To impeach or not impeach. That is the question.
There
are compelling arguments on both sides of the impeachment question.
My
reason for opposing impeachment would be Pence would only pardon the crook. Better to vote him out and arrest him. Although something tells me Trump will get away
with his crimes, just as Bush/Cheney got away with torture and war crimes.
Polls
show a majority against impeachment, but what does that mean?
I
would be interested in knowing what the breakdown would be in those opposing
impeachment. How many are just Democrats afraid
of the process backfiring, compared to Trump loyalists?
Why
do people think impeaching Trump will make him more popular?
Just because his
toadies in the Senate love him, doesn't mean anybody else will join the cult.
Either way, Trump will gloat about not being impeached, as much as he would
crow about the senate's non-conviction.
I wonder if there are really that many independents who would shrug and say, "Gee, Trump's
fellow Republicans in the Senate voted not to convict. I'll have to side with
them."
If
that is the state of our democracy, we are doomed.
Who
bears the greater shame? Authoritarians defending a criminal, or Democrats
showing courage of their convictions, who dare to draw the line that has been
so flagrantly crossed? Democrats can call on Republican senators to side with
either the Constitution or Trump. They cannot stand for both.
The
message would be bumper sticker simple. Constitution or Trump?
How
will history reflect the Democrats' lack of conviction in the face of a rogue
president, especially if he wins? Voters want to see Democrats stand on principle, and show resolve and purpose. This is their chance.
I
understand Pelosi's long game is all about political calculations. Maybe she's
right and defeating him is more important than impeaching him. I say go for
both. Impeachment is the moral high ground and the Constitutional course of
action.
Democrats
would be taking a stand for the Constitution and rule of law. They can fairly
accuse the Republicans of undermining the Constitution in favor of an autocrat.
At
least holding impeachment hearings sends the message that something is very
wrong with the Trump Administration. Call them "pre-impeachment
hearings" if need be. They will spell out Trunp's crimes and misdemeanors
and abuses of power. Imagine the Democrats' message being, "Constitution
or con? Choose wisely!"
Perhaps,
despite appearances, its not just spineless waffling. Maybe it's Pelosi's plan
to time the impeachment hearings closer to the election.
If
not, what will the Democrats stand for, if not the Constitution and rule of
law? There's no reason they can't promote health care, women's reproductive
rights, environmental protections, regulation of commerce, etc. as well as
following the Constitution's provision for impeachment.
My
concern is if Trump is not impeached, then nobody, or only Democrats, will ever
be impeached. And that would end all
illusions of a Constitutional Republic.
Posts
20 comments:
"To impeach or not impeach. That is the question. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the impeachment question." ~~ Dave Dubya
Compelling, possibly, but one argument is constitutional; the other political.
"My reason for opposing impeachment would be Pence would only pardon the crook. Better to vote him out and arrest him. Although something tells me Trump will get away with his crimes, just as Bush/Cheney got away with torture and war crimes." ~~ Dave Dubya
Trump undoubtedly will be pardoned for all his impeachable offenses that break federal law no matter the method used to oust him from office. Fortunately, and hopefully, New York state will have some legal surprises that the pardoning process will not be able to reach.
As far as Bush and Cheney, they literally got away with murder. If we survive as a society, whatever that may be, and what we call civilization remains intact, I hope historians accurately portray all three as the lying treasonous scoundrels they are.
JTF has contributed some humor to the thread:
The left and their sycophants in the media are doing all they can to protect Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, and the Obama DOJ with the Barr investigations. Sorry, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, the Obama DOJ are not above the law. No one is above the law.
They broke the law that says Trump is the Savior above all laws and decency.
LOL! Witch hunt! Hoax! Everyone knows there are no campaign finance laws or obstruction of justice laws, amirite?
"Sorry, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, the Obama DOJ are not above the law." ~~ Timothy L. Trueblood V, also known as "Vern", as provided by Dave Dubya
Nobody is above the law. Nobody, not even the president of the United States. I hope Vern agrees with this.
I doubt that he does.
"The left and their sycophants in the media are doing all they can to protect Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, and the Obama DOJ with the Barr investigations." - JTF via DD
I watch the news. I read the news. I consume news, especially political news, regularly and from varied sources. These individuals and the Obama DOJ are either mentioned once in a while or not at all for long stretches of time. What on Earth doing 'doing all they can' actually mean when it seems like the individuals listed are only on when a book is about to be released or they reach out to them after the President tweets about them?
On a side note: It's hard coming to terms with "President" and "Tweet" in the same sentence. I also miss the Press Briefings... most transparent President ever, amirite?
"Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented key aspects of Mueller’s report and decisions in the investigation, which has helped further the president’s false narrative about the investigation. Mueller’s report says he chose not to decide whether Trump broke the law because there’s an official DoJ opinion that indicting a sitting president is unconstitutional, and because of concerns about impacting the president’s ability to govern and pre-empting possible impeachment."
“Barr’s letter doesn’t mention those issues when explaining why Mueller chose not to make a prosecutorial decision. He instead selectively quotes Mueller in a way that makes it sound falsely -- as if Mueller’s decision stemmed from legal/factual issues specific to Trump’s actions." ~~ AlterNet, as portions of tweet storm from Justin Amash on Twitter, May 28, 2019
The "Barr Witch Hunt" will be another great waste of tax dollars like the "investigation" of 3 million cases of "voter fraud" in the popular vote.
I'll let you know when JTF declares Amash is also guilty of treason. This should happen two minutes after the Tangerine Tyrant tweets "Amash is a traitor....sad...."
By "dictator standards", everyone who disagrees with the Orange Savior is a traitor, of course.
I'm blinded by all the transparency of Trump's glaring cover-ups of unrecorded secret meetings with Putin, tax returns, bank and insurance documents, sealed college transcripts, no press briefings, government censoring of the term "climate change", shutting down investigations of white nationalist terrorism, etc.
Americans are traitors for not trusting their big brother.
"I'll let you know when JTF declares Amash is also guilty of treason. This should happen two minutes after the Tangerine Tyrant tweets 'Amash is a traitor....sad....'" ~~ Dave Dubya
LOL
He loves his dictator, obviously more than his Christ. He would die for his Orange Savior, and he's absolutely abandoned the teachings of Christ. Probably never really followed them. So many so-called Christians don't. They just like the idea.
"By 'dictator standards', everyone who disagrees with the Orange Savior is a traitor, of course." ~~ Dave Dubya
Their Orange Fuhrer is the final word for what is right, and what is wrong. Not unlike ancient empires where emperors where seen as part-god, part-man (which, not coincidentally, was borrowed from even more ancient religions), Trumpists and all Republicans in Congress, save one (for you, TB3), have been caught in the vortex of the demonic lure of this hateful and devisive part-devil, part-simpleton.
"I'm blinded by all the transparency of Trump's glaring cover-ups of..." ~~ Dave Dubya
Don't forget the latest revealed cover-up concerning the separated immigrant child who died while in the custody of this criminal adminstration.
"Americans are traitors for not trusting their big brother." ~~ Dave Dubya
Yeah, George Orwell was only 35 years early in his prophecy. He saw it coming, just misjudged the timing. Everything else was right on the money.
As per the Tangerine Tyrant " I don't do cover-ups and am the most transparent ". LOL His whole campaign and time in office have been nothing but a cover-up. It sure is a cold day in Hell when 30-40% (Trump's base of deplorables) of the people believe that bullshit. I feel the Democrats are being very weak and at least need to go for an impeachment inquiry to attempt to get more facts out to the people. They are making a lot of idle threats and need to start to hold and enforce their inherent contempt of Congress charges. They can at least start with Mnuchin and jail the bastard.
Say, U.P. have you a clue why the democrats are being very "weak"? Have you ever thought it is because you are wrong about Trump and they know it?
Tim,
If the Dems do not impeach, they're selling out the Constitution and Republic for political purposes.
For some reason we still have no word on Amash, at least from Vern.
Amash is getting standing ovations in Grand Rapids for his opposition to Trump. Ruh roh!
CNN reports:
"Clearly, things that violate the public trust are impeachable," Amash told the crowd, drawing applause. "I think it's really important that we do our job as Congress. That we would not allow misconduct to go undeterred," he added, earning some more applause.
"We have a job to do, and I think we owe it to the American people to represent them to ensure that the people we have in office are doing the right thing, are of good character, aren't violating the public trust."
Instead of condemning this treason, Vern decided to go all "whatabout' on Obama, when his Justice Department sought phone records from some AP reporters.
Yeah, whatabout that? Vern has been telling us for years that the so-called "liberal media" was in the tank for Obama.
He and his fellow con-servatives weren't just feeding us LIES, were they?
I'll be sure to publish his in-depth explanation.
"Have you ever thought it is because you are wrong about Trump and they know it?"
Did Vern just suggest Democrats are right about something where we are mistaken? Seems so.
I'll be sure to publish his in-depth explanation in defense of Democrats.
What's your point dave, if you have one? Yup, you & your crew (of 3) are fast becoming the minority in America ever since the Mueller report was released. And that's why there is no rush to impeach, there's nothing to impeach over. Sorry Skippy, your horse died at the gate, move on already.
"Did Vern just suggest Democrats are right about something where we are mistaken? Seems so." ~~ Dave Dubya
Sure sounds like it, Dave. I can't wait for Vern's response. ;-)
"(for you, TB3)" - JG
:)
"I feel the Democrats are being very weak and at least need to go for an impeachment inquiry to attempt to get more facts out to the people." - Tim
"Say, U.P. have you a clue why the democrats are being very "weak"? Have you ever thought it is because you are wrong about Trump and they know it?" - JTF
My theory is that the Democrats are waiting until the Debt Ceiling is dealt with, so that the President doesn't use it as a hostage. I can totally see him seeing the country dive into financial ruin in a selfish attempt to avoid the consequences for his life's choices.
"What's your point dave, if you have one? Yup, you & your crew (of 3) are fast becoming the minority in America ever since the Mueller report was released." - JTF
If this were even true... so?
"And that's why there is no rush to impeach, there's nothing to impeach over. Sorry Skippy, your horse died at the gate, move on already." - JTF
Oh, is that why? If there's nothing to impeach over, why are you arguing soooooo veerrrry hard over it? If those who advocate for impeachment are wrong and the President will stand triumphant, expend your energy elsewhere. The President will be vindicated without your meager efforts. Right?
JTF,
That was a very poor explanation."Fast becoming the minority"? ALL impeachments begin with a minority opinion. Evidence is gathered and presented, until the House majority supports impeachment.
you & your crew (of 3) are fast becoming the minority in America ever since the Mueller report was released. And that's why there is no rush to impeach,
All because of the three of us? How so?
"there's nothing to impeach over"
That's not what a single Democrat is saying. That is not what Mueller said, either. That is only Trump and his cult's claim. And THEY are still a minority.
Where is "nothing to impeach over" in the Mueller Report? Where does it say he "did not obstruct justice"?
Not there.
The words were, "Does not exonerate him".
You're proving you did NOT read the Mueller Report. How embarrassing it must be for a low information type trying to lecture more informed people. The informed ones know Trump is a racist, liar and criminal.
Charge One: Individual One's illegal cover-up of an affair is a campaign finance felony.The hush money checks are solid evidence.
This is just one impeachable offense. Mueller lists over a dozen cases of obstruction, and clearly indicates enforcement is up to Congress.
No worries. We know the "Only Rule". War crimes, torture, obstruction of justice, sex offenses...it's ALL OK if you're a rich white Republican.
That's what makes America great, amirite?
"My theory is that the Democrats are waiting until the Debt Ceiling is dealt with, so that the President doesn't use it as a hostage." ~~ TB3
You're probably correct. Any way you look at it, it'll be a midsummer nightmare.
Reminiscent of Napoleon's scorched earth policy.
"But like the owner of a blog who claims to be an Old Fashion American, and clearly feels the 1st Amendment is not meant for Conservative, white, Christian, heterosexual males..." ~~ Timothy L. Trueblood V, or simply as "Vern"
Your opinion that Dave doesn't believe everyone should have access to First Amendment rights is ludicrous. If anything, it's just the opposite.
If you're referring to Dave's moderation of his private blog, which he has every right to do, than be truthful and state that instead. As usual you're disingenuous.
"...as in [Dave's] mind America would be better with out them, they are all COWARDS. And know they have nothing." ~~ Timothy L. Trueblood V, or simply as "Vern"
Dave has never made such a gesture. As a matter of fact it's very evident his message is America is for all Americans -- all races, all colors, all ethnicities, all genders, all members of the LGBTQ community...everyone.
Once again, I see your disagreement purely as your objection to Dave moderating your trolling and spam. He's free to do this, and as a matter of fact should when your comments are off-topic, personal attacks, racist, hateful, spam, or otherwise inappropriate.
I've told you this before, and I'll say it again...Google offers you the same opportunity to create and start your own blog. Dave can't stop you from doing this, I can't stop you from doing this, nobody can keep you from expressing yourself on your own blog -- except Google, of course, should your message be racist, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate by Google's standards.
Vern, start your own blog and "express thyself". I'm positive we'll all visit. ;-)
"If you're referring to Dave's moderation of his private blog, which he has every right to do, than be truthful and state that instead. As usual you're disingenuous." - JG
There's a certain sub-set of the population, a like to think of them as a minority of the population, that believe the Constitution says whatever they feel it should say at any given moment. Some of these same members of this very same minority would also proudly declare themselves 'Originalists'. The irony being two fold: 1) A fundamental, usually intentional, misunderstanding of what the Constitution defends you from and 2) That the original architechs of the Constitution couldn't fathom a Blog.
Poor wittow oppressed “Conservative, white, Christian and heterosexual males”! No free speech for them? They only own the Republican Party, packed the courts, and run the country, bless their hearts.
We loony libs should understand that’s proof they are the real victims, amirite?
Lets’ all shed a tear for them, and their fellow Conservative, white, Christian and heterosexual males who happen to be tiki torch carrying very fine people who share in their worship for the Tangerine Tyrant. Oh, how they suffer the brutalities and injustice of a rigged system that gave their Dear Leader and his party all the power with fewer votes than Hillary. Not FAIR!! No wonder they cry all the time.
No First Amendment rights? Will their suffering never end?
Or are they just a bunch of hypocritical, ignorant, dishonest, crybaby bigots?
Obviously nobody would know they are a bunch of hypocritical, ignorant, dishonest, crybaby bigots if not for their First Amendment rights to express their hate, lies, racism, deflections, and their constant playing of the ever flopping victim card. Just like their dishonest, racist, ignorant, dictator-loving, hateful Orange Fuhrer.
Apart from those, I love conservative white Christian heterosexual males. I even have some for friends. (And a special one who sends me secret love notes.)
My Christian upbringing taught me to love all fellow human beings. Even those Conservative, white, Christian and heterosexual males who hate me, and hate liberals, and hate minorities.
Thank God I don’t have to like them, though . They are deplorable.
Who else would be so ignorant and hateful to accuse me of not supporting free speech of “Conservative, white, Christian and heterosexual males”, AFTER I dedicated most of a post to the words of Justin Amash? He is exactly a “Conservative, white, Christian and heterosexual male”
Who else would be so ignorant and hateful to whine and project for his Party saying, “The left sure has a twisted view of transparency”. (From a love note)
The accusation came AFTER I wrote, “I'm blinded by all the transparency of Trump's glaring cover-ups of unrecorded secret meetings with Putin, tax returns, bank and insurance documents, sealed college transcripts, no press briefings, government censoring of the term "climate change", shutting down investigations of white nationalist terrorism, etc.”
How twisted is that, amirite? I’m sure if one shared Trump’s twisted view of everything, that would explain the delusion.
Somebody is feeling angry, confused, delicate, and insecure, methinks.
Poor, poor, whiney, wittow victim.
This just in, from a conservative white Christian heterosexual male.
Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system...designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
...That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
...The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
...The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
Mueller, in effect, just said, "Impeach the crooked president I'm prohibited to indict".
Post a Comment