will trump really be impeached? (1 Viewer)

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 12:13
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
I confess I'm totally confused.

It seems certain that Trump will be impeached tomorrow. Now, I thought (wrongly it seems) that he is forced out of office. Yet on the news tonight, it seems he will stay in office until November 2020 (the next election) and will be allowed to stand and possibly be re-elected as president.

If that is the case, what is the point of it all if nothing is going to happen?

The USA elections and government are a mystery to the Brits when the one with the lowest populace vote wins and an impeached president continues as normal.

Col
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:13
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
If that is the case, what is the point of it all if nothing is going to happen?
The Democrats are consumed by irrational hatred. What is really "funny", Hillary Clinton (expecting to win) proclaimed that challenging the election results would be a "threat to democracy". That is exactly what the Democrats have done, challenged the election. Democrats are the very threat to Democracy.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:13
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,996
ColinEssex:

I will try to explain this in terms that you might understand because you are not familiar with USA government issues like this. I know it can be confusing because, heck, some folks here in the USA don't understand it either.

The issue with the President of the US is that he has certain protections and immunity to keep him from being pestered by trivial lawsuits and (dare I say it?) trumped-up charges of petty crimes. If everyone could charge him with some trivial crime then even if he was the nicest guy in the world, the party that is out of power would pester him relentlessly and keep him from the real work of running the country. Therefore, the President is immune to certain criminal charges.

However, the framers of the USA constitution decided that this was a bit TOO extreme, so they left in place a mechanism to oust a truly criminal president. Now here is where it might get a little legal-techie.

If you are an ordinary USA citizen and someone accuses you of a crime, there is some type of investigation by a police-powers agency, local or higher depending on the scope of the purported crime. The agency forwards the results of the investigation to the appropriate state or federal district attorney who can accept the charges or reject them. If the criminal charges are accepted, the DA convenes a grand jury to hear the details presented by the police agency. The grand jury only has to decide if there is a reasonable chance that a crime actually was committed. If so, they return an indictment and the accused person then will be given a court date for the criminal trial.

The grand jury DOES NOT DETERMINE GUILT. They only decide whether it is worth it to pursue the case. When the court goes into session, a petit jury is convened to hear the evidence by the prosecuting attorney (DA) and the defense attorney. The petit jury then decides guilt or innocence. At this point, if they voted guilty then the accused has been convicted of a crime.

Now, for the President... The USA constitution lets the House of Representatives bring charges and act as a grand jury, but the term used by the constitution is "impeach" rather than "indict." The Senate then acts as the petit jury and either convicts or exonerates the President.

In both cases, the grand jury (or the House of Representatives) CAN choose to return a "no true bill" result - meaning they do not recommend further consideration of the charges. IF they indict/impeach, then the petit jury/Senate can chose to acquit or convict. So what is really going on here is merely that there are a couple of oddball variations required as workarounds to offset the Presidential immunity from normal prosecution.

I hope this helps you understand the process, Col. I would tell you what it is like as compared to the UK system but I am not familiar with that.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 07:13
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
yesterday I saw a flurry of photos on my facebook news feed. apparently the dems have accomplished their goal and trump is impeached....
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 12:13
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
Thanks Doc, so basically this is the first stage of a long process. I was under the impression if Senate decided to impeach then the president is out on his ear within a week and a new one voted for.

I'm guessing Trump is a different party to the senate. I think you only have two so one must be republican and the other democrats.

I seem to remember that Richard Nixon was thrown out fairly quickly - was he impeached using the same process? Or did he just resign.

In the UK we have two main parties, the people vote for their local candidate for Member of Parliament then the party with the most members voted in is the government and the leader is Prime Minister.

Col
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:13
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,823
Or the Dems got what they wanted, which is to say they blacken his eye. They may decide to not send the articles of impeachment to the full senate for punishment.

They understand there could be a backlash against junior members. Its possible some members of congress could lose their jobs, causing their majority to slip.

The Democrats did not seek relief in the judicial branch of government, and that was a mistake. They would have a stronger case for obstruction of congress if they forced the Supreme Court to rule on obstruction.

The people have the final say not the senate, they work for us. Or at least that's the rumor...….
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:13
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
I seem to remember that Richard Nixon was thrown out fairly quickly - was he impeached using the same process? Or did he just resign.
Nixon, seeing the handwriting on the wall, resigned.

The people have the final say not the senate, they work for us. Or at least that's the rumor...….
The 2020 Presidential election should have been the appropriate remedy to be pursued by the Democrats. The Democrats (who are supposedly concerned about the integrity of the voting process), instead, took the Orwellian approach, we must "destroy" the democratic voting process (by canceling the will of the people) to save it.
 

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 12:13
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
Just a reminder that the last time a president was impeached, he (Clinton) was a Democrat and the Republicans were responsible for making that happen.

So in your utterly impartial opinion, was that also 'destroying' the democratic will of the people or somehow different because the parties involved were reversed?
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 07:13
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
did I tell you guys about the thanksgiving outbursts that happened between literally every member of my family during our dinner over the issue of impeachment? My dad won the argument after 60 minutes of back and forth yelling at the top of everybody's lungs. This is the first time in my 39 years on the earth that I ever witnessed my family members engage in an argument over anything.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:13
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
So in your utterly impartial opinion, was that also 'destroying' the democratic will of the people or somehow different because the parties involved were reversed?
The fact that the parties were reversed is irrelevant. In the case of Clinton, there were identifiable crimes that simply did not rise to a level that warranted Clinton's removal. In the current situation, the Democrats are making the argument that the voters cannot be trusted to vote Trump our-of-office and it is the (misleading) responsibility of the House to impeach the President before the election. It is the voters who are to decide whether the President remains in office or not.

Also consider this, the Democrats started the impeachment effort at the time Trump was elected. Clearly this has been a case of implementing Lavrentiy Beria's infamous avocation: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. This smacks of the impeachment process being an inquisition.

See video below:
Democrat Says They Must IMPEACH Trump Or He WILL WIN Again!

PS: A narrative is emerging that the House will NOT send the adopted article of impeachment immediately to the Senate for trial, at this time. (This was done for Clinton's impeachment) Of course that raises the issue of why the Democrats are apparently delaying the process after vehemently claiming that it need to expedited.

Pelosi offers no timeline on sending impeachment articles to Senate: 'We'll see what they have'
 
Last edited:

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:13
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,823
So in your utterly impartial opinion, was that also 'destroying' the democratic will of the people or somehow different because the parties involved were reversed?

I doubt anyone claims to have an impartial opinion, utterly or otherwise.;)
 

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 12:13
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
SteveR
That's utter nonsense.
If you took your blinkers off for a second you would see that as well.

Clinton (like Trump) had many serious flaws as a person, some of which affected his role as President (again like Trump).
Throughout most of Clinton's two terms, the Republicans did all they could to impede him.
And of course, you will remember the actions of special counsel Kenneth Starr

If the issues which led to Clinton's impeachment were not serious enough to justify his removal, then the Republicans shouldn't have pursued it in the house.
But, led by Newt Gingrich, they had no qualms about doing so and because they had a majority in the House, Clinton was impeached.
Back in 1998 (as now) the votes went completely on party lines.
However Clinton wasn't removed from office because they didn't have the required two thirds majority of votes in the Senate.

The same will of course happen again this time in the Senate so that Trump will remain in office and fight the 2020 election.
During Clinton's impeachment process, his approval ratings rose to around 60%.
Maybe the same will happen for Trump though it currently looks unlikely.

It may well be that Trump will win again next year despite the fact that he is accused of far more serious issues than was the case with Clinton.
I know you won't for a second agree with that point, but your endlessly repeated arguments might be more effective if they were balanced and objective.

As I've said to you before, when making a highly partisan case as you always do, try reversing your logic and see if it still sounds reasonable.

AB
I was, of course, being ironic!
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:13
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
As I've said to you before, when making a highly partisan case as you always do, try reversing your logic and see if it still sounds reasonable.
Sorry, but I would say that you are refusing to acknowledge that what the Democrats have done, in this situation, is far worse than what the Republicans did with Clinton. Your animus against Trump may be clouding your viewpoint.

While you may consider my comments as being "partisan", I am pointing out that the Democrats are spinning a false narrative. That false narrative by Democrats is not partisan and is something to be condemned.

I seriously doubt that Clinton was targeted by the Republicans the day he took office. The Democrats have purposely targeted Trump as he took office. Even before he even had any opportunity to commit any of the alleged "crimes". Those are non-partisan observations.

The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun. Note the date that this article was published. It was published on the day that Trump was inaugurated, Jan. 20, 2017. That is a non-partisan fact. Can you find a similar article related to Clinton?

Dershowitz: Turning Impeachment Into A Vote Of No Confidence Turns U.S. Into The Kind Of Parliamentary Democracy The Founders Rebelled Against

"Harvard law professor emeritus and author of "The Case Against Impeaching Trump" Alan Dershowitz describes impeachment proceedings against President Trump as "Hamilton's Nightmare" during a Sunday appearance on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal.""

WATCH: Jonathan Turley’s full opening statement | Trump impeachment hearings. Turely states that he is opposed to Trump, but he believes that the Democrats are abusing the impeachment process. Both Dershowitz and Turley have stated that they are Democrats.
 
Last edited:

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 07:13
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
It may well be that Trump will win again next year despite the fact that he is accused of far more serious issues than was the case with Clinton.
really Colin!? Are the charges against trump really worse than infidelity in the white house? I don't know about that one. Seems to me that they're both equally guilty. This is exactly the argument my brother, dad and mother got into.

On a lighter note, I have a question for you political fictionadoes....Is trump really that good of a buddy to Putin? Have they always been in bed together or did one of them gradually "ease" into liking the other one?
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:13
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,823
really Colin!? Are the charges against trump really worse than infidelity in the white house? I don't know about that one. Seems to me that they're both equally guilty. This is exactly the argument my brother, dad and mother got into.

On a lighter note, I have a question for you political fictionadoes....Is trump really that good of a buddy to Putin? Have they always been in bed together or did one of them gradually "ease" into liking the other one?
Infidelity is not a crime, lying under oath to a grand jury, or congress is. Just ask Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 07:13
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
Infidelity is not a crime, lying under oath to a grand jury, or congress is. Just ask Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn.
so then both of them ARE equally guilty. Clinton did *both*, he screwed the woman *and* lied to congress. so he's a criminal just like trump is, no?
 

isladogs

MVP / VIP
Local time
Today, 12:13
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
18,186
As always we are going to disagree completely. I'm saying that the actions of the two parties in 1998 and 2019 are broadly equivalent.

Are you seriously suggesting Trump has done nothing meriting impeachment?
I'm saying both Presidents were flawed and acted as though they were above the law.

The article you quoted certainly indicates that there was significant opposition to Trump from the start, which of course I already knew. What it doesn't suggest for one second was that was Democratic party policy - official or unofficial - back in Jan 2017.

The internet was in relative infancy in the early years of Clinton's presidency. There is little point spending time looking for articles indicating when the campaign by Republicans to impeach him started. If I found something similar to your link, I'm confident you wouldn't accept it anyway.

However, I will pass on a link from Nov 4 2016 which indicated that if Hillary Clinton had won, Republicans were planning to make her presidency a "living hell" from the very start.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton
Of course, with Trump using 'lock her up' as a rallying cry, the party base had become highly polemicized throughout the campaign.

Of course Brexit has had a similarly divisive effect in the UK and I don't see that being resolved any time soon.

I see both US parties as having similar faults. You only see one side.
We'll never agree and its probably time for me to bow out of this thread again
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:13
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,823
However, I will pass on a link from Nov 4 2016 which indicated that if Hillary Clinton had won, Republicans were planning to make her presidency a "living hell" from the very start.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...aching-clinton
Of course, with Trump using 'lock her up' as a rallying cry, the party base had become highly polemicized throughout the campaign.
Yes they would have, and they screwed over Obama at times. His supreme court nominee is a good example. Also Bush was a war criminal right? And Reagan was old and senile with his finger on the nuke remember? Yes we can point fingers at both sides. Sooooooooo now what?

3rd party? Independent?
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:13
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
I see both US parties as having similar faults. You only see one side. We'll never agree and its probably time for me to bow out of this thread again
I'm open to seeing both sides. The Republicans at times deserve criticism, such as not addressing deficit spending. However, the pendulum has swung to Democrats being abusive. It is the current "hot topic". So I am reacting to that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom