What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Why should Trump be removed from office? (1 Viewer)

bostonfred

bostonfred

Footballguy
For people who support impeachment and removal from office, why should he be removed? 

What high crimes or misdemeanors specifically require removal?   

Why is it urgent that this be done by Congress and not decided in the election?   

This is not a thread for trump supporters.  This is not a thread to debate whether Trump committed crimes. This is a thread for people who support impeachment and removal to clearly articulate why.  Please be respectful of this purpose. If this thread goes well, I would like to have a follow up thread for people who DON'T support impeachment and removal to articulate why it's not necessary. 

 
 Because his history of abusing power and putting his own interests ahead of national interests is highly likely to continue.

We, as a country, should not abide our top leader using the office of the presidency to enrich himself or his family, or use the power of the presidency to further his political career.

Add in all the obstruction of justice and poor management, and it seems a pretty significant justification to remove him.

 
joffer said:
1. Obstruction of Justice

2. Abuse of Power
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate?   Why does that mean he needs to be removed from office?  More to the point, why is it the appropriate response to remove him from office as opposed to something else (e.g. censure, or waiting until he's out of office to seek an indictment)? 

Also, these offenses are very vague.

What's the difference between the "abuse of power" by Trump and the partisan opinion of every minority party that the majority is abusing their power?  

Why should anyone care if the president "obstructs justice"?  

 
bostonfred said:
Can you elaborate?   Why does that mean he needs to be removed from office?  More to the point, why is it the appropriate response to remove him from office as opposed to something else (e.g. censure, or waiting until he's out of office to seek an indictment)? 

Also, these offenses are very vague.

What's the difference between the "abuse of power" by Trump and the partisan opinion of every minority party that the majority is abusing their power?  

Why should anyone care if the president "obstructs justice"?  
Click to expand...
:mellow:

The President is not above the law, nor a monarch, and in fact is the country's chief law enforcer, that is why we should care if he obstructs justice.

 
adonis said:
 Because his history of abusing power and putting his own interests ahead of national interests is highly likely to continue.

We, as a country, should not abide our top leader using the office of the presidency to enrich himself or his family, or use the power of the presidency to further his political career.

Add in all the obstruction of justice and poor management, and it seems a pretty significant justification to remove him.
Click to expand...
This is a good start.  But it's not a clear case to me.  

The thing that's compelling is because his behavior "is highly likely to continue". That's a valid reason why this needs to be done via immediate removal and not waiting for the election.  

The things that aren't clear to me are what you mean by "history of abusing powerhis history of abusing power and putting his own interests ahead of national interests"  and "using the office of the presidency to enrich himself or his family, or use the power of the presidency to further his political career."  As far as I can tell, the impeachment inquiry is only currently investigating one of these.  

 
There are a number of offenses that a person could point toward to justify impeachment, but just to keep things simple, he abused the power of his office by threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they dug up dirt on Joe Biden. 

This warrants removal from office because the president (or any other elected official) shouldn't be able to use their office to tamper with elections.  Not only is it egregiously improper, but you can't rely on the electoral process to "punish" misbehavior if the misbehavior in question is undermining elections.  

 
squistion said:
:mellow:

The President is not above the law, nor a monarch, and in fact is the country's chief law enforcer, that is why we should care if he obstructs justice.
Click to expand...
I understand that this sounds compelling to you, but imagine that you aren't inclined to believe that the president is a criminal and you don't know what obstruction of justice really means.

Honestly, when i hear that phrase it sounds like the Democrats are just trying to impeach him over a technicality.  

I agree that it's important, but let's sharpen the case to make it very clear why removal is not only appropriate but necessary.  

 
Obstruction/Conspiracy

Telling McGahn to have special counsel removed, even though McGahn refused is still conspiracy to commit obstruction. It would be fine for a two bit drug dealer to commit something like this, but not our POTUS.

Trump is also obstructing justice by impeding witness testimony in the impeachment process. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
There are a number of offenses that a person could point toward to justify impeachment, but just to keep things simple, he abused the power of his office by threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they dug up dirt on Joe Biden. 

This warrants removal from office because the president (or any other elected official) shouldn't be able to use their office to tamper with elections.  Not only is it egregiously improper, but you can't rely on the electoral process to "punish" misbehavior if the misbehavior in question is undermining elections.  
Click to expand...
Yes.  This is much stronger.  Specifically that second paragraph - "you can't rely on the electoral process to "punish" misbehavior if the misbehavior in question is undermining elections."

 
bostonfred said:
This is a good start.  But it's not a clear case to me.  

The thing that's compelling is because his behavior "is highly likely to continue". That's a valid reason why this needs to be done via immediate removal and not waiting for the election.  

The things that aren't clear to me are what you mean by "history of abusing powerhis history of abusing power and putting his own interests ahead of national interests"  and "using the office of the presidency to enrich himself or his family, or use the power of the presidency to further his political career."  As far as I can tell, the impeachment inquiry is only currently investigating one of these.  
Click to expand...
If we sit on this behavior, where he's using foreign aid for an ally to dig up dirt on a political opponent to further his political career, what precedent is this setting for future presidents?  It's OK to behave in a manner that undermines national security and advances your own political career if you do it during an election year?

We have a history of Trump publicly asking Russia to interfere in our election by asking them, on TV, to find Hillary's emails.  An entire Mueller investigation into his, and his campaigns activities with Russians uncovered behavior we should not accept in a president, much less a candidate.  And here he is again, the day after Mueller testified to congress about his and his campaigns illicit connections with Russia, where he's using the power of his office to work with another foreign government to once again interfere in our elections by publicly announcing an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter for what seems to be a bogus reason.  If we're expecting a free and fair election in 2020, what confidence do we have that our president won't be working with other countries to undermine our elections in his favor?  How crazy is it that this is even a question - or a likelihood?

In the aftermath of both the Russia investigation, and now this investigation into what happened with Ukraine, Trump has stonewalled and used the power of his office to prevent people from testifying before congress about his behavior and uncovering/revealing the truth.

We are one of the greatest countries in history.  We have amazing standards of law, order, and justice.  Our president is trouncing many of these fundamental American concepts, with GOP-backed impunity, and we're being told we should just forget about it as a country because there's an election soon.

Have we no standards for who we have in office?  In ANY other office throughout the country, any number of the things Trump has done during his tenure would be enough to be kicked out of office, and in many cases jailed.  What happened to Rod Blagojevich when he decided that the power he held in office would be best used to benefit him personally?  How is his situation significantly different than Trumps?  

Additionally, there's evidence he's committed campaign finance fraud through his payoffs to Stormy.  There's evidence in the Mueller report that he obstructed justice.  He's publicly used his platform on twitter and the power of the presidency to intimidate witnesses.

The man is running roughshod over the laws and norms of our country, and it would be a shame if we just sat back and allowed it to happen just because it's an election year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think he should be removed but I'm kind of hoping he isn't and is soundly defeated in the 2020 elections.  I think that would help "heal" things while an impeachment and removal could make things worse.

ETA - I do think he should be impeached and make Senators go on record with their vote to not remove.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Self-dealing and use of his official responsibilities as a bargaining tool for his own purposes.

There is a difference, and it is not small or unimportant, between becoming President and becoming a celebrity who can then use that status to enrich yourself after leaving office and using the office of the Presidency and its official actions as leverage specifically to benefit yourself.  That's highly illegal and the very essence of corruption.  It will absolutely continue if he is not impeached and removed, and the foreign policy of the United States will be known as being for sale to the highest bidder.  In addition, as @IvanKaramazov said above, it's using the office to commit crimes related to the next election.  That should be frightening as a concept.

2. Obstruction of Justice.  

I argue that this is the more damning issue.  Obstruction of Justice cuts the heart out of our entire society.  The very purpose of our justice system and "no one is above the law" mentality is to provide an outlet for things that would otherwise lead to vigilantism and societal breakdown.  The only reason it works is because the justice system gets to find out what happened.  It is not perfect, and it is not always right, but it is entitled to know the truth and the facts.  Without those, we are no longer a civilized society, we are something else.  If one person is allowed to publicly refuse to participate in the justice system and tell others not to, there is no real justice system.  There is one set of rules for people who have no power and another set of rules for the people we consider powerful - not just "ways things get done", actual rules.  If that happens, this country isn't what was created by the founders anymore.  Privilege is one thing.  Power and the ability to manipulate the system always exist.  But the ability to simply say "no, I won't let you even investigate me" means the President is above the law.  And if he is, there is no real law, just ways written down that the justice department can prosecute people who don't have any real power that don't apply to the wealthy, political class.   We say that stratification exists right now, and I see what people mean by that, but we don't mean it literally.  It also establishes that the President and Congress are not co-equal branches of government, but that the President is above them.  That's very, very dangerous.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
in my opinion Trump should be removed from office for committing high crimes and misdemeanors, specifically for the following:   

He committed campaign finance violations in paying off Stormy Daniels and accepting stolen information from Russian agents prior to the 2016 election, and in requesting that the Ukranians announce a sham investigation into a political rival in anticipation of the 2020 election.

He committed obstruction of justice in his various attempts to thrwart the Mueller investigation as detailed at length in the Mueller report.  He has also obstructed justice by refusing to participate in the impeachment proceedings and in directing various government officials to ignore or willfully resist valid congressional subpoenas.

He has repeatedly violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by mixing his business interests and his political office.

More generally, he has abused his office by withholding Congressionally-appropriated aid to a foreign ally as a strong arm tactic to force Ukraine to conduct a sham investigation into a political rival.      

 
James Daulton said:
Personally I'd rather see him get crushed at the ballot box.  That would take away his martyrdom. 
Click to expand...
He'd claim, just as he was prepared to do in 2016, that the election was rigged against him and it was unfair.

Better to evict him, and show posterity that America will not tolerate this type of behavior from a president.

 
Henry Ford said:
1. Self-dealing and use of his official responsibilities as a bargaining tool for his own purposes.

There is a difference, and it is not small or unimportant, between becoming President and becoming a celebrity who can then use that status to enrich yourself after leaving office and using the office of the Presidency and its official actions as leverage specifically to benefit yourself.  That's highly illegal and the very essence of corruption.  It will absolutely continue if he is not impeached and removed, and the foreign policy of the United States will be known as being for sale to the highest bidder.  In addition, as @IvanKaramazov said above, it's using the office to commit crimes related to the next election.  That should be frightening as a concept.

2. Obstruction of Justice.  

I argue that this is the more damning issue.  Obstruction of Justice cuts the heart out of our entire society.  The very purpose of our justice system and "no one is above the law" mentality is to provide an outlet for things that would otherwise lead to vigilantism and societal breakdown.  The only reason it works is because the justice system gets to find out what happened.  It is not perfect, and it is not always right, but it is entitled to know the truth and the facts.  Without those, we are no longer a civilized society, we are something else.  If one person is allowed to publicly refuse to participate in the justice system and tell others not to, there is no real justice system.  There is one set of rules for people who have no power and another set of rules for the people we consider powerful - not just "ways things get done", actual rules.  If that happens, this country isn't what was created by the founders anymore.  Privilege is one thing.  Power and the ability to manipulate the system always exist.  But the ability to simply say "no, I won't let you even investigate me" means the President is above the law.  And if he is, there is no real law, just ways written down that the justice department can prosecute people who don't have any real power that don't apply to the wealthy, political class.   We say that stratification exists right now, and I see what people mean by that, but we don't mean it literally.  It also establishes that the President and Congress are not co-equal branches of government, but that the President is above them.  That's very, very dangerous.   
Click to expand...
I myself am a big "rule of law" guy.

 
The man elected by the people and for the people has clearly demonstrated he is governing in his own personal interests above the interests of the people. For that reason, he needs to go.

ETA: Not a democrat and never have been one. Still hate him. Didn't favor impeachment/removal until the Ukraine situation illustrated what I already thought of him, that's he's a selfish ##### who only cares about himself, and does not care what happens to the country as long as it benefits him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Ned
Seems like an easy one

Obstruction of Justice

  • Fired FBI Director that was actively investigating him
  • Attempted to interfere with special counsel investigation
  • Instructed aids to ignore congressional subpoenas
Corruption

  • Used presidential powers to elicit re-election aid from a foreign government
Emoluments

  • Spends copious amounts of tax payer money to golf at his own resorts
  • Awarded lucrative G7 government contract to his own resort (eventually pressured to back off this one)


These all seem like pretty basic abuses of power of the president using his office for personal gain and protection.  The Ukraine scandal alone is basically a worse version of Watergate where a foreign government plays the role of the office burglars.  This one is just missing the catchy name.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Decent list here: thread.
Click to expand...
That's a very strong list, especially if it's coupled with clear evidence of each of those things (I know there's evidence of many of them). 

But a lot of those things will get swept under the rug by supporters who claim "we wanted him because he's an outsider. I don't care if he follows all the rules i want him to get things done". 

It's also loaded language.  For example, "implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all" is easily dismissed by people who are favorably disposed towards him, who will dismiss it as "defending himself from the Democrats who started trying to impeach him before he got to office".

So while it's compelling to people who are inclined to n believe it's all true, it suffers from being a mile wide and an inch deep when you're trying to convince someone who doesn't want to believe that's all true and felt like they had a similar list of horrible things Obama had done. 

There's a reason why the articles of impeachment will likely be much more specific instead of including all of these things. But this is outstanding.  Thanks for sharing.  

 
Henry Ford offered a much more eloquent argument for removal than I ever could. He and others here have argued the right and wrong of the issue and that should be the most compelling answer. But let me discuss a very different issue: the political health of the nation. 

If Trump is impeached and removed a year before the election, he would become  a permanent martyr to conservatives  and the wrongness of his Presidency would forever be erased. His removal is all that will be remembered. The divide between us would sharpen and get even worse. 

On the other hand, if Trump is impeached but the Senate fails to remove him, then it is justice that will become the martyr. And when an angry public gets rid of Trump next November, justice would still not be vindicated, but this result (which I think is the most likely) will have the best chance of us healing. Therefore I would not be at all dissatisfied with this ultimate result. 

Of course there is a third option, which many of us dread: Trump does not get removed and he manages to get re-elected. In which case we would be effectively declaring that the President is lawless. I think this would be a disaster for the nation. Hopefully it won’t happen.  

 
Don't Noonan said:
Because Democrats hate him.   :goodposting:
Click to expand...
Many of us are not Democrats.  Please stop forwarding this over-generalization that folks who believe Trump should be removed from office must be Democrats. 

To me, it's simple: We are a nation of laws, and democracy is fragile.  We have a President who has clearly abused his power and looked to bribe a foreign leader to help besmirch his biggest perceived political opponent. He then has gone on to obstruct justice and interfere/tamper/intimidate witnesses. 

That this doesn't turn everyone's stomach is simply beyond me for anyone who states that they believe in law and order, and/or the protection of our democratic institutions (well, other than those who sincerely want for an authoritarian/dictatorial slide for our nation, and perhaps that is just it, many people do want just that, at the very expense of the democracy we have promoted for 250 years).

 
KCitons said:
Obstruction/Conspiracy

Telling McGahn to have special counsel removed, even though McGahn refused is still conspiracy to commit obstruction. It would be fine for a two bit drug dealer to commit something like this, but not our POTUS.

Trump is also obstructing justice by impeding witness testimony in the impeachment process. 
Click to expand...


Mookie said:
He committed obstruction of justice in his various attempts to thrwart the Mueller investigation as detailed at length in the Mueller report.  He has also obstructed justice by refusing to participate in the impeachment proceedings and in directing various government officials to ignore or willfully resist valid congressional subpoenas.
Click to expand...
I understand that the Mueller report lays out the case for ten possible instances of obstruction but the attorney general declared that he would not be indicted.  There's a clearer case for some than others. I am also hesitant to pin the case on "he obstructed justice" if the attorney general and House Democrats didn't.  

Trying to get mcgahn to remove Mueller is probably the strongest, but his supporters were aware when it happened and didn't clamor for him to bre impeached on that alone. So while it may be legally correct, it's hard to build a case to the American people that he needs to be removed because of this.  

As for him directing people not to comply with subpoenas, his argument is clearly that he believes he's allowed to and is taking it to the courts to prove it. If he loses in court, so be it, but he'll take each of these cases to court individually on slightly different grounds.  I'm not sure that can be considered illegal obstruction - and whether it's impeachable on its face.  

To me, the evidence of obstruction is stronger as support for an argument for impeachment than it is impeachable on its own. 

In other words, it's much more compelling to me to say he did illegal things and then illegally tried to hide it, than it is to say he was illegally uncooperative with an investigation that he considered ridiculous.  

 
This by @moleculopretty much sums up how I feel about it.

- I used to post in the Nerdy Impeachment thread about this, but after looking at it I think you could pluck every impeachment article in Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton and apply them to Trump. Convict on each, relying on facts in the Trump investigations. The only exception may be the Johnson article on how he behaved in general in office and his harangues against Congress and apply that to Trump and Congressmen, public officials and other Americans, but I will gladly wave the flag of extremism on that. In a vacuum on principle I would include that too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
1. Self-dealing and use of his official responsibilities as a bargaining tool for his own purposes.

There is a difference, and it is not small or unimportant, between becoming President and becoming a celebrity who can then use that status to enrich yourself after leaving office and using the office of the Presidency and its official actions as leverage specifically to benefit yourself.  That's highly illegal and the very essence of corruption.  It will absolutely continue if he is not impeached and removed, and the foreign policy of the United States will be known as being for sale to the highest bidder.  In addition, as @IvanKaramazov said above, it's using the office to commit crimes related to the next election.  That should be frightening as a concept.

2. Obstruction of Justice.  

I argue that this is the more damning issue.  Obstruction of Justice cuts the heart out of our entire society.  The very purpose of our justice system and "no one is above the law" mentality is to provide an outlet for things that would otherwise lead to vigilantism and societal breakdown.  The only reason it works is because the justice system gets to find out what happened.  It is not perfect, and it is not always right, but it is entitled to know the truth and the facts.  Without those, we are no longer a civilized society, we are something else.  If one person is allowed to publicly refuse to participate in the justice system and tell others not to, there is no real justice system.  There is one set of rules for people who have no power and another set of rules for the people we consider powerful - not just "ways things get done", actual rules.  If that happens, this country isn't what was created by the founders anymore.  Privilege is one thing.  Power and the ability to manipulate the system always exist.  But the ability to simply say "no, I won't let you even investigate me" means the President is above the law.  And if he is, there is no real law, just ways written down that the justice department can prosecute people who don't have any real power that don't apply to the wealthy, political class.   We say that stratification exists right now, and I see what people mean by that, but we don't mean it literally.  It also establishes that the President and Congress are not co-equal branches of government, but that the President is above them.  That's very, very dangerous.   
Click to expand...
Good post. I think you explained the obstruction of justice argument very well but I'm still not sure that's a winning argument.  People will accept "their guy" committing a "minor crime" if they can justify it.  The arguments about coequal branches and one set of rules sound too abstract to change the minds of people who said "i voted for him because i knew he could get things done, even if he didn't do it the usual way."  

The impeachment inquiry right now seems focused on part 1 - "Self-dealing and use of his official responsibilities as a bargaining tool for his own purposes."

I'd like a clearly articulated case for that, and I think "using the office of the Presidency and its official actions as leverage specifically to benefit yourself" is a great start.  

 
bostonfred said:
I understand that the Mueller report lays out the case for ten possible instances of obstruction but the attorney general declared that he would not be indicted.  There's a clearer case for some than others. I am also hesitant to pin the case on "he obstructed justice" if the attorney general and House Democrats didn't.  

Trying to get mcgahn to remove Mueller is probably the strongest, but his supporters were aware when it happened and didn't clamor for him to bre impeached on that alone. So while it may be legally correct, it's hard to build a case to the American people that he needs to be removed because of this.  

As for him directing people not to comply with subpoenas, his argument is clearly that he believes he's allowed to and is taking it to the courts to prove it. If he loses in court, so be it, but he'll take each of these cases to court individually on slightly different grounds.  I'm not sure that can be considered illegal obstruction - and whether it's impeachable on its face.  

To me, the evidence of obstruction is stronger as support for an argument for impeachment than it is impeachable on its own. 

In other words, it's much more compelling to me to say he did illegal things and then illegally tried to hide it, than it is to say he was illegally uncooperative with an investigation that he considered ridiculous.  
Click to expand...
Mueller didn't indict due to DOJ policy that says a sitting President cannot be criminally indicted - Even this policy acknowledges that impeachment is available in such circumstances.  Furthermore, the DOJ's belief that he cannot be criminally charged does not negate the crimes themselves.  He can still be subjected to impeachment. 

He has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, even if he believes it is ridiculous.  That includes cooperating with a lawful investigation into his actions while in office.  He has actively taken steps to inhibit these investigations as set forth in the Mueller report.  It may not be as serious as the underlying offenses, but his refusal to comply with the formal investigation process is also impeachable conduct because it disregards the rule of law and separation of powers. 

 
bostonfred said:
Good post. I think you explained the obstruction of justice argument very well but I'm still not sure that's a winning argument.  People will accept "their guy" committing a "minor crime" if they can justify it.  The arguments about coequal branches and one set of rules sound too abstract to change the minds of people who said "i voted for him because i knew he could get things done, even if he didn't do it the usual way."  

The impeachment inquiry right now seems focused on part 1 - "Self-dealing and use of his official responsibilities as a bargaining tool for his own purposes."

I'd like a clearly articulated case for that, and I think "using the office of the Presidency and its official actions as leverage specifically to benefit yourself" is a great start.  
Click to expand...
I'm not saying people will understand and impeach him based on that.  I'm saying it's actually the most important reason to impeach him or anyone who intentionally subverts the basis of the entire justice system.  Frankly, I'm not sure there's a "winning" argument for his supporters even if he literally committed murder in front of a camera on live television.

 
bostonfred said:
I'd like a clearly articulated case for that, and I think "using the office of the Presidency and its official actions as leverage specifically to benefit yourself" is a great start.  
Click to expand...
Add in that his self-serving actions also adversely affected our national security.

 
Koya said:
We have a President who has clearly abused his power and looked to bribe a foreign leader to help besmirch his biggest perceived political opponent. He then has gone on to obstruct justice and interfere/tamper/intimidate witnesses. 
Click to expand...
This is a little muddy.  

He's not being impeached for "bribery", and it's not enough to say he wanted to besmirch Biden.  

The illegal things with Ukraine, as i understand it, are

1 asking for foreign interference in the election specifically by asking for an investigation of a political rival 

2 asking for foreign interference specifically by asking for a public announcement. 

3 withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid as leverage to get those things

4 possibly directing an explicit quid pro quo - although it's not necessary to include that because the leverage issue is enough.  

Mookie said:
Mueller didn't indict due to DOJ policy that says a sitting President cannot be criminally indicted - Even this policy acknowledges that impeachment is available in such circumstances.  Furthermore, the DOJ's belief that he cannot be criminally charged does not negate the crimes themselves.  He can still be subjected to impeachment. 
Click to expand...
To be clear, Mueller listed ten possible cases of obstruction, but they weren't all strong enough to indict, and he explained why for each of them.  

That's different than saying that he wouldn't indict a sitting president.  Some of the cases for obstruction were strong others were not.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This by @moleculopretty much sums up how I feel about it.

- I used to post in the Nerdy Impeachment thread about this, but after looking at it I think you could pluck every impeachment article in Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton and apply them to Trump. Convict on each, relying on facts in the Trump investigations. The only exception may be the Johnson article on how he behaved in general in office and his harangues against Congress and apply that to Trump and Congressmen, public officials and other Americans, but I will gladly wave the flag of extremism on that. In a vacuum on principle I would include that too.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but this response pretty much nails it

yak651 said:
I think the problem is people just don't care.  They know all wealthy people have been getting the breaks for years and the system is rigged in their favor so it doesn't move the needle when they do something corrupt.  I would like to see Trump held accountable for his actions but don't see it happening, especially with polls only showing max 50% in favor of impeachment.
Click to expand...

 
He should be removed from office via the 25th Amendment because he is mentally unfit but doing so would cause a huge rift in the country.

He should be impeached and removed because of multiple crimes including:

Personal enrichment, violating the emoluments clause.

Multiple counts of obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation.

Illegal campaign finance payment to Stormy Daniels.

Attempted bribery in the Ukraine/Bidens case.

Obstruction of justice in the Ukraine/Bidens case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred said:
Maybe, but this response pretty much nails it

yak651 said:
I think the problem is people just don't care.  They know all wealthy people have been getting the breaks for years and the system is rigged in their favor so it doesn't move the needle when they do something corrupt.  I would like to see Trump held accountable for his actions but don't see it happening, especially with polls only showing max 50% in favor of impeachment.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
First of all this presumes that the reason to impeach Trump is to remove him. IMO removal is an effect, not "the" cause. I realize this seems oddly self-contradictory but give it three beats. This is the Republicans' claim and I suppose for many it is.

However IMO the reason for doing it is defending Constitutional turf. Congress cannot allow its powers and prerogatives to be run over and eliminated by abuse. The House at least needs to stand up and do something to protect itself within the Constitution. And I'll add that not impeaching and losing the election risks - really guarantees - waiving those powers while impeaching and losing, or winning, preserves them regardless. No matter what I realize a good deal of weight is on the courts to assist on this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
Henry Ford said:
I'm not saying people will understand and impeach him based on that.  I'm saying it's actually the most important reason to impeach him or anyone who intentionally subverts the basis of the entire justice system.  Frankly, I'm not sure there's a "winning" argument for his supporters even if he literally committed murder in front of a camera on live television.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but if the goal is to impeach, the case needs to be clearly made to people who don't want cspan or follow the news closely.  I think a clear summary that explains things like

- this is what he did

- this is why it's not only illegal but very important

- this is the evidence

- this is him denying that evidence and here's further evidence that he was lying

- this is the reason he can't stay in office and must be removed

- this is why it can't wait until the election

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
It's like asking if the point of the criminal justice system is to put people in jail. Is that it? What was wrong with England and Europe and imperial Japan and China, etc.? People were put in stocks, end of story.

No, the point of our legal system is to make a public statement using due process about what happened. Yes public safety matters but the way we do it here in America - in public, with grand and small juries, with evidence and public records and cross examination - is about public proofs. What happens after that - imprisonment, death penalty, acquittal, probation, slaps on wrists, whatever - is the outcome, but what happens if the laws are not enforced in the way we do them? Arbitrary enforcement, violence, abuse. What happens if they are not enforced at all? Chaos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred said:
Agreed, but if the goal is to impeach, the case needs to be clearly made to people who don't want cspan or follow the news closely.  I think a clear summary that explains things like

- this is what he did

- this is why it's not only illegal but very important

- this is the evidence

- this is him denying that evidence and here's further evidence that he was lying

- this is the reason he can't stay in office and must be removed

- this is why it can't wait until the election
Click to expand...
Which is why the Supreme Court has to weigh in on this and require the evidence be provided to Congress.  If the administration then refuses, the case is crystal clear.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
First of all this presumes that the reason to impeach Trump is to remove him. IMO removal is an effect, not "the" cause. I realize this seems oddly self-contradictory but give it three beats. This is the Republicans' claim and I suppose for many it is.

However IMO the reason for doing it is defending Constitutional turf. Congress cannot allow its powers and prerogatives to be run over and eliminated by abuse. The House at least needs to stand up and do something to protect itself within the Constitution. And I'll add that not impeaching and losing the election risks - really guarantees - waiving those powers while impeaching and losing, or winning, preserves them regardless. No matter what I realize a good deal of weight is on the courts to assist on this.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but I didn't start this thread to ask why the house should impeach.  I started it to ask why he should be removed.  I would like a strong single case that explains that. 

 
bostonfred said:
I understand that, but I didn't start this thread to ask why the house should impeach.  I started it to ask why he should be removed.  I would like a strong single case that explains that. 
Click to expand...
When I say removal is not by itself a reason, I mean politically. If people hate Trump being President then that becomes an endless struggle with people who do not. To me it's one in the same as the question of whether to impeach.

- Should he be impeached? If yes, then did he do what he is accused of? If yes, then remove, he has been deemed disqualified for office and a threat to the republic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Which is why the Supreme Court has to weigh in on this and require the evidence be provided to Congress.  If the administration then refuses, the case is crystal clear.
Click to expand...
I agree that the legal argument would be made stronger with more evidence and i understand that the refusal by this administration to provide testimony and evidence as subpoenaed is hindering the investigation, and i agree that the supreme court may be the only chance to force this evidence. But i expect trump to try to break this into many individual arguments which will each need to be heard separately to delay this as long as possible. 

That's not why I started this thread.  

I'm looking for a clearly laid out case specifically for removal based on what we know right now.  

 
bostonfred said:
I agree that the legal argument would be made stronger with more evidence and i understand that the refusal by this administration to provide testimony and evidence as subpoenaed is hindering the investigation, and i agree that the supreme court may be the only chance to force this evidence. But i expect trump to try to break this into many individual arguments which will each need to be heard separately to delay this as long as possible. 

That's not why I started this thread.  

I'm looking for a clearly laid out case specifically for removal based on what we know right now.  
Click to expand...
I understand.  I believe I did so.  The President has unquestionably obstructed justice.  That is a crime.  It is, in my opinion, the highest of crimes as I have stated and for those reasons.  He has done so publicly, and in court, and by letter to Congress.  

Your only response to that is that you don't believe it is a "winning" argument.  

That is not because it is not a legal, proper, and complete argument, nor because it is not a correct argument.  It is because the people hearing the argument do not wish to convict.

 
I don't think I understand the purpose of this thread.  Is it to convince you that Trump should be impeached/removed, or the general public?

Either way, it seems an exercise in futility.  I can think of several reasons why he should be impeached/removed, and several reasons why he should not - but it sounds like you are simply asking for arguments in favor, and I don't think there are any arguments for, or against, that are going to change anyone's mind here.

This is really a personal opinion based on the facts as we know them - I don't find it to be productive to try and convince someone who is already opposed to impeachment.  And, it seems silly to convince someone who is already disposed towards impeachment.

 
Here's an example of a clear case (imo)

"Trump committed an illegal act as president.  Probably more than one. Specifically, he asked Ukraine for assistance in the election while withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved aid and a presidential visit. 

Here's what he said on the phone.  

Here's what multiple witnesses say he told them to do. 

Here's a witness explicitly saying that there was a quid pro quo. Here's him specifically denying that there was a quid pro quo. Here's other witnesses confirming there was. 

This is not the first time he's sought foreign assistance in an election. 

Here's trump asking Russia for Hillary's emails. 

Our intelligence agencies clearly stated that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.  In Helsinki, after meeting with Putin behind closed doors and refusing to allow written record of the meeting, trump said ""I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,"

The Mueller report then explicitly stated that there was Russian interference in the election.  Trump again denied it.  Dutch national intelligence literally gave us a video of Russian hackers getting Hillary's emails. 

He didn't just ask the Ukrainian president for assistance.  He publicly asked multiple countries on national television.  

This is illegal.  Here's the clause in the constitution that specifically addresses it. Here's the founding fathers clearly explaining why it's a huge problem.  

Congress has an obligation to impeach him for criminal behavior.  But impeachment is just the first step before removal from office.  And he must be removed from office by the Senate.  It's not enough to wait for the election because he's specifically trying to get other countries to interfere in the election, and he's done so repeatedly.  

It's illegal.  It's an immediate threat.  It can't wait.  He must be removed."

I feel like that could be a 30 to 60 second video with sound bites and written quotes.  

 
If you were going to mention obstruction, it would be as sub bullets under the Mueller report findings - him saying I'm ####ed, and trying to get mcgahn to fire Mueller are both compelling.   It's not a standalone topic so much as a further argument in favor of impeachment.  Same thing with him directing people not to testify under subpoena.  "He not only did this illegal thing but he's illegally trying to prevent you from finding out." seems stronger than just saying "He committed obstruction of justice".

 
Henry Ford said:
I understand.  I believe I did so.  The President has unquestionably obstructed justice.  That is a crime.  It is, in my opinion, the highest of crimes as I have stated and for those reasons.  He has done so publicly, and in court, and by letter to Congress.  

Your only response to that is that you don't believe it is a "winning" argument.  

That is not because it is not a legal, proper, and complete argument, nor because it is not a correct argument.  It is because the people hearing the argument do not wish to convict.
Click to expand...
I think you've laid out a great case for why obstruction is a big deal. I'm just saying that the majority of people have very little idea what obstruction means or why it's such a big deal, and explaining it to people who are on the fence is difficult because it's naturally difficult to trust someone who wants something when they tell you why it's so important.  

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
bostonfred said:
If you were going to mention obstruction, it would be as sub bullets under the Mueller report findings - him saying I'm ####ed, and trying to get mcgahn to fire Mueller are both compelling.   It's not a standalone topic so much as a further argument in favor of impeachment.  Same thing with him directing people not to testify under subpoena.  "He not only did this illegal thing but he's illegally trying to prevent you from finding out." seems stronger than just saying "He committed obstruction of justice".
Click to expand...
Obstruction of Justice doesn't require any other crime whatsoever.  A President who believes and behaves as though he is king by subverting the entire legal system to his will and commits obvious and unquestionable crimes in doing so should be sufficient to impeach him.

The fact that it is not is not an indictment of the law.  It is an indictment of our citizenry.

 
bostonfred said:
Congress has an obligation to impeach him for criminal behavior.  But impeachment is just the first step before removal from office.  And he must be removed from office by the Senate.  It's not enough to wait for the election because he's specifically trying to get other countries to interfere in the election, and he's done so repeatedly.  

It's illegal.  It's an immediate threat.  It can't wait.  He must be removed."
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point. If the idea is how do we push the impeachometer from ~50% to say a 65/70/75% compelling GOP Senators to act, I suppose this is one way to do it. I think the problem here is it basically turns the President, personally, into a threat to the country. Basically the mushroom cloud scenario explaining why the threat is imminent and of the greatest magnitude.

- This isn’t just an argument that ceding massive powers to the President poses risks, it’s saying this is an ongoing struggle, a conflict. It’s extremely problematic because of the reaction it might engender from Trump supporters, and really frankly we haven’t really heard this put forth by Dems, even though it’s arguably true.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST)
2 3
Replies
128
Views
3K
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
347
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top