Impeachment

So, the Brexit thread has established that us Brits can disagree civilly. Let's see if our colonial cousins can manage it. I appreciate I'm potentially poking a hornets nest here so try not to get too personal.

Thoughts on the impeachment of Trump? Doomed to failure in the face of a Republican Congress? Were the Bidens engaged in corrupt practices? Did the withholding of aid to Ukraine constitute a threat? Will Trump release the Transcripts unredacted as he's promised to and will they contain a smoking gun?

My own personal conspiracy theory: Trump has shown an ability to play his political opponents like a fiddle. He started offering to release the unredacted transcripts pretty early in this particular scandal and, while that could be someone trying to smokescreen it feels to me more like he knows there's no smoking gun in there. He'll spin the Dems out until they're baying for blood then finally release it and... nothing.

Thoughts?

In the US, like the UK, the liberal left are screaming against a populist right-of-centre president/PM. They're both using all the tricks they can possibly find to discredit and remove from office. When the 'left' do 'tricks' it's for the wider good - when the 'right' do tricks its an abuse of power/racist/etc etc (write in your own reason).

IMO, a while ago politics was coalescing around the middle ground (Blair/Cameron et al). Now its moving towards the 2 extremes - with each side becoming more entrenched and hostile towards the other. Not conducive to harmonious living.

There was a time when I thought I saw the Republicans tearing themselves apart into pieces... by some miracle they managed to not do so. Now, I see the Dems at the same point... while it's possible they could also implode in a similar manner, given that the Repubs didn't, I don't think that they will. Instead I think that the two parties will continue to become the extremes of themselves. Oddly, you would think that would leave room for to form in the middle, but it won't. This country is so entrenched in the two-party us-vs-them system that they can't conceive that there might be an alternative.

And this "BS" of having so many candidates in the primaries that you have to split your debates over two nights.... that's just got to stop. For the love of all things, that has got to stop. Use rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock, or something, but limit it to your top 5 or 7 at the most. I thought the Repubs were bad last time around with 16 at one point... but the Dems with 22?! TWENTY-TWO! I don't see how anybody can be taking any of them seriously at this point.


-tg

Quote:

---

but the Dems with 22?! TWENTY-TWO! I don't see how anybody can be taking any of them seriously at this point.

---

They don't need an opposition party - they are their own opposition, tearing each other to bits! Then when one gets nominated they expect solidarity from the others - after they have been rubbished.

I've always found the American system of divisive primaries followed a rallying together behind the winner a bit weird and schizophrenic. It also tends to make the also rans look hypocritical and I thought this was particularly vivid in the Republican nominations last time around. Trumps opponents spent months ridiculing him (and he them) and then immediately... best buds, borrow me daughter?

I haven't followed the current Dem race but I imagine it'll end up looking similar. Though without Trumps celebrity/infamy to add sauce.

And, yeah, the world is definitely polarizing. I think it's worse in the US than the UK but we're clearly not immune. I think our multi party system helps because it means there's always a threat in the middle ground that creates gravity there and pulls the two main parties in from the extremes. That may be part of why Brexit has been the thing that's finally polarized us so much - there is no middle ground on Brexit. But that's for another thread :)

Trump said he'd release the transcript. The question that is being asked is, "will it be the correct phone call?" Only the whistle blower will be able to answer that..... :eek:

And yes, the democratic party seems to be on a path to helping Trump get reelected.

I'm not sure whether Trump can be said to be center right, either. While he does make some nods to some right wing base groups, many of his instincts are positions that the left previously held. The Democrats were generally more protectionist, while the Republicans were historically the party of business and free trade. Trump has been strongly protectionist, which leaves the Democrats wrong-footed, while the Republicans are following along as if this was their natural position. Trump is anti-gun, too, but keeps getting talked down whenever he talks about strengthening gun laws.

To some extent, Trump is just following the rule of dancing with the one that brought you, but it's caused a bit of turmoil in both established parties, as one side gets to support positions they've traditionally opposed, while the other has to oppose positions they've traditionally supported.

Don't forget..... Trump was a registered democrat for many years.

The idea that you can take the complexity of a person's views and plot them on a single axis from right to left has always been a bit nuts. It does make it simple to put somebody into just one box, but it doesn't do a fair job of describing the complexity of any one individual.

That may be changing, though. If we get sufficiently clannish, people may end up taking the clan values as a set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The idea that you can take the complexity of a person's views and plot them on a single axis from right to left has always been a bit nuts. I

---

Yep. The US is in trouble for the simple fact that too many people simple "vote red" or "vote blue". They let others make the decisions based on what they *believe* the party represents.

If instead of voting for a person, people voted for issues - You then match people's issue votes to the candidate that best supports them. We'd have completely different outcomes. I think most people would be surprised by where their votes would land.....

Quote:

---

If we get sufficiently klannish...

---

Fixed that for you;).

Yeah, it strikes me Trump is an opportunist rather than an ideologue. I've heard other people express that his policies don't marry with the traditional Republican positions as well. As a Brit that's hard for me to judge but he's generally been protectionist on trade and anti military intervention (though pro-military) which I take to be traditional Democrat territory. You're the first person I've seen call him anti gun though. That's surprising to hear.

Quote:

---

If instead of voting for a person, people voted for issues - You then match people's issue votes to the candidate that best supports them. We'd have completely different outcomes. I think most people would be surprised by where their votes would land....

---

I suspect you're right though it might get weird in a two party system. Your two party setup creates an inevitable (and often entirely artificial) axis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I suspect you're right though it might get weird in a two party system. Your two party setup creates an inevitable (and often entirely artificial) axis.

---

Independents and people outside of the two parties would be more likely to get elected..... :eek:

On the other note...

Can someone point to something that shows Trump as anti-gun? I've not seen that, but rather seen him defending gun ownership.....

The reason for having a large slate of Primary candidates is fund raising and sheep herding. In order to be in the Primary they all agreed to accept their individual little guy donations via captive political action committees, then take back a campaign allowance with the rest going into DNC coffers for the general election. I presume there is a similar path for dark money from large organizations.

If the Party formed an honest coalition of interests to gain support there would be winners and losers. But that's just not how they have their partisans trained. Instead promising everything to everyone is just how they operate at this stage of the game. Recent elections have proven to be tight races only won by tiny margins, and their strategies have played factions within their own Party against each other often making outlandish promises to rob from some and give to others. Examples: they can be both for an open border policy and against it right now, for wars of intervention and against them, for socialized medicine and against it, for special carve-outs for specific identity groups and against them.

They'll put up their anointed candidate after jiggering the Primary elections and caucuses enough to make it look like either a win or an unfortunate outcome of the superdelegate process. All the while blaming the tainted electoral process on their opposition. Their entire population of dupes are left with nowhere else to go. In 2016 the DNC's lawyers claimed that right in court and it went unchallenged.

At that point they can ramp up their demonization of the opposing candidate and Party. Sure, some portion of voters will cast a vanity ballot for some 3rd Party no-hoper and more will just stay home. But they hope they can frighten enough into voting against the mustache-twirling villain they have fabricated without much consideration of what sort of monster they are voting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

If instead of voting for a person, people voted for issues - You then match people's issue votes to the candidate that best supports them. We'd have completely different outcomes. I think most people would be surprised by where their votes would land.....

---

See, I already see that people vote for issues... this last time it was Immigration...build the wall, close the borders, etc... the time before it was Healthcare... and that's what the real problem is. People voting on the hot-button topic of the day. It used to be that you had to appeal to the larger masses, had to be a well-rounded candidate, so you had to be a lot more centrist... now, it's all about being the extreme... quite honestly I can't figure out why.

But you're right, I bet if more people spent time looking at the issues and what they thought about them, they'd find they were neither red or blue, but purple, or even some other color. I consider myself socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I want the government out of my bedroom and out of my wallet. I don't want them telling me how to run my business, and yet I see value in protecting the environment. Should there be a minimum wage? Shrug, maybe? Should it be $15? I don't know. Part of me doesn't think so because for some areas, that's a bit much. In other areas, that's not enough. That's where something break down... too much control over somethings is at the wrong levels.


-tg

Impeachment? Though I would love to see it happen, it's a complete waste of time at this point and could end up making the Dems look weak and desperate, while making Trump look innocent when the Senate votes it down. With Trump supplying tons of ammunition to help shot down his reelection, all the Dems seem to do is shoot themselves in the foot. They're so fractured, it makes them weak and unfocused. I'd like to see them focus on an election plan, let the news media sling stones at Trump. Unless there is something concrete that the Reps can't ignore or brush off, just beat him at the polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brad jones

Can someone point to something that shows Trump as anti-gun? I've not seen that, but rather seen him defending gun ownership.....

---

It's one of his old views, which he discarded when he went with the Republicans. At various times, he's suggested more gun control, then walked it back after listening to advisers. I don't think he's anti-gun, I just think the issue isn't one he cares all that much about, so he proposes more controls, only to have to back off of them because his base is strongly against them. On this one, I think he's with the majority, which thinks a bit more regulation is reasonable, but doesn't really focus on any one solution. Polls repeatedly show a majority favoring this or that restriction, without any strength of purpose or real passion. Meanwhile there IS real passion, just on one side of the issue, so it overwhelms the tepid views of the majority. I'd say that pretty much covers Trump: He doesn't really care, so he's in with the tepid majority, but the passionate group is in his corner, so he has to walk back to them.

I'm opposed to impeachment unless the Republicans are on board, even a little bit. As long as they say that nothing Trump has done is a crime, they're pretty much right. If those who make the laws don't feel some action is a crime, then it isn't a crime, because they're the ones who say that it is or it isn't. In this case, lots of people think Trump clearly has broken the law, lots of people think he hasn't, and the lawmakers reflect that split. Until they form a consensus, I oppose impeachment because I feel it favors Trump.

WH cover up of phone call(s), move transcripts to secret server. Starting to sound like the Nixon WH tapes. lol

Interesting day, curious to see what happens. Will congress be able to collaborate the accusations or is this just the Dems chasing the hot dog on the stick again. If collaborated, it might turn enough Republicans in the Senate to impeach Trump. Got a feeling that getting the evidence necessary to collaborate will be a major battle and not real sure Congress is strong enough to do it.

Should be interesting!!!

Quote:

---

I'm opposed to impeachment unless the Republicans are on board...

---

I guess the hope is that the investigation would uncover enough dirt to either make the Republican senators distance themselves from Trump en-masse (which is basically what happened to Nixon, isn't it) or to make it so politically damaging to support him that they go down with his ship at the next election.

I have to say, the accusations that are coming out now seem to this (probably under informed) Brit to meet that bar (or Barr). The call transcript (which wasn't released in it's entirety, contrary to the promises) clearly shows him asking a foreign leader to open an investigation on one of Trumps political rivals. Surely that's impeachable on it's own. I'm not sure you even need the coercion angle at that point but the possibility that he was using US tax payers money (the aid would qualify as that, yes?) as leverage to do it is some pretty thick icing on that cake. And then having the Whitehouse moving that stuff onto a separate server to prevent it being looked at provides a tasty cherry. All you're missing is some sprinkles and a candle.

I think Wes is right, it just depends on how much of it they can prove.

Quote:

---

Surely that's impeachable on it's own.

---

From what i heard its the alleged cover up of the phone call that is what they think is Impeachable. For a normal President this would likely be enough to bring them down but not Trump, they are going to need more.

As various people have mentioned you cant impeach the President without at least some Republican support and more is going to have to come out to swing that scales to have anywhere near enough numbers for impeachment.

The phone call sound fairly damning but it also sound fairly like a lot of stuff Trump has already done, so i dont see Impeachment happening unless there is some hard evidence which goes further than what we have already seen.

The call transcript was released. Corrupt opposition media outlets are the only ones who have presented the public with redacted copies to conceal Biden's corruption and promote a false narrative.

https://youtu.be/N1BsWtp1d6w?t=9m40s

Quote:

---

The call transcript was released. Corrupt opposition media outlets are the only ones who have presented the public with redacted copies to conceal Biden's corruption and promote a false narrative.

---

Really?

while you dont have to agree with the narrative of Trump doing anything corrupt, there is no evidence of Biden's corruption. All we have is Trump telling everyone he has done some dodgy stuff in Ukraine and then asking the current Ukraine government to get him some evidence of it.

What that tells you surely is currently Trump doesn't have anything on Biden he is just fishing, because if he did have something he would have released it.


Also what we have is Trump's transcript of the phone call, if he has nothing to hide why doesn't he just release the actual phone call? surely that would the most damaging thing to do to the democrats calling for impeachment if it backs up his story of events?

Quote:

---

to conceal Biden's corruption

---

Which was investigated for 10 months under Zelenski's tenure after Shokin was replaced and zero evidence found.

I get that Biden lobbying for Shokin's removal (is this known or an allegation? I feel like it's known but I'm not sure) doesn't look good but when two separate prosecutors, one hostile, have investigated the company you work for for corruption and found no evidence, Occams razor dictates that there is no evidence.

And why is that relevant? Even if we accept the premise that Biden is corrupt, that doesn't affect the optics of Trump's actions. He asked a foreign leader to investigate an opposing candidate in the lead up to a presidential election. If the opposing candidate had been Al Capone that would still constitute inviting foreign interference in a US election.

Here's a link to the transcript. Thought it might be useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

The call transcript was released. Corrupt opposition media outlets are the only ones who have presented the public with redacted copies to conceal Biden's corruption and promote a false narrative.

---

Seriously? This BS is getting real tiring that as soon as someone doesn't agree with someone on the right they're only saying that because they're too ignorant to look at the opposing point of view.

I got my copy directly from The_Donald.. they're definitely anti-trump in there so they definitely posted a redacted copy supporting Biden. Oh yeah and they linked directly to the White House website... so again definitely must have gotten my copy from the "corrupt opposition media."

Here is also an article about the person who "reported" the Biden scandal clarifying how the right is spinning this into something it isn't: https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/...y-upside-down/

That was a really useful link, kfc. On the Biden stuff we're only really getting the headline stuff (he lobbied for the removal of a Shokin who was investigating his son's company, other people were lobbying for it too and the investigation continued after Shokin's removal and found nothing) and none of the detail over here so it's been hard to decide what to think about Biden. That filled in a lot of the gaps.

Curious because I haven't come across it before: does the intercept have known political leanings one way or the other?

The intercept is definitely on the left, but what they report is factual. I have found this site to actually give reliable results on where sites sit on the political spectrum: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/

Also forgot to mention, here is an article by reuters explaining that the phone call summary is not verbatim and how they actually get it:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1W935S

I think it's ridiculous that anybody who doesn't accept neoliberal narratives is automatically "on the right." I'm not sure younger players have any idea what right or left even are any more. The Democrats and Republicans are both right-wing parties today, enemies of the people at home and abroad.

There is plenty of wrongdoing in both political camps. They both cover themselves and often enough they cover each other. Don't expect anything to come in either case of dubious behavior.


What do people think they want to happen? Give Trump the boot and elevate the far worse Pence faction, the bulk of the GOP? Or put the Clinton Crime Gang back in power under Biden?

Trump is a festering embarrassment. I don't question that for a second. But be damned careful what you wish for, we already know the alternatives are far worse for everyone. The few remaining sane voices have been marginalized out of any effectiveness (e.g. Kucinich) when they can't be outright co-opted into minor roles like political fund raising for their captor Party (Sanders).

The title of "on the right" was made because you made the "fake news" narrative that the right is plugging so much right now. That is their entire argument: the news is left-biased so anything that doesn't blantantly state "I am left/right biased" is considered fake news.

Everything else in your post I can agree with. This impeachment idea was a complete joke. Period. Trump supporters don't care what is found out about him, and it will never make it past the senate. The house will vote to impeach and it will create even more animosity between the parties. People supporting Trump seem to care more about "liberal tears" than anything else and people who are against Trump are so frantic to try and get them out they're crying wolf on every little thing the guy does.

One thing I've always admired about Diletantte is his consistency. Anybody who thinks he's for something is wrong. I'm not quite as unhappy about politics today, but I tend to agree with his last point. Both parties are conservative, one is just more so. However, I also think that everybody has a bias. I'm not sure how a person could NOT have a bias, unless they didn't have an opinion....or a clue. An opinion is a bias, in the current climate, and I'm fine with that.


I'm currently sitting in the San Jose airport, waiting for a flight, but it's good to see that we can get in on the act that Britain has so thoroughly dominated, of late.

Quote:

---

I'm currently sitting in the San Jose airport, waiting for a flight, but it's good to see that we can get in on the act that Britain has so thoroughly dominated, of late.

---

Lived in the area for 7yrs and flown from there many time. In the 90's they still used those tall steps things that you roll out to the plane for getting on/off. I was in a wheelchair and their solution was to lift me up to the top of the stairs using a forklift with a pallet on it. Fun times!! lol

Sorry, got off topic, just brought a smile to my face thinking about the San Jose airport.

Quote:

---

I was in a wheelchair and their solution was to lift me up to the top of the stairs using a forklift with a pallet on it.

---

Honestly, the US is like a third world country:wave:

I used to live near Kano airport in Nigeria. I've seen them use a ladder when the stairs broke. I've also seen people herd cattle across the runway when an international Jumbo (the plane, not the elephant) was taking off.

I've heard cattle before.

I flew over the Apple mother ship on the way in. The San Jose airport is kind of on the small size, so I'm not surprised to hear that it used to be even smaller. It was kind of strange, because I was flying to Albuquerque on an airline that has a hub in Salt Lake City. If you draw a line from Boise to Albuquerque, Salt Lake City isn't too far off the line, but San Jose is in the wrong direction. Airlines are weird.

After the diversion, BJ has now had his collar felt for a potential criminal offence of misconduct in public office while he was London Mayor concerning favours for his girlfriend at the time.

Is it something in the air/water - BJ here in the UK and Trump over in America both being investigated?

Well, momentum seems to be growing. And Pompeo has accused the Dems of bullying. That's rich.

Yeah there is some momentum but if the dems don't keep this thing moving swiftly, American will lose interest and nothing will come of it but talk, talk, talk. We don't have very long attention spans.

About what?

So Pelosi decided to move forward with the impeachment proceedings against trump yesterday

Very slight chance they will succeed but mostly wasting our money and time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

... mostly wasting our money and time

---

And that's different from any other day of the week how???


-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

And that's different from any other day of the week how???
-tg

---

It's different because they aren't creating new laws to further restrict what we can do or adding new taxes to take more of our money. Sometimes distraction is good...... :D

I've come around to the view that this has to go forwards. The Economist laid it out pretty clearly. If nobody says anything this time, then it becomes OK for any president to extort foreign countries for political gains. Sure, they're saying there was no quid pro quo, but that's nonsense. Just because he didn't explicitly state what he wanted, that doesn't matter. It's even a cliché that you don't be explicit about things like that: "Mighty nice aid package you have there, shame if anything happened to it."

So, if no action is taken, then this becomes the new line, which is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I've come around to the view that this has to go forwards. The Economist laid it out pretty clearly. If nobody says anything this time, then it becomes OK for any president to extort foreign countries for political gains. Sure, they're saying there was no quid pro quo, but that's nonsense. Just because he didn't explicitly state what he wanted, that doesn't matter. It's even a cliché that you don't be explicit about things like that: "Mighty nice aid package you have there, shame if anything happened to it."

So, if no action is taken, then this becomes the new line, which is a bad thing.

---

I agree it has to be done even though the chance of actually ousting Trump is very small.

I'm not sure how there is anything to be gained.

The odds of it going anywhere are vanishingly small since there aren't any grounds. Whatever Trump may have tried to obtain, he didn't get anything. And what he seems to have been after looks completely appropriate: information about the 2016 election meddling by Ukrainians. And that only after he was asked by the State Department to meet with Ukrainian officials in the first place.

Meanwhile the partisan pandering has caused Trump's popularity and campaign fund raising to rise substantially, while causing many habitual Democratic voters to become more distrustful of a Party that seems more out of touch than ever with their needs.

Motivating Trump's support while demotivating your own doesn't seem like a very sharp strategy.

I think they realize this and are now caught in a bind. It is hard to wind this down and let it die. For one thing they've allowed it to go too far already, for another Biden's very real corruption has been highlighted and won't go away as easily.

So now they can't back out but every inch ahead just costs them more. It is almost enough to make you wonder if Trump might be a lot smarter than he looks.

It seems pretty obvious that the facts are being ignored and the Trump Deranged are only bent on feeding their affliction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

And that's different from any other day of the week how???


-tg

---

Its the same but on a larger scale lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

I'm not sure how there is anything to be gained.

The odds of it going anywhere are vanishingly small since there aren't any grounds. Whatever Trump may have tried to obtain, he didn't get anything. And what he seems to have been after looks completely appropriate: information about the 2016 election meddling by Ukrainians. And that only after he was asked by the State Department to meet with Ukrainian officials in the first place.

Meanwhile the partisan pandering has caused Trump's popularity and campaign fund raising to rise substantially, while causing many habitual Democratic voters to become more distrustful of a Party that seems more out of touch than ever with their needs.

Motivating Trump's support while demotivating your own doesn't seem like a very sharp strategy.

I think they realize this and are now caught in a bind. It is hard to wind this down and let it die. For one thing they've allowed it to go too far already, for another Biden's very real corruption has been highlighted and won't go away as easily.

So now they can't back out but every inch ahead just costs them more. It is almost enough to make you wonder if Trump might be a lot smarter than he looks.

It seems pretty obvious that the facts are being ignored and the Trump Deranged are only bent on feeding their affliction.

---

That would be a partisan filter in itself. The Economist, a British magazine that isn't US partisan, doesn't state the same interpretation of the data that you did. I don't know where you got the "information about the 2016 meddling by Ukrainians", but that wouldn't bother anybody. It appears that he withheld aid, then asked for information on Biden's son. Now, people can disagree as to whether or not that happened, but that's the appearance.

At that point, if you set aside your personal view about the current events, is that behavior that is acceptable? I'd say that it isn't, and should be enough for the inquiry. At that point, the inquiry has to go forwards, regardless of which side benefits more from it, because it shouldn't be a question of political gain (though, of course it will be). It should solely be a question of whether we want to live with a system where such action is OK. Let the inquiry decide whether or not anything happened, and do so by conducting it openly. When that was done with Nixon, the fact that the tapes existed only came out in open testimony. When the Republicans conducted the inquiry into Clinton, they did it largely as a closed process. Let it be open, and let the results be as they will be. If the consensus is that something bad happened, or something bad did not happen, then let it be aired out either way.

Quote:

---

if Trump might be a lot smarter than he looks.

---

If he wasn't smart he wouldn't have got where he was in business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kaud

If he wasn't smart he wouldn't have got where he was in business.

---

He would. Had he taken the money he inherited, and invested in an index fund at the same time, he would be worth considerably more than he currently claims to be. In other words, he started with a LOT, and turned it into less than he would have had he not been involved.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure how there is anything to be gained

---

Surely it's not about what's to be gained, it's about what you stand to lose. It's moved on from just Ukraine and at this point you have a President who is openly asking foreign governments to interfere in your electoral process. If you allow that to go unchallenged then there are no rules any more. No matter where you sit on the political divide, think about the ramifications of that when there's a president whose policies you oppose.

Quote:

---

It appears that he withheld aid, then asked for information on Biden's son. Now, people can disagree as to whether or not that happened...

---

I don't think people can disagree, both things happened and nobody is denying either one. The only question was whether they represented a quid pro quo or just a remarkable coincidence.

My point is that, in this world where every fact is doubted by the other side, I'm not suggesting that people need to accept the facts that I accept. I'm just saying that there is a principle here that goes above politics. I love the political game, and would tend to agree with the weighting of alternatives that Dilettante put forward, but this is a case where I believe that the game should be set aside for the principle at stake. Nobody should want this to be acceptable behavior, so it should be investigated, and it should be investigated out in the open. That may not happen, it just SHOULD happen.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think Trump engaged in some shady practices from the get go but I felt that most of them fell within the lines of "real politic". They were challengeable and often defeatable by the Dems without risking permanent damage to your political constructs and principles.

For me, this feels like it crosses those lines. It says that, going forward, the agency of your domestic institutions can be legitimately undermined by foreign governments. You will no longer own your own democracy.

That has to be challenged, for better or worse, not because people do or don't like Trump, but rather because of the precedent it sets.

Is Trump going to get Impeached for his Christmas present this year? The latest released info doesn't seem to show him particularly well and the Democrats don't seem to be treating Christmas as 'a Season of goodwill to all'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kaud

Is Trump going to get Impeached for his Christmas present this year?

---

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas..... and impeachment. :)

If impeached, would he leave office? That's a separate question as is, would his base care if he were impeached?

The most interesting thing about this case is that most of the attacks on what is happening are on the processes and not as much about the facts. Where facts are called into question, people seem to be rewriting reality. The whole focus on "read the transcript" is mind-blowing because the document that was released even states that it is not a transcript. Even so, Trump's team and thus his base keep saying "read the transcript".

The media manipulation is amazing as well. It's like having the republican party storm the close sessions as a press stunt and bringing in phones and recording - which they know is a violation. Making a huge deal about being kept out of the meeting, when several of those that were "storming" were a part of the meetings along with about 57 other republicans.

The entire thing is worse than a reality TV show.

As to impeaching by Christmas..... The democrats need to drag this out a bit longer than that. They need it to go until about next summer. That way the republicans don't have time to pull in a viable candidate to compete against whatever person they put in place - which right now doesn't seem to include any good candidates for representing the majority of the country.

It's odd times in America. Hearing what people from outside the US think and are seeing (their perspective), is always interesting as well!

Quote:

---

but the Dems with 22?! TWENTY-TWO! I don't see how anybody can be taking any of them seriously at this point.

---

FORMER Presidential Candidate_____________________(fill in the blank) is a title worth its weight in gold if you are a politician.

In America, if Trump's found guilty - what are the penalties he could face? Although the UK has impeachment, it was last used in 1806 when 1st Viscount Melville was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation of public money.

If the house impeaches the president, they will forward articles of impeachment to the senate, which will conduct the trial. The rules of that are set by the majority party, but the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the proceedings. The rules, in this case, are essentially the same as those used for Clinton, which certainly favors one side, but not terribly. If the senate convicts, then Trump is removed from office. The senate won't convict, so there's that. What may happen is that a fair trial, fully public, will result in people either feeling there is nothing there, or that there is something there, which would have some impact on the next election. At this time, though, it doesn't seem likely that this will move a single person from the position they are at, currently.

I agree with sh, the articles of impeachment will be sent to the Senate but the Republican controlled Senate won't convict. If the public response is so overwhelming in favor of impeachment that the Republican Senators are worried about getting re-elected then they might convict but Trump supports seem extremely loyal and are more than willing to give Trump free reign to do and say anything. So I doubt that will happen.

I disagree with Brad. If the Senate won't convict, then the Dem's need to make their point and show the President's abuse of power quickly. After that they really need to get refocused on winning the 2020 election. If this drags out to the summer and Trump is acquitted he could use that one fact to win the election. It seem a lot of voters only need one little shiny object to convince them who to vote for. Make america Great, Built that Wall.....

There's another reason why Congress has to move this quickly. Once the current term of Congress ends, all outstanding subpoenas evaporate. They don't carry over to the next Congress, they simply cease to be valid.

One of the most interesting legal points in this whole thing is the whole balance of power. The senate would normally be very interested in the subpoena power of Congress, and would be actively backing anything to do with that, but that's not the case. Trump has such an unusual hold on the Republican party that Republican senators are acting against their best interests for fear of being attacked from the right. Many of them strongly supported the power of Congress, but they're notably silent now.

It's not only in the best interest of Republican Senators, I think it's in the best interest of everyone. It makes the Congress weak if their subpoenas can just be ignored. Trump has really exposed how weak and cowardly most of our representatives/senators are. Their biggest concern is keeping their job. Right now we're only seeing it from the Republicans but if Trump was a Democrat the result would be the same. I haven't paid much attention to politics most of my life, I'm heading back in that direction. Empty words!!!

On the brighter side,

Q: Do you know to tell when a politician is lying????
A: Their lips are moving. :p

I can't say I agree with that. My mother was an elected representative at several different levels of government for many years until she retired. I've spent many days watching debates on various subjects, boring and not, from the visitor gallery, though that was decades back. People like to be dismissive of politics, but you shouldn't be. It's both better and worse than you imagine it to be. We like to turn the actions of legislative bodies into coherent narratives with a start, a middle, and an end. It isn't like that. It's just life. You have a bunch of people with different interests and different concerns, each pulling on strings large and small to a greater or lesser extent. Still, they are just people, like any other people. Not better, not smarter, but not worse, either. What you see is what we all created. If you want it to change, you may or may not be able to do that if you get involved, but you certainly won't get where you want to go by disengaging.