View Poll Results: Should Congress Impeach Trump Again?

Voters
216. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    194 89.81%
  • No

    22 10.19%
Page 18 of 30 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
20
28
... LastLast
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    So McConnell just sent out the procedures for a Senate trial if Trump is again impeached by the house... and well, this is why I think the exercise is pointless. According to the timeline laid out, the Senate would most likely recieve the formal notification of the impeachment of the President on the 19th of January, and according to Senate Impeachment rules, would not be taken up until 1 pm the following day, which is the twentieth. Given that Joe Biden will be President an hour before that, that makes Trump no longer president when a Senate Trial begins.

    Now McConnell does note that it could be considered earlier, but only given the unanimous consent of all 100 senators to conduct business out of normal session. Which is... not likely.

    So I fail to see what this little excercise in pointlessness actually accomplishes, if the Senate cannot remove Trump from office, because he will not be in office by the time they start the trial. For the record, McConnell isn't slow walking this at all, this is the earliest he could possibly act on it (Not doubting that he wouldn't slow walk it if he had too, but he doesn't need to do so here). I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.
    The worst president in US history deserves to be impeached and blocked from ever running from office again. Even if they technically convict him after he has left office.

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.
    As I understand it, while they need a 2/3 majority to convict Trump, they would only need a simple majority to ban Trump from seeking office again.

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    As I understand it, while they need a 2/3 majority to convict Trump, they would only need a simple majority to ban Trump from seeking office again.
    This is what I was assuming. Would be great if it could be confirmed for sure. Because really, that’s the most important thing. End his political career once and for al. It’s the least he deserves, given he’s a fucking criminal.

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    I think there is a major difference between impeaching a president with a year left, and a President that has minus one hour left. That said, after reading some of the other information about what an impeachment can actually do to an ex-President, I retract my objections. Fine, lets do it. I still don't think it is the best idea ever, but fuck Trump anyway. Maybe it will give him an ulcer or something at least.
    I don't think that there is a actual difference even if you discover after the President leaves office, you need to uphold the law.
    The idea of impeaching the President is also to send a message to any future presidents "You are not above the law".

    I understand why Obama didn't really want to punish Bush and co for the havoc that they created across the world because as horrible as what Bush did, every action that Bush took was as President. If you wanted to punish Bush you would have had to do it before he left office not afterwards.

    The impeachable offenses of Trump have nothing to do with his task as President, Democrats need to go after Trump regardless how much time he has.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    The worst president in US history deserves to be impeached and blocked from ever running from office again. Even if they technically convict him after he has left office.
    I would also add.
    The President that broke norms also should have the dubious honor of being impeached two different times.

    If any politician cares about there legacy (every god dam rich person cares about there bloody so called legacy) they need to vote yes on impeaching Trump.

  5. #345
    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?

  6. #346
    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.

  7. #347
    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.

  8. #348
    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.

  9. #349
    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?’

  10. #350
    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.

  11. #351
    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.

  12. #352
    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.

  13. #353
    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.

  14. #354
    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?
    Yes. The US system is pants on head retarded.

  15. #355
    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.

  16. #356
    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?

  17. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    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?
    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.

  18. #358
    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.

  19. #359
    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.
    Not one independent or moderate will see it as anything else but necessary reaction to Trump inciting a coup.

    Those who get their panties in a twist over second impeachment are closet Trumpers. Simple as.

  20. #360
    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.

Posting Permissions

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