Board 8 > Should Trump be impeached?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Discuss! Please try to be unbiased, so no stuff like "yeah he should be impeached because he's terrible lol."
---

yeah he should be impeached because he's terrible lmao
---

Is being terrible grounds for impeachment?
---

Absolutely

Hes completely unfit for office and has, at minimum, clearly obstructed justice.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Absolutely

Hes completely unfit for office and has, at minimum, clearly obstructed justice.

then why isn't he?
---

no, simply because it wouldn't work and it would fuel his base in 2020

he's certainly committed enough acts worthy of impeachment

You cant impeach him

Mr Lasastryke posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Absolutely

Hes completely unfit for office and has, at minimum, clearly obstructed justice.

then why isn't he?

Because the assumption is that Republicans in the Senate will not convict regardless of how damning the evidence against him is, and some Democrats (notably including Pelosi) believe that impeachment without removal would backfire politically, no matter how warranted by the facts (I strongly disagree).
---

Yes. There is strong supporting evidence that there is, at least, a case for Obstruction of Justice and several violations of the Emoluments clause. Regardless if the Senate would convict, it is not unfair to say he should be brought to trial where evidence may be presented.
---

colliding posted...

no, simply because it wouldn't work and it would fuel his base in 2020

he's certainly committed enough acts worthy of impeachment

his base is already fueled

it's literally the only thing he does with his presidency, literally no votes that aren't already cemented for Trump are going to be pissed off at dems for holding impeachment against someone so widely understood to be corrupt even if those people don't know if they support impeachment themselves yet (which is largely based on the idiocy of politicians and media to frame it as a question of political strategy than just holding the office accountable)

As for "it wouldn't work", it's a hell of a lot better option to bring it up to the public that largely passes on updates, and to get everyone on record than it is to just normalize this administration. If impeachment hearings don't come up for Trump, the standards are only going to get much much worse as parties realize you can do anything you want for a whole term and there's nothing to worry about.
---

If Trump is impeached he will be acquitted and the precedent will be set that all of the things Trump has done are acceptable and normal. If you don't want to normalize it, don't impeach until you can win a trial.
---

Yes because the FBI thinks he should, and NOT because of the opinions of liberals.
---

Yes, because if he's not it opens the door for him to do anything -- and for any future president to do anything they want without fear of repercussions.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If Trump is impeached he will be acquitted and the precedent will be set that all of the things Trump has done are acceptable and normal. If you don't want to normalize it, don't impeach until you can win a trial.

Not impeaching Trump also sets the precedent that all of the things Trump has done are acceptable, though.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

colliding posted...

no, simply because it wouldn't work and it would fuel his base in 2020

he's certainly committed enough acts worthy of impeachment

his base is already fueled

it's literally the only thing he does with his presidency, literally no votes that aren't already cemented for Trump are going to be pissed off at dems for holding impeachment against someone so widely understood to be corrupt even if those people don't know if they support impeachment themselves yet (which is largely based on the idiocy of politicians and media to frame it as a question of political strategy than just holding the office accountable)

As for "it wouldn't work", it's a hell of a lot better option to bring it up to the public that largely passes on updates, and to get everyone on record than it is to just normalize this administration. If impeachment hearings don't come up for Trump, the standards are only going to get much much worse as parties realize you can do anything you want for a whole term and there's nothing to worry about.

it's already been normalized- there's literally nothing democrats can do about this.

impeachment before the second term will certainly be a "you should have aimed for the head" type situation

Yes. It won't happen, but it should.

For what? For not starting a war with Iran? (for now)
---

Vlado posted...

For what? For not starting a war with Iran? (for now)

apparently he has obstructed justice, as LotM said.
---

SockoressKnight posted...

Is being terrible grounds for impeachment?

If it was Dubya wouldn't have got his second Dubya, so I doubt Donny gets the boot like that.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

For what? For not starting a war with Iran? (for now)

apparently he has obstructed justice, as LotM said.

I am fairly confident that the US Supreme Court would rule that it is impossible, as a matter of law, for a sitting president to commit obstruction of justice as to a federal investigation. This has been settled law in England and the US for centuries - the maxim is "no indictment can lie against the king, they all going in his name."

The US constitution creates the remedy of impeachment to remove a president, whereas revolution was and is the only remedy to remove a British king.
---

Its so stupid that the president is above the law. Who thought this was a good idea, ever? How can someone be investigated for cheating to get their position, not just cheating but treason and colluding with a foreign power, obstruct that investigation into himself at every turn before it turns out that yes, it was true, but we cant actually do anything because even if its a fraud that he has the position he just has it now according to the rules. He invalidated the rules but we cant. For the last years we havent had a legitimate president. The US government is a joke.

There are multiple layers to this question

On one layer- in the perfect world he should be impeached. He should be impeached for multiple reasons. One, because he is breaking the law in multiple ways, and is actively taking bribes. Two, because he is just a bad and corrupt president in general. He is too easily influenced by the last person he heard speak, which is usually some random person on FOX, but at other times is a hostile foreign leader. I would say that he is objectively the worst in recent memory, but he hasn't actually started an unnecessary war (yet), which means in some ways he is not as bad as 43

On another layer, it is common knowledge that the Republican party, led by McConnell, stands too much to lose were they to remove him from office. Even were the house to impeach, the Senate (which is majority republican) in this environment will never ever remove 45.

So democratic leadership is playing this game where they have given up on impeachment, but want to do everything in their power to educate the voting population as to what is going on.

I don't know what the right thing for the Democrats to do is
---

red sox 777 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

For what? For not starting a war with Iran? (for now)

apparently he has obstructed justice, as LotM said.

I am fairly confident that the US Supreme Court would rule that it is impossible, as a matter of law, for a sitting president to commit obstruction of justice as to a federal investigation.

Hey, so no shame in not knowing something, but this part of what you said is factually incorrect

There is nothing in the law that says sitting presidents are immune from prosecution.

It is just the current policy of the DoJ not to prosecute. It's not a law, just something the DoJ decided during the scramble during Nixon. And if the proper office doesn't prosecute someone, they don't go to trial
---

banananor posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

For what? For not starting a war with Iran? (for now)

apparently he has obstructed justice, as LotM said.

I am fairly confident that the US Supreme Court would rule that it is impossible, as a matter of law, for a sitting president to commit obstruction of justice as to a federal investigation.

Hey, so no shame in not knowing something, but this part of what you said is factually incorrect

There is nothing in the law that says sitting presidents are immune from prosecution.

It is just the current policy of the DoJ not to prosecute. It's not a law, just something the DoJ decided during the scramble during Nixon. And if the proper office doesn't prosecute someone, they don't go to trial

I didn't say there was a law giving presidents immunity. I am expressing my opinion that the Supreme Court would hold that presidents are immune from federal prosecution, for the specific crime of obstruction, based on constitutional principles. Namely, the constitutional gives all of the federal law enforcement power of the United States to the president, so that any federal investigation is done ultimately at the direction of the president. He has full discretion to investigate or not investigate as he chooses, so how could he obstruct an investigation when he has the absolute discretion to discontinue it?

As for whether the president could be prosecuted for say, shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, I would say that probably you can do that because he isn't doing that in the course of discharging the duties of his office. But it wouldn't stop him from being president and, of course, he could order the DOJ not to prosecute him. Effectively it would have to be a state prosecution to succeed.
---

Based on my experience, it is absolutely possible for the president or CEO of a company to obstruct the proper functioning of said company

I was witness to one being forced to step down because of it
---

Is the police chief eliminated from being a suspect in a case in his district?
---

banananor posted...

Based on my experience, it is absolutely possible for the president or CEO of a company to obstruct the proper functioning of said company

I was witness to one being forced to step down because of it

The CEO is not the person ultimately in charge of the company. The US President is more analogous to the sole director of a corporation. It's virtually impossible to win a lawsuit against a board, which just has to say its actions were done for good of the shareholders based on its business judgment. Your remedy as an unhappy shareholder is to vote to elect a new board, or sell your shares.
---

He should at least be censured.
---

It makes zero logical sense for Presidents to be immune to obstruction when President Clinton was literally impeached for perjury and obstruction.

Nobody take this Red Sox bait
---

banananor posted...

Is the police chief eliminated from being a suspect in a case in his district?

No, but he won't be allowed to investigate his own case. Some other authority will be called on to do so. But in the case of the US President, there is no other federal authority authorized by the Constitution.

I think maybe a "runaway grand jury" could do it. Unfortunately grand juries have been neutered of their independent investigation powers in practice, and by statute from the 60s apparently federal grand juries can't charge someone with a crime without a government prosecutor signing off on it anymore.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It makes zero logical sense for Presidents to be immune to obstruction when President Clinton was literally impeached for perjury and obstruction.

Nobody take this Red Sox bait

President Clinton was acquitted of both charges. And that was an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, which is completely separate from prosecution in the courts. Congress can impeach for eating steak well done if it wanted. It doesn't have to be a crime prosecutable in the regular courts.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

yeah he should be impeached because he's terrible lmao

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It makes zero logical sense for Presidents to be immune to obstruction when President Clinton was literally impeached for perjury and obstruction.

Nobody take this Red Sox bait

Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political one. (And while Nixon resigned before he was formally impeached, obstruction was also in the articles drafted for his impeachment)

red sox is sticking to a strictly legal analysis... albeit conflating it with the political one whereupon it all falls apart.

The House can impeach for whatever it likes ("high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a literal statement in a "there must exist a statutory felony and/or misdemeanor crime" sense), provided it can achieve a majority of congresspeople to vote in favor of it. The trial in the Senate, despite being overseen by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, is still a political process and not a legal one -- that is to say, being acquitted in the Senate would not then provide you double jeopardy protection if the judicial system then charged you with the same charges.

Consequently, impeachment proceedings and the results thereof have no precedence in the legal sense which is the real bait in what red sox has been saying.

The legal question of whether or not a President can't be held to obstruct a federal investigation is, I suspect, a bit murkier on Constitutional grounds because the Constitution didn't exactly plan for... a lot of things. However, this question would only really be relevant if the Department of Justice actually tried to charge a President with obstruction which is not a scenario on anyone's board and never has been. FWIW, in his confirmation hearing, even Barr said a president could commit obstruction. IDK what SCOTUS (particularly this SCOTUS) would say on the matter and I'm not a lawyer but I think they could find that a president can obstruct justice if corrupt intent or something similar could be found (i.e. "firing Comey" or even "firing Mueller" would be insufficient on its own because Constitutionally the President has that authority, you would need to demonstrate the intent behind the firings as having corrupt purpose)
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

How can someone be investigated for cheating to get their position, not just cheating but treason and colluding with a foreign powe

Do people still unironically believe this?
---

Republicans: "I believe the job should go to the person most qualified for the job"
Also republicans: voted for a person who had never done anything as a government official over a person who had been secretary of state.
---

TomNook posted...

PerfectChaosZ posted...

How can someone be investigated for cheating to get their position, not just cheating but treason and colluding with a foreign powe

Do people still unironically believe this?

Believe what?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nobody take this Red Sox bait

Oopz sorry
---

SockoressKnight posted...

Is being terrible grounds for impeachment?

Holys*** dude. Long time no see. How ya been dude?
---

banananor posted...

Two, because he is just a bad and corrupt president in general. He is too easily influenced by the last person he heard speak, which is usually some random person on FOX, but at other times is a hostile foreign leader. I would say that he is objectively the worst in recent memory, but he hasn't actually started an unnecessary war (yet), which means in some ways he is not as bad as 43

see, i'm not entirely comfortable with this argument. while i'm obviously not a fan of trump, i'd personally say GWB was just as bad or worse (albeit for entirely different reasons). should he have been impeached as well? just seems weird to impeach every president who's not doing a good job.
---

Yeah, I think a big reason the GOP didn't impeach Obama is it would look bad to impeach 2 Democratic presidents in a row.
---