Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Shadowferal]

We're fine with our system, just the way it is.

So...why all the bitching then?

[Cizr]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...08280207011841

Cool. So Trump isn't in any way drumming up further divisions and anger and teeing up his base for violent reactions. Not at all.

This is totally normal behavior from a president. Totally fine. Not outrageous or dangerous at all.

His tweet is so true. Seeing how this impeachment is affecting polls independents see it same way.

[Edge-]

His tweet is so true. Seeing how this impeachment is affecting polls independents see it same way.

It's not. Disagreeing with impeachment doesn't mean Democrats are "coming after you". And if you (the royal you) think it is, then you're a bigger snowflake than the ess jay dubyas what conservatives can't stop whinging about.

[starlord]

His tweet is so true. Seeing how this impeachment is affecting polls independents see it same way.

could you explain in what way this is true? how are "they" "coming after you"?

[Tenlo]

could you explain in what way this is true? how are "they" "coming after you"?

Ill take a shot. Its the republican victim complex. Theres always a "they" coming for them. Doesn't matter what they are always the victims.

[cubby]

Sorry to say this (well not really), but the PM of Canada doesn't wield nearly the power on the world stage as the President of the United States, no matter how much you want to argue that power may have diminished under Trump. There is a lot on the line here that isn't in Canada.

If there was a mechanism in place to have to remove the President as soon as an accusation comes out, I can assure you there would be people lined up to volunteer to take the President down, knowing the potential consequences.

It's not a matter of wielding power comparisons so much as the inherent structure of government. Comparing Canada to the United States isn't practical in this area because they operate so differently. We have no "confidence votes" or means of having a new election. If the United States allowed a sitting President to be mired in civil and criminal charges, they wouldn't be able to govern.

Yes, I'm agreeing with Sulla on this one point.

While the situation with Trump is unique, and warrants a larger discussion than this provides, he still gets the same rules as everyone else. The Impeachment mechanism is designed to allow the leaders of the country a chance to decide on illegal actions and remove the President from office. In the case of Trump, we are seeing things from his followers that no one anticipated.

However, history has shown that the Impeachment process is left wanting, as it's never removed a President from office.

[Endus]

Sorry to say this (well not really), but the PM of Canada doesn't wield nearly the power on the world stage as the President of the United States, no matter how much you want to argue that power may have diminished under Trump. There is a lot on the line here that isn't in Canada.

Trump hasn't left much goodwill internationally for the USA to rely upon.

And frankly, your "power on the world stage" is pretty much down to A> having a large population, and B> having the world's biggest military by far.

Neither of those is in any real, functional way affected by a sitting President. Indeed, the latter can be abused by the President, which means it should be easier to remove a bad President from office, not harder.

If there was a mechanism in place to have to remove the President as soon as an accusation comes out, I can assure you there would be people lined up to volunteer to take the President down, knowing the potential consequences.

Then maybe you need better background checks on your candidates. Charges don't get filed unless there's actual grounds for a case.

"All our potential candidates have done shady, potentially criminal shit" is not the argument you think it is.

[cubby]

Then maybe you need better background checks on your candidates. Charges don't get filed unless there's actual grounds for a case.

"All our potential candidates have done shady, potentially criminal shit" is not the argument you think it is.

But you're only looking at it from the candidates position - needing better candidates, background checks, etc. What you're not taking into account is the other side, where the crazies reside, and would want to bring any of our previous presidents up on "charges". That's the real issue. Some bumfuck asshat in Alabama bringing up charges on Obama because "reasons" or some insane hippie Californian prosecutor charging Bush2. We can't have that at all - governing would cease to happen.

Trump is unique because his entire modus operandi has been break the law, and then hide behind his attorneys - which this Impeachment has brought to full light.

[Endus]

It's not a matter of wielding power comparisons so much as the inherent structure of government. Comparing Canada to the United States isn't practical in this area because they operate so differently. We have no "confidence votes" or means of having a new election. If the United States allowed a sitting President to be mired in civil and criminal charges, they wouldn't be able to govern.

Yes, I'm agreeing with Sulla on this one point.

I recognize the differences exist. I'm pointing out that this is a problem Canada's system has fixed, and which remains a bugaboo of the American system, ready to trip things up at a moment's notice.

Maybe it's because we were structuring our system of government after watching a century of the American system's failures and infighting. Regardless, it's silly as all fuck to claim it's an endemic, unfixable problem when plenty of other nations have fixed it. Too many Americans just resist change, whether it's good or bad, just for being change.

While the situation with Trump is unique, and warrants a larger discussion than this provides, he still gets the same rules as everyone else.

That bit in bold is what I'm talking about.

"Yeah, it's broken, but fixing it would be unfair to everyone who came before, or something."

It's the Boomer Trolley Problem, writ large; it would be unfair to all the people the train's already killed if we flipped the switch to the safe track and saved the next 5 people tied to the tracks.

[cubby]

I recognize the differences exist. I'm pointing out that this is a problem Canada's system has fixed, and which remains a bugaboo of the American system, ready to trip things up at a moment's notice.

Maybe it's because we were structuring our system of government after watching a century of the American system's failures and infighting. Regardless, it's silly as all fuck to claim it's an endemic, unfixable problem when plenty of other nations have fixed it. Too many Americans just resist change, whether it's good or bad, just for being change.



That bit in bold is what I'm talking about.

"Yeah, it's broken, but fixing it would be unfair to everyone who came before, or something."

It's the Boomer Trolley Problem, writ large; it would be unfair to all the people the train's already killed if we flipped the switch to the safe track and saved the next 5 people tied to the tracks.

We responded at the same time, lol.

Fixing it would be near impossible in today's political arena. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problem, which is beyond impossible right now, and even then the real problem wouldn't be addressed.

This was never a problem before Trump.

[Endus]

But you're only looking at it from the candidates position - needing better candidates, background checks, etc. What you're not taking into account is the other side, where the crazies reside, and would want to bring any of our previous presidents up on "charges". That's the real issue. Some bumfuck asshat in Alabama bringing up charges on Obama because "reasons" or some insane hippie Californian prosecutor charging Bush2. We can't have that at all - governing would cease to happen.

Trump is unique because his entire modus operandi has been break the law, and then hide behind his attorneys - which this Impeachment has brought to full light.

If the crazies have the power to press charges, and aren't loons ranting on street corners, then the USA's already on its way out and it's only a matter of time. Because the inmates are running the asylum.

So sure. Talking about the best way to treat inmates for their mental health (to continue the analogy) isn't much help when the head adminstrator of the asylum is a schizoid psychopath who thinks we just need to eat the bugs out of people's eyes. But that's not really a defense of the asylum's administration.

- - - Updated - - -

We responded at the same time, lol.

Fixing it would be near impossible in today's political arena. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problem, which is beyond impossible right now, and even then the real problem wouldn't be addressed.

This was never a problem before Trump.

You're just adding to my point.

It should be easy to fix. It's not, because the inmates are running the asylum and won't listen to reason.

It doesn't change my point that it's a systemic, institutional problem, and one that was unnecessarily created by the Founders.

It's one thing to say "it's fucked but trying to fix it when things are this bad is just not feasible, these people are crazy", it's another to say the system's fine and working as intended. The latter suggests you're one of the inmates.

[Blur4stuff]

I guarantee you that other world leader's not only have more respect for Trudeau, but are probably far more likely to want to cooperate with him on any given issue. Trump is either viewed as a dangerous imbecile by our allies or a useful idiot by our enemies.

It's not a right vs left thing either. Had Kasich won the nomination and beaten Hillary (very likely imo), he would not be having these issues. He likely would have gotten along well enough with all of our allies despite any policy differences.

[Edge-]

O'Connel, a very smart man, decided to whinge about Democrats "breaking precedent" with this impeachment process - https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/mitc...rrick-garland/

And everyone reminded him that he gleefully broke precedent in stonewalling Merrick Garlands Supreme Court nomination.

Because the man lacks self awareness or shame.

[cubby]

If the crazies have the power to press charges, and aren't loons ranting on street corners, then the USA's already on its way out and it's only a matter of time. Because the inmates are running the asylum.

So sure. Talking about the best way to treat inmates for their mental health (to continue the analogy) isn't much help when the head adminstrator of the asylum is a schizoid psychopath who thinks we just need to eat the bugs out of people's eyes. But that's not really a defense of the asylum's administration.

But what no one expected, in continuing the analogy, was that the people running the asylum would throw in their lot with the schizoid psychopath administrator, and completely ignore reality.

We've never seen this kind of blind cult behavior before - the system wasn't designed to defend against it. And we're seeing that played out in the Impeachment process. The GOP is literally ignoring reality. How do you build a political system in which ignoring reality can be defended?

You're just adding to my point.

It should be easy to fix. It's not, because the inmates are running the asylum and won't listen to reason.

It doesn't change my point that it's a systemic, institutional problem, and one that was unnecessarily created by the Founders.

No system of government is easy to fix, not even Canada's - and we've talked about this before. If the party leadership in Canada was acting the way the GOP is now (and can you imagine how much worse this would be if we didn't have a split Congress, and the House was run by the GOP?) there is no way to prevent the kind of blind cult-like following, when the very leaders who are supposed to prevent it are the ones propagating it.

[Endus]

But what no one expected, in continuing the analogy, was that the people running the asylum would throw in their lot with the schizoid psychopath administrator, and completely ignore reality.

We've never seen this kind of blind cult behavior before - the system wasn't designed to defend against it. And we're seeing that played out in the Impeachment process. The GOP is literally ignoring reality. How do you build a political system in which ignoring reality can be defended?

The first step is to remove consequences for poor conduct, and to act to protect elected officials from such rather than hold them to a higher standard.

And the USA's been in love with that concept basically from the start.

To repeat; a lot of countries don't have this issue. Because leaders can be readily removed, no matter the level they're at. No one person is deemed that important that they need special protection from prosecution. The closest to where the USA is today is probably, ironically, the UK, which the USA was supposedly trying to veer away from.

You rejected the idea of kings, and then immediately put in place a system where you pick a king who reigns for 4 years. It's taken a long time before a madman was declared king, but that tends to happen in systems where you consolidate that kind of power into that small an oligarchy.

And the first step to changing that is recognizing it. Admitting that the American system of governance, as enshrined in the Constitution, is fundamentally, deeply broken and imperfect, and should be fixed.

No system of government is easy to fix, not even Canada's - and we've talked about this before. If the party leadership in Canada was acting the way the GOP is now (and can you imagine how much worse this would be if we didn't have a split Congress, and the House was run by the GOP?) there is no way to prevent the kind of blind cult-like following, when the very leaders who are supposed to prevent it are the ones propagating it.

The Governor General can say "fuck this" and shut down Parliament, calling an election.
There's also a push to get recall elections made national (currently only in BC). Citizens there can recall their own MP with enough signatures, forcing a by-election.

Also, Canada's system doesn't work on a strict plurality. If the minority parties feel strongly enough, they can form a coalition and call for the GG to recognize them as the government, instead. If the Conservative Party got 40% of the vote, and the Liberals 30%, and the NDP 15%, say, the Liberals and NDP could form a coalition, and with 45% of the vote to the Conservative's 40%, they're the ones who form a minority government in that case.

Plus, the fact that any of them are removed from office immediately upon being charged with any crimes. That helps.

[Bodakane]

The founders left "high crimes and misdemeanors" vague and framed the impeachment process as a political one for intentional reasons. The reason is that the accusations for a successful impeachment should be so heinous and without doubt that it draws bipartisan agreement to convict. There are arguments for and against this. One could argue it both ways, in fact.

1. A political party can be so corrupt that it refuses to convict someone despite the evidence.
2. A political party can be so corrupt that it abuses the impeachment process and brings unimpeachable offenses for partisan reasons.

The answer they intended was number 3.

3. The person actually committed impeachable offenses that are bad enough that it would be impossible to not convict.

So, what you're seeing is not a betrayal of the Constitution. It's actually playing out exactly as it was designed. Democrats are just mad that they didn't meet the litmus test and they don't even have any sure way of knowing how that's going to work out in actual elections.

The party you support did 2 with Clinton and is now doing 1 with Trump. The ONLY common denominator in all this, is Republicans are shameless and anti-American.

[Clone]

@Skroe hey man how do you think the Senate trial would unfold?

[Mekh]

Petitioning @Skroe in joining me to only ever refer to Individual-1 as 'Impeached President Trump' from now on.

[cubby]

The first step is to remove consequences for poor conduct, and to act to protect elected officials from such rather than hold them to a higher standard.

And the USA's been in love with that concept basically from the start.

To repeat; a lot of countries don't have this issue. Because leaders can be readily removed, no matter the level they're at. No one person is deemed that important that they need special protection from prosecution. The closest to where the USA is today is probably, ironically, the UK, which the USA was supposedly trying to veer away from.

You rejected the idea of kings, and then immediately put in place a system where you pick a king who reigns for 4 years. It's taken a long time before a madman was declared king, but that tends to happen in systems where you consolidate that kind of power into that small an oligarchy.

How are poor performing elected members of Parliament, who still get elected in their districts, removed in Canada?
What process is in place in Canada for removing high level, appointed, government officials?

And the first step to changing that is recognizing it. Admitting that the American system of governance, as enshrined in the Constitution, is fundamentally, deeply broken and imperfect, and should be fixed.

We know one major part of our system is "broken", but because it is the only way one party can win the White House, it will never get fixed. The Electoral College is from a bi-gone era, and yet the GOP won't let it go, and has lied to generations of people to keep it. We're on our way to fix it now, sort of an end run around a Constitutional Amendment, but even that solution will have to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny - and who knows how that will turn out.

The Governor General can say "fuck this" and shut down Parliament, calling an election.
There's also a push to get recall elections made national (currently only in BC). Citizens there can recall their own MP with enough signatures, forcing a by-election.

And the Governor General is appointed by whom again? The list the Queen picks from is given by whom? Exactly. If those people are corrupt and refuse to acknowledge the corruption, what choices does Canada have then? How does Canada fix it then?

Because that's exactly the situation here in the United States. By all rights, the Senate should already be in trial, objectively reviewing the evidence from Impeachment, and getting ready to vote on the merits and evidence. Instead, we have all the GOP Senators already stating they won't vote to Convict, many of them claiming they don't care what the evidence shows.

What then?

Also, Canada's system doesn't work on a strict plurality. If the minority parties feel strongly enough, they can form a coalition and call for the GG to recognize them as the government, instead. If the Conservative Party got 40% of the vote, and the Liberals 30%, and the NDP 15%, say, the Liberals and NDP could form a coalition, and with 45% of the vote to the Conservative's 40%, they're the ones who form a minority government in that case.

That's great - sounds like a good system. See the question above regarding a corrupt Governor General. What then?

Plus, the fact that any of them are removed from office immediately upon being charged with any crimes. That helps.

I don't agree with that idea, and we've already talked about how that wouldn't work in the United States. Criminal charges would become a political weapon.

[Draco-Onis]

But you're only looking at it from the candidates position - needing better candidates, background checks, etc. What you're not taking into account is the other side, where the crazies reside, and would want to bring any of our previous presidents up on "charges". That's the real issue. Some bumfuck asshat in Alabama bringing up charges on Obama because "reasons" or some insane hippie Californian prosecutor charging Bush2. We can't have that at all - governing would cease to happen.

Trump is unique because his entire modus operandi has been break the law, and then hide behind his attorneys - which this Impeachment has brought to full light.

You know the solution is rather simple congress had it we restore the independent counsel clause. If democrats didn't let it expire after the Clinton impeachment Trump would be in far deeper shit right now.