the line to be impeached. Or are you saying the guy in office can use his office as he see fits for personal benefit when it comes to foreign policy.

                    What if Trump held up money unitl he got a building permit. According to the pro Trump side perfectly legal.



                    We're not blind, and we know where ALL of the nuts are. They're Democrats.

                    Schiff is totally illegal. Of course, you don't regard that as being "wrong". Democrats never do.

                    Look up the impeachment process and read the rules for yourself. Meanwhile if you don't expect Democrats to follow rules or law, then don't expect anyone else to do either. Means we can now round up all of the Democrats without a warrant or even a reason and put them in prison, because the rules don't matter any more.

                    Of course, you will probably come up with some lame reason why we can't do that, but it can't be based on any laws or rules, and you're p***ing off an awful lot of Americans by doing all of this on our money,which you probably stole from Social Security...again.

                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      We're not blind, and we know where ALL of the nuts are. They're Democrats.

                      Schiff is totally illegal. Of course, you don't regard that as being "wrong". Democrats never do.

                      Look up the impeachment process and read the rules for yourself. Meanwhile if you don't expect Democrats to follow rules or law, then don't expect anyone else to do either. Means we can now round up all of the Democrats without a warrant or even a reason and put them in prison, because the rules don't matter any more.

                      Of course, you will probably come up with some lame reason why we can't do that, but it can't be based on any laws or rules, and you're p***ing off an awful lot of Americans by doing all of this on our money,which you probably stole from Social Security...again.

                      Wait so if you disagree with you I am a dem got it.

                      Considering how often you agreed with me during the Obama time and now I point out the same stuff about Trump and now I am a dem lol

                      So I would say stop being the coyote.

                      But overall I give you a A for effort and might of been effective if I was a Dem

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X