Impeachment
- Thread starter aTUfan
- Start date
That, and the safety of his family. If he really is up to his ears with Russian mafiosos, then spilling the beans could put them at risk. I know he just agreed to some sort of plea, but I'll still be surprised if he is ever fully cooperative.
Finally someone has brought up Hitler and the Nazis. Well, if anyone wants to read a good description of the Trump administration, read the first half of Wm Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich”. Another pretty good description is the new book ‘Bad Blood’ about the Theranos scam and Ms Holmes management tactics. Great read on its own.
Michael Cohen Says He Is Providing 'Critical Information' to Robert Mueller's Russia Probe
http://time.com/5402791/donald-trump-michael-cohen-mueller-russia-probe/
http://time.com/5402791/donald-trump-michael-cohen-mueller-russia-probe/
This slush fund you reference most certainly paid for Republican sexual harassment suits as well as Democrats. People in glass houses...
And the loan came from Cohen. His salary was paid for by election donations, funds which were not Trumps personal funds. And the evasion happened in the middle of the election campaign when it would have damaged the candidacy, and probably caused him to lose.
It is not a transactional matter of guilt. Neither are good, and one does not make the other better. So your little ditty says pretty much nothing, like most times.
Considering what he was covering up would have cost him the election, and that anybody else who illegally distributed campaign funds would either resign or be impeached, then yeah. It is a slippery slope to accept this. This would allow a pandora's box of actions to be assuaged as ok. Crimes against the state cannot be ignored. The justice department falls a notch as an institution, and we become less a land of laws, and bribes become acceptable.
Last edited:
President Obama's campaign made technical errors which were only large because it was the first $billion campaign. Had nothing to do with Obama. Check it out..
More to the point, if the Obama campaign's errors drew the biggest fine ever, then what should the penalty be for the Presidential Candidate knowingly directing campaign violations and covering them up nearly two years?
You will recall Trump has gone from claiming he didn't make any payments, to claiming he didn't know about them, to claiming he didn't direct them, to now only claiming that they were "personal transactions."
That pattern seems to occur in everything the Trumpster does.
More to the point, if the Obama campaign's errors drew the biggest fine ever, then what should the penalty be for the Presidential Candidate knowingly directing campaign violations and covering them up nearly two years?
You will recall Trump has gone from claiming he didn't make any payments, to claiming he didn't know about them, to claiming he didn't direct them, to now only claiming that they were "personal transactions."
That pattern seems to occur in everything the Trumpster does.
Severity, intent, and the damage it causes, or does not. I did not say that all campaign violations are impeachable, but Trumps seem to show just cause.
I'm not talking about your vendetta about the Clintons, I'm talking about Trump. And do you not think if there was any viable legal cause against the Clintons, that the Republicans would have taken action on it all this time they were in a position of power.
I am sure that Hillary has done disgusting things in her political career, that's one of the many reasons why I would never vote for her, unless faced with no other choice than Trump.(lesser of two evils.) He is the only one, or at least one of the very, very few that I would call a lesser evil to Hillary. If faced with voting for Hillary or Cheney, I would go with Cheney, but that would be a tough call. But as of yet there is no solid legal proof against her for a crime that can be prosecuted. I cannot say the same for Trump. Many politicians have been guilty of things that were repulsive or against the law, even Reagan whom I love. None of them approach the reprehensibility of Trump. If faced with supporting Nixon or Trump, I would support Nixon in a heartbeat. And I'm placing Trump against the worst of the breed in politicians.
Cohen alone is not the only evidence they have against him on those counts. It was made fairly obvious that they were having Cohen verify information they already had. That verification won't be revealed until the latter stages of the investigation, when they have enough evidence that revealing those sources won't tip Trump off and allow him to cover his tracks.
The two consistent elements in Trump's MO are 1) the reputation of anyone who works for him with be badly diminished and 2) Trump will blame his failures on someone else.
HIs inability to find a new COS is the latest sign that talented professionals have caught on and are unwilling to work him. Ironically Trump fired Tillerson because Trump was frustrated with Tillerson's refusal take illegal orders, while Trump is now blaming Cohen for acting on Trump's illegal directions.
HIs inability to find a new COS is the latest sign that talented professionals have caught on and are unwilling to work him. Ironically Trump fired Tillerson because Trump was frustrated with Tillerson's refusal take illegal orders, while Trump is now blaming Cohen for acting on Trump's illegal directions.
CNN, who is by no means pro Trump, came out with a poll that showed voters trending down on impeachment. That could change of Mueller reveals he conspired with the Russians to effect the election.
The reason is that removal is very difficult. Sixty votes ending a normal debate is tough, but 67 for removal is quite a reach from 47. No president has ever left that way, although Nixon saw it coming.
Conspiring with the Russians would and should do it. Sex won't do it. Clinton set the standard on that then the Democrats partied on the steps of the capitol. Collusion is a secrete meeting. Conspiracy is a plan and action to do something illegal. Prove that and he is gone. Paying a pornography actress not to talk is not a "high crime." Rosenstein created a fishing license.
The reason is that removal is very difficult. Sixty votes ending a normal debate is tough, but 67 for removal is quite a reach from 47. No president has ever left that way, although Nixon saw it coming.
Conspiring with the Russians would and should do it. Sex won't do it. Clinton set the standard on that then the Democrats partied on the steps of the capitol. Collusion is a secrete meeting. Conspiracy is a plan and action to do something illegal. Prove that and he is gone. Paying a pornography actress not to talk is not a "high crime." Rosenstein created a fishing license.
Paying off multiple partners to shut up about affairs during an election likely qualifies as felony campaign violations. As Cohen found out, lying about it can send one to prison. Trump has continually lied about the whole affair moving in stages from repeated, absolute denials to now admitting he directed Cohen's actions but didn't know they were crimes. That investigation is NOT under Mueller rather the US Attorney in the Southern District of NY and will continue with or without a Mueller's report. Same US Attorney is looking at how $110M of inauguration donations were funded (illegal foreign donations?) and spent.
Good question about high crimes and misdemeanors. If a president can't be indicted while in office, and campaign violations, even felonies, don't carry enough political clout, Trump may get a pass while in office.
Pelosi, however, has made it clear that she will go after Trump's tax returns which will make for some pretty good fireworks to come.
Good question about high crimes and misdemeanors. If a president can't be indicted while in office, and campaign violations, even felonies, don't carry enough political clout, Trump may get a pass while in office.
Pelosi, however, has made it clear that she will go after Trump's tax returns which will make for some pretty good fireworks to come.
Last edited:
I agree about the income tax being an important issue.
I know you don't want to hear this but Clinton lied under oath. You know the details. Bringing an impeachment that flops is not good politics. Mueller IS the key since he can't be indicted.
Ok, let's follow that train of thought. Both Bill and Trump lied about an affair. OK. Bill had a consensual relationship with an aide which could raise abuse of power issues although the facts show Monica as more than a willing participant. Basically the uproar was over poor judgement and morality of actions. Hillary was later (and still is ) condemned for sticking by her husband.
Trump had multiple affairs before running for office and was concerned that if voters knew about the affairs it would affect the outcome, especially after the video of him crowing about grabbing women's genitals. So he conspired (not colluded) with his personal attorney and close friend to hide the affairs from the public by paying off the women while in the middle of a Presidential election campaign. Those secret payments constituted felony violations of federal campaign laws.
As candidate and President he repeatedly lied about the affairs and payments for nearly two years and changed his story each time he was caught in those lies. His current story will likely be debunked, especially his claim that he didn't know the payments violated campaign laws. HIs wife has not been criticised, much less condemned, for ignoring the whole matter.
Meanwhile while in office his charitable funds have been caught violating campaign finance laws and making illegal donations by New York State. He has also paid $25M to defrauded students at his Trump University.
And all of that is outside of the Mueller investigation of his campaign's involvement in Russian attempts to influence elections and undermine our democracy.
Attempting to excuse Trump's behavior by equating it with Clinton's is beyond the pale -- even before Mueller has reported in and his tax returns made public (as Trump repeatedly promised to do while campaigning).
It will be interesting to see when Congressional Republicans realize that most Americans have had enough. But then there's Trump's base, which as we have seen from some posts here (not yours), may never get there.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about that. It got W elected over Gore after a decade of unprecedented economic growth. W was able to ride the "folksy" / "moral high ground" wave to a very narrow victory that he may never have had if Clinton wasn't impeached and investigated.
Lets not forget the context in which Clinton lied. The Monica affair was not what the trial was about. It was about other women. Monica was only an event that showed a pattern that was relevant to the larger history. But he was under oath with a judge. If Trump has been sworn it was on the questions he answered for Mueller. I could tell a lie on here which is social media. I have been under oath in federal and state cases. Believe you me, I may be dumb but not dumb enough to lie.
Now to both WA and Aston, I believe Nancy has said she doesn't favor impeachment (yet?) Did she become a Trumper. No. In theory you could impeach a president many times. But in fact you had better make your first shot golden. They didn't make a second try with Andrew Johnson or Bill. Try on Stormy money and fail then a bigger issue comes up, do you go back to the well?
So here is what it comes down to, in the words of Bill "it's Russia, stupid"
If Mueller proves conspiracy with Russia, DT should be gone and I hope he will be. I didn't vote for him the first time and even if he is not removed I won't vote for him in 2020.
Even with Nader absorbing 3 million otherwise Democratic votes, Gore still beat Bush in the popular vote by half a million votes.
And yes, I voted for Dubya and enjoyed the endless supply of Clinton jokes.
And yes, I voted for Dubya and enjoyed the endless supply of Clinton jokes.
Apart from impeachment, just compare criminal indictments and convictions across administrations prior to Trump.
Trump is breaking records in every category with a current score of" 2 years, 89 indictments, 24 convictions, and 2 prison sentences.
Comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations, broken down by president and the numbers.
In the last 50+ years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28.
In their 25 yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one (1) conviction and one prison sentence. that's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership.
In the 28 yrs that Republicans have held office they have had a total of 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials, 89 criminal convictions, and 34 prison sentences handed down.
Obama - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford - 4yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence.
Nixon - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.
Trump is breaking records in every category with a current score of" 2 years, 89 indictments, 24 convictions, and 2 prison sentences.
Comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations, broken down by president and the numbers.
In the last 50+ years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28.
In their 25 yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one (1) conviction and one prison sentence. that's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership.
In the 28 yrs that Republicans have held office they have had a total of 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials, 89 criminal convictions, and 34 prison sentences handed down.
Obama - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford - 4yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence.
Nixon - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.
Very scary thought.
Nancy is successful and impeaches Trump and pence.
She becomes President and invites hrc to be vp.
She then resigns and hrc ascends to the throne.
Nancy is successful and impeaches Trump and pence.
She becomes President and invites hrc to be vp.
She then resigns and hrc ascends to the throne.
Last edited:
That’s not going to happen, ever. For one thing it would depend on Trump getting re-elected first. Also, Pelosi wanting to give up the presidency. Also, pence being implicated (to this point he doesn’t seem to be).
When local gov and law enforcement become corupt, the feds step in to get justice.
Who steps in when the feds become corupt?
Who steps in when the feds become corupt?
Voters. Except the majority of voters don't see the justice department as corrupt. Evidence: the last congressional election.
I really don't think that will happen. First off, because I don't think Trump will actually be impeached. Second because Pence would have to simultaneously be removed. Third because I'm pretty sure HRC would have to be confirmed by the Senate as the new VP.
But yeah, there is certainly a non-zero chance of it. For what it is worth, I think that series of events would be truly awful and divisive for the country and I truly hope it doesn't come to pass.
Hypothetically, IF Trump/Pence are impeached... It means that the Mueller report must be pretty damning, because it would require a bunch of GOP Senators to sign off on it as well. If that were to happen, the nation would be absolutely reeling and tearing itself apart. In that case, I think Pelosi may very well abdicate and let the next in line take over. I don't think she wants to be President, and she is certainly not stupid. She knows that if a Democrat usurps the White House from the GOP, that there would be hell to pay come the next election. It would be an extremely unpopular move. Much better to let another GOP pol that is untarnished by the Mueller report finish it out as a lame duck while you still hold the house. It would also help to demonstrate good faith to the country and that this not about partisan politics and is about getting career criminals out of government.
One thing that would be interesting. IF Trump is impeached and convicted by the Senate, the Pence gets to pick a new VP. But that has to be confirmed by both Houses, a majority in each. As divided as we now are, that might not be automatic.
I'm guessing it would be someone rather moderate... Not sure who that would be. Would have been a good gig for someone like O'Rourke if he had been elected to the Senate. Maybe Romney? Or Tester from Montana. A Dem from a red state.
