What is the point of the US impeachment process?

[bradt99]

They were searching for a reason just as much as the Republicans were searching for a reason to impeach Clinton. And in both cases, the President gave it to them. The Democrats looking for a reason to impeach Trump doesn't mean that Trump hasn't done anything wrong. It should have meant that Trump should have been even more careful, though he did a good job covering most of his tracks by using Giuliani to subvert the State department, since the Dems were out looking. Trump is being impeached because he gave the Dems a reason to impeach him.

It needs to be taken out of the constitution. The opposition party shouldn't be going after the WH if they simply don't agree with them.

 

[Harshaw]

As I already said, even if it HAD been perjury, it's unlikely almost anyone would have called for impeachment over it

You didn't say that. This is (at least) the second time in this thread alone you claimed to have said something you didn't.

(though Clinton's impeachment WAS in part 'revenge' for the impeachment of Nixon).

You make that claim, but flatly deny that Democrats have been searching for a reason to impeach Trump from the get-go.

I know; Democrats are heroes and Republicans are villains, and that's the narrative you go by. God knows you've started enough threads based on that very theme.

Hint: they all suck.

 

[Craig234]

So, perjury and obstruction of justice are OK for a President to engage in depending on what it's about?

"OK" and "not impeachable" are not the same.

You said:

"Impeachment is meant for issues affecting the state; Clinton's involved only a personal sex act."

So, I read it just fine. If you meant something else, it's not what you said.

Your (removed) bolding of the word impeachment only shows your wrong reading. Let's try a different bolding and explanation:

"Impeachment is meant for issues affecting the state; Clinton's [issues] involved only a personal sex act.

You see, Clinton's refers to what the issues - like the lying - were about, were they lies about the state's issues like using tax dollars to extort corrupt actions from another country, or about personal sex acts.

Or course, this was all already explained to you, but that reading comprehension kept you from reading that also.

No, I'm afraid you didn't. The way you worded it, you said Clinton's impeachment "involved only a personal sex act."

As I just explained, I said the ISSUES - the allegations of lying and perjury - involved only a personal sex act, not matters of state.

 

[Trump]

Hasn't worked in 4 attempts for the US though. So it goes back to my question - what is the point of the process and if it doesn't work - shouldn't it be removed from your Govt processes?



Didn't he lie and actually try to malign Lewinsky? He also if I read right, lied to a Govt inquiry. So in effect, he got away with that.



There's nothing to censure them though. Nixon could theoretically have survived but from my reading, his supporters may (if I read correctly) realised they would lose their seats because of him. If he had chosen to stay, would he have survived to see out his Presidency?

it will never be removed but probably should.

it's a meaningless asterisk that American voters have shown little interest in because the outcome is baked in

Elections best way to remove Presidents...Dems know we usually give our Presidents 2 terms unless your Jimmy Carter or G H Bush....Trump is gonna be re-elected

 

[Harshaw]

They were searching for a reason just as much as the Republicans were searching for a reason to impeach Clinton. And in both cases, the President gave it to them. The Democrats looking for a reason to impeach Trump doesn't mean that Trump hasn't done anything wrong. It should have meant that Trump should have been even more careful, though he did a good job covering most of his tracks by using Giuliani to subvert the State department, since the Dems were out looking. Trump is being impeached because he gave the Dems a reason to impeach him.

As I said:

Have I said that Trump shouldn't be impeached? No.

It's possible for Trump to have done something impeachable, AND for the Democrats to have been looking for a reason to impeach since the day after the election. In this case, both are true.

 

[Divine_Wind]

No one cares about personality and what they do in their private lives. It has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.

It does mine. Bill Clinton's womanizing and serial adultery were well known before the 1992 election. When he looked the American public in the eye and lied by saying "I didn't inhale", it tagged him as a liar. How could such a person be trusted to put the nation first?.....as it turned out, he didn't. I refused to vote for liars and sexual predators then and I continue to refuse to do it almost 30 years later. Same goes for draft-dodging cowards.

 

[Ikari]

It needs to be taken out of the constitution. The opposition party shouldn't be going after the WH if they simply don't agree with them.

Oversight of the President should not be taken out of the Constitution, that's idiotic. The opposition party isn't going after the WH merely because they don't agree with him. They're going after the WH because they withheld funds from Ukraine and pushed Ukraine to announce a politically motivated investigation against a political competitor, using back channel methods to subvert the State Department, and then obstructed Congress to hide it all. That's why they're going after the WH.

To say we should remove oversight because of that is beyond one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

 

[Craig234]

You didn't say that. This is (at least) the second time in this thread alone you claimed to have said something you didn't.

Reading comprehension makes you wrong AGAIN. What I actually said: trump "lying his first day that his inauguration crown was bigger than Obama's was serious (even if he'd said it under oath)..." Oh, look, there it is, "even if he's said it under oath". So, yes, I DID say that, and you are wrong yet again.

You make that claim, but flatly deny that Democrats have been searching for a reason to impeach Trump from the get-go.

I know; Democrats are heroes and Republicans are villains, and that's the narrative you go by. God knows you've started enough threads based on that very theme.

Hint: they all suck.

If the shoe fits. Democrats have done as I said, and Republicans ADMITTED that revenge for Nixon's impeachment was a motive for them. I correctly point out the differences and you say 'partisan'; you argue falsely the opposite differences, not realizing YOU are the partisan.

 

[Ikari]

As I said:

Fair enough. I certainly think it looks like that latter. The Dems were certainly out to find something to impeach Trump on, and Trump seems to have performed impeachable acts. They weren't going to let it slide by.

 

[westaussie]

If you can't see that the Democrats have been in search of a reason to impeach Trump since election day 2016, then it is indeed your partisan blinders preventing you from doing so.

In the first two years of Trump's presidency the Republicans had a majority in the House of Reps so how could the Democrats impeach Trump during that time?

 

[Harshaw]

"OK" and "not impeachable" are not the same.

In the context of this conversation, they are.

Your (removed) bolding of the word impeachment only shows your wrong reading. Let's try a different bolding and explanation:

"Impeachment is meant for issues affecting the state; Clinton's [issues] involved only a personal sex act.

See, you added in the word "issues" here. You didn't include that the first time.

And a President committing perjury and obstructing a federal investigation ARE "issues affecting the state." The subject matter is irrelevant.

As I just explained, I said the ISSUES

No, you didn't. Not originally. You may have meant to, but you didn't. I didn't misread you. You miswrote.

 

[Harshaw]

In the first two years of Trump's presidency the Republicans had a majority in the House of Reps so how could the Democrats impeach Trump during that time?

Did I say they could?

 

[Trump]

In the first two years of Trump's presidency the Republicans had a majority in the House of Reps so how could the Democrats impeach Trump during that time?

impeachments aren't regulated to majority rule....unless its just a partisan witch hunt

 

[Craig234]

In the context of this conversation, they are.

No, they're not. If the president called Melania a dirty slut, it's not "ok", and it's not impeachable.

See, you added in the word "issues" here. You didn't include that the first time.

Yes, I did. Let's repeat it AGAIN for you: "Impeachment is meant for issues affecting the state". Where I added it, was to take it from the implied possessive you were unable to read correctly, and make it an explicit possessive. And your entire response isn't to recognize your lack of reading comprehension, but to complain that my explanation made it clearer for you.

And a President committing perjury and obstructing a federal investigation ARE "issues affecting the state." The subject matter is irrelevant.

You can say that all lies are equal in importance; others, known as "sane people", disagree. Regardless, the fact is, that some lies are about topics that are matters of state, and some lies are about topics that are not. Given your consistent lack of reading comprehension, I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

No, you didn't. Not originally. You may have meant to, but you didn't. I didn't misread you. You miswrote.

You misread, as clearly shown, and you continue to misread that, also. This discussion has ended.

 

[bradt99]

Oversight of the President should not be taken out of the Constitution, that's idiotic. The opposition party isn't going after the WH merely because they don't agree with him. They're going after the WH because they withheld funds from Ukraine and pushed Ukraine to announce a politically motivated investigation against a political competitor, using back channel methods to subvert the State Department, and then obstructed Congress to hide it all. That's why they're going after the WH.

To say we should remove oversight because of that is beyond one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Biden is a corrupt piece of ****, why shouldn't Trump investigate him?

 

[bradt99]

It does mine. Bill Clinton's womanizing and serial adultery were well known before the 1992 election. When he looked the American public in the eye and lied by saying "I didn't inhale", it tagged him as a liar. How could such a person be trusted to put the nation first?.....as it turned out, he didn't. I refused to vote for liars and sexual predators then and I continue to refuse to do it almost 30 years later. Same goes for draft-dodging cowards.

That's your problem, not mine. I vote for someone who will put qualified conservative judges on the bench and who will cut taxes.

 

[Ikari]

Biden is a corrupt piece of ****, why shouldn't Trump investigate him?

Using a foreign government to interfere in our political elections is not a duly granted power to the President. Not sure why that isn't obvious.

 

[Harshaw]

Reading comprehension makes you wrong AGAIN. What I actually said: trump "lying his first day that his inauguration crown was bigger than Obama's was serious (even if he'd said it under oath)..." Oh, look, there it is, "even if he's said it under oath". So, yes, I DID say that, and you are wrong yet again.

Dude, you said "no one called it impeachable." You didn't say "they wouldn't have if it had been under oath."

'Serious' and 'impreachable' are two different things. trump psychotically, dishonestly, narcissistically lying his first day that his inauguration crown was bigger than Obama's was serious (even if he'd said it under oath) but basically no one called it impeachable.

Again, maybe you meant something other than what you wrote. But you wrote what you wrote. That's your responsibility, not mine.

If the shoe fits. Democrats have done as I said, and Republicans ADMITTED that revenge for Nixon's impeachment was a motive for them. I correctly point out the differences and you say 'partisan'; you argue falsely the opposite differences, not realizing YOU are the partisan.

Where did I say the Republicans didn't impeach at least partially out of "revenge" for Nixon? I didn't. I noted that you're able to see the motives when it's Republicans, but not when it's Democrats.

 

[Harshaw]

No, they're not. If the president called Melania a dirty slut, it's not "ok", and it's not impeachable.



Yes, I did. Let's repeat it AGAIN for you: "Impeachment is meant for issues affecting the state". Where I added it, was to take it from the implied possessive you were unable to read correctly, and make it an explicit possessive. And your entire response isn't to recognize your lack of reading comprehension, but to complain that my explanation made it clearer for you. Goodbye, this discussion ended.

I read what you wrote. That I didn't get what you meant is your responsibility, because it's not what you wrote.

 

[bradt99]

Using a foreign government to interfere in our political elections is not a duly granted power to the President. Not sure why that isn't obvious.

it should be if that political opponent they are running against is accused of corruption.

 

[MrWonka]

Should impeachment be removed from American govt processes if it doesn't actually serve a purpose?

Removed no, but potentially updated to fit reality certainly. Obviously you can't make it too easy or Republicans would have impeached Obama for wearing a tan suit one time. One possibility would be to add additional options for congress that might not be as hard to push through. Something like blocking a second term. Congress could potentially block a candidate from even appearing on a future ballot. Another could be forcing a recall election that would shorten a President's term. Another could simply be removing certain powers of the presidency like for instance the power to appoint judges or moving certain important executive powers to someone else temporarily.

 

[Craig234]

Any little Thing may count on Oversight matters.

The Republicans COULD have written articles of impeachment complaining about the hairstyle Clinton chose or the Jones suit, but the did not. The suit had nothing to do with his impeachment; it was simply the place and reason he could be required to testify, where he gave a misleading answer about the blowjob.

 

[Ikari]

it should be if that political opponent they are running against is accused of corruption.

Biden wasn't accused of corruption. Trump was withholding funds to Ukraine in order to get them to announce an investigation against Biden.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, but the entire investigation were republicans being partisan hack assholes as usual. Trump has admitted to crimes, continues to do so many, far different from banging an intern considering Trump is doing things that are harming this country and its reputation. And he doesn't even care and continues to say **** and do things that shows he and his cronies are willing to break the law again. Not a desperate fishing expedition Republicans love engaging in to pander to their dishonest, moronic base

But of course, the dishonest hacks are going to project and say that about this investigation, even though the facts continually show Trumps guilty

He lied.

He lied when questioned.

He lied to the American people as wagged his finger at the public.

If he had come clean I am sure the majority of the American public would have forgotten it after a short while.

But noooooo......

There is a saying.... "He will lie even if the truth benefits him"

 

[danielpalos]

The Republicans COULD have written articles of impeachment complaining about the hairstyle Clinton chose or the Jones suit, but the did not. The suit had nothing to do with his impeachment; it was simply the place and reason he could be required to testify, where he gave a misleading answer about the blowjob.

That was a personal act not about influencing public policy with private agents.