Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The actual question was "37. Do you think that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you think so?"
Except people actually reading this are saying it’s unprecedented. This isn't normal or like all in the political system. This isn't politics as usual.
You sure like to get personal. Probably why you get so many timeouts. Goes to show that many Dems are hypocrites and don't actually care about other people.
I think your argument would be very persuasive if biden was currently a senator or congressman. In fact, i would probably support that argument.
Does anyone think he should be impeached but not removed from office? That would be strange. ( An impeachment inquiry, on the other hand, is different. Hopefully we get polling on that.)
It takes a second for the ignore feature to work. If someone is flooding the board with posts and you're active in the thread, you'll see their most recent posts. If you refresh the page after 30 seconds or so, they'll disappear.
As you may know, the first step toward removing a president from office is impeachment. Do you believe Congress should begin
impeachment proceedings to remove President Trump from office?
September 24-26
Total:
Yes 43% (+7 since Sep 20-22)
No 43% (-6)
Unsure 13% (-2)
Democrats:
Yes 79% (+13)
No 12% (-5)
Unsure 10% (-6)
Republicans:
Yes 10% (+5)
No 85% (-4)
Unsure 5% (-1)Impeachment is basically an indictment. Being impeached, doesn't make one guilty or presume any punishment. Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.
Not sure anyone really answered your question so I will go ahead and do so. It is a crime to solicit the assistance of a foreign government in a federal election. Asking the President of Ukraine to open an investigation of a political rival is just that. The allegations in the compliant go even further than that (cover up, witholding money, etc..). This of course doesn't even go to things that aren't crimes such as abuse of power.
They're wrong- and they're right.
Do you approve or disapprove of the House of Representatives formally starting an impeachment inquiry into President Trump?
Total:
Approve 49%
Disapprove 46%
Unsure 5%
Democrats:
Approve 88%
Disapprove 10%
Unsure 2%
Republicans:
Approve 6%
Disapprove 93%
Unsure 1%
Independents:
Approve 44%
Disapprove 50%
Unsure 7%No. If you believe he should be impeached, then you believe he should be removed- this is based on the modern day practice in which all of the testimony takes place before the House votes on impeachment. In the old days, ala Andrew Johnson, you could vote to impeach him while withholding judgment on his actual guilt, because in the case of Johnson no testimony came before the House. Johnson fired Edward Stanton, Secretary of War, and this violated the Tenure of Office Act (which was later deemed unconstitutional), a law passed by Congress as an attempt to protect Lincoln's cabinet. So they impeached him right after Stanton was fired without public hearings beforehand. Congress also added all kinds of other spurious charges- public drunkenness, lewd behavior, etc. But almost all of the debate in the Senate involved Stanton.
It goes to show this isn't black or white and illustrates why the public will not support impeachment unless further proof comes. As it stands now this is just noise that will be gone soon.
Actually I disagree with all of this. Both the transcript, and even more the whistleblower report, are pretty damning. Enough so that I believe we're going to get testimony within the next couple of weeks that back up both the charges of quid pro quo and cover up. And I further believe the public, other than diehard Trump supporters, is getting this as well, which is why even now the public already supports impeachment- the polls just don't show it yet. As it stands now, this is anything BUT noise- it will become noise if the witnesses don't match what the report says- but that seems very unlikely at this point.
Well the difference is in the damage that’s done along the way. Here Trump has destroyed the process and turned the WB in this situation as facing the same dangers as Manning & Snowden. How the ‘system’ protects them is key. Likewise if Manning & Snowden has used the WB system they’d likely be free men (er people) in America today.
I like to think I'm part of that public. Tim likes to point out the importance of Independent voters such as myself.
That number is pretty big...and before the complaint was out and today's testimony even.
Even Warren?
Yes, former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova stated nothing Trump said on the call constitutes a crime, contrary to Judge Nap. Here is what he said yesterday. "The President of the United States is the executive branch under article 2, he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He can ask anyone, any citizen or foreign leader a question. He can make a suggestion on an investigation because he runs them. And by the way, in the latest set to with the whistle blower, the office of legal council has said that requesting information from a foreign government is not a thing of value, it is not a foreign contribution. I must say this, I have been a U.S. attorney, an independant council, an investigative council on capital hill and house and senate. Judge Napolitano has never been a U.S. Attorney, he has never been a federal prosecutor, he has never conducted a federal grand jury. I have done all of those things."
Before addressing this Joe D’s firm (he & his wife) represent multiple subjects of the Mueller investigation and they were in a joint defense agreement with Donald Trump’s legal team.
Who else should I believe? The other side wasn't/isn't being transparent at this time.
No, I will rely on my expert with more experience than you or Judge Nap thanks.
Just on the substance of what you have here, my original point was that Fox had a panel of ‘experts’ who weren’t experts clamoring about The Man (aka Deep State) keeping them down, while Napolitano was not invited. He was a state Supreme Court Justice, and a State Judge:
It sounds like Trump believes the whistleblower, as he was calling those in his administration who spoke to the whistleblower spies and traitors.
My point isn’t about Joe D’s expertise, it’s that he’s a hired gun representing people with a direct interest in what happens here. He’s a paid advocate.
Yeah, this argument has also been made by Dershowitz. Putting aside the fact that both of them have defended Trump at every instance, it certainly doesn't gibe with the vast majority of legal thinking on the issue.
Lol, I strongly suspect that you'll be wrong. You gotta get out of your bubble. Many here need to.
The problem with his "I have more experience" line is that I've now heard about a dozen former US attorneys on TV that don't share his POV.
Where did you pull that quote from? Because there are a whole bunch of spelling errors. Was that from a news publication?
I'm a lot of things. Depending on the state of our country. However, I like to think I'm a Patriot. (not to be confused with a Patriot's fan, yuck)
When you already think he's guilty before even reading the text I could see why you could think that.
The fact that things have to be parsed and so carefully crafted should be your first clue that this doesn't rise to level Dems WANT it to.
