If Trump fires Mueller - Impeachment?

[Unitedwestand13]

Yes, it is more complex. But what I said is in line with the KISS principle. When I look at Trump visiting/holding rallies in Wisconsin, 5 for Trump, 0 for Clinton, Michigan 6 to 1 Trump over Clinton and Pennsylvania 8-5 shows you Trump playing electoral politics. Even in Florida Trump out campaigned her there 13-8. Days off the campaign, Clinton took several, I don't think Trump took a one.

I kept looking at the state polls, not so much the nationwide polls. I knew Trump would probably win Ohio, North Carolina. That Clinton would take Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and probably New Hampshire. Of the 8 normal swing states that left Florida which Trump had a slight one point lead. I figured a 279-259 Clinton win. I knew Pennsylvania and Michigan were very close, but history was on Clinton's side and I figured those two states would remain hers. Wisconsin according to the polls wasn't close at all. In a very unique election which one should have thrown out conventional wisdom and tradition, I relied on that conventional wisdom and tradition even though I knew I shouldn't. My bag.

You're last paragraph, I totally agree. Republican and Democratic parties have left about half of all Americans without a political home. But in a two system, they have a monopoly, they write our election laws and write our election laws as a mutual protection act.

Maybe partisanship is here to stay?

There are major differences between the parties and what they stand for.

 

[Perotista]

It goes both ways, for sure, but the way I see it, I can't really say that I'm crying for Republicans. Obama may have used executive orders (as was his right, and as is Trump's right), but I'm not sad that Obama protected gay/transgender workers or re-initiated stem cell research. Also, while there's substantial areas of Obama's presidency which I vehemently disagreed with, I really cannot say that I feel bad for Republicans when he side-stepped Congress. Republicans made a sport out of denying Obama his cabinet and judicial positions. They screwed him --in the most dishonest, hyperpartisan way-- out of a SCOTUS pick that was Obama's by constitutional right. I have no love for Merrick Garland to be honest, but if Republicans cared even half as much about the Constitution as they pretend to on TV, they'd have given Garland a hearing before voting him down. That was the Constitutional thing to do. Beyond that, they literally started a record 30 year low in acceptance of the cabinet, judicial, and ambassador picks. That was Republicans just being partisan at the direct cost to the country. I mean, they lead a government shut down, for christ's sake, I don't even remember the last time that happened.

People can complain that Democrats are being hyperpartisan --and yes, it's certainly true, this whole business with Russia (whether there is or isn't something there) will be pushed by Democrats until the end of Trump's presidency.

...



But I can say that at least Obama tried. Republicans had eight years to come up with an alternative (almost 30, if you include the original debates in the 90's), and what's the RNC/Trump's current strategy? As near as I can tell, they want us to go right back to the collision course with what we were facing before (and still are, at a slower pace). Which is really just another way of saying that Republicans don't have a healthcare policy. Right now, they only know how to be an opposition party, and frankly it's showing.

LOL, government shutdowns don't both me. I remember there were about 15 in 15 years from 1976 through 1990. No big thing outside of some government workers ended up getting paid vacations. All the doom and gloom is just hyperbole. Everything goes on as normal except politicians coming on TV wringing their hands in agony.

I agree that the Republicans should have given Garland a vote. The GOP had the votes to send Garland packing, they could have voted him down easily. Not bringing him up was super partisanship in a nutshell. As for the ACA, there were several polls which showed that 80% of Americans were either happy or satisfied with their health insurance. Those Obama should have left alone and went on to correct those without health insurance. That I could have supported. One thing is for sure, being against something is easy, coming up with a fix is hard. Whatever fix you come up with is bound to peeve a lot of folks off.

Personally, I think healthcare should be put on hold until around this time next year. The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare repealed and replaced at the moment, I think the Republicans ought to listen to them and leave things as is. Then next year we'll see if all these dire prediction of a huge amount of insurance companies pulling out of the ACA actually happens. I've heard those predictions before and for the most part, none came true. I think there is nothing wrong in letting the American people have their say. They want Obamacare to remain, let it be so. Perhaps next year they will think different, then once you get the backing of most Americans and only then go ahead with repeal and replace.

I think it is important to have the American people behind you when you try to do something major. That was Obama's and the Democrat's mistake, they ignored the American people and didn't get their backing. I think they could have if the Dems were willing to try and take the time to do so.

 

[Fledermaus]

the events that would occur described in the OP

Which say if Meuller is fired.

Is that automatically Obstruction of Justice? Under what statute?

 

[haymarket]

Which say if Meuller is fired.

Is that automatically Obstruction of Justice? Under what statute?

Take it up with Congress who will make that decision and present their charges.

 

[Fledermaus]

Take it up with Congress who will make that decision and present their charges.

Ah, so you are asking if people are for impeachment on charges that dont exist.

 

[haymarket]

Ah, so you are asking if people are for impeachment on charges that dont exist.

People are answering a poll question based on events which may or my not occur - not sitting as jurors in a judicial proceding where specific legal charges need to exist.

 

[Fledermaus]

People are answering a poll question based on events which may or my not occur - not sitting as jurors in a judicial proceding where specific legal charges need to exist.

Got straw?

I NEVER asked about anyone being a juror.

 

[haymarket]

Got straw?

I NEVER asked about anyone being a juror.

You were dealt with.

 

[Fledermaus]

You were dealt with.

Hey, be a little more vague. It goes with Straw.

 

[haymarket]

Hey, be a little more vague. It goes with Straw.

It matters not to me.

This thread is about peoples attitudes towards impeachment.

 

[Fledermaus]

It matters not to me.

This thread is about peoples attitudes towards impeachment.

Impeachment for what?

Firing someome the President is authorised to fire?

 

[haymarket]

Impeachment for what?

Firing someome the President is authorised to fire?

asked and answered yesterday

Can the President fire somebody because they are Catholic? or Jewish? Or Asian? Or Black? or Disabled?

 

[Fledermaus]

asked and answered yesterday

You are asking if people are for impeachment on charges are as of yet vague.

Can the President fire somebody because they are Catholic? or Jewish? Or Asian? Or Black? or Disabled?

Relevance?

Is Mueller Catholic? or Jewish? Or Asian? Or Black? or Disabled?

 

[haymarket]

You are asking if people are for impeachment on charges are as of yet vague.



Relevance?

Is Mueller Catholic? or Jewish? Or Asian? Or Black? or Disabled?

One can exercise an ability they have which would in most cases be perfectly legal but is some cases would be illegal. Firing somebody over which you have the power to fire but which is for an illegal purposes would be outside the presidents powers and not be protected.

 

[radcen]

If Trump fires Mueller, it is not to thwart the investigation. He knows that would only increase the interest and speculation. The same btw was true for Comey. So, if he does it, we should ask why.

What would be the reason, then? If you can't say what the reason would be, how can you say what it's not?

 

[radcen]

Wow, did this thread go sideways fast!

Yes, I very much support impeachment.

I also believe the post-Nixon "Special Prosecutor" rule needs to be re-instated (it was removed in the '90's). It made the indie prosecutor immune to obstruction by the President.

To hear Trump tell it, or at least imply, he as President is immune from everything.

 

[haymarket]

To hear Trump tell it, or at least imply, he as President is immune from everything.

Which is a hallmark of the mind of an authoritarian.

 

[joG]

What would be the reason, then? If you can't say what the reason would be, how can you say what it's not?

There are any number of imaginable reasons the easiest being a diversion for people to concentrate on, while something else is happening with less attention from the public, than it would otherwise have received. But it is usual that one knows that somebody cannot be doing something to achieve a goal, when the action would not achieve it, as it would not here. Firing Mueller would focus people on the investigation more and it would become even less likely to be let rest. That is the opposite of the supposed goal.

 

[Socrates1]

Not with 60% of America disapproving of his job performance. That translates to the will of the voters getting rid of the boob.:2wave:

He has to govern before he has any chance of even considering a run in 2020. He can't govern because he can't manage his way out his self imposed mess. If he can't figure out how to do that, he will not survive 2018.

Trump is like closer that walks the first three hitters he faces to protect a one run lead; and now is 3-0 on the other team's best best hitter.

Who do the dems have ???? Voters are sick and tired of PC BS , tired of 48% of the population sponging off the working taxpayers . Bernie wanted to GIVE 19 plus TRILLION U S dollars away to become POTUS so the next dope from the left will up the ante to 30 TRILLION . So who's kids and grandkids get to pay off that nut ?????

 

[joG]

Word this Friday afternoon is that many observers in DC will not be surprised if Trump orchestrates the firing of Robert Muller to thwart the investigation which apparently is broadening and will look into Trump business concerns as well as obstruction of justice. A tweet this morning appeared to be setting the stage for this development which would be akin to the infamous Saturday Night Massacre of Watergate era fame.

A simple question: if that happens, will you then support impeachment of Trump by the House of Representatives?

Two clear choices --yes or no.

Somehow I am quite unconvinced that Trump is not allowed to let Mueller go. It would be legal and transparent. It would obviously be stupid as a stand alone measure, as it would achieve the opposite of calming the waters. But if it isn't illegal it isn't impeachable. And it certainly is not a good idea to remove a President illegally.

 

[haymarket]

Somehow I am quite unconvinced that Trump is not allowed to let Mueller go. It would be legal and transparent. It would obviously be stupid as a stand alone measure, as it would achieve the opposite of calming the waters. But if it isn't illegal it isn't impeachable. And it certainly is not a good idea to remove a President illegally.

Why would anyone consider it only as a "stand alone measure" and not in connection with the Trump firing of James Comey, Sally Yates and Preet Bahara - all of whom were involved in efforts to look into Trump activities and of whom it could be charged that Trump was trying to thwart any such efforts?

A person can exercise an ability that is perfectly to do so in most cases but which exercised in other cases could be a sign of illegality.

 

[joG]

Why would anyone consider it only as a "stand alone measure" and not in connection with the Trump firing of James Comey, Sally Yates and Preet Bahara - all of whom were involved in efforts to look into Trump activities and of whom it could be charged that Trump was trying to thwart any such efforts?

A person can exercise an ability that is perfectly to do so in most cases but which exercised in other cases could be a sign of illegality.

Looked at in connexion with similar experience would make it seem even less likely that the goal is to derail the investigation. Each time he has fired someone the brouhaha has led towards investigation and not away, but it has thrown up a noise screen.

 

[radcen]

Looked at in connexion with similar experience would make it seem even less likely that the goal is to derail the investigation. Each time he has fired someone the brouhaha has led towards investigation and not away, but it has thrown up a noise screen.

You're thinking about it logically. Trump, I believe, is not. I do not believe that Trump is intelligent, but he is smart and he has carved out a niche for what works for him. Or, rather, what worked in the business world where people didn't care and almost everything could be done relatively secretly. Where his lack of intelligence is showing here is that he's having a very hard time grasping that the scrutiny of public office won't go away like it always does in private industry. I believe that he believes it will go away if he just disposes of the key people.

 

[joG]

You're thinking about it logically. Trump, I believe, is not. I do not believe that Trump is intelligent, but he is smart and he has carved out a niche for what works for him. Or, rather, what worked in the business world where people didn't care and almost everything could be done relatively secretly. Where his lack of intelligence is showing here is that he's having a very hard time grasping that the scrutiny of public office won't go away like it always does in private industry. I believe that he believes it will go away if he just disposes of the key people.

Yes. Absolutely. This is one of the dangers I was referring to, when I pointed out his inadequate ie faulty socialisation and experience before the electiin.

 

[haymarket]

Looked at in connexion with similar experience would make it seem even less likely that the goal is to derail the investigation. Each time he has fired someone the brouhaha has led towards investigation and not away, but it has thrown up a noise screen.

You are talking about a bull in a china shop. While I agree Trump doing those firings led to worse things for him, I suspect he is extremely politically insensitive to such things and he allows his desire to say his tag line from his reality TV show mare than anything else. In other words - he does stupid things that defy logic and reason.... but he still does them over and over and over again.