-
The problem is practically anything the President does can cause obstruction. If Trump looks at you with the old stink eye that's a legit threat because he just happens to be the most powerful man in the world. Trump sneezes and the World has to hold its breath and see what happens. Look at my country, Canada. Our Uber-Liberal self confessed feminist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in much deeper doo doo because of some [I]third party extremely veiled suggestions[/I] that were made during a bribery case involving a large Canadian engineering firm.
In addition I'd just like to give some friendly advice to the Democratic Party supporters, stop trying to impeach the guy. Step back, work on a strong grass roots network, find a bullet proof nominee and let Trump hang himself. If he gets impeached that will mobilize the Republicans like nothing ever before and their next candidate [B]will[/B] win the 2020 election.
-
[QUOTE=Mr.Majestic;4315373]
In addition I'd just like to give some friendly advice to the Democratic Party supporters, stop trying to impeach the guy. Step back, work on a strong grass roots network, find a bullet proof nominee and let Trump hang himself. If he gets impeached that will mobilize the Republicans like nothing ever before and their next candidate [B]will[/B] win the 2020 election.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is why impeaching Clinton (who was a better president and was guilty of much less) led to the resounding Gore victory in 2000.
-
[QUOTE=Mr.Majestic;4315373]In addition I'd just like to give some friendly advice to the Democratic Party supporters, stop trying to impeach the guy. Step back, work on a strong grass roots network, find a bullet proof nominee and let Trump hang himself. If he gets impeached that will mobilize the Republicans like nothing ever before and their next candidate [B]will[/B] win the 2020 election.[/QUOTE]
I agree with all that. Ignoring the fact an impeachment effort wouldn't get past the Republican controlled Senate as they're practically under orders to protect Trump at all cost, such a move by Dems would galvanize Trump's base and make them even more determined to see their god emperor reelected.
-
[QUOTE=Mr.Majestic;4315373]The problem is practically anything the President does can cause obstruction. If Trump looks at you with the old stink eye that's a legit threat because he just happens to be the most powerful man in the world.[/QUOTE]
Trump did not "look at people with the old stink eye" -- he attempted to work with the Russians to subvert our democracy and obstructed justice in an effort to cover it up, and realistically speaking, he (and Putin) will only continue down this path if they are not held accountable for their actions.
Whether or not he should be impeached for those actions is another question entirely, but let's not downplay the gravity of what his [B]illegal[/B] actions have done to diminish the democratic stability of America and the world as whole.
The reason this keeps happening (Nixon/Watergate, Reagan/Iran-Contra, Bush/Iraq War and Torture) is[B] because no one holds these people accountable for their crimes.[/B]
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4315177]
In any normal example, nothing like that would happen.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what you mean by that?
-
[QUOTE=PaulBullion;4315392]Yes, that is why impeaching Clinton (who was a better president and was guilty of much less) led to the resounding Gore victory in 2000.[/QUOTE]
But they weren't successful with Bill Clinton. It was a "nice try ya sore losers" type situation. If the Dems manage to get a sitting president out due to alleged misconduct it would be the end of the world. It would be 1000 times worse than when Hilary was talking about "deplorables" and Democrats were joking about "flyover" states. Every living breathing Republican would make sure to cast his vote in the next election because he would feel that there basically was a coup d'etat.
Going for a putsch will bite them in the arse, wait, strategize and make sure you win the next election.
-
[QUOTE=Mr.Majestic;4315605]But they weren't successful with Bill Clinton. It was a "nice try ya sore losers" type situation. If the Dems manage to get a sitting president out due to alleged misconduct it would be the end of the world. It would be 1000 times worse than when Hilary was talking about "deplorables" and Democrats were joking about "flyover" states. Every living breathing Republican would make sure to cast his vote in the next election because he would feel that there basically was a coup d'etat.
Going for a putsch will bite them in the arse, wait, strategize and make sure you win the next election.[/QUOTE]
Churn my stomach tho it does, I have to agree. Unless an investigation surfaces something on the order of a child's severed head along with an indisputable video showing Trump wielding the hacksaw, the backlash potential from an impeachment is immense. Even with such evidence, the risk would be substantial. It's not enough to take down Trump, we must guard against the more competent fascists that he's empowered who hunger to succeed him.
-
I so disagree, Trumps support has already declined since Thursday. And the House investigations haven't even begun.The GOP is a minority Party. 24% of voters. The outraged voters who see Trump getting away with crimes because the GOP is too craven to act will be much larger.
America voted against him in 2016, again in 2018 in bigger numbers, a Trump laid bare to the light of day will not turn out voters to support him.
-
[QUOTE=Mr.Majestic;4315605]But they weren't successful with Bill Clinton. It was a "nice try ya sore losers" type situation. If the Dems manage to get a sitting president out due to alleged misconduct it would be the end of the world. It would be 1000 times worse than when Hilary was talking about "deplorables" and Democrats were joking about "flyover" states. Every living breathing Republican would make sure to cast his vote in the next election because he would feel that there basically was a coup d'etat.
Going for a putsch will bite them in the arse, wait, strategize and make sure you win the next election.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1119677711109230594"]Contrary to conventional wisdom, impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998 didn’t actually backfire on Republicans. [/URL]
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;4315906]I so disagree, Trumps support has already declined since Thursday. And the House investigations haven't even begun.The GOP is a minority Party. 24% of voters. The outraged voters who see Trump getting away with crimes because the GOP is too craven to act will be much larger.
America voted against him in 2016, again in 2018 in bigger numbers, a Trump laid bare to the light of day will not turn out voters to support him.[/QUOTE]
Also: The turnout at his inauguration showed that Russian bots don't really pose a threat in any form of street protest or civil war.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4315175]Up for debate. I'd agree with "Something You Can Try To Get A Conviction On..." This certainly doen't look like it constituted a clear felony offense.
[URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/justice-dept-wont-retry-john-edwards-077398"]https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/justice-dept-wont-retry-john-edwards-077398[/URL]
[B]Edit:[/B]
Another piece from the time...
[URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/how-the-edwards-prosecution-stumbled-076942"]https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/how-the-edwards-prosecution-stumbled-076942[/URL]
So, yeah. It seems like there is a precedent for that you can take a run a getting a felony conviction on this sort of thing.
On the other hand, the results in court don't exactly spell out "These Things Are Felony Violations..." clearly.[/QUOTE]
It's only "up for debate" if you're pedantic, or just seem to have a habit of making excuses for one party while holding another's feet to the fire for... reasons.
-
[QUOTE=worstblogever;4316050]It's only "up for debate" if you're pedantic, or just seem to have a habit of making excuses for one party while holding another's feet to the fire for... reasons.[/QUOTE]
Or...
The example that you gave is just a pretty lousy example of there being an actual precedent.
In that example, the Feds chose not to retry a Democrat on four counts that the jury couldn't decide on(only one holdout for "Guilty", I believe) and had to accept a vote to acquit on the fifth felony count.
If you want to look at that and see "Precedent", your call.
Meanwhile, actual reality doesn't reflect that we could count on a Democrat or a Republican being convicted of this sort of thing.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;4315509]I don't know what you mean by that?[/QUOTE]
In any example that wasn't some sort of a special Federal investigation, a person's accusers would have a higher legal bar to get over before out "Fire A Gun..." example.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4316188]In any example that wasn't some sort of a special Federal investigation, a person's accusers would have a higher legal bar to get over before out "Fire A Gun..." example.[/QUOTE]
Oh I see. Okay.
Lying to investigators or trying to stop an investigation, no matter the origin is a clear crime. One Mueller thinks Trump committed. He just doesn't have the power to indict according to the DOJ.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;4316212]Oh I see. Okay.
Lying to investigators or trying to stop an investigation, no matter the origin is a clear crime. One Mueller thinks Trump committed. He just doesn't have the power to indict according to the DOJ.[/QUOTE]
Sure.
That would be why they actually came up with an indictment on folks for lying.
That said...
If it was a normal old investigation of "X" that wasn't going anywhere, they aren't just going to be able to set up a "Y" situation where the "Shooting" scenario takes place.
They would either have something on "X", or have to drop it. Far as I can tell, Mueller didn't really have anything on "X".