"We believe that Trump has violated the Constitution, and...

[urvile]

I don't think this is how a coup works.

You are probably asking a bit to much to expect BB to understand the difference between impeachment and an actual coup. What BB's comment was really about is deflection.

 

[urvile]

In fact I think BB might be a branch of tajbots source code.

 

[bradly1101]

I think democrats know this is likely to fail, but want to lay the case out there for the public to see then see who votes against such logical evidence. Some voters would see those congressmen, their congressmen, as fools and democrats would hopefully garner more votes for 2018 after which they can do this all over again with a majority. Remember how you felt toward the jury that acquitted OJ? Like that.

 

[Atreus21]

No coup. Some of them are plain as day like emoluments. Also, Republicans are on record for trying to impeach over lying under oath. So please.

Fixed.

 

[trenchfoot]

Too early to insist the he be impeached now, never too early to keep the fire lit on simmer with the timer set for the right moment.

That right moment will come and it's pretty much timed in sync with Mueller's methodical process of threshing and winnowing out the chaff from the grain.

When the time comes, I really don't want to hear this lame excuse: "That in this time of uncertainty and imminent terrorist attacks, it's in the best interest of the nation to refrain from impeaching Mr. Trump."

Of course, Mr. Pence would be the first to vociferously object in the back rooms of Congress, but who knows, that parlor trick might actually get Trump off the hook.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Perjury about a blowjob is not nearly as serious as perjury about a Russian attack on our democracy.

Not a pro or con Trump comment - Has Trump been formally deposed and given a sworn statement about colluding with Russia? If he hasn't said anything under oath, then there's no perjury on his part.

I'm only speaking specifically to your comment.

 

[SNC]

No coup. Some of them are plain as day like emoluments. Also, Republicans are on record for trying to impeach over lying about a blowjob. So please.

Its people like you who make it harder to punish crimes. Clinton was not brought up for impeachment for lying about a blowjob, he was however for committing perjury. If you can't see the difference there then how can you get behind any attempt to remove someone you don't like from office for even a lesser thing? So let's just say that Trump is found to have without a doubt couluded with Russia. Collusion in and of itself is not a crime (whether it should be or not is up for discussion, I believe it should be), lying about it under oath however is. So will you defend Trump if he's brought up on the same charge of perjury? Remember the underlying reason for the perjury is relevant to the charge.

 

[IronWing]

Fixed.

Not really. The House Republicans impeached Clinton because they could and thought it would score them political points.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perjury about a blowjob is not nearly as serious as perjury about a Russian attack on our democracy.

Exactly when did Trump do this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nothing impeachable now?

He's correct. There is a difference between having grounds and impeachment succeeding. Let's say this makes it to a vote. What happens next is that Dems say x,y, and. The Reps say we disagree. Vote please. That's the end of that because this isn't a matter of justice or law, it's an opinion on the part of both parties. Dems automatically lose (as things stand now) and a horribly botched job makes better founded charges harder to bring due to politics. Once, ok. Twice? Witch hunt.

Remember this has to go against Trump by 2/3's vote because just voting to impeach is not enough. He has to be impeached and removed, otherwise it's no more than a parking ticket in terms of how it impacts him. He'll get mad and do what he always does.

Showboating is not helpful.

 

[jmagg]

Showboating is not helpful.

Maxine for Prez!

 

[fskimospy]

He's correct. There is a difference between having grounds and impeachment succeeding. Let's say this makes it to a vote. What happens next is that Dems say x,y, and. The Reps say we disagree. Vote please. That's the end of that because this isn't a matter of justice or law, it's an opinion on the part of both parties. Dems automatically lose (as things stand now) and a horribly botched job makes better founded charges harder to bring due to politics. Once, ok. Twice? Witch hunt.

Remember this has to go against Trump by 2/3's vote because just voting to impeach is not enough. He has to be impeached and removed, otherwise it's no more than a parking ticket in terms of how it impacts him. He'll get mad and do what he always does.

Showboating is not helpful.

Yep! It's pretty obvious that Trump has committed a number of impeachable offenses. Until things change in a political sense though he's not being impeached for them.

 

[SNC]

Perjury about a blowjob is not nearly as serious as perjury about a Russian attack on our democracy.

So you feel its OK to lie under oath? Regardless of what the subject is, its the underlying principle of our legal system, but as long as you like the guy I guess its OK to give him a pass.

 

[Maxima1]

So you feel its OK to lie under oath? Regardless of what the subject is, its the underlying principle of our legal system, but as long as you like the guy I guess its OK to give him a pass.

The context was about impeachment. I don't believe what Clinton lied about should have led to it. Also, he was never prosecuted for it, and sometimes people do get a pass depending on what it is.

Exactly when did Trump do this?

He hasn't, though he lies constantly about it, and we all know the same would happen if he was under oath. You act as if nothing as serious or worse hasn't happened as well. He's tried many different ways to obstruct justice so far. I listed a few prior.

 

[fskimospy]

So you feel its OK to lie under oath? Regardless of what the subject is, its the underlying principle of our legal system, but as long as you like the guy I guess its OK to give him a pass.

I don’t think anyone is arguing it’s okay to lie under oath, the question is if any president who does this should be impeached, regardless of the other circumstances.

If you look at the pantheon of presidential lying things that stand out to me are things like Watergate, an extraordinary abuse of power, Iran Contra, something that killed people. (I’m sure there are democratic equivalents too these are just the first two that came to mind)

Now even though Reagan went on national television and lied to the entire country about a program that got people killed this wasn’t under oath. It seems odd to remove Clinton from office for a fairly innocuous lie (by presidential standards) but not remove Reagan for lies about far more consequential issues.

So I guess in short it just doesn’t seem that simple. Trump should be removed because he is using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and is abusing presidential powers. If he simply lied under oath in a deposition (something he has clearly done many times in the past) I wouldn’t support it.

 

[SNC]

The context was about impeachment. I don't believe what Clinton lied about should have led to it. Also, he was never prosecuted for it, and sometimes people do get a pass depending on what it is.

So situational ethics, got it. I wonder if you would be OK with your wife lying about blowing the pool boy during your divorce proceeding.

 

[SNC]

I don’t think anyone is arguing it’s okay to lie under oath, the question is if any president who does this should be impeached, regardless of the other circumstances.

If you look at the pantheon of presidential lying things that stand out to me are things like Watergate, an extraordinary abuse of power, Iran Contra, something that killed people. (I’m sure there are democratic equivalents too these are just the first two that came to mind)

Now even though Reagan went on national television and lied to the entire country about a program that got people killed this wasn’t under oath. It seems odd to remove Clinton from office for a fairly innocuous lie (by presidential standards) but not remove Reagan for lies about far more consequential issues.

So I guess in short it just doesn’t seem that simple. Trump should be removed because he is using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and is abusing presidential powers. If he simply lied under oath in a deposition (something he has clearly done many times in the past) I wouldn’t support it.

Seams like you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Seams like you are.

I would suggest you read my post again then because that's a pretty stunning failure of reading comprehension. 'Should not be impeached for' does not equal 'is okay' or anything even remotely close to it.

EDIT: Also, way to avoid the substance.

 

[SNC]

I would suggest you read my post again then because that's a pretty stunning failure of reading comprehension. 'Should not be impeached for' does not equal 'is okay' or anything even remotely close to it.

EDIT: Also, way to avoid the substance.

I asked the question: Is it OK to lye under oath? You stated that no one was saying it was, then went on to describe a situation where lying under oath was OK with you, please correct me if that is not what I read. Everything between those two comments is irreverent. Unlike partisan supporters, the way I look at it takes all politics out of it. If you lie under oath you have committed perjury, no if and's or buts. Your way allows for those in power to determine when lying under oath is a crime. I don't want Trump or his supporters to have that power, do you?

 

[interchange]

Yep! It's pretty obvious that Trump has committed a number of impeachable offenses. Until things change in a political sense though he's not being impeached for them.

This right here. It is absolutely just for him to face impeachment and removal from office based on what is known now. It's sad that it is probably a bad political action at this time.

 

[fskimospy]

I asked the question: Is it OK to lye under oath? You stated that no one was saying it was, then went on to describe a situation where lying under oath was OK with you, please correct me if that is not what I read.

I stated that no one was saying it was, and then went on to not mention a single situation where lying under oath was okay with me. Again, 'should not be impeached for' and 'think is okay' are two entirely different things. As I mentioned, Trump lies constantly about basically everything. I don't think that's okay, but he shouldn't be impeached for being a liar. He should be impeached for obstructing justice, enriching himself using the office, etc.

Hopefully that serves as a sufficient correction.

Everything between those two comments is irreverent. Unlike partisan supporters, the way I look at it takes all politics out of it. If you lie under oath you have committed perjury, no if and's or buts. Your way allows for those in power to determine when lying under oath is a crime. I don't want Trump or his supporters to have that power, do you?

Yes but the way you look at it is probably a super bad idea from a good governance standpoint. For example what if the president lied under oath to protect an important national secret? By the way yes, the Constitution was written explicitly to allow those in power to determine when lying under oath is an impeachable offense. That's the way our country was created and it was on purpose. As to whether or not I want Congress to have that power that's kind of irrelevant as they undeniably do. What would your alternative be? Are the courts going to order the arrest of the president by his own executive branch?

As to everything else being irrelevant I was showing exactly why your standard is probably a bad idea. By your standard we are 'taking politics out of it' and then not punishing presidents for lies that lead to death and destruction but punishing presidents for lies about an extramarital affair. Seems like a bad system to me.

 

[SNC]

I stated that no one was saying it was, and then went on to not mention a single situation where lying under oath was okay with me. Again, 'should not be impeached for' and 'think is okay' are two entirely different things. As I mentioned, Trump lies constantly about basically everything. I don't think that's okay, but he shouldn't be impeached for being a liar. He should be impeached for obstructing justice, enriching himself using the office, etc.

Hopefully that serves as a sufficient correction.

It does, thank you.

 

[cytg111]

I can understand filing them before a war with NK breaks out...

 

[bradly1101]

He's correct. There is a difference between having grounds and impeachment succeeding. Let's say this makes it to a vote. What happens next is that Dems say x,y, and. The Reps say we disagree. Vote please. That's the end of that because this isn't a matter of justice or law, it's an opinion on the part of both parties. Dems automatically lose (as things stand now) and a horribly botched job makes better founded charges harder to bring due to politics. Once, ok. Twice? Witch hunt.

Remember this has to go against Trump by 2/3's vote because just voting to impeach is not enough. He has to be impeached and removed, otherwise it's no more than a parking ticket in terms of how it impacts him. He'll get mad and do what he always does.

Showboating is not helpful.

Opinion? We all saw Trump say on national TV that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. Is that not proof of obstruction of justice?

"Among those, the lawmakers say Trump obstructed justice when he fired former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the federal investigation into Moscow’s 2016 election meddling — a probe that has included questions of potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign team.

They’re also accusing Trump of violating the foreign emoluments clause, which bars public officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments without Congress’s consent, and the domestic emoluments clause, which bars the president from profiting from his office.

Finally, the Democrats say the president has undermined two of the country’s central institutions — the courts and the press — in ways that threaten the health of the nation’s democracy."

You don't think those can be proved? It's true that the republicans won't let this get very far, but to their peril (IMO). I believe that there are enough logical swing voters to see this and change their vote from republican to democrat in 2018. Again, I think the dems are banking on that. It's also true that the illogical base will be more energized by this. It's a gamble, but worth it (IMO).

 

[brandonbull]

Brandonbullshit seems to have a problem with American citizens voting. Why is that?

What I have a problem with is Bill Nelson more worried about getting victims of a major hurricane registered to vote in Florida than helping to return them to their rebuilt society.