• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The impeachment catch-22

Should Democrats file articles of impeachment?


  • Total voters
    49
No, my knowledge comes from actually knowing what happened.

1. DOJ protocol prevents people from implying guilt of people not under indictment
2. DOJ protocol prevents the indictment of a sitting President
LOL, man, you swallowed the whole pitcher of Kool Aid. Have you actually READ the Mueller report?

Kobie said:
I know exponentiallty more than you do.
Nope, not even close, you're still claiming Nixon was impeached, I know he wasn't.

Kobie said:
Save your insults for someone who gives a **** what you think.
LOL, no irony there. Wasn't me that had half of his posted replaced by asterisks.
 
OK, since you don't want to say it, I will. He quit before it happened. Happy?
I would have been happy to say it. That was my point all along. It was you that vomited several profanity filled posts telling me I was wrong for saying that.
 
No, I absolutely agree there should be impeachment hearings tomorrow. I want everyone on record as supporting or not supporting the removal of this criminal "president."

Donald J. Trump will be a stain on our nation's reputation that will take decades to wash out. He needs to go, as soon as humanly possible within the parameters of the law.
IMHO, the House Judiciary should draft articles with quotes like these, send them to the floor for an up or down vote, and make people in the House and/or Senate go on record as "guilty" or "not guilty".

Special Counsel said:
With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential to influence Manafort’s decision whether to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to “flip” and cooperate with the government


Special Counsel said:
The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of these facts at the time of Cohen’s false statements to Congress. Cohen discussed the project with the President in early 2017 following media inquiries. Cohen recalled that on September 20, 2017, the day after he released to the public his opening remarks to Congress—which said the project “was terminated in January of 2016”—the President’s personal counsel told him the President was pleased with what Cohen had said about Trump Tower Moscow. And after Cohen’s guilty plea, the President told reporters that he had ultimately decided not to do the project, which supports the inference that he remained aware of his own involvement in the project and the period during the Campaign in which the project was being pursued.

Special Counsel said:
Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.

Special Counsel said:
In his written answers, the President did not provide details about the timing and substance of his discussions with Cohen about the project and gave no indication that he had decided to no longer pursue the project. Yet after Cohen pleaded guilty, the President publicly stated that he had personally made the decision to abandon the project. The President then declined to clarify the seeming discrepancy to our Office or answer additional questions. The content and timing of the President’s provision of information about his knowledge and actions regarding the Trump Tower Moscow project is evidence that the President may have been concerned about the information that Cohen could provide as a witness.

Special Counsel said:
Finally, the President’s statements insinuating that members of Cohen’s family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the government could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others

Special Counsel said:
The evidence establishes the President’s substantial involvement in the communications strategy related to information about his campaign’s connections to Russia and his desire to minimize public disclosures about those connections.

Seriously, do you think Republicans would let this slide?
 
1. There was absolutely nothing about any sexual relations between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky that was "illegal." Unethical? Hell yes. But not illegal. Both were consenting adults. Although, from what I've read from you, that concept seems beyond your understanding.

2. The "wasteful fake Russian collusion conspiracy theory investigation designed and orchestrated by democrats for Hillary" was commissioned by a Republican, led by a Republican, and served a Republican Department of Justice. Yet another marke lie.

3. The whole Trump medal thing? LOL dude. He's a waste of space and so is anyone who carries water for him.

To hell with republicans who are too stupid to recognize a politically-motivated scam such as the Russian collusion nonsense when it surfaces.
 
LOL, man, you swallowed the whole pitcher of Kool Aid. Have you actually READ the Mueller report?

Actually, I did. I bulled through it last night. Have you?

Nope, not even close, you're still claiming Nixon was impeached, I know he wasn't.

I never said Nixon was impeached. Why are you lying about what I said?

LOL, no irony there. Wasn't me that had half of his posted replaced by asterisks.

Far out man.
 
To hell with republicans who are too stupid to recognize a politically-motivated scam such as the Russian collusion nonsense when it surfaces.

what.
 
Actually, I did. I bulled through it last night. Have you?



I never said Nixon was impeached. Why are you lying about what I said?



Far out man.
Bullseye out man.
 
I mean if it was a Democrat.

Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't file articles of impeachment over the tan suit. The restraint that required must have been monumental.
 
Agreed and well said.
If Democrats do not keep the House and recapture the Senate in dramatic fashion, it will be pretty clear that they do not have the will of the people. If they do, more inconvenient reality will come out about Trump, and his numbers will tank faster than snot being flicked off a bullwhip.

And then it will time to rid ourselves of this cancer.
Just as in 2016, just as in 2018, 2020 is theirs to win OR LOSE. And they'd have to really be super-idiots to lose.

PS: Running strictly on an anti-Trump platform isn't enough, not nearly enough.

I totally agree, 2020 is an election for the Democrats to lose, Trump can't win it, but the Democrats could lose it with the wrong candidate. Candidates matter, especially to independents and how they view the candidates. Trump wasn't liked by independents, in fact 57% of independents have a negative view of him. But more independents viewed Hillary negatively, 70%. Neither party cared how independents thought of their candidates in 2016. Their right. But both parties forgot that in national elections, independents usually choose the winner. They did with Trump and the GOP House in 2016. Trump and Republican congressional candidates won the independent vote.

But in 2018, independents switched horses, voting for the Democratic congressional candidates by a good sized margin, the Democrats took the House. Neither major party can win on its own, those days are long gone. Each has to attract the independent voter in order to win. We'll see if the Democrats learned the lesson that candidates matter from 2016. They certainly fielded a great group of candidates for 2018, a group attractive to independents.

Can the Democrats do the same for the presidency in 2020? I'm not all that hopeful.
 
Well, it's THERE. Democrats just have to do a decent job of uncovering it in impartial and truly professional fashion, the cold and dry facts, free of theatrics. Just the facts, maam.

There you have it, that is exactly what the democrats aren't doing. A decent job of uncovering it in impartial and truly professional fashion. They're doing it, at least coming across as doing it in a very partisan, get Trump at any cost, anyway they can, regardless of the repercussions or what harm is done to the nation in the process. The Democrats leave an impression that they don't care if everything gets destroyed along with Trump, just as long as Trump gets destroyed, gone. That's my impression anyway.

What Pelosi and the Democrats need to do is go back in history and check out how Sam Erwin handled the congressional Watergate investigations. Old Sam did so in a very non-partisan way, always was respectful to the office of the presidency and Nixon himself. One had the notion Erwin was trying to find out the truth, not out to destroy Nixon. Erwin kept partisan politics out of it. By keeping partisan politics out of it, old Sam had amassed the voted for removal in the senate. Nixon had no choice but to resign.

Today, it is all about partisan politics. Perhaps Pelosi and company say they are seeking the truth. But their actions state differently. Today, it all looks like a very partisan political vendetta to remove, destroy Trump than any search for the truth. This is why I think 59% of America oppose impeachment.
 
1. There was absolutely nothing about any sexual relations between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky that was "illegal." Unethical? Hell yes. But not illegal. Both were consenting adults. Although, from what I've read from you, that concept seems beyond your understanding.

And yet Petraeus was fired and threatened with court martial by Obama for committing adultery. Different standards for democrat insiders than for the rest of the world.
 
While I see your point, there is substantial evidence Trump's committed various felonies, that presidents of past have faced impeachment for.

We'll see what public surveys in the next week or so say, as it takes that amount of time for the effect of the news to cycle trough to public opinion.

That's correct. It takes a week or two before an event can be gauged by the polls.
 
While I see your point, there is substantial evidence Trump's committed various felonies, that presidents of past have faced impeachment for.

We'll see what public surveys in the next week or so say, as it takes that amount of time for the effect of the news to cycle trough to public opinion.

After thinking on this, I've come to the decision that you have to divorce political tactics from the problem and focus the question exclusively on "What is the right thing to do?" When I do that, the answer is evident on its face.

I think that our nation's soul is at stake, and if we choose not to act in order to gain a tactical political victory later, history will condemn us.
 
Last edited:
David Jolly puts it succinctly:

"Hate to frame it this way, but the inevitable finality facing House Dems is they either punish Trump for his acts of obstruction as detailed in the Mueller report, or history records that Congress sided with Bill Barr's conclusion that Trump's actions were legally permissible."
 
As much as I'd like to say "no," I have to acknowledge impeachment is in order. I know doing so won't result in Trump's removal from office

Then why make fools of yourselves.

but not impeaching him

You sound like impeaching Trump is a no brainer, and a done deal, but before you said: "I know doing so won't result in Trump's removal from office" Which is it.

is, given the Mueller Report's revelations, tacitly ordains the notion that the presidency is a "get out of jail free" card and that Congress will abrogate impeachment in arrogation of political risk minimization. Well, I find the former and latter untenable.

You also sound that Trump is 100% guilty of something, which would be proof for impeachment. OK where is all the proof that you have that will guarantee Trump will be impeached by enough members of congress??
 
And yet Petraeus was fired and threatened with court martial by Obama for committing adultery. Different standards for democrat insiders than for the rest of the world.

Why do you continue to lie? Petraeus wasn't fired, he resigned, and Obama wasn't going to do anything to him before the resignation.
 
Trumps offenses are absolutely impeachable. We're going to see Trumpers deny that left and right, but they haven't even read the Mueller report.
The problem is that this completely true narrative of Trump's criminality, has been obfuscated to the nth degree by Barr, conservative media, and the media as a whole. Additionally, Trump would be "declared innocent" by the senate, further adding confusion to the mix, and maybe even giving "legitimacy" to trump's narrative, at least in the eyes of our body politic.
The case for impeachment needs to be based on something simple cut and dry so you can convince the uninformed, the independent, and by the threat of the voters, the republican controlled senate to vote for it.
The current case aint it, but there other pending investigations may be.

Exactly which offenses are you referring too? You should be careful about making statements you cannot prove and the Mueller report didn't think any of those accusations were going to be able to be proven. Democratas are going to cry that there is proof yet the investigation didn't bring charges. Trying to impeach after the investigation had no indictments is a fools errand. Go ahead and give Trump some more votes by trying.
 
Exactly which offenses are you referring too? You should be careful about making statements you cannot prove and the Mueller report didn't think any of those accusations were going to be able to be proven.

That's not what Mueller said. See my signature. And Mueller knew that he could not indict a sitting president. A flaw in our system that Trump is taking full advantage of.
 
Yes, this is the 68th to-impeach-or-not-to-impeach thread, but I didn't feel those polls were created with the right premise in mind, which is that this is a no-win scenario.

Should Democrats move forward with impeachment?

a) Impeach. This will fail in the senate because being a Republican is now defined by the willingness to protect Donald Trump. After a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing Trump from office fails to materialize in the Senate, an exoneration narrative will be handed to McConnell and Trump which they will be sure to trumpet every day. Even though they went into impeachment hearings telling themselves that this was about laying out the facts for the American people, and even though they were intellectually aware that removal from office was never going to happen, Democrats will feel demoralized, which could be catastrophic if it happens before the 2020 election.

b) Don’t impeach. This will set the precedent that the punishment for a President being a criminal is determined at the ballot box. Also, Republicans will use this decision to create a narrative that not even Democrats believed impeachment was really called for. In spite of the fact that Senate Republicans are the reason why impeachment would never lead to the removal of Trump from office, Fox News will blast out the narrative, 24/7, that Democrats are cowards and that it was their choice not to impeach. Here on Debate Politics, we'll be repelling that argument every day. Also, the decision not to impeach could be demoralizing to Democratic voters.

Sorry, guys, you don't get a glass-half-full option, but if you have one of your own I'd be happy to hear it.

I think you are presenting this a "no good choice' dilemma, when its really an incredible political opportunity for the Democrats. The pony in the barn here is the Dems have a deck of strong cards to play and should work on playing them well.

Impeachment is a process, not an event. You can make this process work well for you if you cook it at the right temperature. The Mueller Report, in and of itself, while it contains enough to justify an impeachment, does not appear to be sufficiently compelling to the American people to produce the necessary political cover to go full bore on impeachment.

With over 16 ongoing state and federal investigations with Trump or TTO as a target or subject, there is likely far more ugly things revealed on Trump over the ensuing 18 months. What the Dems need to do is open the case.... A "resolution to authorize the investigation of impeachable conduct". That will keep all matters in the forefront, allow congress to do additional investigations and allow many of the 16 cases to more fully develop. They should slow play such that it comes to a crescendo next summer.

If by next summer there is good ground (with political cover) for a full blown impeachment, the Dems would then two big options:

1) they could proceed and put all the Republican Senators on record just before the election (Republicans are defending 22 seats in 2020) OR,
2) they could make it clear that a 2nd term of the Trump presidency will see impeachment as the first order of business in 2021. That cloud over Trump would likely make him a toxic candidate to the swing voter that he needs.

Each of these options would be very disruptive to the Republican dreams of retaining the White House or the Senate

If, OTH, in the unlikely event there is no compelling case (measured by the voters appetite for it) for impeachment, Congress will have looked as if they did their oversight job. They could merely shut down the process and focus on the election.

I actually think the Dems are playing with very strong cards, they just need to play them in order and control the pace. I think Pelosi knows this and is already playing with burner controls.


PS: sorry for mixing the metaphors.
 
Last edited:
What you think Republicans believe your Bull ****. Make fools of yourself and impeach.

The thing is, it's not bull****, but the present Republicans fear Trump's following too much to be seen to cross him. Being a Repub means supporting Trump even though you know he's a venal moron, because he's YOUR venal moron.
 
The thing is, it's not bull****, but the present Republicans fear Trump's following too much to be seen to cross him. Being a Repub means supporting Trump even though you know he's a venal moron, because he's YOUR venal moron.

Coming from you I expect nothing less. However what us Trump supporters know is his policies and are spot on. Now do you to compare Obama's failures because that's all he has vs Trump's successes. Come on now don't be a coward stand up for your Obamafail.. He was a total ****ing moron which you loved his stupidity and his cowardly acts.
 
I totally agree, 2020 is an election for the Democrats to lose, Trump can't win it, but the Democrats could lose it with the wrong candidate. Candidates matter, especially to independents and how they view the candidates. Trump wasn't liked by independents, in fact 57% of independents have a negative view of him. But more independents viewed Hillary negatively, 70%. Neither party cared how independents thought of their candidates in 2016. Their right. But both parties forgot that in national elections, independents usually choose the winner. They did with Trump and the GOP House in 2016. Trump and Republican congressional candidates won the independent vote.

But in 2018, independents switched horses, voting for the Democratic congressional candidates by a good sized margin, the Democrats took the House. Neither major party can win on its own, those days are long gone. Each has to attract the independent voter in order to win. We'll see if the Democrats learned the lesson that candidates matter from 2016. They certainly fielded a great group of candidates for 2018, a group attractive to independents.

Can the Democrats do the same for the presidency in 2020? I'm not all that hopeful.

Just please bear this in mind.
In fact, I hope ALL liberals will bear this in mind:

The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate - The New York Times
 
Back
Top Bottom