POLL: Impeachment

[Bootstrap]

I respectfully disagree. In the present political climate they should have some pretty serious evidence of a very serious offence being committed before they start an impeachment process.

I agree with that. And I think they do. But it need not be conclusive - after all, unless they are doing an impeachment inquiry, Congress does not have the authority to get the evidence to do an investigation. And they are responsible for Congressional oversight.

But beyond that, Trump has done a lot to manufacture the current political climate, telling people they need to be outraged if he is investigated or even asked to provide his tax returns.

Something that the public can actually understand to have been a serious crime.

I'm not sure the general public could explain what Watergate is all about. I'm not sure the general public has any idea what an impeachable offense is. I'm not even sure the general public could easily explain what words like "corruption" actually mean.

Ideally, I would like to seen investigations done privately, quietly, by people who understand these things. If they find evidence worth pursuing, they can then try to persuade the general public. But I also think the Mueller Report shows that this does not work if the President is campaigning against the findings every day long before the findings are complete or can be released, leaking things selectively in the process.

Using the criteria being used I am willing to bet there are very few sitting members of congress or the senate that could not have impeachment hearings started against them. Is that really the way you want your country to run? Again IMO it makes a mockery of the whole democratic process. It really does.

I disagree entirely.

Can you identify some members of congress or the senate who are guilty of the things Trump is now being charged with? With the level of evidence we have been hearing for the charges against Trump?

If the charges are true, and it became common practice, that would make a mockery of democracy.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps the point is, without reading/knowing all the transcripts, our own bias can get in the way- it may be that it is just safer not to assess and comment until all is in? And exposed?

Probably.

I mean, the hearings are a fact. They are happening. We can assess them afterward, but I think most of us haven't absorbed what is in the transcripts. And if you are getting your news from cable TV, you probably haven't even been exposed to the main findings.

I am usually waiting a few days to read the Lawfare summaries.

I watched a portion of the hearings the other day-( because Mom wanted to) oh my goodness Schiff wouldn't let Republicans ask questions in the part I was watching- he'd pound his mallet to stop them- maybe that's normal- it just seemed ridiculous, unfair- abuse of power.

In the portions I have heard, he did that only for two purposes:

1. To stop people from trying to expose the whistleblower's identity.
2. To allow a witness to answer a question before the person doing the cross-examination went on.

Did you hear something different? Both of these seem like good reasons to use the gavel. In general, it feels like the best time to listen is to a witness is during:

1. The witness's opening comments.
2. The 45 minute questioning by Schiff (Democrat)
3. The 45 minute questioning by Jordan (Republican)

I listened to that much for a couple of witnesses. Even that takes a long time. After that, in the 5 minute cross-examinations, the political grandstanding tends to take over. Now I listen to parts, but rely mostly on the transcripts, which come out later but are faster to read.

[Bootstrap]

I think at least one forum member attended his inauguration.

Is this a rumor about me? If so, it's not true. Perhaps someone else attended his inauguration, I don't remember hearing that but I don't remember everything.

[Szdfan]

I think at least one forum member attended his inauguration.

Is this a rumor about me? If so, it's not true. Perhaps someone else attended his inauguration, I don't remember hearing that but I don't remember everything.

It was me. (Jazz Hands)

[mike]

I think at least one forum member attended his inauguration.

Is this a rumor about me? If so, it's not true. Perhaps someone else attended his inauguration, I don't remember hearing that but I don't remember everything.

It was me. (Jazz Hands)

[hillperson]

I think at least one forum member attended his inauguration.

Is this a rumor about me? If so, it's not true. Perhaps someone else attended his inauguration, I don't remember hearing that but I don't remember everything.

It was me. (Jazz Hands)

I was at George W Bushes inauguration with friends.

[temporal1]

This is an interesting Democratic perspective
https://www.foxnews.com/media/van-drew- ... mpeachment

Looking at the Fox News website, I'm struck by how little of it even mentions:
1. What charges are being investigated
2. What evidence has been given for those charges
This piece mentions neither. Yes, impeachment should be rare. Right now, we are having public inquiries to determine whether there are serious charges with strong enough evidence to justify an impeachment trial, which would be brought to the senate.

But suppose there is evidence that the President of the United States used the threat of withholding military aid to put pressure on Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were launching an investigation into the person running against the President in the next election. Does anyone want to claim that would not be an impeachable offense? If so, is there any such thing as an impeachable offense?

In light of the fact that there is no proof he received any such information
and that he still did not withhold military help no I do not think it is an impeachable offence.
An impeachable offence in my mind would be committing treason or perhaps a capital offence like murder.

You do realise that if this impeachment attempt is successful that there will very likely not be a president in the future that will not face the threat of impeachment in some way.

I think you are in serious danger of making a huge mockery of your whole democratic process.
Perhaps the damage has already been done.

The office of POTUS has had a bad reputation for a long while, i.e., it’s a hard, mostly thankless job that ages men dramatically in a few short years. “The best” possible men do not even consider running. Who needs it? Congress has had a very low approval rating for many years.

“Democrats Tried to Impeach Every Elected GOP President Since Eisenhower”
https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewi ... id/940786/

This report is not “without bias” so to speak. But, it’s not all false, either.
The “default to impeachment talk” is not healthy.

Considering the “built-in” protection of presidential term limits, aside from partisan division games, as appleman says, and as history reflects, impeachment doesn’t make sense.

Rather than obsess about impeachment, develop a better plan to offer voters.

Consider the 1 point in hillperson’s link, that Congress has only 14 working days left this year. Seriously. Other than another BIG circus show, what can they hope to accomplish in 14 days?

[barnhart]

Consider the 1 point in hillperson’s link, that Congress has only 14 working days left this year. Seriously. Other than another BIG circus show, what can they hope to accomplish in 14 days?

Isn't this a dream come true for the right wing? If government IS the problem, less laws, less government = less problems.

[Bootstrap]

“Democrats Tried to Impeach Every Elected GOP President Since Eisenhower”
https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewi ... id/940786/

This report is not “without bias” so to speak. But, it’s not all false, either.

Starting with Nixon, there were impeachment moves of some kind into every president, I think. Most of these fizzled out quickly. It's always the opposing party that does this, some of these are mostly political stunts with little substance, others are substantive. Most of us don't even remember the ones that were not substantive.

Here are the presidents and the impeachment proceedings they faced:

• Richard M. Nixon (Republican) - Watergate
• Ronald Reagan (Republican) - Iran/Contra Affair
• George H. W. Bush (Republican) - Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced resolutions to impeach him for starting the Gulf war, they didn't get much support and quickly died.
• Bill Clinton (Democrat) - Monica Lewinsky
• George W. Bush (Republican)
• Barack Obama (Democrat)
• Donald Trump (Republican)

Most of the politicians and pundits who say that it is an outrage to have these hearings thought that hearings were really vital when they were about Obama. The Republicans held both houses of Congress, Mitch McConnell declared that his number one job was to make sure that Obama did not have a second term. When we discusssed these hearings on MennoDiscuss, I said we should wait for the outcome. None of these hearings came up with an impeachable offense, Obama turned out to be pretty clean in the hearings, but right-wing media keeps naming each of these incidents and insisting that he must have been guilty. Some people even claim that Obama got a pass on these things, as though he did not face hearings and impeachment proceedings!

The “default to impeachment talk” is not healthy.

I agree, especially if you are talking about an impeachment trial to remove the president from office. Most of these moves didn't get to that point. But if Congress wants to get information that the president does not want to provide, an impeachment inquiry is basically the only choice they have. Without it, they won't get people to testify and the courts will not back them up.

I think Trump basically forced them into doing it this way when he chose not to be transparent about so many things and seemed to be lying about many others. Congress really should try to get at the truth. It's their job. That's what an impeachment inquiry is. If there is strong evidence of an impeachable offense, they can decide to have an impeachment trial. Regardless, there will be more information for voters to consider when they vote in the next election.

Considering the “built-in” protection of presidential term limits, aside from partisan division games, as appleman says, and as history reflects, impeachment doesn’t make sense.

An impeachment trial, you mean, or an impeachment inquiry? Without an impeachment inquiry, how will voters know how to evaluate what happened? Don't you think that's important information for voters to have?

Rather than obsess about impeachment, develop a better plan to offer voters.

Consider the 1 point in hillperson’s link, that Congress has only 14 working days left this year. Seriously. Other than another BIG circus show, what can they hope to accomplish in 14 days?

Given the pace of this week's hearings, I suspect they can do quite a lot to uncover what happened in the next two weeks. Are there specific things you think would be more important for them to do with this time? Clearing up these questions seems pretty important.

Did you feel the same way when the hearings were about Obama?

[temporal1]

Consider the 1 point in hillperson’s link, that Congress has only 14 working days left this year. Seriously. Other than another BIG circus show, what can they hope to accomplish in 14 days?

Isn't this a dream come true for the right wing? If government IS the problem, less laws, less government = less problems.

i wouldn’t really know about conservative dreams.
it strikes me as odd that (i presume) this hearing is subject to such a schedule.
i suppose they can and will resume in 2020. but, that’s getting right into the “official” presidential campaign year. that seems odd.

however.
i think every reminder of how FEW days Congress is in session EVERY YEAR is a good reminder.
great part-time job, marvelous pay+benefits, opportunities to gain “untold” person wealth.

showmanship is a big deal in politics.

no. i would not care for them to show up any more frequently.
as it is, they do enough damage.