+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition (/Thread-It-s-Draft-Time-Impeachment-Edition)
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Dill - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 01:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, agreed. Firing an FBI director because the Russia story is made up, though... that seems like a serious offense. The only thing lightening my stance is that he said it so free and openly that it can't possibly be that bad. But he really said it like that. When deciding to fire Comey, he thought of the made up Trump/Russia story. What do your articles and whatnot say about that.
I am not sure it is an "offense" in the sense of breaking a law. And he said it "openly and freely" because he does not really understand (or perhaps care about) the consequences of his official actions in any normal sense (he does care very much about his "ratings" and whether he is perceived to be better than Obama). It was bad judgment--bad enough that it makes sense to at least ask if it was criminal--and more confirmation for anyone outside the bubble that Trump should not be commander in chief.
The determination of "high crime" depends a lot on prevailing conceptions of duty and reasonable judgment, not to mention intent, and may also be very partisan. Some will find oral sex in the Oval Office grounds for impeachment, some not. Virtually everyone would find accepting a bribe sufficient grounds. Dereliction of duty, failing in due diligence can also be a high crime, e.g. if a president randomly sends a Seal time on some dangerous operation without proper prep and disregarding Pentagon advice, and the team members all get killed. I should mention that Congress can CENSURE a president, which won't remove him from office, but is a big black mark for sure. Polk was censured for fabricating a pretext for the Mexican war, Bush was not censured for fabricating a pretext for the Iraq war. So like I say--determination of high crime depends a lot on prevailing conceptions and which party controls Congress.
So here is the problem: our articles and what not say that Congress decides whether to impeach an elected official or not. And the Senate then tries whoever is so impeached. So a Republican Congress, dependent on Trump to pass the legislation they want passed, has to decide whether his actions rise to the level of impeachment--which embarrasses the party more: impeaching or not impeaching? The bar will be higher for them than for a Dem congress. And as I said above, the press and a significant number of ordinary citizens have to back impeachment as well. The press must explain the "crime" and precedents etc. to the public.
It indeed looks like Trump fired Comey to stop an investigation. His words seem to confirm that, though indirectly. A president can, in his judgment, decide that an investigation is going nowhere. VERY PROBLEMATIC when the investigation concerns your own people though. Like I say, most people would know what to think if this were local government and a mayor fired a police chief investigating him.
But again--and I cannot emphasize this enough--for anyone who thinks the Russian investigation is "fake news." Trump's actions simply do not rise to the required level of dereliction/incompetence. Beyond violating appearances, he has not shown bad judgment at all for those folks. This dampens any groundswell of outrage which might prompt even Republican Congressmen to act. Doubtful we could even get a presidential censure here.
This is why so much right wing rhetoric and spin in the US public sphere at the moment are focused on the Democrats rather than Trump. This is really about their anger over a loss (so the deflection goes). First they hate Comey because he helped Trump, then they like him because Trump fired him, so it's all just Trump hate and shows their despicable, inconsistent character. If you are a rightist, it is important to keep that going, loud, strong persistent--all over radio and tv and blogosphere every day. Rank and file may really believe the Democrats are just sleazeballs tarring a president trying to do the right thing, but Rush and Hannity understand the strategic importance of keeping denial front and center in the public discussion. When that stops, when the rank and file finally no longer follow Rush et al., then impeachment/censure will become real options. The midterm elections may make this possible.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - hollodero - 05-12-2017
Got it. Thanks for the effort. There's only a few things I can answer to.
(05-12-2017, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: It indeed looks like Trump fired Comey to stop an investigation. His words seem to confirm that, though indirectly.
Indirectly? Well... "[R]egardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey. Knowing, there was no good time to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story" --- is that really just "indirect"? Seems quite direct to me.
(05-12-2017, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: But again--and I cannot emphasize this enough--for anyone who thinks the Russian investigation is "fake news." Trump's actions simply do not rise to the required level of dereliction/incompetence.
But many Republicans seem to think it's a serious issue, like this Burr character and many others. They wouldn't fall in that group to begin with.
The Breitbart crowd, that's something else. But that can't just be about them.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one is saying she had no right to act as she did. That being said, actions have consequences, and if she felt strongly about the illegality of the EO she should have resigned. Simply saying no to your boss is not sufficient. Why has no one even attempted to address the example I gave above of the AG and his deputy resigning during the Nixon administration? Because it's the perfect example of what Yates should have done if she felt strongly about her position. My position is not based on ideology, it's based on integrity.
The EO was in no way illegal or unconstitutional on its face. To those who try and use the fact that both EO's issued on this subject have been blocked I would point out that the reason they were blocked in both instances was due to what the judges felt was the implied intent behind the immigration bans. There is clear an undeniable precedent that the POTUS has broad powers in regards to who is allowed in the United States and from where.
Well, that's like your opinion, man . . . to quote The Dude. I disagree. Her job was to give legal counsel to the President. Sometimes that includes disagreement. I don't think quitting your job when you think you're doing the right thing is the correct choice. There is nothing you can say which will change my mind on that.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 02:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, that's like your opinion, man . . . to quote The Dude. I disagree. Her job was to give legal counsel to the President. Sometimes that includes disagreement. I don't think quitting your job when you think you're doing the right thing is the correct choice. There is nothing you can say which will change my mind on that.
Providing legal counsel is fine, you are quite correct. Refusing to defend an EO in court is separate from that. I know this doesn't change your mind.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 03:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Providing legal counsel is fine, you are quite correct. Refusing to defend an EO in court is separate from that. I know this doesn't change your mind.
If she believed refusing to defend the EO was the legally correct and ethical thing to do then that is exactly what she should have done.
Granted, I was fired in this past year for doing what I thought was the right thing. So . . .
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - hollodero - 05-12-2017
I see a lengty fight about Sally Yates coming up. If so, have fun. Just one thing, no matter her motives (I personally think there are signs she did the right thing, but whatever), there's no explanation why you would keep a Flynn in office as national security advisor without any restrictions for 18 days after recieving a warning like hers, with the offer to back up the claims by evidence. There's also no explanation why Michael Flynn was cleared for security advisor in the first place. In short, the red flags about him could not have been ignored, and even blatant incompetence can't be an excuse for that.
This talking point "Yates was the political opponent, so who would take that too seriously" is in no way warranted or excusable, no matter if Yates interpreted her job correctly or not. The handlings of Flynn are legit cause for suspicions. Just trying to stick to the points that might or might not be a part of an impeachment procedure.
And Chuck Schumer shouldn't have brought Yates' firing up, too. That wasn't a good move.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Dill - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 02:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Indirectly? Well... "[R]egardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey. Knowing, there was no good time to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story" --- is that really just "indirect"? Seems quite direct to me.
But many Republicans seem to think it's a serious issue, like this Burr character and many others. They wouldn't fall in that group to begin with.
The Breitbart crowd, that's something else. But that can't just be about them.
1. When you look at statements like Trump's, ask yourself what is their potential for conviction, and what is their potential for fogging? In the present context, Low conviction high fog potential here. If Trump really believes the Russia investigation is "made up," then there is no intent to obstruct an investigation. Sure it is bad judgment. But the people knowingly elected someone with bad judgment and sizeable number still stick by their bad judgment--and in consequence so will their Representatives.
If the Russia investigation turns up something like a tape in which Trump discusses reducing sanctions on Russia with a Russian in return for election interference, or one of Trump's does this with Trump's knowledge, that alone is impeachable, and his firing of Comey is no longer innocent stupidity. When he fires him, he knows very well the story is not made up. He intentionally is blocking an investigation into the highest of high crimes. However, given the unstable character of some of Trump's associates--Flynn, Stone, Paige, Mantafort--it is possible that one of these on his own initiative suggested a quid pro quo with Russia. So long as Trump is personally clear of this, he is himself not criminal, just a guy with a political IQ well below 70.
2. Define "many" and which and where placed? It is likely that as Trump stumbles from one self-inflicted crisis to another, we will see week by week more Republicans willing to call him out, support investigations or maybe even censure. Their numbers could reach a critical mass even before midterm elections, by critical mass I mean enough to vote with Democrats to censure or impeach with some chance of success when the floor of each house is controlled by Trump's party.
3. And yes, it is hardly just about the Breitbart crowd. Though you should not underestimate how many of their ideas have been mainstreamed by Trump's election, held now by people who know nothing about Breitbart. Fox radio has a daily slate of talk show hosts who beat the drum of "fake news" to an audience of millions. Driving to Dunkin Donuts today I heard one talk show host talking about the incredible "conspiracy theory" that Russia interfered in our election. (Not the usual suspects Beck or Rush or Hannity or Sullivan or Levin or Hewitt; someone I did not recognize.) Since the Bush fiasco, large numbers of right wingers have been calling themselves "independents" who "criticize both parties"; but, groomed to distrust entire government agencies, they continue to vote right and get their information from the right. They continue to believe Hillary guilty of high crimes for Benghazi (somehow) and a seriously dishonest and flawed character--i.e., still way worse than Trump. For them, all the smoke about Democrats lack of integrity and election butthurt is still even easier to swallow claims about Russian interference. Thus their arguments remain virtually indistinguishable from those of self-identified right wingers.
It is astonishing that, according to one poll, only 54% of Americans think the Comey firing wrong, while 38% think it appropriate. That is just shy of 40%. Impeachment or even censure unlikely so long as this holds.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/11/poll-majority-americans-dont-think-comey-firing-appropriate/101563558/
That 38% number--that's what you want to watch in the coming months as Trump's missteps continue. Trump's history of missteps may reach a point where right wing pundits can no longer manage them, and Trump's behavior can't just be about the Democrats anymore.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 03:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If she believed refusing to defend the EO was the legally correct and ethical thing to do then that is exactly what she should have done.
Granted, I was fired in this past year for doing what I thought was the right thing. So . . .
It's not exactly an unheard of occurrence. I've had to do things I thought weren't just, note not illegal or unethical. Sorry to hear about your employment.
(05-12-2017, 03:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: I see a lengty fight about Sally Yates coming up. If so, have fun. Just one thing, no matter her motives (I personally think there are signs she did the right thing, but whatever), there's no explanation why you would keep a Flynn in office as national security advisor without any restrictions for 18 days after recieving a warning like hers, with the offer to back up the claims by evidence. There's also no explanation why Michael Flynn was cleared for security advisor in the first place. In short, the red flags about him could not have been ignored, and even blatant incompetence can't be an excuse for that.
Yes, the whole Flynn situation is absolutely odd.
Quote:This talking point "Yates was the political opponent, so who would take that too seriously" is in no way warranted or excusable, no matter if Yates interpreted her job correctly or not. The handlings of Flynn are legit cause for suspicions. Just trying to stick to the points that might or might not be a part of an impeachment procedure.
Yeah, I think the political aspect of Yates motivation and firing were overdone. I'd even include myself in regards to my original reaction.
Quote:And Chuck Schumer shouldn't have brought Yates' firing up, too. That wasn't a good move.
Chuck is rapidly becoming as big a douchebag as Reid.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Belsnickel - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one is saying she had no right to act as she did. That being said, actions have consequences, and if she felt strongly about the illegality of the EO she should have resigned. Simply saying no to your boss is not sufficient. Why has no one even attempted to address the example I gave above of the AG and his deputy resigning during the Nixon administration? Because it's the perfect example of what Yates should have done if she felt strongly about her position. My position is not based on ideology, it's based on integrity.
I'm not bothering with the second part, because those aren't the waters I am wading into. You keep saying she should have resigned, holding up previous AG examples to bolster this and saying no one has brought forth an argument for that. I ask the question why you did not attempt to address the fact that the question posited to these appointed officials during their confirmation process every time, almost without fail, is if they are willing and able to say no to their boss. You say that saying no is not enough, but that seems to be what the Senate sees as an important role of the AG and their deputies.
Different people will approach these types of situations differently. I wouldn't have disagreed with her decision if she had opted to resign, that is a valid choice. But so is the route that she took. There is no should here. She had several options of action, and she chose the one she did likely knowing full well it would result in her firing. Trying to say what she should or should not have done in that situation is like armchair quarterbacking.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-12-2017
(05-12-2017, 05:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not bothering with the second part, because those aren't the waters I am wading into. You keep saying she should have resigned, holding up previous AG examples to bolster this and saying no one has brought forth an argument for that. I ask the question why you did not attempt to address the fact that the question posited to these appointed officials during their confirmation process every time, almost without fail, is if they are willing and able to say no to their boss. You say that saying no is not enough, but that seems to be what the Senate sees as an important role of the AG and their deputies.
Different people will approach these types of situations differently. I wouldn't have disagreed with her decision if she had opted to resign, that is a valid choice. But so is the route that she took. There is no should here. She had several options of action, and she chose the one she did likely knowing full well it would result in her firing. Trying to say what she should or should not have done in that situation is like armchair quarterbacking.
Fair points all. I would add that it is equally fair and acceptable for Trump to fire her for her refusal.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Vas Deferens - 05-12-2017
Anyone else dismayed by the fact that hollodero is more informed of US politics than 95% of our citizens?
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - hollodero - 05-15-2017
(05-12-2017, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: The determination of "high crime" depends a lot on prevailing conceptions of duty and reasonable judgment, not to mention intent, and may also be very partisan.
Well, what about sharing highly sensitive secrets with the Russians?
Honestly, Trump apologists, hadn't you have enough already?
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - BmorePat87 - 05-15-2017
(05-15-2017, 07:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, what about sharing highly sensitive secrets with the Russians?
Honestly, Trump apologists, hadn't you have enough already?
Congressional Republicans are currently content with acting like this is normal. They believe their future depends on standing behind his brand. As long as they hold this belief, nothing he does matters.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - hollodero - 05-15-2017
(05-15-2017, 07:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Congressional Republicans are currently content with acting like this is normal. They believe their future depends on standing behind his brand. As long as they hold this belief, nothing he does matters.
I get that, but are people behind said Republicans. Your president spouts out sensitive information to the Russians. At some point, people need to see these things and let them sink in. And don't eat up the "nothing to see here"-rhetoric any longer.
People went for an outsider. He's proven to be unfit. Now why would people back up Republican politicians in turning a blind eye towards that.
And if someone brings up Hillary and uranium deals here I will honestly start to scream.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - Dill - 05-15-2017
(05-15-2017, 07:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get that, but are people behind said Republicans. Your president spouts out sensitive information to the Russians. At some point, people need to see these things and let them sink in. And don't eat up the "nothing to see here"-rhetoric any longer.
People went for an outsider. He's proven to be unfit. Now why would people back up Republican politicians in turning a blind eye towards that.
And if someone brings up Hillary and uranium deals here I will honestly start to scream.
LOL
Easy Hollo, Let's look at this through the Trumpster lens before committing to final judgment.The Russians probably saw how STRONG Trump was in his debates with Hillary. They went into Oval Office and started bragging about how good their intel was and laughing at the US because its intel services are all tied up with a fake Russia investigation. And with a secret journalist recording all this humiliation, the whole world would know our leader was looked down on!
Maybe WEAK Obama and Hillary would apologetically hold their intel cards close to the vest and let the Russians play theirs. But not our take-charge Commander in chief. Instead of taking the Russians on an apology tour for our intel, he let them know in no uncertain terms that we still had the best intel in the world. The greatest! Tops. Can you imagine the surprise on their smug faces when they heard stuff we don't even share with our closest allies? He stood up to them. That I can tell you.
Ok ok Hollo, now you are probably thinking--Why should Europeans ever share intel with the US again when it can slide right back to our common adversary? But I think I speak for most Trumpsters when I respond--
1) it is so funny to see how upset Europeans get over this stuff. Like American liberals. LOL our Troll in chief has you all hair on fire
PESD! That alone was worth what may be one of the greatest security breaches post WWII.And 2), Is this going to be like the Russia investigation,
the Obama wiretapping accusation 
, and the hair on fire response to Trump publicly threatening the investigator he fired 
? Hillary lost fair and square. Time to stop turning every issue into politics.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - xxlt - 05-15-2017
(05-15-2017, 07:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get that, but are people behind said Republicans. Your president spouts out sensitive information to the Russians. At some point, people need to see these things and let them sink in. And don't eat up the "nothing to see here"-rhetoric any longer.
People went for an outsider. He's proven to be unfit. Now why would people back up Republican politicians in turning a blind eye towards that.
And if someone brings up Hillary and uranium deals here I will honestly start to scream.
He doesn't have a vagina. Scream if you wish. Sorry brother.
RE: Trump impeached? You bet! - hollodero - 05-16-2017
(05-15-2017, 09:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok ok Hollo, now you are probably thinking--Why should Europeans ever share intel with the US again when it can slide right back to our common adversary? But I think I speak for most Trumpsters when I respond--
That thought crossed my mind, yes, Along with the question whether the US can still be seen as an ally. Or even a friend, for that matter. But I get what you're saying, the worldwide hysteria sure is marvellous to see. Nastrovje!
So Much Winning - xxlt - 05-16-2017
I think Trump wants to be impeached.
He's made a small fortune off being President, and can leverage it into many more small fortunes.
But, people are saying mean things about him - which bothers him - and he has no idea how to be President, which embarrasses him when people point it out, causing people to say mean things, which bothers him.
He can't quit. Then he would be a "loser." But if he is impeached it is because he was a "winner" - and all the Washington insiders and the fake media were jealous of his winning - and he can leave Washington a martyr in the eyes of his faithful, a winner in his own mind, and most importantly a winner financially.
So, I predict he continues to contradict members of his team who are trying to protect him and to ramp up the stupid and reckless behavior, up to and including shooting someone on the street in NYC or at Mar-a-Lago if that is what it takes, until articles of impeachment are drawn up. At that point he will make a calculation - hire lawyers and fight it knowing he will ultimately be removed but fighting anyway if he thinks fighting adds more value to his brand - or resign if he thinks that will add more value to his brand.
He's done. He's just lighting fires until the inevitable happens - articles of impeachment.
Thoughts?
RE: So Much Winning - hollodero - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 11:23 AM)xxlt Wrote: Thoughts?
Just a small one. The Republican party, I feel, has its last chance here not to go down in history as enablers. If they don't act now in any way, then trust in the US ist lost way beyond the Trump years.
About Trump, you're right. He seems to purposedly do everything he can to get further discredited. Which imho could only mean he needs to be the top news story all the time at all costs, or that he actually wants to get out of this gig. The third option, that he really is that stupid, I can't yet fully believe.
RE: So Much Winning - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 05-16-2017
Taking a page out of the Bill O'Reilly "hit job" playbook.