Those who pressed to impeach Johnson did believe they had evidence of a crime. — frank

There is no precedent in the US for what you're describing. — frank

They had evidence that he disgraced Congress and the Presidency which they decided to be impeachable offences. And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office, which is apparently an impeachable offence.

They had evidence that he disgraced Congress and the Presidency which they decided to be impeachable offences. And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office, which is apparently an impeachable offence — Michael

The House's primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in March 1867 — Wiki

You may be right that Congress could theoretically impeach a president without any evidence of a crime. If so, I didn't realize that. It's never happened, and I don't think it's likely in the case of Trump.

And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office, — Michael

Tim is wrong.

And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office,
— Michael

Tim is wrong. — frank

Shutting down the government is not a violation of his oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's my case. What's yours? Or were you just momentarily carried away by the possibilities of your keyboard?

Richard Nixon was impeached for "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress" while Bill Clinton was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice".

You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, but the proceedings were broadcast (for weeks on end) and the process of evidence gathering was extensive. By the time Nixon resigned, the case against had been very well built.

Operatives in Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP) burglarized the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel. What followed was an elaborate cover-up, proving again that covering up a relatively minor crime can self-inflate into a major disaster. Another thing that has been proved is that once investigators start digging, remarkable finds can be brought to the surface.

I think we can count on sufficient evidence being available to impeach President Trump. What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Shutting down the government is not a violation of his oath? — tim wood

Congress has to appropriate funds for the government to operate. While a debt ceiling has been in place for quite a long time, the use of it as a political tool arose in the 1990s. Congress establishes the debt ceiling and either lifts it, or doesn't -- in which case non-essential government operations can be suspended.

The President can decide how much of the government to shut down, but whether shutdowns can happen is in the hands of Congress.

You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, — Bitter Crank

I remember it well. For almost two years an amazing headline almost every day!

What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath. — Bitter Crank

Likely it will require the testicles of all the Republicans be stitched back on - reattached. Maybe not so easy. It's not clear to me they want them back. Can you say Lindsay Graham?

Likely it will require the testicles of all the Republicans be stitched back on — tim wood

If I had had Senate Republicans' testicles in a box, I would have fed them to the cats already.

Shutting down the government is not a violation of his oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." — tim wood

A man who destroys our democracy is surely in violation of an oath to defend it.

I think it was a huge mistake to drop history in favor of technology because now we do not have the perspective that history can give us. The concept of a tyrant is very old and I will argue Trump is a tyrant. The kind of tyrant that we must keep out of the presidency if our democracy is going to be preserved and that it is imperative that we impeach Trump. It is men like him who made the power of impeachment necessary. This perspective comes from history and knowing what happened when men like him help power.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrant
Tyrant, Greek tyrannos, a cruel and oppressive ruler or, in ancient Greece, a ruler who seized power unconstitutionally or inherited such power. In the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, monarchy was the usual form of government in the Greek states. The aristocratic regimes that replaced monarchy were by the 7th century BCE themselves unpopular. Thus, the opportunity arose for ambitious men to seize power in the name of the oppressed. — Britannica

His nature as a tyrant was obvious in his TV shows. Fitting the definition of someone who takes power illegitimately was obvious during the campaigning when he avoided the debates with other candidates and put on his own circus.

Part of the problem was media corruption.

How Media Giants Are Profiting from Donald Trump's Ascent - Fortune
fortune.com › Entertainment › Election 2016
Mar 21, 2016 - Media giants have benefitted from the Trump ascent and the presidential circus. ... Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. ... There has been much debate over the media's relationship with Donald Trump. ... news media is not the culprit for Trump's ascent and that networks like his own are simply ... — Fortune

I find the explanation that this person is popular with the discontents who want to overthrow the establishment a serious warning sign. Hitler and the Nazi party also came to power by appealing to the discontents. For years before elections the Nazi's were a canvasing rural neighborhoods finding out what made people the most angry. Then they rented halls and inticed people to come with entertainment, and gave them a lecture using the gathered information about what made them angry and promising to resolve all these problems. Trump came to power the same way, catering to the same discontents, and if the liberals do not see the threat to our democracy they are naive. Not only did he follow the strategy Hitler used but once he got in office he began eliminating everyone who disagrees with him, and finally, like Hitler, he used his power to shut down our government to force our democracy to do something that the majority do not want done. This is a clear abuse of power and a threat to our democracy and I can not understand there being doubt of this.

Repeatedly in history the discontents have risen and slaughter the intellectuals. Not just in communist China but in Rome and France. We have taken our democracy for granted with this is a mistake. Only when it is defended in the classroom is it defended and we stopped doing that in favor of education for the Military Industrial Complex that sells arms to the likes of the Prince of Saudia Arabia, not because it is the right thing to do, but it is good for the profits and employees of the industry. Our democracy was hijacked long ago. It is just a question of will we gain awareness and take the necessary action soon enough?

Bitter Crank
6.9k
↪Michael ↪frank ↪tim wood Richard Nixon was impeached for "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress" while Bill Clinton was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice".

You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, but the proceedings were broadcast (for weeks on end) and the process of evidence gathering was extensive. By the time Nixon resigned, the case against had been very well built.

Operatives in Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP) burglarized the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel. What followed was an elaborate cover-up, proving again that covering up a relatively minor crime can self-inflate into a major disaster. Another thing that has been proved is that once investigators start digging, remarkable finds can be brought to the surface.

I think we can count on sufficient evidence being available to impeach President Trump. What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath. — Bitter Crank

Great post Bitter Crank. I am so glad you are posting!

"What crime is he committing?"

By refusing to sign an appropriations bill that doesn't fund border security? None. Certainly nothing more egregious than congress is doing by not giving him a bill that includes the funding.

(Didn't we see this whole thing in reverse a few years ago when the Republicans in congress wouldn't vote for a budget that Obama would sign? The Republicans eventually caved as I recall. But nobody suggested that Obama's refusal to sign the budget they sent him was an impeachable offense.)

There's no Constitutional requirement that a President sign every appropriations bill that crosses his desk. Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that congress only pass bills that the President is willing to sign.

So an impasse is what we get. Ideally both sides will compromise a bit. The President has already said that he'd accept less money for border security, but the open-borders democrats refuse to budge off zero.

Regarding impeachment, it's a two-step process. The House of Representatives can vote to impeach by a simple majority. Democrats will soon hold a small majority, but it isn't clear if all democrats would join in an impeachment vote. (Some of these democrats were recently elected as moderates and even conservatives in districts that Trump won in 2016 and where a vote for impeachment wouldn't be popular with voters.) But a House vote for impeachment doesn't decide anything. It just means that the whole circus goes to the Senate which then votes on whether or not to remove the President from office. That requires a 2/3 Senate vote and Republicans have a majority in the Senate. So removal from office isn't likely to happen.

There's no Constitutional requirement that a President sign every appropriations bill that crosses his desk. Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that congress only pass bills that the President is willing to sign. — yazata

Yes. I'm a liberal who realizes the President is a clown. My first thought about the OP was: "Don't you realize you're exactly the same as the Obama bashers? Just in reverse? How does anyone conclude that this is the best time to become completely unreasonable? As if we need more of that right now?

This is as close to a public forum, or space, as some of us will get. Trump has apparently tweeted, "No wall, no government." To me this is a crystal clear violation of his oath of office. — tim wood

The oath of the President is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where does it say that the President has to agree to the budget submitted by Congress?

The oath of all congressmen and Senators states: "“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Does that oath require Congress to provide a budget to the President that he'll agree to sign?

It seems if two parties can't come to terms, there's equal blame from both. Does everyone get impeached when there's an impasse?

I think what might actually be occurring here is that you think Trump is an idiot and that his border wall idea will be a a multi-billion dollar moron useless erection and you think that Congress shouldn't have their arm twisted into agreeing to something that stupid. It's for that reason that you don't want to impeach Congress for not cooperating, but you do want to impeach Trump. All of this is to say that none of this has anything to do with violations of oaths, dereliction of duty, or pissing on the Constitution. It has to do with your continued disappointment that Hillary lost. The remedy is not in litigating your way into having the guy you want in office, but it's in winning the next election.

OMG is this something that is legal yet immoral? It's everywhere!

"any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities" So things can be legal and wrong, so wouldn't it work the other way too?:brow:

Technically some Mexicans were already settled when America made its borders. I wonder what those politics are and how they feel about the issue.

Wall or not what do we do about illegal immigration? Since it is illegal?

Does that oath require Congress to provide a budget to the President that he'll agree to sign?
It seems if two parties can't come to terms, there's equal blame from both. Does everyone get impeached when there's an impasse? — Hanover

Is this the substance of your post? I read into it - tell me if I misread - that the parties share blame if they cannot come together. As if one one view were X, the other Z, and there exists some mean Y such that XY=Z - and I would agree that this seems reasonable between persons arguing in good faith. But does Trump do anything in good faith? He does not. Where then is your mean; what is it?

He wants a wall. Have you surveyed literature or reporting on what a wall entails, what it costs, what it would accomplish? No doubt there are short parts of the border that might need a wall - maybe; to be sure there are parts of the border where walls exist.

Try this: you tell us here how the wall is a good idea. Then tell us that there is any proper justification at all for shutting down the government of the USA, and what that justification is, until he gets this - his - wall. Your objection to his impeachment is simply ill-informed, off-base, and plain wrong.

My first thought about the OP was: "Don't you realize you're exactly the same as the Obama bashers? Just in reverse? — frank

You cannot tell any difference between Obama and Trump, and the Republican congress and Democrat congress? Do you think Chuck Schumer just is Mitch McConnell?

You cannot tell any difference between Obama and Trump, and the Republican congress and Democrat congress? Do you think Chuck Schumer just is Mitch McConnell? — tim wood

Mitch McConnell is an honorable man as far as I can tell. Obama was. Trump is obviously not. But what is accomplished by becoming a perfect reflection of an Obama basher? It seems to me that it's energy wasted.

Mitch McConnell is an honorable man as far as I can tell. — frank

Can you say Merritt Garland? McConnell in betraying his oath to the US in favour of his commitment to his own interests, where they intersected with so-called Republican interests, betrayed his oath and his country. Do a little research.

Mitch McConnell is an honorable man — frank

Mitch McConnell is a slime ball. (In the spirit of bi-partisanship, so is Nancy Pelosi.) As far as I can tell.

Is he? He has turtle DNA, so that may cause some greenish secretions.

After weighing it up, I think I'm against impeachment for the practical reason that it would lead to Pence becoming president, and for the ideological reason of opposing his political views - even more so than the current president's.

Tim is wrong. — frank

No, Tim is right here. He was wrong in the other thread. Maybe that was what you were thinking of.

Do a little research. — tim wood

I can't. It burns my brain.

No, Tim is right here. — S

OK then. Happy New Year, S.

After weighing it up, I think I'm against impeachment for the practical reason that it would lead to Pence becoming president, and for the ideological reason of opposing his political views - even more so than the current president's. — S

And we are again, walking on the same side of the street of absurdity~ :hearts:

...a multi-billion dollar moron useless erection... — Hanover

How would you define "useless erection"?

Pence is worse than Trump? Pence may have flaws - no doubt he does - but do you aver he is a bad man? Think about the full spectrum - width, breadth, and depth - of Trump's badness: does Pence compare at all? My answer: I don't think he compares at all. Maybe one problem: can he withstand the pressure from the wackdoodle right. Mother's milk to Trump; maybe not to Pence.

wackdoodle — tim wood

What is whack doodle is always having to weigh up the lesser of two evils, the less repugnant, the slightly better, and the obviously unsuitable.

It hasn't always been this way. Going back to to 1952, Stevenson/Eisenhower, Kennedy/Nixon, Goldwater/Johnson, Humphrey/Nixon, McGovern/Nixon, Ford/Carter, and Carter Reagan, Mondale/Reagan, Dukakis/Bush, Bush/Clinton, Dole/Clinton, which takes us up to this century, most of the candidates from both parties were at least adequate candidates and performed more or less satisfactorily. Goldwater was a little scary, but he was competent. Nixon had a large following of people who disliked him, but not for incompetence. Reagan may have been losing his competency over the 8 years of his 2 terms, owing to alzheimers. No president up to Trump has come close to being as unprepared for the job, as impulsive, as ill-informed, as willfully uninformed, as Trump. If his pre-election years were morally compromised, he'd fit in with Nixon, whose bad reputation came out of his California campaigns.

The opposing party has not liked its opposing candidate, of course. Eisenhower was obligated to campaign against Stevenson. The public enthusiastically voted for one candidate over another. Not all of the presidents listed were good. Stevenson would probably have made a better president than Eisenhower, Humphrey would probably have been better than Nixon, Carter was better than Reagan, and so on -- but whether McGovern would have been better, hard to say. I liked McGovern, but didn't have much company. Dukakis? Can't remember much of anything about him. Clinton managed the federal budget better than the Republicans before or after him (actually balancing federal spending and taxes), but on other points I'd fault him (and not for getting blow jobs from Monica).

Pence is worse than Trump? Pence may have flaws - no doubt he does - but do you aver he is a bad man? Think about the full spectrum - width, breadth, and depth - of Trump's badness: does Pence compare at all? My answer: I don't think he compares at all. Maybe one problem: can he withstand the pressure from the wackdoodle right. Mother's milk to Trump; maybe not to Pence. — tim wood

It's more of an ideological thing than a character thing. Trump obviously has a bigger stain on his character. There's no publicly available footage that I'm aware of of Pence doing anything as shockingly distasteful as making a comment of the "grap 'em by the pussy" kind or mocking a disabled person, for example.

How would you define "useless erection"? — Metaphysician Undercover

An example of a useless erection is when you awake and gather the morning wood for the fire, erect that morning wood so it will rage when lit, but others have no immediate interest in it, so instead of it casting copiuos emissions, it just wanes, sputters, and sits uselessly.