World, Writing, Wealth discussion

14 views
World & Current Events > What if Trump is impeached?

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5516 comments I've been asking since Democrats first came after Trump, what do they hope to gain? If Trump is impeached, what next? Pence, another Republican. Will it have been worth destabilizing the government to get revenge for losing the election?


message 2: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Scout wrote: "I've been asking since Democrats first came after Trump, what do they hope to gain? If Trump is impeached, what next? Pence, another Republican. Will it have been worth destabilizing the government..."

That's a very loaded question. Another way to put it would be, is it worth destabilizing the current government because it was bought and paid for by a hostile power? To that, I would say absolutely. Pence may be a Republican, but he's not compromised by extensive conflicts or interest and secret dealings with Russia. At least he can be trusted to represent his country.


message 3: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5516 comments Exactly how was the election bought and paid for by the Russians?


message 4: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) The DNC hack perpetrated by the Russians, the multiple leaks that swayed the election in Trump's favor, the fact that Trump and his team were in on it. This was all coordinated with Trump's team, which we know thanks to Mueller's investigation and the fact that Trump Jr. released the entire email chain proving it.


message 5: by Graeme (last edited Dec 09, 2018 01:14AM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Matthew wrote: "..."

[1] "The DNC hack perpetrated by the Russians,"

The server in question was never forensically examined by the FBI. The drives were wiped clean on the orders of the DNC using bleachbit.

REF: CBS: Comey Statement: FBI requested and refused access to the DNC Server: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-dire...

The lack of a forensic examination casts doubt on *any* conclusions being drawn about who hacked the server. The server in question should have been preserved as evidence. That has not been possible since the DNC wiped it.

[2] "the multiple leaks that swayed the election in Trump's favor,"

For which you have precisely no evidence that the election was turned by these events.

OCCAMS RAZOR: The simpler explanation for Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump in the 2016 election is the incompetence of the DNC campaign, and the fact that Hillary Clinton's popularity is geographically concentrated in too few states. So she wins California with a landslide, wins the popular vote by 3M+, but loses the electoral college votes because she didn't resonate with enough voters in enough states.

Trump campaigned heavily in the US rust belt states that had been democrat and swung them. Hillary and the DNC more or less ignored them to their detriment.

Incompetence and hubris are far more likely to be the root cause of Clinton's loss than the 'conspiracy,' theory of Russian Collusion.

REF: Youtube: (warning some graphic language in the video): Micheal Moore comments on issues within the election + presenter comments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1MVU...

[3] "the fact that Trump and his team were in on it. This was all coordinated with Trump's team, which we know thanks to Mueller's investigation and the fact that Trump Jr. released the entire email chain proving it."

Still waiting for indictments and court cases.


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9735 comments I find "bought and paid for by a hostile power" a strange comment, especially when the issue was the hacking of the DNC server. I suppose the argument is the Russians did it because the US electronics are essentially impervious to hacking (or so we are told here) but I don't believe that. But "bought and paid for"? Who received how much money? If we are talking about a hundred thousand worth of Facebook etc ads, all I can say the Russians must be extraordinarily clever to overturn the sixty-odd million spend by the Clintons with that rather pathetic amount.


message 7: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Consult the details of the Trump Tower meeting. The Russian agents offered the "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in exchange for guarantees that Trump would lift the provisions of the Magnitsky Act would be lifted. I grow tired of having to explain what is common knowledge to certain people here.


message 8: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan @Matt,

If Russian Collusion existed, the Magnitsky act would be lifted. The Magnitsky act has not been lifted, (in fact sanctions have been increased) therefore the Russian Collusion does not exist.

QED.


message 9: by Graeme (last edited Dec 09, 2018 11:14PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan There's a heap of data on the election at Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Un...

Noting that the DNC and their supporters spent more than $600M+ on this election. The GOP and their supporters spent $300M+.

Hillary wins the popular vote by 3M+

But,

"Six states plus a portion of Maine that Obama won in 2012 switched to Trump (Electoral College votes in parentheses): Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), and Maine's second congressional district (1)."


Trump and his team aced the rust belt and swing states. That is an example of political capability - not conspiracy.

If the DNC and Clinton had paid more attention to winning the swing states, Clinton would now be president.

They didn't have that focus - so she did't win. That's hubris and incompetence - not conspiracy.


message 10: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9735 comments I would also suggest that we are not addressing Scout's question, at least leaving aside the obvious that presumably Pence would take over. What would be the consequences? I suspect it all depends on what happens at 2020. It just might be that the republican voters vote in whoever they nominate because they are annoyed at the Democrat's fixation on collusion, for which they state there is no evidence. If the Dems win, the Republicans might well try to make life ridiculously difficult for them, unless they take both houses as well. I rather fancy all that has come from this is more polarization, and a serious intent to obstruct the other side, which makes proper governance extremely difficult. I would also suggest if the Dems could stop whining about collusion and try to do deals, they would actually have more success in moderating Trump. If they offered reasonable proposals and amendments, Trump would have a lot more trouble saying no to them because his support base would expect him to try to get things done. As it is, the Dems to date have been largely irrelevant because they have offered nothing except shouts of impeachment.


message 11: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13757 comments Scout wrote: "I've been asking since Democrats first came after Trump, what do they hope to gain? If Trump is impeached, what next? Pence, another Republican. Will it have been worth destabilizing the government..."

Seems to me that if formal charges are pressed resulting from Muller's investigation, it shouldn't be political anymore and deliberations whether it's worthwhile or not shouldn't be relevant. It becomes the question of integrity of the official of the highest level; it's whether US is run by a criminal suspect or not. In this case (if formal charges are pressed), the impeachment should become inevitable - to either confirm or reject them.
Media speculations and so called 'known' facts are meaningless until they become part of the indictment.
There are countries in the world, where a head of state would step down over an indictment.


message 12: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13757 comments Ian wrote: "I rather fancy all that has come from this is more polarization, and a serious intent to obstruct the other side, which makes proper governance extremely difficult. ..."

Can it be that this kind of polarization suits sponsors and elites? Dems and Reps division is comfortably legit, much more than say: between haves and have nots


message 13: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9735 comments In the British style parliament, the head of state is elected by the members of the governing party, and can be voted out simply on a vote of no-confidence by those governing MPs. I think Leonie pointed out that in Australia they have changed PMs at a frequency approaching the change of socks - but this has nothing to do with criminality - just they MPs think the then current guy is not going to win the next election.

In the US, because the President is elected by the people directly, impeachment requires conviction of - and here I have forgotten the words. The concern here is the "conviction" is by politicians, so it cannot help but be political. Obviously it does not happen very often, and I think usually the American people would really try to avoid this where possible, and rely on voting the guy out. Again, when you came to Nixon, he avoided the issue by stepping down. As far as I can see, it should all depend on what evidence, as opposed to allegations, Mueller uncovers. Rumour has it we may finally find out in the not too distant future. Buth then again, rumour is not very helpful.

Nik makes a rather interesting point that this polarization favours the big donors, and hence the bosses of both parties. It does take the emphasis of those with the oodles of dosh required to make such donations, and without the donations, US politics would be in a mire. They would have to forget plaster ads and actually rely on conveying a message, as they used to have to do.


message 14: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) I also read that although indictments can be raised, Trump cannot be arrested whilst he is still President. He would first have to be impeached via a vote in Congress (Simple majority) then a "trial" in Senate where 2/3 majority needed i.e. 67 Senators. One of our forum "experts" will I'm sure correct me.

I can't recall now with Nixon what stage he resigned but I seem to recall Bill Clinton's vote did not attract more than 55 votes - just got lost in Wikipedia article.

So first Congress, next Senate with all the political division and then potential arrest and trial.

Of course any selfless leader would resign before that (immediately making Pence President as it did with Ford) but note Clinton did not resign he argued and gambled there would not be a Senate majority. Trump????

Then the fall out - Al Gore did not win at the next election (Electoral College and hanging chads). Ford did not win - Carter took over

So if impeachment process starts - that's a big if - for campaign finance, lying to FBI, or Russian Collusion, then the fall out may well be for Republican Party even if Trump resigned. Mueller has lot's of options for charges with Campaign finance looking like a slam dunk because there's a money trail.

In both Nixon and Clinton cases there were candidates waiting in the wings from both parties. The Democrats still don't seem to have a candidate being proposed (I'll ignore the other thread on Clinton's etc.). Republican's were split before Trump I can't see another at the moment - more research on my trip.

Back to subject - I thought it might happen, but I cannot see how it will happen unless Trump changes personality but then it won't happen because he would have resigned. Pence will then immediately pardon him.


message 15: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9735 comments I think the most likely chance of Trump getting into trouble is the payments to the likes of Stormy Daniels. If Trump directed it, that is a crime, and nobody is arguing that the payments were made. Cohen first said that Trump knew nothing about it, then has said he did, so Cohen is a clear liar, but what is the lie and can he be convicted on Cohen's word? Who knows?


message 16: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2151 comments If the Dems in the House bring charges of impeachment, there is no way the Senate, with a Republican majority, will remove him from office. Hypothetically though, if it were to happen and Pence becomes President, 2020 could be tough for the Democrats. So far, he's been distanced from the chaos of Trump's Presidency. A President Pence could bring a refreshing calm to the White House that independents and those "suburban women" want. 2020 then becomes a question of "do I vote for the person I know (Pence), or put an unknown in office?" But I'm not sure history is on Pence's side...


message 17: by Leonie (new)

Leonie (leonierogers) | 1579 comments This is a really interesting article from our National Broadcaster.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-1...

And this one as well:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-0...


message 18: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2151 comments Leonie wrote: "This is a really interesting article from our National Broadcaster.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-1...

And this one as well:..."


"The payments to Ms Daniels and Ms McDougal were made in 2016, meaning the statute of limitations would run out in 2021 (after the next US election in 2020)."

So his only hope is to win in 2020 so that when he leaves office in 2025, the statute of limitations runs out and he can't be prosecuted for this particular offense...


message 19: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9735 comments The plea deal with Maria Butina is yet to be clarified as to what she is pleading guilty to. As for a foreign agent that did not register, she can't defend that she did not register, so that makes sense to plead guilty. The appearances are she is a lightweight "wannabe"; her actions border on making stupid bragging and trying to insert herself where she shouldn't be. I gather she has been in jail for five months, at least three of them in solitary, and her family cannot afford legal fees, so maybe pleading guilty is just simply to get this over with. The ABC link that Leonie posted has it that her major connection with Trump was to ask a question at a public meeting. That is hardly grand criminality. It may be that the Justice Department is offering the deal as well just to move on - they get a score on the board and save a lot of time regarding court cases.


message 20: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5516 comments If Trump is impeached, Pence will be president. Way to go, Democrats. You've now got a real conservative and pro-lifer to deal with, and one who can appoint Supreme Court judges. Be careful what you wish for.


back to top