Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

Correct.  The July 20, 1787, comments by Virginia delegate James Madison―later the fourth president of the United States―concisely summarize the rationale that resulted in the impeachment clauses which ultimately were adopted by the U.S. constitutional convention:

There are other aspects of the impeachment provisions in the constitution that are arguable, but the determination by the convention delegates to create a short-circuit mechanism between elections to remove an executive who abused his power really is not open to reasonable dispute.

Chris No one's arguing impeachment doesn;t exist in the Constitution.  The argument is that it should not be done for political reasons but tied to specific serious crimes like Treason and Bribery and other similarly serious crimes and misdemeanors.  The fact that the Trump impeachment was voted along party lines and the Senate trial will most certainly be voted along party lines as well, is exactly what the founders did not want.  Political decisions about a president should be left to the public in their vote every four years.  It;'s only if Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes are done that they wanted Congress to step, in.  In that case, such as with Nixon, both parties wanted him out.  This whole process, since the beginning as Pelosi say when the impeachment process was started by Democrats, reeks of politics in search of a crime.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes Pelosi stated that they;ve been working on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, long before Ukraine.

No, that's a lie.

She was referring to the Mueller investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 elections investigation, not an impeachment.

[Alan Klein]

How about, asking a leader of a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political opponent of his own? And to investigate an already debunked theory (about an non-existing server in Ukraine), a fiction that was created by Russia, as a diversion. And later asking 'China' to also engage into an investigation.

I am not sure whether withholding a support package approved by Congress, in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a political opponent (Biden was mentioned, corruption wasn't), amounts to bribery (according to local law). The fact that (most of?) the aid was later released (after the whistleblower's revelations), is immaterial to it being used as a Quid pro Quo.

Besides the esteemed opinion of others, how do YOU feel about that?

The Bidens are crooks and should be investigated.  Biden again announced he will not appear at the trial if subpoenaed by the Senate.  He must be worried.  How would he answer qusesions like: "Did you know that Burisma was being investigated by the prosecutor you forced to be fired?"  "How much money was your son being paid by Burisma on a monthly basis?  How much did Burisma pay him over the years? ""  "Did you ever discuss Burisma and their corruption problems with your son?" "How many times did you contact the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor?"  "DId your son ever give you any of the money he made from Burisma?" "Did you ever meet with any executives from Burisma with or without your son?  "Did you ever meet with the executives from the CHinese corporation that you son was paid?"  "What did you son do for these corporations?"  "What were your son's qualification in the Burisma oil industry?  "Did you son speak Ukrainian". "What were you son's exact responsibilities working for Burisma?"

Finally, "How will your appearance here today to answer these questions affect your chances to win the Democrat nomination for President?" 

[Alan Klein]

No, that's a lie.

She was referring to the Muller investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 elections investigation, not an impeachment.

That was a Freudian slip on her part.  The Democrats intended to use the Mueller investigation as the reason to impeach.  It's just that Mueller did not go along with their game.  But their intent to impeach was there from the day he took the office of president, probably earlier when he won.  Anyone who does not realize that has been out to lunch for three years. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That was a Freudian slip on her part.

No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.

[Alan Klein]

No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.

It's not fake news.  Here's Pelosi saying they've been trying to impeach since the Mueller investigation began.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/video-shows-pelosi-admitting-trying-impeach-trump-2-1-2-years

[Alan Klein]

Here's another video showing Pelosi bragging how they've worked 2 1/2 years to get an impeachment.  It appears Bart that you're the one who's propagating fake news lies.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1204127423975047171

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.

Oh, for God’s sake, this is the question and her answer:

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not surprised (if a fan of Trump's 'style' of governing), but good to know you are okay with corruption of government.

No, I am not good with corruption. I just don’t see it as corruption.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Oh, for God’s sake, this is the question and her answer:

And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

[Alan Klein]

And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Now you're really making up untruths.   Pelosi and the Democrats were waiting for  Mueller to indicate Trump colluded so they could impeach.   Then when that didn't work,  they hoped to use obstruction of justice to impeach him
  That fell apart when Mueller testified before Congress.   That's when the Democrats came up with the Ukraine charge.   2 1/2 years Pelosi was working on impeachment.  Just like she said.   You're denying what she admits.   That's why anyone who is fair about this whole thing,  sees it as a political act trying to find a crime to justify it.

[Chris Kern]

Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Interesting suggestion.  The point is certainly arguable.  In a forum composed of legal scholars and historians, all thoroughly familiar with the contemporaneous documents on the drafting and adoption of the U.S. constitution as well as the Anglo-American precedents on impeachment, it might be a subject for a lively theoretical debate.

[JoeKitchen]

And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Bart, these are ludicrous statements. 

Say what you will about the Mueller investigation, of which there are plenty of criticisms (brought to light by the IG report), you can not criticizes it for moving too fast.  However, the Ukraine inquiry was criticized repeatably for being too fast of an investigation. 

So, during this interview, which took place a couple of weeks ago, when the interviewer brought up the criticisms of the speed being too fast, the comment directly related to the Ukraine investigation, not the Mueller investigation. 

Pelosi, whether she realized it or not, confirmed with her answer that none of this has been about protecting the constitution or the country or any specific actions, but about trying to impeach Trump at any cost.  The Mueller and Ukraine investigations are not separate events (to the Dems), but both are part of a larger agenda of getting the president removed.  That is what her 22 months answer confirmed. 

It has been nothing but political. 

Second, the idea that the collusion investigation had nothing to do with impeachment just because Trump was not in office yet is equally absurd.  This was initiated as an insurance policy against Trump in case he won that could be turned into an impeachable offense.  Storkz and Paige confirmed as much.  Not to mention, many on the left have been calling for impeach literally since the day after the election, before Trump took office.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/   The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.

[Craig Lamson]

Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/   The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.

I was just wondering...did I miss in that article you posted, any discussion of the economic conditions that surrounded the first three years of each President's term?

If I didn't miss it, don't you think that might be a factor in the percentages of growth under comparison?

[RSL]

Well said, Craig. That's exactly the point. Goldhammer won't admit it, but the way he put the argument it's nothing but fake news. Actually, Clinton did a pretty good job on the economy after he was forced to by the Republicans. Obama came in at the bottom of a crash. The economy didn't have any direction to go but up.

[Alan Klein]

Interesting suggestion.  The point is certainly arguable.  In a forum composed of legal scholars and historians, all thoroughly familiar with the contemporaneous documents on the drafting and adoption of the U.S. constitution as well as the Anglo-American precedents on impeachment, it might be a subject for a lively theoretical debate.

The Constitution does not put a time frame around the crime.  If a president took a bribe from a foreign country prior to his election as president, it still would be grounds for impeachment after his inauguration.

Impeachment for crimes may also be available after he no longer holds the position as president.  ALthough there might be more legal objection to this process.  After all, part of the removal process is to prevent the person from ever holding office again.  Impeachment and conviction could remove that possibility. 

[Chris Kern]

Impeachment for crimes may also be available after he no longer holds the position as president. 

Only individuals who are currently in office may be impeached.

[Alan Klein]

Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/   The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.

As others have said, Obama came in at the beginning of a recession when the market could only go up.   However, I think we all are also giving Trump too much credit.  So I agree with you there.  We have a trillion dollar deficit this year.  We';re printing $60 billion a month again in phoney greenbacks.  The national debt has grown by trillions in three years since he became president.  All this deficit spending has pushed the GDP up and created an illusion the economy is doing great.  However,  all we're doing is kicking the can and day of reckoning down the road.  The next recession is going to be  a beaut.

I don;t know how many remember the 1970's into the 1980's when we had stagflation, 12% interest rates, and high unemployment?  A $100 in 1970 was to be worth only $45 by 1982.  That's a 55% inflation rate in 12 years.  While that might be good for government debt, it's a disaster for people who have money in the bank, assets, and salaries which took a huge hit in value.  We're setting ourselves up for something as bad, maybe worse.  Trump, the king of debt, could declare bankruptcy, and get bailed out.  But what will America do? 

[Alan Klein]

Only individuals who are currently in office may be impeached.

Has that ever been tested?