Question: What Does A Trump Impeachment Look Like?

crimson fan man

Hall of Fame
Aug 12, 2002
5,441
344
202
Athens Al
I love this stuff. The left are raising hell of this info and it was required by breaking the law and nobody is looking at that. I know that most might not think this is important but I can say this in advance. Trump will not be impeached. :biggrin: on TideFans.com
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
First, Trump couldn't possibly win the primary nomination of the conservative party.....but he did.

Then, he couldn't possibly win the election.....but he did.

And now he's NOT gonna survive impeachment......fill in the blank.

Some of y'all better accept the possibility he's gonna be there for eight years. And you better accept that right now. I say that as a complete and total critic of about 90% of his ideas and 99% of his behavior.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
Someone is smoking crack.
This is the same idiot who actually thinks ISLAM is kinder to gay folks than Christianity.

Because we all saw how many gay folks Fred Phelps beheaded and threw off buildings, of course.

My favorite tweet of hers was just before the election


https://twitter.com/sallykohn/status/796173217530527744?lang=en


My sense is that if Trump wins, Hillary supporters will be sad.
If Hillary wins, Trump supporters will be angry.

Important difference.




So much for having a damned clue about anything.....
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
My view is to wait and see....I didn't agree with the circus trial to try and impeach B Clinton.....everybody on the right said..."but he lied under oath"
Not only did he do it, but he was a LAWYER who knew damn well he was committing perjury.

I'm sorry, but it's one thing if you had someone who had no clue that that somehow constituted a crime - pretty hard to have an ounce of compassion on an attorney who knew better....it's kind of like those family values folks who have affairs should be more harshly judged than someone who didn't advocate family values.

.....I said..." well, where he decided to sew his seed was no concern of anyone, and it should have never got to that point of having to lie to save face during proceedings"..
If he hadn't sexually harassed Paula Jones, it never would have gotten that far, either. We can argue until we're blue in the face over what SHOULD have been - but we go to deposition and trial with what IS.

Point is, I saw all this conspiracy, with the previous administration, and the one before, and so on....
Well, I can't really argue with you here.....

A storyteller can take any story, and quote anything out of context to fit their narrative. I have seen that in the past, and see it today.
The same sky is falling that was falling years ago. If evidence of treason comes out, impeach him....until then, all these stories popping up, are pure conjecture.

True, and this whole thing has really been this way since Nixon. Every time since then when the opposition has had the Congress, the big I word comes up. The only thing I ever thought came close to a REAL impeachable offense was Iran-Contra. And even then...the President was breaking laws (the Boland Amendments) that were (probably) unconstitutional in the first place. As I said to a former co-worker who was a classmate of Joe "Right Wing Nutbag" Barton in HS...."if you break an unconstitutional law, did you actually break the law?"

While there's NO DOUBT Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice, I still don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And our society is so forgiving that had he just said "in a moment of weakness I succumbed to temptation," the whole country would have said, "He made a mistake, let's forgive him and move on." Well, all except some (not) celibate Republicans, but they never would have made the hay they did out of the issue had he done that.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
At this point I think it more likely that he resigns and claims he was treated very unfairly. Very unfairly, believe you me.

At this point, I've seen nothing specific he'd need to resign over.

Y'all wanna know the irony?

He'd have still won had this been known. Seriously. Real life is NOT like Hollywood - if the election is not within 72 hours of the thundering gaffe, it doesn't matter. The people had a choice between two NY liberals and chose the one with the smaller hands and bigger mouth..
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
26,381
20,116
337
Breaux Bridge, La
Let's see--Obama referencing his book in speeches because it explains his policy ideas in greater detail v Trump official shilling for Ivanka's clothing line when she's supposed to be promoting the administration's policies. Yeah, no difference there. And let's not forget that the reason Ivanka's line was news in the first place was because Trump pitched a hissy fit because Nordstrom's decided to stop carrying the line.

I guess ignorance is a liberal voting strategy.
Fify.

Oh, so Obama needed to pimp his book to get his ideas out there. 99% of the media trumpeting his ideology wasn't enough. He wrote the book because he was a Patriot, not because he was trying to make millions about his life as a young pot smoker.

But he would be proud of your blinding loyalty.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
Again, the president can't impeached for breaking conflict laws which don't apply to him in the first place...
But......but......but these amateur online lawyers KNOW better than you!!!!


I seriously doubt Nixon would be impeached TODAY. 40-plus years ago, yes - not today, though.
 

danb

All-SEC
Dec 4, 2011
1,088
6
0
Hazel Green, AL
Not only did he do it, but he was a LAWYER who knew damn well he was committing perjury.

I'm sorry, but it's one thing if you had someone who had no clue that that somehow constituted a crime - pretty hard to have an ounce of compassion on an attorney who knew better....it's kind of like those family values folks who have affairs should be more harshly judged than someone who didn't advocate family values.



If he hadn't sexually harassed Paula Jones, it never would have gotten that far, either. We can argue until we're blue in the face over what SHOULD have been - but we go to deposition and trial with what IS.



Well, I can't really argue with you here.....




True, and this whole thing has really been this way since Nixon. Every time since then when the opposition has had the Congress, the big I word comes up. The only thing I ever thought came close to a REAL impeachable offense was Iran-Contra. And even then...the President was breaking laws (the Boland Amendments) that were (probably) unconstitutional in the first place. As I said to a former co-worker who was a classmate of Joe "Right Wing Nutbag" Barton in HS...."if you break an unconstitutional law, did you actually break the law?"

While there's NO DOUBT Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice, I still don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And our society is so forgiving that had he just said "in a moment of weakness I succumbed to temptation," the whole country would have said, "He made a mistake, let's forgive him and move on." Well, all except some (not) celibate Republicans, but they never would have made the hay they did out of the issue had he done that.
I totally agree, perjury is perjury...My point with that statement was that I don't feel that his infidelities, warranted tax dollars to be spent on an impeachment trial (And Paula Jones had an agenda of her own i'm sure) I am far from a Clinton apologist, as I am far from a Trump apologist, if substantive evidence is given to bring to trial wrongdoing by the POTUS then by all means go to proceedings....but all the innuendo circulating, without backing, now....makes me SMH at all these folks spreading doom and gloom based on mostly opinion...
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,730
287
54
I totally agree, perjury is perjury...My point with that statement was that I don't feel that his infidelities, warranted tax dollars to be spent on an impeachment trial
True, but...it only happened because he lied in the first place. Well.....what peeled the scab off of that wound was the press NOT doing it's job investigating Whitewater while he was a candidate. It was known once Jerry Brown brought it up in the NY primary debate in 1992. The NY Times took his word because they wanted him to win. Pardon my cynicism but they would have turned hell inside out to thoroughly investigate a Republican. Two other things messed with Clinton: 1) the Democrats had a public sham investigation in 1994 that caught the public's attention just enough; 2) the Republicans won both houses of Congress after the independent counsel statute had been extended another ten years (I believe that's how long it was).

Should it have been investigated? Well, there WAS a crime in Whitewater because the sitting governor of Arkansas who succeeded Clinton (Jim Guy Tucker) went to the slammer over it. I don't think the press should automatically take ANY candidate's word, either. But that was an outcome of circumstance. I recall one (unsourced) Republican being asked about the IC law and basically saying that as an American it was a terrible law and a sick joke - but that as a partisan Republican that the Democrats who had sent IC after IC on wild goose chase after wild goose chase during the Reagan years, they were going to give the Dems a dose of their own medicine, too.

So in short, I actually agree that it shouldn't have been investigated. But knowing the IC was waiting to come down on him like a cat on a mouse, he should have been cleaner, too.

(And Paula Jones had an agenda of her own i'm sure)
All she asked for to start with was an apology - and that only because David Brock (then a right-wing liar and now a left-wing liar) had left her first name in "The American Spectator" report on Clinton's peccadilloes in Arky.

That was it. And when Carville retored that if you dragged dollars bills through a trailer park you'd get all kinds of trash coming out saying things - well, she had a choice: a) back down like a little mouse and have everyone think she was lying; b) sue his behind.

She did the latter. Part of me can feel a bit of empathy for her because she got dragged into the whole thing first by Brock (and the right) and then got blasted by the left.

I am far from a Clinton apologist, as I am far from a Trump apologist, if substantive evidence is given to bring to trial wrongdoing by the POTUS then by all means go to proceedings....but all the innuendo circulating, without backing, now....makes me SMH at all these folks spreading doom and gloom based on mostly opinion...
Well just remember.....switch the uniforms and all of a sudden the rhetoric switches.

I sat and watched the Clinton apologists argue that even if Clinton HAD committed crimes before he was President, it was wrong to try and right - that 'he could not be prosecuted for things he did before he became President' was a mantra. Of course, that gets dropped now because Trump has an R next to his name. Besides, Spiro Agnew resigned the VP over a kickback scandal when he was - wait for it - GOVERNOR of Maryland. Apparently, those rules don't work in the other direction.

To be fair, I thought that unless they had evidence of murder (which several Vince Foster investigations and one Ron Brown investigation showed the Clinton Killer Corps), just about anything else should have to wait until he's no longer President. It's too easy for someone to trump up a charge protected by immunity in the Senate (a la Joe McCarthy or Arlen Specter) and use it to stall a President you don't like.

Impeachment has become a political tool to disrupt the winner of the election, and I don't think that's right or was the intent.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,556
9,576
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Fify.

Oh, so Obama needed to pimp his book to get his ideas out there. 99% of the media trumpeting his ideology wasn't enough. He wrote the book because he was a Patriot, not because he was trying to make millions about his life as a young pot smoker.

But he would be proud of your blinding loyalty.
I see you're staying on the ad hominem bandwagon. To be expected.
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,711
9,897
187
Straightforward from here:
1. Impeach Trump & Pence
2. Constitutional crisis
3. Call special election
4. Ryan v Clinton
5. President Clinton
I had never heard of Sally Kohn before. So I looked her up and to my surprise, she is a lawyer. Who should probably have taken a class on the constitution and should know there is no mechanism in place for a special election. And unless they had a joint impeachment for both Trump and Pence, there would not be a double vacancy since Pence would appoint a new VP, pending approval by Congress.

So my conclusion is either that she is an idiot or a troll. And she seems to be too tall to be a troll.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,176
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I used to have this quaint notion that a president should be held to a high ethical standard, and if he (or she) should fail to meet that standard, impeachment was the path to correct the voters' mistake.
I felt that the Senate can impeach and the House remove for any conduct they find unacceptable. Then they would have to face the voters...

I do not think that the Senators should be able to slander anybody from the Senate floor. Before the ratification of the XVII Amendment and CSPAN, Senators were probably more circumspect and they definitely had no reason to play to their parties bases.

That said perjury and witness tampering are felony offenses and are sufficient cause to impeach and remove.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
I felt that the Senate can impeach and the House remove for any conduct they find unacceptable. Then they would have to face the voters...
Oh, sweet summer child. In 2017, you see, angry constituents at House reps' town halls are merely paid protesters shipped in from out of state by some Soros-run human freight service and are to be disregarded. Or, they're supporters who voted for the other party and thus are not worthy of representation. In this way, all disheartened voters can be safely ignored. Actually, we may as well lock the doors to representative's offices and cancel any town halls, since answering to voters is so clearly a waste of time.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.