General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumscoti
(4,612 posts)convincing people that somehow Mueller's report had exonerated Trump. Now it's (even more) obvious that he did, in fact, collude with Russia, though, since he's doing the exact same shit again.
Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)Roland99
(53,342 posts)Id LOVE to see one of the also-rans ask Russia, China, Australia et al for dirt on Twitler!
OMG. The MAGAts would literally explode!
coti
(4,612 posts)No, that's not true at all.
Not to mention that he was elected based on the very conduct itself- isn't throwing someone out of office they betrayed their country to get into exact justice?
triron
(22,026 posts)unblock
(52,387 posts)even if you're not in office at the time of the crimes.
Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)unblock
(52,387 posts)Oh they probably have to dress it up as a high crime and misdemeanor, but really, it hard to see a Supreme Court overturning any impeachment.
coti
(4,612 posts)Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)To me, impeaching for "Russia if you're listening" while he was campaigning, along with the lack of evidence because the Mueller Report was hidden, would have been ineffective and hurt Dems politically.
It's a much worse offense as president plus there's a confession and hard evidence of misappropriation of our tax dollars to extort a foreign country. Easier for the public to understand and support.
coti
(4,612 posts)Assuming the objective truth of the Trump campaign's conspiracy with Russia, it was an obviously impeachable act. The truth didn't, at the time, break through with the public effectively enough, though, to attain the needed support.
triron
(22,026 posts)even Mueller himself. The media didn't help either.
unblock
(52,387 posts)The *case* with Russia wasn't as powerful as with Ukraine because the media didn't jump on it the way Democrats and the media jumped on the Ukraine situation.
This allowed republicans to muddy the waters and stonewall and obstruct. The Ukraine instant scandal cuts through better even though the act itself is largely the same.
I'll agree that doing it while president adds the element of abuse of office and betrayal of national security, which does make it worse. But both acts were criminal and impeachable.
dchill
(38,562 posts)Reputins had control of the House. And Senate.
Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)Context.
One was in the context of a campaign before he was president; the other was in the context of him being president.
marble falls
(57,354 posts)Hekate
(90,865 posts)Voltaire2
(13,213 posts)There is no constitutional definition of what is not 'impeachable'.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
'other high crimes and misdemeanors' has no specific definition. It is whatever congress decides it is. So basically: treason, bribery, and whatever. Clinton fit into 'whatever' as did Nixon and Andrew Johnson. None of them were charged with or investigated for treason or bribery.
However what happened in 2016 is now too remote and not specific enough to Trumps actions as president to be sound political basis for impeachment charges.
Impeachment is a political, not a legal process. Right now, the clear and specific corrupt acts over Ukraine have an excellent chance of splitting off Republicans in the Senate. They ought to be the main focus of the investigation and the charges, the rest should be considered background establishing a history of corruption and malfeasance.