Poll: Should Congress Impeach Trump Again?

Page 17 of 28 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
27
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Not really. The process is far simpler this time. The goal isn’t to remove him from office with the impeachment, but prevent him from holding office again. A simple majority in both Houses will do the trick. NYT confirmed as much.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I have to say that I am struggling to understand this impeachment business.

    I read the other day (I can't remember who said it) that Trump should be impeached to show that he is not above the law and I very much agree with this sentiment but from what I can gather - and this is probably my flawed understanding - the impeachment process is ultimately decided by politics rather than the rule of law.

    As far as I can see, you have an outgoing president who has, at the very least, incited a mob to break the law but as long as he has enough political allies the impeachment will fail regardless of whether the facts establish that he broke the law.

    Is this correct?
    The US Justice Department has a long running policy to not charge a sitting president with any crimes. So, in order to actually charge him with any crimes...he first must be removed from power. So yeah, basically, the impeachment process is political... but, impeached or not, as soon as Trump is no longer president...he loses the protection of the aforementioned policy.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    The US Justice Department has a long running policy to not charge a sitting president with any crimes. So, in order to actually charge him with any crimes...he first must be removed from power. So yeah, basically, the impeachment process is political... but, impeached or not, as soon as Trump is no longer president...he loses the protection of the aforementioned policy.
    Thanks, that makes sense, I guess what I am struggling with is that you can have a situation where there is very strong evidence that the president's actions have resulted in serious law breaking - that has left five people dead - and he cannot be removed from office let alone have criminal proceedings levelled against him as long as he can persuade enough people to support him.

    As far as I am concerned politics should not come in to it, if there is evidence that president has broken the law he should be treated to fair and legal trial, the same as every other American.

    I guess that when the impeachment process was drawn up it was never envisioned that this kind of situation would ever arise.

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Thanks, that makes sense, I guess what I am struggling with is that you can have a situation where there is very strong evidence that the president's actions have resulted in serious law breaking - that has left five people dead - and he cannot be removed from office let alone have criminal proceedings levelled against him as long as he can persuade enough people to support him.

    As far as I am concerned politics should not come in to it, if there is evidence that president has broken the law he should be treated to fair and legal trial, the same as every other American.

    I guess that when the impeachment process was drawn up it was never envisioned that this kind of situation would ever arise.
    Not quite that they didn’t envision the President doing it. They didn’t envision that some members of Congress would be so corrupt as to not take issue with it. This impeachment is literally a litmus test for the GOP. Because Trump will have left office. The question will be, ‘how afraid are you of Trump’s extremist base, and are you willing to sacrifice everything to have that group’s favour?’

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Thanks, that makes sense, I guess what I am struggling with is that you can have a situation where there is very strong evidence that the president's actions have resulted in serious law breaking - that has left five people dead - and he cannot be removed from office let alone have criminal proceedings levelled against him as long as he can persuade enough people to support him.

    As far as I am concerned politics should not come in to it, if there is evidence that president has broken the law he should be treated to fair and legal trial, the same as every other American.

    I guess that when the impeachment process was drawn up it was never envisioned that this kind of situation would ever arise.
    That's basically it.

    Only 3 Presidents in the history of America have been impeached by the House. None of them convicted by the Senate. Nixon probably would have been the first one to be both impeached and convicted... but he resigned before that became an issue.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    Not really. The process is far simpler this time. The goal isn’t to remove him from office with the impeachment, but prevent him from holding office again. A simple majority in both Houses will do the trick. NYT confirmed as much.
    There's also the fact there isn't a 1-2 year investigation with maybe he did, maybe he didn't get help to get him into office with one party not even going to consider convicting him. At most this time, it's about a month and a half of whining/slight inciting, then a day of inciting leading to insurrection on the same day with a Senate that may go along with it this time.
    Just don't reply to me. Please. If you can help it.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    Not quite that they didn’t envision the President doing it. They didn’t envision that some members of Congress would be so corrupt as to not take issue with it. This impeachment is literally a litmus test for the GOP. Because Trump will have left office. The question will be, ‘how afraid are you of Trump’s extremist base, and are you willing to sacrifice everything to have that group’s favour?’
    To be honest when you put a decision, even one as important whether the president has broken the law, in the hands of politicians political considerations are always going to come into play.

    For me this kind of thing should be nowhere near the politicians - I don't think that a politician should be in the position of deciding whether another politician has broken the law - and should be decided by trained and impartial legal professionals but as the saying goes it's easy to be wise after the fact.

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausr View Post
    There's also the fact there isn't a 1-2 year investigation with maybe he did, maybe he didn't get help to get him into office with one party not even going to consider convicting him. At most this time, it's about a month and a half of whining/slight inciting, then a day of inciting leading to insurrection on the same day with a Senate that may go along with it this time.
    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    To be honest when
    you put a decision, even one as important whether the president has broken the law, in the hands of politicians political considerations are always going to come into play.

    For me this kind of thing should be nowhere near the politicians - I don't think that a politician should be in the position of deciding whether another politician has broken the law - and should be decided by trained and impartial legal professionals but as the saying goes it's easy to be wise after the fact.
    And yup. Hawley needs to be put it an institution, given the above points. He’s nuts.

  9. #329
    Yes, it is actually easier to take the easy way out because "he only had 9 days left anyway". However, if he is qualifies to be impeached he should be so we don't have such a moving bar for what a sitting president can do when someone as corrupt but more competent than Trump is take office, he can use what Trump has done in the past as a norm.

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by david0925 View Post
    Yes, it is actually easier to take the easy way out because "he only had 9 days left anyway". However, if he is qualifies to be impeached he should be so we don't have such a moving bar for what a sitting president can do when someone as corrupt but more competent than Trump is take office, he can use what Trump has done in the past as a norm.
    I agree with this sentiment but don't the Democrats now find themselves in a catch-22 situation where they have to impeach him but if they do and the impeachment fails - because it is political rather legal - it risks being seen as vindication of his actions?

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Kinda useless worry. The die hard retards who support Trump will see everything as vindication for their god king's actions.

    Impeach and remove him so he can't run for office again.
    I guess the potential concern is that he is afraid that the action of impeachment that isn't going to practically do anything will piss off the moderates/independents when they perceive it as political revenge.

    I understand that potential risk, but I also think it's equally a liability to stay silent after Trump caused so much social unrest, as there are also plenty of moderates/independents that value peaceful transition of power as well as rule of law.

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by david0925 View Post
    I guess the potential concern is that he is afraid that the action of impeachment that isn't going to practically do anything will piss off the moderates/independents when they perceive it as political revenge.

    I understand that potential risk, but I also think it's equally a liability to stay silent after Trump caused so much social unrest, as there are also plenty of moderates/independents that value peaceful transition of power as well as rule of law.
    Thanks for your answer. I appreciate that it wasn't in direct response to me but it does address the issue I raised.

    I'm from the UK and I know very little about how impeachment works. I had assumed that after watching last week unfold it would be an open and shut case but the more I read the more complicated it seems.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I have read there is a very real prospect that impeachment proceedings would, once again, fail and this would then be used by Trump as vindication that he had done nothing wrong. This, obviously, puts the Democrats in a very difficult position because on one hand you have the rule of law that needs to be upheld but on the other you have potential political fallout from an unsuccessful impeachment riling up an already very divided country. To put it mildly it's a nightmare!

    I agree that the rule of law is more important than the political risk but then that's easy for me to say as I don't have to live with it.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Thanks for your answer. I appreciate that it wasn't in direct response to me but it does address the issue I raised.

    I'm from the UK and I know very little about how impeachment works. I had assumed that after watching last week unfold it would be an open and shut case but the more I read the more complicated it seems.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I have read there is a very real prospect that impeachment proceedings would, once again, fail and this would then be used by Trump as vindication that he had done nothing wrong. This, obviously, puts the Democrats in a very difficult position because on one hand you have the rule of law that needs to be upheld but on the other you have potential political fallout from an unsuccessful impeachment riling up an already very divided country. To put it mildly it's a nightmare!

    I agree that the rule of law is more important than the political risk but then that's easy for me to say as I don't have to live with it.
    Nah, Impeachment cases aren't criminal in nature. It is the equivalent of someone gathering evidence to have you fired. But unlike a job, to get fired requires a bunch of people to vote on whether or not you are to be fired. You can still be convicted in criminal court based on whatever is in the impeachment case as that is an actual court of law.

  14. #334
    Banned Beazy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,459
    I wouldnt, waste of even more tax dollars on Trump.

    Hes done. I just read one of his golf courses will no longer host a championship. His entire "kingdom" is crashing down.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Nah, Impeachment cases aren't criminal in nature. It is the equivalent of someone gathering evidence to have you fired. But unlike a job, to get fired requires a bunch of people to vote on whether or not you are to be fired. You can still be convicted in criminal court based on whatever is in the impeachment case as that is an actual court of law.
    A workplace disciplinary investigation is a good analogy. Thank you.

    I think what I am struggling to get my head around is that something so serious as whether the president - to go back to the disciplinary analogy - is guilty of misconduct is subject to voting at all and obvious political pressures this brings instead of being decided by an expert and impartial panel. As they say every day's a school day.

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    A workplace disciplinary investigation is a good analogy. Thank you.

    I think what I am struggling to get my head around is that something so serious as whether the president - to go back to the disciplinary analogy - is guilty of misconduct is subject to voting at all and obvious political pressures this brings instead of being decided by an expert and impartial panel. As they say every day's a school day.
    I believe honestly, the founders didn't really have it in mind for a 2 party system where one party would end up being beholden to the President no matter what they do. The whole thing breaks down because of that.

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    I believe honestly, the founders didn't really have it in mind for a 2 party system where one party would end up being beholden to the President no matter what they do. The whole thing breaks down because of that.
    A tribal like devotion to one party over the other is something both our countries share. Yeah, I guess it's one of those situations where a law that is made generations ago is no longer fit for the modern world - it's unfortunate that it has been put to the test in such circumstances.

  18. #338
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Beazy View Post
    I wouldnt, waste of even more tax dollars on Trump.

    Hes done. I just read one of his golf courses will no longer host a championship. His entire "kingdom" is crashing down.
    Problem is if he isn't impeached, he gets secret service protection and a presidential pension for the rest of his life.

    Impeachment strips all of that away.

  19. #339
    Pandaren Monk ThatsOurEric's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,974
    Whatever it takes to throw his ass in jail.

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Nah, Impeachment cases aren't criminal in nature. It is the equivalent of someone gathering evidence to have you fired. But unlike a job, to get fired requires a bunch of people to vote on whether or not you are to be fired. You can still be convicted in criminal court based on whatever is in the impeachment case as that is an actual court of law.
    This is false....impeachment requires a criminal aspect, as in evidence that the President broke the law, to even move forward. Impeachment is the process for how a US president is formally indicted for the crime. The Senate then has the power to try the President for the crime they are accused of and punish him for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    A workplace disciplinary investigation is a good analogy. Thank you.

    I think what I am struggling to get my head around is that something so serious as whether the president - to go back to the disciplinary analogy - is guilty of misconduct is subject to voting at all and obvious political pressures this brings instead of being decided by an expert and impartial panel. As they say every day's a school day.
    The issue is, because it's the President, there are specific rules and regulations for how they get dealt with written into the constitution so, we have to follow those.

    I would bet it has to do with the fact that the President wouldn't be able to do the job they were elected for if they were forced to be in a courtroom for however many hours and days, etc... because they were subject to the normal rules of law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •