Should Trump be impeached?

Should the Dems move to impeach?

  • No, it will divide the country.

    Votes: 6 15.4%
  • Yes, so what if it divides the country, it already is.

    Votes: 33 84.6%

  • Total voters
    39

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Trump is threatening Don McGhan (a witness) today on tweeter and he also attacked the FBI and director Wray. The walls are closing in, slowly but surely and Trump is getting more desperate (and dangerous) by the day.
Yes, the walls should be closing in. But I cannot escape the thought that he will get away with it all.

It is different today than it was in 1974. There was no fake news then. It really doesn't matter what he did if 43% of the people are supporting him. I still think that the only way to solve this is the ballot.

And then there will be "tell alls". Lots of them.

The threat of people like Trimp is going to be with us a long time, from both sides of the political spectrum.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Yes, the walls should be closing in. But I cannot escape the thought that he will get away with it all.

It is different today than it was in 1974. There was no fake news then. It really doesn't matter what he did if 43% of the people are supporting him. I still think that the only way to solve this is the ballot.

And then there will be "tell alls". Lots of them.

The threat of people like Trimp is going to be with us a long time, from both sides of the political spectrum.
I think if Trump makes it to the ballot he will only have his hardcore base with him, there's a year and a half until the election and Nancy wants impeachment to be closer to it after lots of sensational hearings and Trump's taxes are public. Also Donald is going nuts trying to block everything in sight and looking guilty as Hell. His bankers and NY state are about to turn over his business records and taxes to the house and his family and other's won't be pardoned by NY state and neither will he or his corporate entities.

I think any threats will arise from the right, like the current rampant right wing terrorism epidemic, Bernie is the biggest threat to the conventional order on the left and since Joe jumped in he doesn't have much chance. The GOP however, will come up with a new "improved" version of Trump in no time flat, those assholes would throw up a Hitler to hold onto power and git the brown folks. Come to think of it, even Hitler never betrayed his country to the Russians...
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I think if Trump makes it to the ballot he will only have his hardcore base with him, there's a year and a half until the election and Nancy wants impeachment to be closer to it after lots of sensational hearings and Trump's taxes are public. Also Donald is going nuts trying to block everything in sight and looking guilty as Hell. His bankers and NY state are about to turn over his business records and taxes to the house and his family and other's won't be pardoned by NY state and neither will he or his corporate entities.

I think any threats will arise from the right, like the current rampant right wing terrorism epidemic, Bernie is the biggest threat to the conventional order on the left and since Joe jumped in he doesn't have much chance. The GOP however, will come up with a new "improved" version of Trump in no time flat, those asshole would throw up a Hitler to hold onto power and git the brown folks. Come to think of it, even Hitler never betrayed his country to the Russians...
Hitler DID betray his country but not to the Russians.

Hitler is a good example of why the status quo DON'T want a dictator in charge. Hitler was groomed by the capitalists of his era as a counter to communists. They thought they could control him. Instead, after doing the work for them of wiping out communists, he took control away from them. Trump is one of them and, from his behavior, isn't all that interested in being ruler. Or maybe doesn't want to work hard enough for that. Its my guess they will look for another useful idiot to run once Trump is done.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Hitler DID betray his country but not to the Russians.

Hitler is a good example of why the status quo DON'T want a dictator in charge. Hitler was groomed by the capitalists of his era as a counter to communists. They thought they could control him. Instead, after doing the work for them of wiping out communists, he took control away from them. Trump is one of them and, from his behavior, isn't all that interested in being ruler. Or maybe doesn't want to work hard enough for that. Its my guess they will look for another useful idiot to run once Trump is done.
Agreed. Trump is an empty suit. They are controlling him for the most part. When they aren't it is not that he is outmaneuvering them, it is a forehead slap "what a fucking idiot" situation.

This trend of popular idiots (thanks internet) will be with us for a while and is a threat from both the left and right.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Hitler DID betray his country but not to the Russians.

Hitler is a good example of why the status quo DON'T want a dictator in charge. Hitler was groomed by the capitalists of his era as a counter to communists. They thought they could control him. Instead, after doing the work for them of wiping out communists, he took control away from them. Trump is one of them and, from his behavior, isn't all that interested in being ruler. Or maybe doesn't want to work hard enough for that. Its my guess they will look for another useful idiot to run once Trump is done.
Agreed and I know the history, Hitler played on the wide spread resentment of the way the first WW ended and he rode on top of, promoted and used existing antisemitism in Germany. He was a lot like Trump in many ways, but he was far smarter and had a very good memory, he was also loyal to this key henchmen, both are sociopathic narcissists. Trump is a bumbling idiot with a talent for low cunning, he's basically an empty shell and a phony, he's always been a loser and deep down he knows it. If it wasn't for racism and xenophobia he wouldn't have a base at all and would never have come close to getting nominated.

He's Tailor made to destroy the republican party and burn it to the ground, so far, so good.
 

dandyrandy

Well-Known Member
Evangelical trumpkins will vote for him no matter what. If he hurts the wealthy he will lose that vote. If some stay home like last time Trump could still win.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Evangelical trumpkins will vote for him no matter what. If he hurts the wealthy he will lose that vote. If some stay home like last time Trump could still win.
I don't think the 60%+ who oppose Trump will miss their chance at the pols, turn out is expected to be historic, Donald and the republicans have an awful lot of bad news coming their way between now and November 2020. Also Donald is going bananas in public and is gonna do lot's more crazy stuff, he ain't done dragging the republicans through shit by a long shot. Nobody with sense is gonna take this election for granted, no matter what the pols say, people are still gonna show up, the more ya hate Trump the more motivated you'll be. By the time Trump and the republicans are done fucking America most people are gonna vote democratic from the top of the ballot right down to who's gonna be dog catcher.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Every president get called those things.
In Trumps case it's true and they can and will be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, when he leaves office he will be indicted an multiple counts and probably spend the rest of his life in a supermax, he knows this too. I hope yer not making too much of a fool of yerself around folks about Trump, yer working real hard to carry Donald's water and it's gonna get heavier by the day. By the time Trump is done he will destroy the GOP for a generation and he helped put the NRA on the rocks and in the sights of the FBI for Russian conspiracy and NY state investigators for corruption. You'll have sensible gun laws out of the deal and some good government for a spell, provided ya survive Trump without too much damage to the nation, America will be able to move forward for a change.
 
In Trumps case it's true and they can and will be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, when he leaves office he will be indicted an multiple counts and probably spend the rest of his life in a supermax, he knows this too. I hope yer not making too much of a fool of yerself around folks about Trump, yer working real hard to carry Donald's water and it's gonna get heavier by the day. By the time Trump is done he will destroy the GOP for a generation and he helped put the NRA on the rocks and in the sights of the FBI for Russian conspiracy and NY state investigators for corruption. You'll have sensible gun laws out of the deal and some good government for a spell, provided ya survive Trump without too much damage to the nation, America will be able to move forward for a change.
Fan fiction. Trump isn't going to prison no matter how much you want it. It's about as dumb as people who think Hillary will get locked up. Come back to reality.
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Oh boy:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444382-democrats-are-running-out-of-stunts-to-pull-from-impeachment-playbook

Democratic leaders in Congress proved the perils of “jumping the shark” this month. The phrase comes from the 1977 episode of the television comedy “Happy Days” in which one of its leading characters, the “Fonz,” jumped over a shark in a water skiing stunt in swim trunks along with his signature leather jacket. That moment was viewed as a desperate ratings stunt by a dying television series struggling to keep viewers engaged. Today, the phrase has come to define similar instances of desperation.

With the many overhyped political moments of the last two years, it is not clear when the partisan shark jump occurred. Soon after the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, legal experts and commentators on air began confidently declaring the crimes of Trump campaign “collusion” were obvious and established. As the report approached completion, commentators spoke widely of a finding of criminality as a virtual given.

Yet, Mueller then stated that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Russia investigation without criminal Russia collusion was like Geraldo Rivera opening the safe of Al Capone only to find empty bottles. To make matters worse, Mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction but Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found that the evidence would not support a criminal charge of obstruction.

Democrats then proceeded to try and shift attention from collusion to obstruction, but their unwillingness to actually open an impeachment inquiry has undermined their claims that obstruction crimes were well established. Almost instantly, you could feel national attention waning and lawmaker desperation growing. There have been some cringeworthy stunts during the past few weeks. Democrats tried to make redactions in the report be the focus, in order to avoid questions over the refusal to move toward impeachment. The problem is Barr released 92 percent of the report and 98 percent of the report to select members of Congress.

Barr was also willing to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, just as he did before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats, however, then added a rare condition requiring Barr to agree to be questioned by the committee staff. Barr predictably refused, as most of his predecessors would have done. Democrats then held a theatrical hearing with an empty chair and a bucket of fried chicken on the table where Barr would have sat. Some ate up the fried chicken for the cameras as most of us winced.

Democrats had called for Mueller to appear before them on Wednesday. Mueller did not show, despite Barr showing a willingness to have him testify. Instead, the committee called for a hearing with constitutional experts to discuss the executive privilege claims raised by the White House. I was one of those experts, and the hearing did not exactly turn out as the Democrats planned. They have insisted that President Trumphad already waived privilege to undisclosed evidence shown to Mueller. The committee witnesses, however, agreed that there is no such waiver.

Worse, the witnesses agreed that Barr could not release the “full and unredacted report” to Congress including any grand jury, or Rule 6(e), evidence. That is in direct contradiction to weeks of demands for the unredacted report along with a subpoena that demanded disclosure of the entire report. The committee maintained that “neither Rule 6(e) nor any applicable privilege barred disclosure of these materials to Congress.” Yet, the expert witnesses it called on have now testified that is not true.

As I noted to the committee, the subpoena, which is the very basis for the earlier contempt vote, was demanding an unlawful act from Barr, and the committee then held him in contempt for not committing that unlawful act. The key to setting up someone for contempt of Congress is to draft a subpoena that he might actually be able to legally fulfill. Notably, despite all of the punditry and cable news coverage of it, the contempt citation has not yet been submitted to the full House for a vote, let alone to a court for review. That is probably not because the contempt case is too strong.

The House committee also had problems with its demand for the other redacted material. I noted to the committee that roughly 2 percent of the redacted material was grand jury material barred under Rule 6(e). That leaves 6 percent, to which Congress, but not the public, has access now. However, most of that material was redacted as part of ongoing litigation and investigations. Indeed, the judges handling cases like those of Trump associate Roger Stone or resigned national security adviser Michael Flynn have imposed court orders. Barr could not simply release that material as demanded by Congress, and no witness disagreed during the hearing.

That would cover virtually all of the redactions that Democrats spent a week highlighting as the primary issue in their minds. Moreover, Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over the Flynn prosecution, issued an order to release some of the redacted material covered by that case. The order again supported Barr in showing that such grand jury information required an order from a court and could not be simply released by Barr.

The day following the hearing, Democrats held yet another spectacle of reading the Mueller report in a marathon for 12 hours on CSPAN.They even brought in a celebrity, although even my childhood friend, John Cusack, could not generate much buzz. The half day coverage of this Gregorian reading had plenty of us longing for the regular mind numbing CSPAN coverage of the “special order” speeches to an empty House chamber.

One reason for the waning audience is that Democrats are stepping on their own lines. The week that their witnesses were contradicting the position of the House Judiciary Committee and the staff was marketing Mueller CDs, Democrats held a closed door party caucus. In it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told Democratic members she has no intention of moving on impeachment. Imitating disgruntled Democratic voters, Pelosi said, “Some of our folks are a little bit ‘Why are we not impeaching the president?” She then added, “They get a little down.”

Well, they are a “little down” because Democratic members of Congress, including several presidential candidates, continue to assure Americans that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses and that they want to open an inquiry. Representative Maxine Waters slammed Trump, saying he has “done everything that one could even think of” to trigger an impeachment vote in the House. Without impeachment, Democrats do not even have a shark to jump. Watching House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler leap over a bucket of fried chicken simply does not have that same “Fonz” cachet.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
Fan fiction. Trump isn't going to prison no matter how much you want it. It's about as dumb as people who think Hillary will get locked up. Come back to reality.
I'll take that bet , proceedings will begin in January 2021
Hello individual 1 meet the Rocket Docket
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
This also a good read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/fining-william-barr-congresss-best-option/589798/

The fight for control of information from the Russia investigation is heading into uncharted legal territory. The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for his refusal to provide the committee with the full, unredacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. Earlier this month, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff publicly signaled his intention to impose fines on the federal officials who refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. “We’re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid ground,” the California Democrat said, revealing that he and his staff are aware that the move would be unorthodox and unconventional. Under these circumstances, the trepidations of the Democratic leadership are understandable. Yet the important thing is: Fining Barr would be legal—even if enforcing the fine could itself prove tricky.

The legal framework governing situations such as this is seldom used and little known. As it happens, I studied it for a forthcoming law-review article. Although the Constitution does not expressly provide Congress with investigatory power, it is a logical extension of the power to legislate.

Much as the president needs to be able to hire people to execute the nation’s laws, the House and Senate need to be able to collect information to make those laws in the first place. In the 1927 case McGrain v. Daugherty, the Supreme Court stated that a “legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information.” Despite the highest court’s imprimatur, Congress’s requests for information during investigations have not always been met with cooperation from the executive branch. When informal requests for information are disregarded, Congress exercises a power usually reserved only for the courts: It issues a formal subpoena. As with a subpoena issued by a court, the person receiving the subpoena is on notice that further refusal to disclose the requested information will open the door to punishment.

The first step is to hold the individual “in contempt.” This serves as Congress’s formal expression that an individual has disobeyed the body’s orders, thereby obstructing its information gathering. But much like being held in contempt of court, the decision would lack genuine force if those who defied Congress faced no consequences. To pressure such people, lawmakers have traditionally resorted to three different strategies: inherent contempt, criminal contempt, and civil contempt.

The oldest approach, and now the most draconian, is to arrest and detain the contemner—that is, the person being held in contempt. This is known as “inherent contempt” power, whereby the sergeant at arms of Congress treats the person in contempt in the same way that a sheriff or bailiff in a courtroom would treat someone disturbing the court proceedings. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision affirming Congress’s power to arrest and detain those held in contempt, and the apocryphal story about an empty dungeon underneath the Capitol dome, Congress has not exercised this option since 1934. It has instead mainly relied on transferring the contempt proceedings to the courts, leaving a judge to decide the appropriate punishment for criminal or civil contempt.

The criminal-contempt statute, passed in 1857, makes it a federal crime to defy congressional subpoenas. Congress has the option of asking the Justice Department to sue anyone held in contempt for violating this federal law. If Congress succeeds in obtaining a favorable judgment, the judge can order the contemner to be jailed or fined. But, not surprisingly, if the individual held in contempt is an executive-branch official, Justice will likely refuse to sue him or her—as it has in every case involving a federal official in the past 10 years.

Quinta Jurecic: If Congress doesn’t act, Trump will

Alternatively, either the House or the Senate can authorize some of its members to bring a civil-contempt case, circumventing the need to rely on the Justice Department. This option too has its own shortcomings. First, courts are hesitant to entertain disputes that involve a tug-of-war between two branches of the government. Second, litigating the matter in courts can be time-consuming in practice, so it’s not helpful when Congress’s main concern is expediting access to information. In the past, similar cases have dragged out in the courts for long enough that the requesting Congress and the incumbent administration’s terms both expired before reaching a resolution.


Neither of these options helps Congress get the information it wants in a timely way; both options require cooperation from one or two of the other branches. The increasing sense of frustration with these strategies has shifted the attention to creative ideas for punishing those in contempt. One such idea is to impose fines on noncompliant federal officials.

If Congress has the power to directly fine contemners without going to court first, the procedure it should use remains unclear. One possible strategy is to borrow the legal procedures used by Congress in disciplining its own members. In the past, Congress has directly fined its own members at the conclusion of disciplinary investigations by either asking the Treasury Department to withhold a certain amount from their salary or asking the member to write a check directly to Treasury. In some cases, the fine that was assessed was commensurate with the cost of the ethical investigation.

The contemner or Treasury might well refuse to comply with these requests. If the contemner—Barr, for instance—is directly asked to provide a check and refuses, Congress’s only recourse would be to resort to the courts again, but this time with the much stronger claim that the contemner has misappropriated federal money, a serious crime on its own. Alternatively, Congress can ask the Department of the Treasury to withhold the contemner’s salary. Treasury has extensive control over the administration of the budget, and the department might well push back against Congress, much as the Justice Department does when it declines to pursue criminal action. Yet the case for executive discretion to ignore Congress’s demands will be much weaker. Justice enjoys the right to exercise discretion on whether to prosecute a criminal case, but Treasury’s refusal to follow congressional demands over the management of federal money will not have a clear nexus to any constitutional right that would counterbalance the power of the purse.

It remains to be seen how far Democratic leadership will venture down this unexplored path. But a new precedent could come into play again quickly. The House Ways and Means Committee has issued a subpoena for President Donald Trump’s tax returns. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to comply.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

KIA RAHNAMA is a constitutional law attorney in Washington D.C.
 
Top