ANSWERS: 6
  • "He's wrong on that last, we're not in the least danger, because nobody gives a snit--what was that Gallup Poll result? Half the country's never even heard the word Watergate." -- "All the President's Men" (1975)
    • Archie Bunker
      Not sure what you're trying to say here, 'shroom.
    • mushroom
      "Boring" is a matter of opinion. Impeachment is not conducted under a justice code; it is entirely political, a confidence vote by Congress in many respects analogous to the parliamentary system that has been in the news lately.
    • Archie Bunker
      It's obviously political here. And in order to get an impeachment, the President has be found guilty of some charges. I'm not seeing anything here.
    • bostjan64
      "Impeachment" is the process of holding a hearing in congress, analogous to a trial. During the process, the President will either be removed from office by at least 2/3 of the Senate voting that they have lost confidence, or nothing will happen. There is no "guilty" or "not guilty" at the start, middle, nor end of the process.
    • Archie Bunker
      Not guilty of a crime, but rather a conviction of any charges set forth by the House. You have to remember a couple of things. The US Senate is under no obligation to hold a trail, no matter what the House decides. And you're not going to get 20 members of the Senate to convict the President if it even goes to a Senate trial.
    • bostjan64
      Article I Section 2 Clause 5(b): "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." So, if the House votes for impeachment, the trial in the Senate would begin, under the law as outlined in the Constitution, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United State presiding. The standard of proof has been decided in the past to be based on "preponderance of evidence," but this is from case law and is not dictated by the Constitution. The Senate is, however, under oath to vote honourably in the trial. That's pretty clear obligation.
    • Archie Bunker
      But they don't have to actually have a trial. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." There is no requirement that they actually do that. Like like Pelosi is saying there is no requirement that they have a vote to actually hold an impeachment hearing, there is none in the Senate, either.
    • bostjan64
      By that logic, the jury in a court trial has no obligation to hear the trial, either. And Pelosi is mistaken as well, if she thinks that. She should hold the vote, and if the vote doesn't pass by a majority, no impeachment. I think that's only common sense.
    • mushroom
      Pelosi has only said the inquiry does not require a floor vote, not the vote to accept articles of impeachment.
    • Archie Bunker
      64, it is common sense, but no one is Washington seems to have any.
  • Not just a little boring, but getting old....I wonder if all that nonsense will ever stop.
    • Archie Bunker
      Not till Trump's eight years are up. They'll keep this BS up until then, I think.
  • September, 2019: This latest round of controversy comes from the President withholding foreign aid from the Ukraine, which was alleged to be in order to apply pressure to that particular foreign government to re-open an investigation into Hunter Biden, who happens to be the son of the President's likely political candidate in the upcoming election. Most folks see that as abuse of power; however, the President's constitutional power does cover diplomatic "the-buck-stops-here" powers, so the act itself isn't really a clear violation. Still, though, withholding aid in order to pressure a foreign leader into digging up dirt on (the family members of) a political rival is, being generous, sketchy behaviour. Now, if you place that into the context where the president was already clearly obstructing an investigation into a very similar deed dealing with Russian leaders, it seems like, if these allegations are true, that Trump just can't stop himself from making sketchy back-room deals with hostile foreign powers chiefly for political gain. Any way you slice that, it would be a fair enough reason for the Senate to remove him from office (if any of this is true). When you add the fact that Trump is threatening to have the whistleblower, his handlers, and his political rivals in congress executed for treason, we have a very serious problem, even if the allegations are not true. All partisan ideas aside, no American should be threatened by execution for going through the proper channels within the law to expose possible corruption. Trump was supposed to "drain the swamp," not drag us all down into it.
    • Archie Bunker
      Quick question here, 64. Are you saying that Biden can't be investigated for corruption because he's running for President? Because the current President is his political rival so he's off-limits to investigation? I'm curious how that seems to be different than Clinton/Obama/Biden pressuring Ukraine, Australia and others paying foreign agents to dig up dirt on Trump (and making it up when they couldn't find anything) did it during the run up to his election?
    • bostjan64
      To answer your question, no, I'm not saying anything like that. Biden should be investigated. What I'm saying is that Biden should be investigated through the proper legal channels, or else it's, well, *illegal.*
    • bostjan64
      The logic that "X did shady illegal thing, therefore it is legal for Y to do other illegal thing" doesn't scan from any angle. But, it is worth mentioning that whoever is abusing power has more potential for abuse with more power. Maybe that's an obvious statement, but the sitting president has more power than a former vice president, and therefore and abuse of power by a sitting president is a bigger, more serious concern than an abuse of power by a former vice president, even if they are both extremely serious situations. Further along the same line, if Joe Biden threatened to have someone executed for treason, without any due process, it would be bad, but if President Trump does the same, as sitting president, the threat carries much more weight, seeing as he has the power to make it happen. If the President withheld military aid from the Ukraine, that's one thing, but if he did it in order to put political pressure on the Ukrainian leadership to do personal favours for him, that's illegal and immoral. I don't know how else you can look at it.
    • Archie Bunker
      The head of the executive branch reaching out to a foreign leader (which he's allowed to do) IS the proper legal channel. Telling my neighbor to help me try and figure out who's been shitting in my lawn is perfectly acceptable. And President Trump did nothing illegal. You may not like it, but it's perfectly legal what he did when telling Ukraine to investigate the corruption involving Biden, political rival or not.
    • bostjan64
      Read the last two sentences of my previous comment; I already said why it is illegal. Your neighbour analogy is missing an important detail about how someone gave you money to give to your neighbour and you refused to hand it over until your neighbour investigated your other neighbour to prove that he was the one shitting on your lawn (whether he was or not). It's a totally different set of circumstances with just one minor detail in common. Withholding funds from a recipient via another government agency has a little grey in the legality, but doing so for personal or political gain is, in fact, illegal and impeachable.
    • Archie Bunker
      But there is no evidence that he held up the money because of Biden. If that was the case, this would be cut and dried. Because of the corruption of the government, I have no problem with them not getting our $400m. Telling one government to investigate suspected illegal activity, is not a crime.
    • bostjan64
      "But there is no evidence that he held up the money because of Biden." Refer to the call transcript released by the White House. And no case is cut and dried until the evidence has all been discussed in court. For example, if Trump admitted that the money was held up because of Biden in court, but offered a justifiable reason why, then it'd be silly to have him removed from office. "Because of the corruption of the government, I have no problem with them not getting our $400m." That's a mighty fine opinion, and I agree that we should not give money to corrupt governments. However, as evidenced by the call transcript, the hold up, ultimately, wasn't "Ukraine government is corrupt," it was that they needed to do something for the President, personally. That's likely an abuse of power. There are still "ifs ands and buts," that might come to light, and I think the Democrats are afraid that if they vote to start an impeachment without figuring out Trump's next move, that they'll fail and get ousted during the next election cycle. But 1. if Trump did as they allege, then they have no reason not to vote to begin the hearing and 2. if they are not sure, then they (Pelosi et al) should not make formal statements about having an impeachment, and also 3. if they do run their mouths about impeaching the President, and they get caught in some sort of web of lies or whatever, then they should be removed themselves. But, if Trump did abuse his power, withholding federal funds from Ukraine over an ultimatum, verbal or practiced, over a personal matter, then they should vote to begin the hearing and get this over with once and for all, one way or the other. Because, Trump is correct in digging in his heels at this point and saying that this is not an impeachment until the House votes to say it is so.
    • mushroom
      The reason Pelosi is against a floor vote for the inquiry is because it would let loose the entire Assembly to confuse the issue with conspiracy chatter and infighting. That is why we have committees to focus on the issues.
  • Its expensive/wasteful!
    • Boola Boo
      Sensable answer.
  • Apparently. His approval rating has remained unchanged!! Its not doing any good! HAHAHAHAHA!
    • bostjan64
      Well, 40% approval isn't really a good thing by any standard.
    • Archie Bunker
      It's the same as Obama's at the same time frame, according to RealClear Politics. And considering the fact that the media is noticibly against him, I'm cool with 40%.
    • bostjan64
      So you are saying that Trump is just as bad as Obama?
  • Bumping this question. There's a lot going on with President Trump. His approval rating, on average, is lower than any other president any living person can recall. He's being sued by congress over violation of the US Constitution (Article I Section 9 Clause 8 and Article 2 Section 1 Clause 7), which he has publicly admitted that he doesn't think he has to obey. We have known now for well over a year that he made hush payments to two women about scandalous behaviour, which is illegal. He is actively obstructed the Russia investigation, which was illegal. Republicans' answers to the emoluments clause violations are that US Constitutional law doesn't matter in that case, but when it comes to this impeachment, the same people are saying that the president cannot be impeached over the Ukrainian abuse of power case because of the powers of the president outlined in the same document. Republicans' answer to the hush money is that the president didn't know that he was paying those women to be quiet, which is just ridiculous - how do you not know that you are paying someone to keep quiet about something? Their response to the obstruction is that the investigation was illegal anyway. But yet, the investigation led to several very high profile people being convicted in court of illegally interfering with the election and funneling campaign money to Russia, and then trying to cover it all up on Trump's behalf. The central person convicted in the investigation has said repeatedly that he did it all under Trump's direct orders (but Republicans say you can't believe that guy because he's a criminal- nice Catch 22 there). This guy was elected to drain the swamp in Washington, yet he has gone on to become the most corrupted politician since WWII. I am not a Democrat, in fact, I am repulsed by most career Democrat politicians. But I frankly think it is unacceptable for us to put up with this kind of garbage from our elected officials and go on calling them heroes. I really really wanted to like Trump. He was something different. I did have my reservation based on his history, but I really hoped that he would change things for the better. In some ways. he has, but all of this blatant disregard for morality, disregard for ethics, flippant attitude toward laws, and selective regard for the US Constitution has my stomach turning. Why are religious folks okay with all of this? Actually, not just okay, but they pretty much want to fight anyone who raises an eyebrow at these sorts of shenanigans...

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy