Should Trump Be Impeached?

[Gaea]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...n-on-cohen-filing-congress-will-have-to-start

John Dean, a key figure in the Watergate scandal, says allegations made against President Trump in a bombshell court filing released Friday are evidence enough for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.

Dean's comments were made in an appearance on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" shortly after the memo in a case involving Trump's former longtime attorney Michael Cohen was released by federal prosecutors in New York.

One of the most shocking revelations in the filing — which recommends prison time for Cohen, despite his cooperation with federal prosecutors and special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — is Cohen's claim that he was instructed by Trump to approve payments that violated campaign finance law.

Asked by Burnett about those illegal payments, Dean said Friday that Cohen "implicated Trump directly,” and it could lead to impeachment proceedings.

“I don’t know that this will forever disappear into some dark hole of unprosecutable presidents,” Dean, Nixon’s former White House counsel said. “I think it will resurface in the Congress. I think what this totality of today’s filings show that the House is going to have little choice the way this is going other than to start impeachment proceedings.”

Based on today's news, in which Michael Cohen implicated Trump in felony charges (campaign finance law violations), do you agree with Nixon's Counsel that Trump should be impeached?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Horrible selections on the poll there. Not voting.

 

[DiAnna]

I'm not going to vote in the poll because I don't feel any of the options are appropriate.

No, I certainly do not want Trump impeached at this time. As I have said before, in my lifetime I've seen impeachment used as a political harassment tool, which left a stain on our democracy I don't want to see repeated.

Once Mueller's investigation is complete and can be studied by congress and, hopefully, the public, I believe there will likely be several legitimate "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which articles of impeachment could be appropriately drafted, or for which he could be indicted after leaving office. Then and only then will I render a personal opinion on the topic of this poll.

 

[AlbqOwl]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...n-on-cohen-filing-congress-will-have-to-start



Based on today's news, in which Michael Cohen implicated Trump in felony charges (campaign finance law violations), do you agree with Nixon's Counsel that Trump should be impeached?

I believe nobody without evidence to back up his/her accusation, should accuse another person of terrible things and should not be able to bear false witness with impunity. One person should not have power to ruin another person's reputation, damage his/her livelihood, compromise his/her relationships, etc. with unproven allegations. Certainly the desperate remarks of a sleazy lawyer interested only in helping himself should not be considered any kind of evidence on their own merits.

Even the President of the United States should have the right to face his/her accuser, demand evidence of wrong doing, and be under equal protection of due process under the law.

Until there is proof and not just wishful accusations by the TDS bunch, there is no cause, justification, or even a reasonable hope that the President of the United States be impeached.

 

[MovingPictures]

At this point, yes, he should be impeached.

I don't say that from a partisan stand point, but an evidence based one.

Let's go through this list of Nixon's impeachable offenses and see if we draw parallels.

3.Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings

Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, James Comey, and Jeff Sessions have definitely been told to lie.

4.Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

I don't think anybody that's read the news would contest Trump has done this.

5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses

The payments to McDougal-Daniels and other payments via the National Inquirer certainly were illegally paid for their silence.

6.Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...gence-michael-flynn-james-comey-a7776431.html

A day or two after the 22 March meeting, the President followed up with a phone call to Coats, according to officials familiar with the discussions. In the call, Trump asked the DNI to issue a public statement denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Again, Coats decided not to act on the request.

Trump similarly approached Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, to ask him to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign, as the Post previously reported, according to current and former officials. Like Coats, Rogers refused to comply with the president's request.

Using the DIA and NSA to help end federal and Congressional investigations sounds remarkable similar to Nixon using Haldeman to request the CIA to throw the FBI off of Watergate - it's the same thing.

7.disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/manafort-lawyer-trump-cooperation.html

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, the president’s onetime campaign chairman, repeatedly briefed President Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after Mr. Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, according to one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and two other people familiar with the conversations.

The arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with the special counsel’s office when prosecutors discovered it after Mr. Manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. Some legal experts speculated that it was a bid by Mr. Manafort for a presidential pardon even as he worked with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in hopes of a lighter sentence.

8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.

This line was also used by Starr relating Clinton's public statements regarding to the Lewinsky case.

 

[MovingPictures]

Continued.

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/politics/dowd-flynn-manafort-pardons/index.html

President Donald Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, floated the possibility last year with lawyers for former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort that the President might issue pardons for both men, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing three individuals with knowledge of the discussions.

The conversations happened as special counsel Robert Mueller "was building cases against both men," the Times reported, which raises "questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation" into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations [B]for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office;[/B] he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/donald-trump-don-mcgahn-clinton-comey/index.html

President Donald Trump on multiple occasions raised with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Matt Whitaker, who was then-chief of staff to Jeff Sessions, whether the Justice Department was progressing in investigating Hillary Clinton, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The President also wanted his previous White House counsel, Don McGahn, to ask the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton on numerous occasions, but McGahn rebuffed doing that, the source said.

I'm too lazy to look all night for it, but Trump also Tweeted this desire.

Let's not forget that much like Clinton, Trump has used chicanery to delay his answers to the special counsel so that's another point for obstruction. And lets not forget about his coaching of the false public statements by Don Jr regarding the Trump Tower meeting.

 

[Exquisitor]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...n-on-cohen-filing-congress-will-have-to-start

Based on today's news, in which Michael Cohen implicated Trump in felony charges (campaign finance law violations), do you agree with Nixon's Counsel that Trump should be impeached?

No, I don't think paying off porn stars with Campaign funds should get him impeached, he was probably just joking by being a situation artist like Obama.

How about anything to get Trump impeached.

You dummies voted for him so you get him for four years.

Unless he repeals his tax plan, then you might have him for eight and then Ivanka because she's got the chart to win.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/332646-predicting-us-presidential-elections.html

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...39754-trump-throws-reverse-and-pays-debt.html

 

[Redress]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...n-on-cohen-filing-congress-will-have-to-start



Based on today's news, in which Michael Cohen implicated Trump in felony charges (campaign finance law violations), do you agree with Nixon's Counsel that Trump should be impeached?

It is too early in the process to impeach. If solid proof(hint: allegations are not solid proof) of criminal activity by Trump is shown, then and only then should impeachment be considered.

 

[molten_dragon]

Not voting in the poll since the options are highly biased.

And no, I don't believe Trump should be impeached at this time. I would prefer to wait for Mueller to finish his investigation and get the full picture rather than jumping the gun.

 

[uptower]

I also can't vote because none of the options fits my view - all too absolutist.

Hard for me to say 'based on today's news' when we've seen this unfolding for a long time. If a proper case can be made for obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, then yes, the president should be impeached. Today's news doesn't seem to change that. It just adds potential further criminality that needs to be investigated. These may be impeachable as well, but the obstruction one looks more obvious.

 

[Gaea]

I don't understand why people are talking about waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude. This thread isn't about Mueller's investigation. This thread is about Michael Cohen stating that Donald Trump committed two felonies (campaign finance law violations).

If you don't think that those two felonies justify impeachment proceedings beginning, I would love to understand your perspective on why you believe Trump should be allowed to break campaign finance laws (felonies) with impunity.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not going to vote in the poll because I don't feel any of the options are appropriate.

No, I certainly do not want Trump impeached at this time. As I have said before, in my lifetime I've seen impeachment used as a political harassment tool, which left a stain on our democracy I don't want to see repeated.

Once Mueller's investigation is complete and can be studied by congress and, hopefully, the public, I believe there will likely be several legitimate "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which articles of impeachment could be appropriately drafted, or for which he could be indicted after leaving office. Then and only then will I render a personal opinion on the topic of this poll.

In addition, I don't think Trump should face impeachment until a real investigation into the corrupt Obama administration is completed...including public access to the mountains of information that remains redacted and/or simply not revealed.

 

[DiAnna]

In addition, I don't think Trump should face impeachment until a real investigation into the corrupt Obama administration is completed...including public access to the mountains of information that remains redacted and/or simply not revealed.

That is idiotic.

 

[Mycroft]

That is idiotic.

Okay.

 

[cpwill]

I'm not going to vote in the poll because I don't feel any of the options are appropriate.

No, I certainly do not want Trump impeached at this time. As I have said before, in my lifetime I've seen impeachment used as a political harassment tool, which left a stain on our democracy I don't want to see repeated.

Once Mueller's investigation is complete and can be studied by congress and, hopefully, the public, I believe there will likely be several legitimate "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which articles of impeachment could be appropriately drafted, or for which he could be indicted after leaving office. Then and only then will I render a personal opinion on the topic of this poll.

Pretty much this.

I would add, however, that the filing seems to suggest pretty hard that Trump engaged in the same kind of behavior (namely, pressuring people to make false statements under oath in order to protect him) that made up part of the case against both Nixon and Clinton. I find it more likely than not that there will be room within what comes out for Impeachment within precedent.

 

[Oborosen]

As of now, no. I have seen no indication that Trump will be impeached as of yet. No more than I will see that any other politician will actually get in trouble for such believed, finance law violations.

 

[Felis Leo]

I don't understand why people are talking about waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude. This thread isn't about Mueller's investigation. This thread is about Michael Cohen stating that Donald Trump committed two felonies (campaign finance law violations).

If you don't think that those two felonies justify impeachment proceedings beginning, I would love to understand your perspective on why you believe Trump should be allowed to break campaign finance laws (felonies) with impunity.

Well, Gaea, considering Michael Cohen plead guilty to lying to Congress, would you stake anything on the absolute veracity of his statements? Or are you only convinced that he is telling the unvarnished truth when his statements are in your political favor?

 

[rickc]

Trump will not be impeached

 

[Airyaman]

I don't understand why people are talking about waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude. This thread isn't about Mueller's investigation. This thread is about Michael Cohen stating that Donald Trump committed two felonies (campaign finance law violations).

If you don't think that those two felonies justify impeachment proceedings beginning, I would love to understand your perspective on why you believe Trump should be allowed to break campaign finance laws (felonies) with impunity.

Not a Trump supporter. At all.

I suspect Trump probably did break the law. I believe he is probably guilty of several crimes beyond this from his business dealings in the past.

That said, until we see more, I don't think there is enough just yet to impeach him.

I wouldn't mind one bit if he would resign however. Don't care for Pence either but I don't think he would make the US a laughing stock around the world.

 

[Irwin Corey]

I don't think he will be impeached. But, I think we're approaching the point where his miss-administration will no longer be able to govern. As more and more criminal behavior, that took place before he ran, while he was running and during his presidency, is revealed he will choose to resign.

 

[Crosscheck]

Trump will not be impeached

Quite accurate. It would take a two-thirds majority vote of the senate.

Since the Republicans control the Senate it will not happen.

Even by some crazy event he was to be impeached it would only mean his lapdog Pence would move in.
It would all be a waste of time and energy.

 

[Divine_Wind]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...n-on-cohen-filing-congress-will-have-to-start



Based on today's news, in which Michael Cohen implicated Trump in felony charges (campaign finance law violations), do you agree with Nixon's Counsel that Trump should be impeached?

IF Cohen's charges are true, then yes, Trump should be impeached. I didn't vote because there isn't any evidence available to cause me to think he should be impeached. Maybe Mueller will provide more facts when he's done with his investigation and presents it to Congress.

 

[ataraxia]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...n-on-cohen-filing-congress-will-have-to-start



Based on today's news, in which Michael Cohen implicated Trump in felony charges (campaign finance law violations), do you agree with Nixon's Counsel that Trump should be impeached?

Too soon to ask this question. That’s why I didn’t vote either. There is a lot of information which Mueller has, but which we still don’t know. We need to wait until all that information becomes available.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I don't think he will be impeached. But, I think we're approaching the point where his miss-administration will no longer be able to govern. As more and more criminal behavior, that took place before he ran, while he was running and during his presidency, is revealed he will choose to resign.

A good point; rather than drag out all the Republican dirty laundry, a group of Republicans can approach Trump and tell him "Resign or be impeached and face jail time".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Wasn't the 2008 Obama campaign also found to have violated campaign finance laws? While the ($280K?) hush money may (or may not) have been a campaign related expense it is less than the FEC fine amount ($375K?) alone levied on the Obama/DNC for ($1.8M?) such alleged FEC reporting violations during the 2008 Obama POTUS campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

As far as I know, there is no limit on what a candidate may contribute to (or spend on) their own campaign - what, exactly, is the alleged impeachable offense? BTW, your poll choices truly suck.