House Dem: Impeaching Trump on party lines would 'tear the country apart'

[OlNate]

Funny the first paragraph to Mycroft. And somewhat true as well. The extremes of both sides have been screaming at each other for so long that I don't think they know anything else anymore. But then you start with the name-calling yourself. Is it absolutely necessary to call Trump names all the time? You know it'll get an equally crappy response...

Nationalism is not a bad thing. EXTREMISM of any kind, is a bad thing.
And we all know the Oshawa plant was on its last legs for a long time now. You can't blame Trump for that. But you can blame globalization.

I agree, extremism is bad, for sure. I think I'm fairly consistent on that. Yes, it is absolutely necessary for me to call Ol' Shroomy names at every opportunity, because it's important to remember who the villains are. I make zero apologies or promises of repentance on this. **** Trump. :shrug:

That said, I can still respect the law, both the letter and the spirit, and I can also see that letting this train wreck reach it's destination is going to be good in the long run for Americans. Sometimes, when stubborn people won't listen, you just need to let things fail. Tough love, and all of that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why should it depend on the offense? If he committed a criminal act, why would you want him as president?

because there are malum per se and malum prohibitum offenses. the Former are disqualifying IMHO, the latter may well not be

 

[TurtleDude]

I am very liberal on economic and environmental issues, conservative on most social issues, and very conservative on criminal justice issues. I hate criminals and want them to suffer. If those stands are averaged, they come up to moderate liberal.

very interesting

 

[Blue Dog]

The American people need to see Congress pass some legislation. The HoR should consider bills for deficit reduction and healthcare. Focusing on impeachment is shortsighted. The Democratic Party has an opportunity to justify more seats in Congress in 2020. That would be better served thru bills passed even if the Senate votes against them.

Jmo

 

[Buzz62]

I agree, extremism is bad, for sure. I think I'm fairly consistent on that. Yes, it is absolutely necessary for me to call Ol' Shroomy names at every opportunity, because it's important to remember who the villains are. I make zero apologies or promises of repentance on this. **** Trump. :shrug:

That said, I can still respect the law, both the letter and the spirit, and I can also see that letting this train wreck reach it's destination is going to be good in the long run for Americans. Sometimes, when stubborn people won't listen, you just need to let things fail. Tough love, and all of that.

And what if it turns out to not be a train wreck? What if the US economy holds and continues to grow? What if Nationalism catches on all over the west, as it appears to be doing? What then?

 

[SmartCat]

very interesting

I am the opposite of a libertarian. Millions of Americans are like that, although there is no specific name for us. I am consistently in favor of a large powerful government, which I want to be more democratic. What I mean by more democratic, is that I want to get the power of money out of the government. I want government funding of political campaigns. That already exists in other affluent democracies. I am opposed to gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and probably the Senate. I want everyone's vote to count equally, the poor as well as the rich.

I regret the Bolshevik takeover in Russia. That was not a popular revoluton by the majority against a tyranny. It was a coup by a well armed, well organized minority of political fanatics. The moral, political, and economic failures of Communism demonstrate that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am the opposite of a libertarian. Millions of Americans are like that, although there is no specific name for us. I am consistently in favor of a large powerful government, which I want to be more democratic. What I mean by more democratic, is that I want to get the power of money out of the government. I want government funding of political campaigns. That already exists in other affluent democracies. I am opposed to gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and probably the Senate. I want everyone's vote to count equally, the poor as well as the rich.

I regret the Bolshevik takeover in Russia. That was not a popular revoluton by the majority against a tyranny. It was a coup by a well armed, well organized minority of political fanatics. The moral, political, and economic failures of Communism demonstrate that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy.

I hate pure democracy. I prefer a constitutional republic where centralized government is weak, power dispersed and the rights of individuals are of paramount concern.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yeah, I am not in favor of an impeachment if it is going to follow party lines.

 

[Deuce]

you Trump haters sure have a hard time with the presumption of innocence in this country but I bet when it comes to real criminals, you bend over backwards to trumpet their rights.

My mistake. You just didn’t read the post you quoted.

 

[TurtleDude]

My mistake. You just didn’t read the post you quoted.

given your well known credentials in legal scholarship-edify me as to what you think a "literal criminal" is and how that applies to Trump. Does one become a literal criminal after a conviction-beyond reasonable doubt-of a criminal offense in a competent court of law, or does it attach when a partisan hack applies the term to a person.

I studied hard for the bar exam, did well on it. Taught a few law classes here and there, and I never recall seeing the term "literal criminal" in any court transcript, or legal opinion. SO do tell

 

[Deuce]

given your well known credentials in legal scholarship-edify me as to what you think a "literal criminal" is and how that applies to Trump. Does one become a literal criminal after a conviction-beyond reasonable doubt-of a criminal offense in a competent court of law, or does it attach when a partisan hack applies the term to a person.

I studied hard for the bar exam, did well on it. Taught a few law classes here and there, and I never recall seeing the term "literal criminal" in any court transcript, or legal opinion. SO do tell

Again, the post you quoted provides context.

 

[ipsofacto]

Yeah, I am not in favor of an impeachment if it is going to follow party lines.

Impeachment is always about party lines.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, the post you quoted provides context.

it did?

You want a literal criminal to remain president

 

[Deuce]

it did?

No, the previous one from the other guy. Where he set up a hypothetical scenario where sufficient evidence was presented.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Impeachment is always about party lines.

So far.

 

[Myview]

I don't think impeachment would be a good idea if it were done just on party line in the house. Even if something truly egregious or criminal were to come from the Muller investigation impeachment in the Senate would be unlikely. Senate Republicans will continue to protect Trump. Even if Mueller finds a smoking gun and proves that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia it is still unlikely that 5 or 6 Republican Senators would come out against Trump. They have fallen right in line with all that Trump has wanted so far with the exception of providing 5 billion for a wall. So far at least. They want to see him reelected in 2020 so they will do all they can to protect him. The Democrats strategy should be just to damage Trump all they can politically between now and 2020. Trumps continual hammering at the credibility of the Mueller investigation has also had its intended effect on Republican Senators. I worry about how much Matthew Whittaker can obstruct the Mueller report. Even if Mueller proves that Trump obstructed justice and the weight of other possible charges, I don't think the needed number of Senate Republicans will go against Trump. Democrats just need to get his favorability rating with Americans to bottom out. If Trump is impeached by both chambers we would have Pence as President. I had rather wait till 2020 and get rid of both of them.

 

[JasperL]

The 15$ minimum wage was merely an example, is there not a large portion of the Democratic base calling for a national $15 minimum wage?

Don't even get me started on the EPA (and the various other 3 letter agencies that Congress has delegated their duty to.), and I agree with you there are some instances in which there needs to be regulations that need to be done at the federal level (particularly ones like you have expressed that cause externalities ) . As far as the Carbon tax and it's uselessness if not imposed at the federal level, that same logic also applies at the world stage. If there are countries that are going to be ramping up usage then the US imposing such taxes would ultimately be useless as well and causing major economic hardship to the citizenry. Democrats like to say they are for the "working class" but legislation like that would be incredibly detrimental to us. In France a gallon of gas is up to $7.00, do you even realize the turmoil that would cause here if the price of gas was artificially raised to that level? It would devastate the working class and poor and I doubt they would sit silently so some people could feel they are saving the world.

All I really wanted to point out is out it's fine to say we should delegate much of what the U.S. government does to the states, but very difficult to get beyond theory. And there are many cases in which the reason the feds took control was because of massive and decades or more of failure by the states - civil rights is one example, pollution another. In general it's a problem in the modern economy to have 50 different regulatory regimes for companies that frequently now do business in all 50 states, so federal rules for companies that operate in all 50 states often make sense. Etc......

Bottom line is if 'conservatives' want to devolve authority back to the states, fine. Let's talk about specifics - which programs are we talking about and how will what will be IMO tinkering around the edges solve our problems of partisanship?

 

[JasperL]

I don't think impeachment would be a good idea if it were done just on party line in the house. Even if something truly egregious or criminal were to come from the Muller investigation impeachment in the Senate would be unlikely. Senate Republicans will continue to protect Trump. Even if Mueller finds a smoking gun and proves that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia it is still unlikely that 5 or 6 Republican Senators would come out against Trump. They have fallen right in line with all that Trump has wanted so far with the exception of providing 5 billion for a wall. So far at least. They want to see him reelected in 2020 so they will do all they can to protect him. The Democrats strategy should be just to damage Trump all they can politically between now and 2020. Trumps continual hammering at the credibility of the Mueller investigation has also had its intended effect on Republican Senators. I worry about how much Matthew Whittaker can obstruct the Mueller report. Even if Mueller proves that Trump obstructed justice and the weight of other possible charges, I don't think the needed number of Senate Republicans will go against Trump. Democrats just need to get his favorability rating with Americans to bottom out. If Trump is impeached by both chambers we would have Pence as President. I had rather wait till 2020 and get rid of both of them.

I'm not sure I agree. If it can be documented that Trump committed impeachable offenses, the House should IMO impeach him, and let the Senate run interference for him and let that be a major factor in the 2020 campaign. Sending it to the Senate will force all 100 Senators to go on the record - "I as Senator have looked at the charges, the documentation, and believe these acts are or are not impeachable offenses." It's good to get Senators on the record on those things.

The alternative is Senators can say any words they want, but then put nothing on the line, put nothing at risk by actually casting a binding vote for or against it. Again, depending on what comes out, history and the voters in 2020, 2022 and 2024 for some of them should be able to know definitively where those Senators stood, and we can only know that with binding yes or no VOTES on the floor of the Senate.

 

[Donc]

OOPS...backpedal backpedal backpedal.

Where did I "backpedal backpedal backpedal"?

 

[Donc]

Impeaching Trump is short sighted. If he were impeached Pence would simply pardon him for everything. The best thing to do it let him run out his 2 years, beat him in the next election, then bring every charge against him and his associates that can be proven. Whether it does or doesn't tear the country apart may or may not be true but the best thing for justice is to wait.

If he were impeached Pence would simply pardon him for everything

That would assure that pence would be at the most a one-term president.BUTT! of course, that would not be a bad thing. :2wave:

 

[Nap]

All I really wanted to point out is out it's fine to say we should delegate much of what the U.S. government does to the states, but very difficult to get beyond theory. And there are many cases in which the reason the feds took control was because of massive and decades or more of failure by the states - civil rights is one example, pollution another. In general it's a problem in the modern economy to have 50 different regulatory regimes for companies that frequently now do business in all 50 states, so federal rules for companies that operate in all 50 states often make sense. Etc......

Bottom line is if 'conservatives' want to devolve authority back to the states, fine. Let's talk about specifics - which programs are we talking about and how will what will be IMO tinkering around the edges solve our problems of partisanship?

It isn't just a "conservative" position, it is a position that anyone that believes people should have more control over their own lives. I always find it humorous that many of the same people that are likely to say "power to the people" support politicians that want centralized government and unelected bureaucrats deciding what regulations should be in place. You are right there have been failures at the state and local levels in regards to civil rights and pollution and I am in agreement with you that in many of those scenarios the federal government should step in to protect the rights of the people. As far as the 50 different regulatory regimes, that isn't the problem of the government but of the businesses themselves.

 

[Perotista]

Reluctantly, Rep. Nadler is right. We should hold on to trump as an example of how not to to govern/boogyman. BUTT! …that doesn’t prevent New York State from going after him and his son-in-law. :2wave:

<Rep. Jerry Nadler warned Monday that any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump that begin in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would need to clear an obvious partisan bar.>


<Nadler, who is to take over as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and would oversee a potential impeachment process, outlined in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a three-pronged test that he said would make for a legitimate impeachment proceeding, including that the offenses in question must be so grave and the evidence so clear that even some supporters of the president concede that impeachment is necessary.>


<Once it’s determined that a president has committed an impeachable offense, Nadler said, lawmakers need to consider whether the offense will “rise to the gravity where it’s worth putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment proceeding.”>


<He indicated that he had yet to see evidence that impeaching Trump was warranted, but said that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election as well as future investigations into Trump by Nadler’s Judiciary Committee could yield material for an impeachment proceeding.>
<“If Mueller shows us that the president has committed impeachable offenses, we'll have to make judgments as to how serious those impeachable offenses are and whether we should undertake an impeachment. If we see evidence of impeachable offenses not from Mueller the same question will arise,” he said, noting that not all crimes are considered an impeachable offense and vice versa.>


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/nadler-evidence-impeachable-offense-trump-1014702

This is pretty much what I have been saying since the day after the 2016 election when democrats and Clinton supporters brought up impeachment of Trump. If the majority of Americans aren't in favor of impeachment it won't work. It could also backfire on the democrats if impeachment is seen as a partisan vendetta against Trump.

Independents in 2018 voted Democratic, 54-42 over republicans congressional candidates. the first time that has happened since 2008. From 2010-2016, four straight congressional elections independents went with the Republicans. Impeachment perceived as a partisan political vendetta against Trump, although independents don't like him much, would probably get them back voting republican. The gains made this year could easily be lost in 2020.

 

[Myview]

I'm not sure I agree. If it can be documented that Trump committed impeachable offenses, the House should IMO impeach him, and let the Senate run interference for him and let that be a major factor in the 2020 campaign. Sending it to the Senate will force all 100 Senators to go on the record - "I as Senator have looked at the charges, the documentation, and believe these acts are or are not impeachable offenses." It's good to get Senators on the record on those things.

The alternative is Senators can say any words they want, but then put nothing on the line, put nothing at risk by actually casting a binding vote for or against it. Again, depending on what comes out, history and the voters in 2020, 2022 and 2024 for some of them should be able to know definitively where those Senators stood, and we can only know that with binding yes or no VOTES on the floor of the Senate.

We just don't know what the Mueller investigation will produce or the coming investigations in the House. The Republican house impeached Clinton along party line but he was acquitted in the Senate. He was so popular went he left
office after being impeached and serving out his full second term that he may have been reelected if he could have run for a third term. You can throw out all the rules when it comes to Trump. Nothing damages him. I would rather just wait a while to see how the investigations go. The economy seems to be slowing down also. If all the stars line up maybe we can get rid of the guy.

 

[Buzz62]

Where did I "backpedal backpedal backpedal"?

Sorry...I didn't mean you.
I meant the Dems.

 

[JasperL]

It isn't just a "conservative" position, it is a position that anyone that believes people should have more control over their own lives. I always find it humorous that many of the same people that are likely to say "power to the people" support politicians that want centralized government and unelected bureaucrats deciding what regulations should be in place. You are right there have been failures at the state and local levels in regards to civil rights and pollution and I am in agreement with you that in many of those scenarios the federal government should step in to protect the rights of the people. As far as the 50 different regulatory regimes, that isn't the problem of the government but of the businesses themselves.

Again, there's little point in talking generalities. It's like wanting a "balanced budget" which everyone is for, until we start talking about cutting spending or raising taxes, then no one actually gives a damn about balanced budgets, unless it's spending on someone ELSE'S priorities that's on the chopping block.

Bottom line is I don't know any actual specific thing you support being returned to the states to regulate. In some broad, big picture conceptual framework, I'm for, or not opposed to, states being able to establish their own rules on many questions. Other times I absolutely favor Uncle Sam setting a nationwide floor/minimum standards for certain things. The devil is always in the details, IME.