Dem: Congress will begin impeachment if Trump fires Mueller, Rosenstein

[skeeter]

The Dems are betting they'll win Congress in '18, in which case the hearing for Impeachment will start around Jan 5, 2019 (8:00 AM).  They'll fabricate a "high crime or Misdemeanor" from whole cloth if they have to.  As a practical matter, @Oceander is correct to point out there doesn't have to be a crime committed, as you and I understand the word "crime."

I understand there is historical ambiguity attached to the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' but if 'you won the election and we lost' now meets the criteria we are well and truly $#@ed.

[Suppressed]

He'd much rather fight this one in the mud than do anything that might look like an attempt to govern.

And the Dems know it, and are playing him, and he just can't help himself from fighting with the chew toy.

[Oceander]

I understand there is historical ambiguity attached to the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' but if 'you won the election and we lost' now meets the criteria we are well and truly $#@ed.

That's what makes impeachment inherently a political, not a legal, matter.

[Oceander]

And the Dems know it, and are playing him, and he just can't help himself from fighting with the chew toy.

Exactly.

[skeeter]

That's what makes impeachment inherently a political, not a legal, matter.

If thats true then what good are elections?

If this becomes precedent then we'll never have a non insider in the white house again. I do not believe this is what the founders intended.

[Oceander]

If thats true then what good are elections?

If this becomes precedent then we'll never have a non insider in the white house again. I do not believe this is what the founders intended.

For one thing, impeachment is not a walk in the park so it doesn't render elections meaningless. 

Second, we don't have a non-insider in the White House now; we have a sleazy NYC insider in the White House right now, one who forgot he wasn't dealing with a sleazy NYC council member when he expressed his hopes about Flynn to Comey. 

[skeeter]

For one thing, impeachment is not a walk in the park so it doesn't render elections meaningless. 

Second, we don't have a non-insider in the White House now; we have a sleazy NYC insider in the White House right now, one who forgot he wasn't dealing with a sleazy NYC council member when he expressed his hopes about Flynn to Comey.

Of course it does. With conviction or not it hamstrings the administration. Not the intended purpose of the impeachment process.

To your second point,

[Oceander]

Of course it does. With conviction or not it hamstrings the administration. Not the intended purpose of the impeachment process.

To your second point,

The point of the impeachment process is precisely to hamstring a president if, after the election, a sufficient number of members of Congress have second thoughts about the wisdom of electing him. 

It is somewhat analogous to the vote of no confidence process in parliamentary systems, which allows the members of parliament to second-guess the results of an election. 

[Emjay]

And the Dems know it, and are playing him, and he just can't help himself from fighting with the chew toy.

If what you mean by 'chew toy' is Trump's twitter habit, not everyone agrees with you that it's harmed him.  I don't, for one.  Rush doesn't, for another.  Here is Rush's quote:

"Rush Limbaugh
Yesterday at 7:13am •
Donald Trump's 140-character proclamations change the world every day. Donald Trump's tweets thwart and obstruct the unified effort of his enemies to destroy him. Donald Trump's tweets keep his supporters supporting him. Donald Trump's tweets are one of the best weapons he has against this all-out assault arrayed against him."

[skeeter]

The point of the impeachment process is precisely to hamstring a president if, after the election, a sufficient number of members of Congress have second thoughts about the wisdom of electing him. 

It is somewhat analogous to the vote of no confidence process in parliamentary systems, which allows the members of parliament to second-guess the results of an election.

Think about what you're saying here.

[Oceander]

Think about what you're saying here.

I am.  Impeachment is a safety relief valve that can be used as a political tool to remove an elected president.  The primary counter to its abuse is the requirement for a greater than mere majority vote.  That is what the Founders intended it to be there for.  Do not forget that the Founders had a lot more distrust for the executive than they did for the legislative.  They intended for the legislative branch to have this sort of leverage over the executive. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I would fire Mueller today.



 I would fire him anyway, just to stuff it down the Democrats throat.


Impeach me! Bitch! Bring it on you bastards!

This was my thinking as well. 

[skeeter]

I am.  Impeachment is a safety relief valve that can be used as a political tool to remove an elected president.  The primary counter to its abuse is the requirement for a greater than mere majority vote.  That is what the Founders intended it to be there for.  Do not forget that the Founders had a lot more distrust for the executive than they did for the legislative.  They intended for the legislative branch to have this sort of leverage over the executive.

Then the founders send of distrust was incomplete if not misplaced. Because the way the system has evolved todays congress is hardly accountable to their constituents - the checks and balances now are going only in one direction.

[Oceander]

Then the founders send of distrust was incomplete if not misplaced. Because the way the system has evolved todays congress is hardly accountable to their constituents - the checks and balances now are going only in one direction.

Nobody said the Founders were perfect.  They designed the system with their own direct experience with King George and the British parliament in mind.  They also never foresaw political parties of the sort we have. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Then the founders send of distrust was incomplete if not misplaced. Because the way the system has evolved todays congress is hardly accountable to their constituents - the checks and balances now are going only in one direction.

Yes.  The Bribing of their constituents to vote for them was a consequence of the 24th amendment.  (Requiring no Taxes to vote.)   Prior to 1964,   the requirement to pay taxes to vote put a brake on excessive spending,  because the voters were aware that they had to ultimately foot the bill for the spending.   


Removing the requirement to pay taxes gave incumbency much more power than it had previously enjoyed.    Now Congressmen and Senators could offer goodies to the public without having to worry about paying for it. 


Incidentally this also started us on the road to insolvency. 

[bigheadfred]

I think what bothers me the most about this presidency, so for, is the disjointed, discontinuous disarray from with which he proceeds. He should be sniping from a protected elevated position and not be standing in the gutter wildly firing from the lip.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think what bothers me the most about this presidency, so for, is the disjointed, discontinuous disarray from with which he proceeds. He should be sniping from a protected elevated position and not be standing in the gutter wildly firing from the lip.

What does that even mean?

[Oceander]

Yes.  The Bribing of their constituents to vote for them was a consequence of the 24th amendment.  (Requiring no Taxes to vote.)   Prior to 1964,   the requirement to pay taxes to vote put a brake on excessive spending,  because the voters were aware that they had to ultimately foot the bill for the spending.   


Removing the requirement to pay taxes gave incumbency much more power than it had previously enjoyed.    Now Congressmen and Senators could offer goodies to the public without having to worry about paying for it. 


Incidentally this also started us on the road to insolvency. 

Limiting the vote to only those who have paid above a certain amount of tax simply creates an oligarchy with its own problems that leads to the abuse of the poor by the wealthy.  Athens liked to pretend it was a democracy, and people nowadays imply into it all the freedoms our own democracy provides universally, but if you weren't a wealthy male, life wasnt that free or fun in ancient Athens.  There are no easy fixes in life. 

[Cyber Liberty]

The point of the impeachment process is precisely to hamstring a president if, after the election, a sufficient number of members of Congress have second thoughts about the wisdom of electing him. 

It is somewhat analogous to the vote of no confidence process in parliamentary systems, which allows the members of parliament to second-guess the results of an election.

I've been living in Arizona for quite a while, including the 80's.  There was a Gubernatorial Election back then ('86) where the Dems had a Dem run as a third-party, which split the Dem vote and allowed a Republican, Evan Mecham to win with less than 40% of the vote.  A citizen's Recall Committee was established at the first available opportunity and the Legislature took up Impeachment promptly.  Meanwhile, the AG started building charges to take him to criminal court.  There was a charge ginned up that there were financial improprieties in the Inaugural Ball.  All three actions moved simultaneously, all the while questions of "What was the crime?" were answered with "We don't need one."  The facts on the ground were he won with a minority of the votes, and a majority hated him and wanted him out.

As it turned out, the first shoe to drop was the Impeachment vote in the Senate after referral from the Legislature.  With every Dem and a number of Reps against him he easily lost and was removed from office.  This rendered the Recall moot, so it stopped, but the AG proceeded with the strongest charge against him.  He was acquitted, proving there was no crime committed in the first place.

Governor Evan Mecham was successfully Impeached and removed from office because the rest of the State Government "could," regardless of whether they "should."  Talk of high crimes and misdemeanors was irrelevant.  I submit it is irrelevant today.

[Suppressed]

If what you mean by 'chew toy' is Trump's twitter habit, not everyone agrees with you that it's harmed him.  I don't, for one.  Rush doesn't, for another.  Here is Rush's quote:

"Rush Limbaugh
Yesterday at 7:13am •
Donald Trump's 140-character proclamations change the world every day. Donald Trump's tweets thwart and obstruct the unified effort of his enemies to destroy him. Donald Trump's tweets keep his supporters supporting him. Donald Trump's tweets are one of the best weapons he has against this all-out assault arrayed against him."

I am thinking of a story about the king who was going to send his people out to collect taxes from the farmers as their crops came in from harvest.  On the first morning of harvest, criers came through the streets, shouting insults about the king.  So the king sent his people out to track down these criers and arrest them.  By sundown, he hadn't gotten any taxes collected, but he felt good that he'd put all of those criers out of business.

On the second morning, a breeze blew a piece of parchment through his window.  He picked it up and saw that it was a poster.  His people said that they'd been posted all throughout town, making a mockery of the king! Well, he couldn't let that stand!  So he sent his people out to round them all up and stand watch over the print shops.  No taxes were collected on the second day's harvest, but he'd put an end to that mockery!

On the third day, he woke and looked out his window, and there on the castle wall was a giant painting of him looking foolish.  OH MY!  His people were sent out to paint over the graffiti, and to stand watch over the paint shops.  And that evening, the farmers went to sleep with the granaries full and not a penny collected, as the harvest was done for the year.

But at least nobody was making fun of the king...right?

[truth_seeker]

The dems are in "all out" mode, and impeachment would be ONLY to impede the enactment of conservative measures,

--cutting federal budget

--repealing/replacing Obamacare

--Other

If you think otherwise,, you are being manipulated by the crooked, DC/NYC media and apparently can't help yourself.

[Oceander]

I am thinking of a story about the king who was going to send his people out to collect taxes from the farmers as their crops came in from harvest.  On the first morning of harvest, criers came through the streets, shouting insults about the king.  So the king sent his people out to track down these criers and arrest them.  By sundown, he hadn't gotten any taxes collected, but he felt good that he'd put all of those criers out of business.

On the second morning, a breeze blew a piece of parchment through his window.  He picked it up and saw that it was a poster.  His people said that they'd been posted all throughout town, making a mockery of the king! Well, he couldn't let that stand!  So he sent his people out to round them all up and stand watch over the print shops.  No taxes were collected on the second day's harvest, but he'd put an end to that mockery!

On the third day, he woke and looked out his window, and there on the castle wall was a giant painting of him looking foolish.  OH MY!  His people were sent out to paint over the graffiti, and to stand watch over the paint shops.  And that evening, the farmers went to sleep with the granaries full and not a penny collected, as the harvest was done for the year.

But at least nobody was making fun of the king...right?

[bigheadfred]

What does that even mean?

It means I think he should get his shit together, let his lawyer do the talking, and stop acting like the sergeant-at-arms from the local Hell's Angels club over on 25th steret.

[Cyber Liberty]

I am thinking of a story about the king who was going to send his people out to collect taxes from the farmers as their crops came in from harvest.  On the first morning of harvest, criers came through the streets, shouting insults about the king.  So the king sent his people out to track down these criers and arrest them.  By sundown, he hadn't gotten any taxes collected, but he felt good that he'd put all of those criers out of business.

On the second morning, a breeze blew a piece of parchment through his window.  He picked it up and saw that it was a poster.  His people said that they'd been posted all throughout town, making a mockery of the king! Well, he couldn't let that stand!  So he sent his people out to round them all up and stand watch over the print shops.  No taxes were collected on the second day's harvest, but he'd put an end to that mockery!

On the third day, he woke and looked out his window, and there on the castle wall was a giant painting of him looking foolish.  OH MY!  His people were sent out to paint over the graffiti, and to stand watch over the paint shops.  And that evening, the farmers went to sleep with the granaries full and not a penny collected, as the harvest was done for the year.

But at least nobody was making fun of the king...right?

That story would be relevant if the tax collectors are the ones cracking down on the speech.  Today's King runs a government large enough to hire both tax collectors and speech police.

[DiogenesLamp]

It means I think he should get his shit together, let his lawyer do the talking, and stop acting like the sergeant-at-arms from the local Hell's Angels club over on 25th steret.

And that will make the media stop driving the agenda against him? 


That sounds like wishful thinking to me.   The media created these false accusations,  and they are not going to stop trying to impeach him no matter what he does.   


Trump needs to go to war with the media,  and especially the larger corporations that own them.   He needs to start looking at what kind of Presidential powers can be brought to bear on these corporate behemoths,  and he needs to start inflicting pain upon them.   

The message to "the media"  will trickle down in no uncertain terms.