If Trump were to win again (1 Viewer)

[Speed_eRacer]

Would the Democrats try to impeach him again for 4 years or would they back off knowing he won’t be re-elected?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Isn't that a rather loaded framing?

If Trump yet again has robust abuses unearthed going into his term, commits obstructive acts like firing people that won't capitulate to not pursuing criminal matters involving his friends, should congress not be investigating? As impeachment talk didn't actually happen until one unindicted felony charge, 10 counts of obstruction, attempted conspiracy, and 3 years into his presidency. But presumably, if more improprieties occur, they will be in the context of all the past ones. And the constitution is clear in wanting to deter abuses of powers and having co-equal branches checking one another.

Politically though, I could see the Democrats abdicating their congressional oversight responsibilities with Pelosi in charge. Despite all the facts and the moral responsibility on her side, she has cowered due to phantom political concerns and played the tightly locked gate-keeper under two criminal administrations now, Bush and Trump. Trump winning re-election would probably make her as useful as McConnell is in pushing back any calls to investigate Trump further(if legitimate)....And our democracy would suffer greatly if that were to occur.

The better question is why so many seem to think that the balance of power and constitutional check should be abandoned if Trump is re-elected? If Trump abuses his power in the same way he has this term, he should be impeached. Better yet, the law should be re-written or the constitution amended to hold a president criminally liable for many matters, the way subsequent democracies learned was necessary. As the founder's intent on a balance of power and accountability is clearly not being upheld right now. Nor what I think most citizens want.

 

[yuyi64]

Isn't that a rather loaded framing? As impeachment talk didn't actually happen until one unindicted felony charge, 10 counts of obstruction, attempted conspiracy, and 3 years into his presidency.

I don't think RRG's framing is loaded at all considering the fact that Democrats have been publicly talking about impeaching Trump since the day after the election. I have no doubt that if he's reelected we will see four more years of hysterical "impeach the MF" (her words, not mine) type rhetoric from day one of the new term.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I don't think RRG's framing is loaded at all considering the fact that Democrats have been publicly talking about impeaching Trump since the day after the election. I have no doubt that if he's reelected we will see four more years of hysterical "impeach the MF" (her words, not mine) type rhetoric from day one of the new term.

Sources missing to confirm a significant number of sitting members of congress were notably calling to impeach Trump from day one of his presidency.

The rest of your comments about calls from day one of a second term are addressed in the rest of my post.

If the shoe fits, why wouldn't they tbh(they wont politically, but on the merits if applicable)? the real question then becomes why shouldn't his branch be held to account? The constitution and it's framers were very clear on needing structural and normative, not just democratic checks on executive power. I think the onus is on you to make the argument for abandoning them. And if you want to abandon them, why you would not advocate some sort of replacement to check the executive branch?

 

[yuyi64]

If the shoe fits, why wouldn't they tbh? the real question then becomes why shouldn't his branch be held to account? The constitution and it's framers were very clear on needing structural and normative, not just democratic checks on executive power. I think the onus is on you to make the argument for abandoning them. And if you want to abandon them, why you would not advocate some sort of replacement to check the executive branch?

The shoe doesn't fit so there's nothing in this case to hold the executive branch accountable for. There is no onus on anyone (except possibly you) because no one but you has brought up the subject on abandoning the Constitution or its checks and balances. That's why those of us who support the Constitution are so opposed to seeing certain politicians using it repeatedly and incessantly as an excuse to achieve political gains.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The shoe doesn't fit so there's nothing in this case to hold the executive branch accountable for. There is no onus on anyone (except possibly you) because no one but you has brought up the subject on abandoning the Constitution or its checks and balances. That's why those of us who support the Constitution are so opposed to seeing certain politicians using it repeatedly and incessantly as an excuse to achieve political gains.

I notice once again you are deliberately not responding to key parts of my posts and deflecting the rest. Citations are still needed about sitting Democrats supposedly screaming impeachment on day one. There were none provided in this response.

As already listed: 10 counts of obstruction, attempted conspiracy, the principal-agent in a felony campaign finance violation, soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our election, obstructing justice in attempting to cover up that abuse of power, robust abuses of the emoluments clause, and growingly a strong case for contempt of congress.

Should these matters be investigated and sanctioned? These are all acts that got past presidents impeached: obstruction, contempt of congress, abuse of power, abdicating constitutional duties. Why should that not happen for Trump here? You have often made the claim that had Trump committed a criminal act, you would support impeachment. But he already has. Your logic thus far on defending Trump has not held up and not been consistent. When pushed on your undergirding logic you have yet to provide a straight answer.

As to the constitutional questions, the question posed is whether Democrats will investigate Trump if re-elected. My response is simple, I think they will be hesitant, but I also want to raise the question because it seems implied, that the right course is not to do it. Asking back, if Trump commits additional abuses of power, why shouldn't they be investigated and impeached if fitting? A challenge you also avoided answering.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't think RRG's framing is loaded at all considering the fact that Democrats have been publicly talking about impeaching Trump since the day after the election.

Not all Democrats called for his impeachment from the very beginning. It was only a few. Prior to the first whistle blower's complaint about a month ago, the majority of the Democrats in the House were against impeachment.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Not all Democrats called for his impeachment from the very beginning. It was only a few. Prior to the first whistle blower's complaint about a month ago, the majority of the Democrats in the House were against impeachment.

I'm honestly wanting to see who these supposed sitting Democrats were that called to remove him on day one?

I know some got on board after the revelations of the Trump Tower meeting, more after firing of Comey, but almost all still towed the line of letting investigations play out, even if they had personal suspicions. Even when they won, the House refused to act en masse for almost a year.

Of course, if you accept the premise that everything was a witch hunt, obviously that makes every call for investigation evidence they are a witch hunter, which is the power of that rhetorical device. Since if your premise is set that anything against the president is a motivated political witch hunt, nothing can be legitimate. Therefore even legitimate cals for investigation are branded as evidence of witch hunting.

 

[MT15]

I honestly don’t remember anyone in Congress saying anything about impeachment from the beginning. Who was it?

 

[yuyi64]

Not all Democrats called for his impeachment from the very beginning. It was only a few. Prior to the first whistle blower's complaint about a month ago, the majority of the Democrats in the House were against impeachment.

So you think a mere complaint based on hearsay by someone of questionable political allegiance is enough to begin an impeachment inquiry but prior to that there wasn't?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So you think a mere complaint based on hearsay by someone of questionable political allegiance is enough to begin an impeachment inquiry but prior to that there wasn't?

This might work if the President didn't admit to everything the whistleblower said happened.

Or, if we didn't also get a rough transcript that further backed up the whistleblower's claims. Which was the impetus for the impeachment inquiry. Which came in the context, of, again, a president that had already committed:

10 counts of obstruction, attempted conspiracy, the principal-agent in a felony campaign finance violation, robust abuses of the emoluments clause, and was now openly admitting to soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our election a day after the Mueller testimony and further obstructed justice in attempting to cover up that abuse of power by locking that conversation in code level digital vaults to avoid it's distribution..​

 

[Ayo]

Independents have moved from 50% against and 44% in favor to 54% in favor and 41% against in the last three weeks. That’s nineteen total percentage points in about as many days.

Of course if it’s that volatile one way it could go the other way. Or as more comes out like it has been it keeps moving in that same direction. But right now it doesn’t seem to appeal along strictly party lines.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I honestly don’t remember anyone in Congress saying anything about impeachment from the beginning. Who was it?

I seem to remember that a lone Representative called for impeachment, but no one in the House paid attention to him and he only got a quick blip with the media. It may not have been literally on the first day, but it was very early on.

Still, that doesn't rise to the level of "Democrats have been talking about impeaching him from the very beginning." At best it's one Democrat has been talking about it since the beginning.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So you think a mere complaint based on hearsay by someone of questionable political allegiance is enough to begin an impeachment inquiry but prior to that there wasn't?

I''ll gladly answer your question if you provide these specific details.

What mere complaint?

Based on what hearsay?

By which person?

With what questionable political allegiance?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I''ll gladly answer your question if you provide these specific details.

What mere complaint?

Based on what hearsay?

By which person?

With what questionable political allegiance?

He's referring to the whistleblower who's (corroborated) account was not first-hand, that the right-wing media has increasingly pushed a narrative that he was Biden sympathetic because he is speculated by the depths of the conservative blogosphere(with no real evidence I can find) to have possibly worked in proximity to him when Obama was president(seemingly like he did with Trump's people as well, but we'll ignore that theories logical hole for now).

Attacking the credibility and account of the whistleblower was the OG attack point the conservative media and Trump went into, of course, it blew up when the transcript corroborated the whistleblowers account almost word for word, and the president admitted the impropriety and abuse publicly.

But sort of like a lot of these cycles in the Trump era, even the disproven allegations tend to have a long life and lingering effect.

 

[V Chip]

Would the Democrats try to impeach him again for 4 years or would they back off knowing he won’t be re-elected?

I think the more accurate question should be:

Would Trump see it as carte blanche to commit even more treasonous and criminal acts, knowing the Republicans won't give one whit about treason or criminal activity as long as he is President?

 

[bdb13]

I think the more accurate question should be:

Would Trump see it as carte blanche to commit even more treasonous and criminal acts, knowing the Republicans won't give one whit about treason or criminal activity as long as he is President?

There's a question?

 

[Heathen]

I have no doubt that if he's reelected we will see four more years of hysterical "impeach the MF" (her words, not mine) type rhetoric from day one of the new term.

What's wrong with calling a spade a spade? He should be impeached. Not that Republicans care about the rule of law in this country, in which case he'd likely already be on his way out.