Trump Impeachment

[LostInTheMist]

I'm against it. I'll explain why momentarily. I do want to give you some background on me. I have been volunteering on political campaigns since I was 16 years old. I worked for Kerry in 2004 (when I was 16), Obama (I was one of his first volunteers in my state, and I convinced my parents to vote for him, in addition to speaking to hundreds of others) in 2008 and 2012, and first Sanders, then Clinton in 2016. In the intervening years, while attending college where I majored in Political Science, I worked as an intern in the offices of a local Senator and a Local House Representative, even renting a house (at my own expense) and staying after the school year was over in 2010 to finish the legislative session. I'm a leftist Democrat, nearly a socialist, but my political beliefs line up most with the Democratic platform, since Socialism isn't likely to win any time soon.

I do not think Donald Trump should be impeached. Yes, I think he colluded with the Russians in the 2016 election. Yes, I think he is guilty of obstruction of justice, and more importantly, guilty of high treason, which in the United States, is still punishable by death. And yes, I do believe he deserves the death penalty. He is the first President, including Bush, where I would stand aside, rather than take a bullet for him. But I do not believe it would be a good move to impeach him. He has proven himself to be so incompetent in governance that he can't get even the basics of his (evil) plans for the United States passed, even with control of both houses of congress.

Mike Pence is just as evil (or perhaps more evil) than Trump, and much more competent. He might be able to unite the Republican Party. Trump will NEVER be able to do that. And, in the 2018 midterms, Republicans face an unenviable choice. Stand with Trump and be flayed alive by the 60% who disapprove of Trump, or stand against Trump, and have Trump supporters blindly beat you to death with their flat earth globes because the President told them to. Trump is disastrous to his party, to the national brand of Republicans, and when he is beaten in crushing fashion by whoever in 2020 (I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, DRAFT WARREN!) it will be a body blow to the Republican party. Maybe even the death blow I have been longing for since 2002.

And then we can put Ex-President Trump to death for treason.

[Deamonbane]

Mike Pence is just as evil (or perhaps more evil) than Trump, and much more competent. He might be able to unite the Republican Party. Trump will NEVER be able to do that. And, in the 2018 midterms, Republicans face an unenviable choice. Stand with Trump and be flayed alive by the 60% who disapprove of Trump, or stand against Trump, and have Trump supporters blindly beat you to death with their flat earth globes because the President told them to. Trump is disastrous to his party, to the national brand of Republicans, and when he is beaten in crushing fashion by whoever in 2020 (I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren, DRAFT WARREN!) it will be a body blow to the Republican party. Maybe even the death blow I have been longing for since 2002.

On this we can agree. Trump, for all his pandering, is still fairly incompetent in applying that pandering to law. There have been actions taken, yes, but at the moment, his power has been for the most part limited due to his lack of understanding of the political scheme by managing to alienate members of both parties, as well as the various criminal investigations. Trump is bad, but I think we can agree that Pence is far, far worse. Even the democrats are quieting talk of Trump's impeachment while quietly (hopefully) preparing a solid campaign for 2020.

For now. We'll have to see what the 'Mango Mussolini' (thanks for that nickname Ini, and I'm keeping it :P ) pulls out of his insane bag of tricks.

[gaggedLouise]

I think the guy needs to be impeached and then tried in civilian courts for his serious crimes. The thought of atually seeing Trump hanged one day (yes, a bit fancifully) is a sort of sweet idea, but I'll leave the deliberations about that to the Americans. :) For me as a European the important thing is to get him out of office under legal forms, and to see as much as possible of his legistaltion getting blocked, delayed, overruled in court or filibustered.

Also, I move that if he is convicted of having played foul against US democracy and is sent to a long jail term then his fortune should be confiscated. :D

[Regina Minx]

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to grant your premise, that Trump not only colluded with the Russians to win the presidency but broke numerous laws, up to and including treason, since becoming president.

But your argument is that we shouldn't make use of either the political process (impeachment) or judicial process (indictment) to handle the problem now because, and to paraphrase you, the guy that would replace him would be as bad or worse?

That is a line of argument I've never heard, for example, when discussing whether or not to prosecute a mob boss (which is language along the lines of what Comey has used to describe Trump's behavior and attitude). It's also fundamentally an argument that views justice as subordinate to achieving your own political ends, since you want Trump lassoed to the neck of the Republican party like an albatross to bring them down with, rather than for the Constitutional and judicial remedies for dealing with a treasonous president.

I'm also not reading in your initial post that you believe Pence to be guilty of the same crimes as Trump. You may well believe that, but if so you didn't say that. So, again, I'm seeing in you a desire to put partisan political ends ahead of any notion of justice or the rule of law under the Constitution. That's...not something I can support.

[Oniya]

What a lot of people forget is that impeachment does not remove the President from office.  Impeachment is merely the bringing of charges by Congress against a federal official, analogous to an indictment in a criminal court.  The Senate hearings afterward correspond to the jury trial.  There have been two Presidential impeachments in American history, and neither of the impeached Presidents left office.

• President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office act.  He was successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate.


• President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.  Again, successfully impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.


• The impeachment process was never completed for President Richard Nixon - he resigned before the House voted to impeach (although it was widely believed that the vote would have carried, and that the Senate would convict.)

That said, impeachment does leave a stain on that particular President, and would probably prevent a bid for re-election.

[persephone325]

That said, impeachment does leave a stain on that particular President, and would probably prevent a bid for re-election.

I'm all for anything that prevents him from running in 2020.

[Deamonbane]

But your argument is that we shouldn't make use of either the political process (impeachment) or judicial process (indictment) to handle the problem now because, and to paraphrase you, the guy that would replace him would be as bad or worse?

I don't expect anyone here to follow Brazilian politics, but a very similar situation in which an incompetent president was impeached to give way to one that is actively and indeed quite skillfully tearing the country apart is playing out there. If the political machine decides that Trump needs to go by way of Impeachment and criminal indictment, there won't be any tears or protests from me but Pence taking over as President should give any here of a liberal leaning some very serious pause.

[MasterMischief]

What about the statement impeachment makes.  This is unacceptable.

I do not wish for the death of the Republican party.  I would like to see them lurch back toward the middle.  The Tea Party pulled this country far too right, but America is not meant to be a one party country.  We need dissent, we just need reasonable dissent.

[gaggedLouise]

I don't expect anyone here to follow Brazilian politics, but a very similar situation in which an incompetent president was impeached to give way to one that is actively and indeed quite skillfully tearing the country apart is playing out there. If the political machine decides that Trump needs to go by way of Impeachment and criminal indictment, there won't be any tears or protests from me but Pence taking over as President should give any here of a liberal leaning some very serious pause.

Haven't they even had *two* presidents getting impeached and taken out of office lately: Dilma Rousseff and Lula da Silva?

[gaggedLouise]

What about the statement impeachment makes.  This is unacceptable.

I do not wish for the death of the Republican party.  I would like to see them lurch back toward the middle.  The Tea Party pulled this country far too right, but America is not meant to be a one party country.  We need dissent, we just need reasonable dissent.

The Tea Party and some of Trump's base really should break out and form their own party, but I guess that won't be happening until at least 2020, since they have half hijacked the weight of the Republican party, who are now "in control".

[Deamonbane]

Haven't they even had *two* presidents getting impeached and taken out of office lately: Dilma Rousseff and Lula da Silva?

Lula served both terms, and is now being tossed in jail. You haven't seen witchhunt if you haven't seen what they've been trying to charge him with.

Dilma was impeached.

[Lustful Bride]

I don't expect anyone here to follow Brazilian politics, but a very similar situation in which an incompetent president was impeached to give way to one that is actively and indeed quite skillfully tearing the country apart is playing out there. If the political machine decides that Trump needs to go by way of Impeachment and criminal indictment, there won't be any tears or protests from me but Pence taking over as President should give any here of a liberal leaning some very serious pause.

+1.

Much as he sucks, better the devil we know than the one we don't. We just have to ride out the rest of this term and fight hard to get a president who isn't a Russian plant, or a complete raging sociopath.

[Regina Minx]

Much as he sucks, better the devil we know than the one we don't. We just have to ride out the rest of this term and fight hard to get a president who isn't a Russian plant, or a complete raging sociopath.

This same logic suggests that Congress and the Special Prosecutor of the 70s shouldn't have pushed for Nixon's indictment/impeachment/removal from office. Yeah he may have been using political operatives to bug the psychiatric offices of his opponents and stole files from the DNC....but at least we KNOW what a scumbag he is. I mean that guy Ford...he might be just as bad if not worse!

[gaggedLouise]

Lula served both terms, and is now being tossed in jail. You haven't seen witchhunt if you haven't seen what they've been trying to charge him with.

Dilma was impeached.

You mean Lula hasn't acually seen any impeachment hearings but was still removed?  ???

[Regina Minx]

You mean Lula hasn't acually seen any impeachment hearings but was still removed?  ???

No? Brazil's president serves a four-year term of office and can be re-elected to a single consecutive term. Da Silva served 8 years, from January of 2003 to January of 2011.



Wikipedia seems to indicate that his indictment and trial all happened post-presidency.

[gaggedLouise]

No? Brazil's president serves a four-year term of office and can be re-elected to a single consecutive term. Da Silva served 8 years, from January of 2003 to January of 2011.



Wikipedia seems to indicate that his indictment and trial all happened post-presidency.

Ah okay, thanks! Lula and Dilma Rousseff have both been in my news loop a bit, but I didn't know Lula had served as far back as that. For some reason I thought he had come into office after Rousseff was impeached in 2014.

[gaggedLouise]

Or rather, she was impeached in 2016. :)

[Deamonbane]

*snip*

Correct. Thanks Regina :)

[LostInTheMist]

This same logic suggests that Congress and the Special Prosecutor of the 70s shouldn't have pushed for Nixon's indictment/impeachment/removal from office. Yeah he may have been using political operatives to bug the psychiatric offices of his opponents and stole files from the DNC....but at least we KNOW what a scumbag he is. I mean that guy Ford...he might be just as bad if not worse!

I don't disagree with you. I want Trump to pay for what he's done. That said, he's clearly not capable of building a coalition of the willing, and if the election were held tomorrow, I think he's lose against any Democrat who was less hated than Hillary Clinton. (God how I wish she had not won the nomination. ANYONE ELSE and Trump would never have won the presidency.) However, unless we remove Trump, Pence, Ryan, the Senate Pro-Tem and the entire Trump Cabinet in one fell swoop, we still have a Republican President, and probably one more competent than Trump. (Since almost anyone would be more competent than Trump.)

I want Trump to pay for his crimes, but I want his removal to result in an IMPROVEMENT in this country... and that would not happen.

[Oniya]

My 'ideal' impeachment scenario:

Proceedings begin - sometime in the fall.  Right around the time that the next wave of Congress-beings are getting voted on.  This would make a Trump endorsement about as valuable as a diploma from Trump University.

These things take time, and of course Trump isn't going to turn tail and resign like Nixon did.  He's going to argue everything, which will drag it out - making it difficult for any of his pet projects to get rolling.

By the time it's over, we have the new crop of Congress-beings (the type that don't get Trump endorsements) in office, further hampering those projects and maybe even pushing back a bit.  Time for the actual 'conviction proceedings' in the other house.

This also takes some time, so we're well into 2019, and starting to get the new Presidential candidates up and running.  Whether the conviction (and removal) occurs or whether Trump is (ha!) acquitted, there's now a lack of time to get things moving on those projects, and we're essentially in 'lame duck' territory.

Hey, I can dream.

[persephone325]

I want to live in Oniya-land. <3

[Yukina]

I want to live in Oniya-land. <3

I second this.

[MisledBloodshed]

The idea of Pence being in charge of the country is concerning, yeah - but then plenty of people I know have pointed out that he could very easily be working behind the scenes right now, VP isn't exactly the on the same level as say, a random citizen. Having him as president could have long lasting negative effects, yes, but -

So could having Trump go through his entire presidency, with all this shit he's done - and just get away with it. The idea that someone doing all of that could just have a full term with no negative consequences during it sets some very disturbing precedents. I've heard someone say its not even about getting rid of him at this point, it's just proving that there is actually some sort of line that the president of america should not be allowed to cross & get away with it just because he's the president.

[ReijiTabibito]

Questions to those more in the know about this process.

1: Does this process work exactly like it does in the courts?  I'm mainly concerned with how it operates in relation to double jeopardy.

2: Can charges be brought against him - assuming statue of limitations does not expire - after he leaves the office?  (My assumption is yes, but.)

3: If charges can be brought after departure from the presidential office, then how would those proceed?

[Oniya]

The data on this is a little scant - after all, impeachment has only happened twice in the history of the country.  Even Nixon (who resigned before he could be impeached) was pre-emptively pardoned by Gerald Ford for 'all crimes discovered and undiscovered' - and he did commit serious war crimes, like the bombing of Cambodia while lying to the public and to Congress about what was going on.

Taking a former President to trial post-term might be a case of first impression.

[ReijiTabibito]

I ask b/c, let's say it works exactly as it does in the courts.  Double jeopardy means you can't be tried for the same crime twice.  (And no, that stupid Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman movie got it wrong.)  If Trump's tried in the Senate, it would require a dozen Republican senators to flip on him in order to convict.  I don't think that will happen, especially because of Trump's base, which is ready and willing to crucify anyone who would betray their champion.  Which means, unless new charges are found - and I doubt that, as I hear Mueller's investigation is concluded in the next 3 months - it's a waste to do that because conviction isn't a likely result, which I assume the American people want.

As for the midterms, I don't think it's going to turn out as some people are saying.  Bill Maher noted the same people who are calling for the Blue Wave are the same people who said Hillary was inevitable.  A poll - I'll have to look it up, it's from a reputable source, though - taken around this time last year had generic Democrats ahead of their GOP counterparts by 16 points.  16!  But now?  They're 3 points ahead.  That's close to margin of error, if not within it.

Part of it is that the Democrats keep screaming about what a terrible person Trump is, rather than discuss things like substantive policy, because to do that would be to normalize Trump.

[Dice]

Post about Trump and Pence.

I don't post here a ton these days, do lurk, this is the first post that has made me want to respond. I have a few things to say here.

1) I personally would rather see someone who is stable and conservative then someone who is unstable and monomaniacal. I think the moment you start talking about the size of your nuke stockpile just to win a twitter war I think you are unfit for the role. Someone who thinks gay people are creations of Satan but is not likely to cause a war in Korea is a sad trade, but one we can live with for a few years.

I would point out on the subject of Korea, the North does not really need Nukes. Seoul is within artillery range of the North. The North can kill something like 5 million in the first 20 minutes of war with conventional weapons. That war can not be won. The costs are just too great.

2) This has happened before. Spiro Agnew was far far worse than Nixon was and that was part of Nixon's gambit. He was sure that the Left would not impeach him because they would get Agnew in his place. The procedings where started anyway. While Agnew feel before that came to pass and Ford took his place, the game theory argument has failed in the past.

3) The other guy is worse is not a reason to leave someone unpunished for a crime.

Personally, while I do see talk of the investigation being what shuts him down I do not think it is the correct argument. Both of these things have been demonised in the press and there is a better way anyway. The man is using high office to help him and his line their pockets are the expense of others. I think corruption would be the best attack, showing that the guy in the mid west is losing out while Trump is getting more and more at his expense. Redirect that anger.

By the time it's over, we have the new crop of Congress-beings (the type that don't get Trump endorsements) in office, further hampering those projects and maybe even pushing back a bit.  Time for the actual 'conviction proceedings' in the other house.

This is already happening, just not in the way that it first appears. Teachers are driving a new push on the Republican party in 4 states, with record numbers of them running. Trump himself ran on an economically Left, socially Right platform that is taking off. The party is looking like it is about to start purging itself because it has run on Social issues to pick up votes and voted to help its donor base is starting to hurt. People need shit funded and right now that has come home to roost.

Its not Trumps endorsement that is going to matter soon, that ship has sailed. Its going to be who can deliver on economical promises while telling white people that people a shade darker than them are going to rape their children that are likely to see more support. No matter how that makes you feel its likely true.

If I was going to make an argument about why I want Trump to stay it would be because this new moment inside the Right, where people on the front line line of budget cuts like Teachers, Fire fighters and ambulance drivers are standing up and saying "This is not sustainable." Losing that moment would be harmful to the US in the longer term then Trump for four years. I think Pence, being well in with the "Establishment" would be more adept at putting the breaks on that. You actually kind of need someone like a Teacher to come in and follow Trump, because not everything he said was bullshit, just most of it. 

[gaggedLouise]

Trump says (in a tweet, of course) that it's in his power as president to pardon himself "but why should I?". He was taking his cue from Rudy Giuliani, but the reaction in the GOP if he tried could be convulsive - see here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-to-trump-impeachment-outrage-if-you-self-pardon/ar-AAydNec?ocid=spartandhp

I just heard someone on BBC News saying that under the US Constitution, the President mught have the power to pardon himself for federal crimes, but this has of course never been tested and the consequences would be really intolerable if pulled out to the edge. Washington DC is a federal city, so in theory the president could walk down the streets there and shoot people down with a bazooka and then pardon himself! Or even more alarmingly, he could let some troops stage a clearly illegal massacre on the streets of the capital - and then pardon both himself (for giving the order) and them.  ???

But I have a different take on this. If the crime (or treason) was committed in Trump Tower, then it could not be a federal crime, since New York is not a federal area. If the treason was committed in secret on board Air Force One, hmmm...I don't know? Is the plane a federal area when it's up in flight?  :P

[Oniya]

Isn't treason against the state a 'federal crime' by definition? ???

[gaggedLouise]

Isn't treason against the state a 'federal crime' by definition? ???

Well, I'm sure you know the US Constitution better than I do. :)

[gaggedLouise]

Hey, wait...

If 1) the President has the (formal) right to pardon himself for any federal crimes

and 2) treason against the state is always a federal crime,

then the result would be that 3) The President can always commit treason and then pardon himself for it.

:o

[Blythe]

Blargh, tried to post, garbled my words, trying again.

Presidential pardon powers are defined by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The problem is that the wording is vague.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So we get into a peculiar conundrum here. I don't think he can pardon himself for treason since it's quite the impeachable offense, but it's entirely possible for his pardon power to be inapplicable that impeachment proceedings would already have to have been begun.

But then we get into this weird area where, if he pardons himself during an active investigation (or fires Mueller), that could (...actually, I'd say would guaranteed) trigger an impeachment process for obstruction of justice.

But I'm not a lawyer, nor am I especially savvy, so I could be seriously wrong here.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I'll just jump in here after a spell of absence, to offer a few thoughts (even without reading the whole thread in detail):

So we get into a peculiar conundrum here. I don't think he can pardon himself for treason since it's quite the impeachable offense, but it's entirely possible for his pardon power to be inapplicable that impeachment proceedings would already have to have been begun.

But then we get into this weird area where, if he pardons himself during an active investigation (or fires Mueller), that could (...actually, I'd say would guaranteed) trigger an impeachment process for obstruction of justice.

First of all, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process, even if it may have some trappings of a court procedure. If Congress wants to impeach a president it can always find some way or another to do it. Whatever pardon someone may have will shield them from proceedings in a federal court, but Congress is not a federal court. A pardon does not take impeachment  off the table. The intersection of criminal offenses and impeachment may be far smaller than you might think it is.

Second, the validity of a President pardoning himself has never been tested in court, but the guiding principle is that no one can be a judge over himself in a court of law. While not codified anywhere (as far as I can tell), it is something courts should (and - most likely - will) give great weight to.

Third -and here we come to something that is mostly my own thinking, i.e. not based on concrete evidence- if the President violates the law and pardons himself for it, can that pardon be constitutional? The pardon power derives from the Constitution, but so does the President's duty to "faithfully execute the law" ( the "Take Care" clause, which also features into the oath of office). So if the President does something that would be unlawful for everyone else, does he violate the Take Care clause and his oath of office? My personal answer would be yes. Based on that thought I would say that a President pardoning himself for unlawful actions violates the Constitution and therefore invalidates the Constitutional power he would outerwise be granted, as I find it difficult to believe that something can both be constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.

As an side: Fun fact abut pardons: Once you have been pardoned you can longer plead the 5th. The 5th Ammendment only shields you from incriminating yourself in a proceeding against you, but - with a pardon - there can no longer be a proceeding agaist you for the pardoned offence. Without that sword dangling over your head you can not plead the 5th. Which means that you can be called as a witness against someone else (say, a co-conspirator) and be forced to testify. If you refuse to testify or lie in court you can be taken to task for contempt or perjury. Now that would be a fun angle if Trump throws out pardons to Manafort and his ilk, or maybe to himself.  :-)

[Oniya]

Speaking of Presidential pardons, I heard a bit on Mr. Oniya's sports news that Trump was planning on posthumously pardoning Muhammad Ali.

Most people remember that Ali was a championship boxer, and many remember that his birth name was Cassius Clay.  What they may not remember is that he changed his name after converting to Islam, and subsequently refused to be drafted for the military (citing religious beliefs and opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam).  He was, in fact, arrested and convicted of 'draft evasion' (he showed up for the induction, but refused to step forward when his name was called), and was unable to compete for four years as he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court - which did overturn the conviction in 1971 (8-0, with Thurgood Marshall recusing himself because he was AG at the time of the initial conviction).  This makes the pardon completely unnecessary.

Mr. Oniya described it as 'He has a new toy and can't stop playing with it.' 

[Cassandra LeMay]

Mr. Oniya described it as 'He has a new toy and can't stop playing with it.'

*nods* Very true. Can't wait for him to pardon Nixon.  ;D

Now that I had a bit more time to read through this thread, a few thoughts and comments/replies:

As for impeaching Trump I would say yes, lets do it - if and only if there is concrete evidence to justify such a step. The last thing an already deeply divided nation needs is politicians who "weaponize" impeachement, with constant talk of impeachement hanging over the President like the sword of Damocles. In the long run that will only hurt American politics. So lets just wait and see what Bob Muller turns up and talk about impeachement then. I would rather see the midterms fought on policy grounds than on who is most likely to vote for impeaching Trump.

I just heard someone on BBC News saying that under the US Constitution, the President mught have the power to pardon himself for federal crimes, but this has of course never been tested and the consequences would be really intolerable if pulled out to the edge. Washington DC is a federal city, so in theory the president could walk down the streets there and shoot people down with a bazooka and then pardon himself! Or even more alarmingly, he could let some troops stage a clearly illegal massacre on the streets of the capital - and then pardon both himself (for giving the order) and them.  ???

A "federal crime" is a violation of a law passed by the federal government. In the United States both the federal government and the state governments can pass laws, and the Presidents pardon power only covers the former, not the latter. The location does not define a "federal crime".

1: Does this process work exactly like it does in the courts?  I'm mainly concerned with how it operates in relation to double jeopardy.

There is an exception to Double Jeopardy, namely the "seperate sovereigns" doctrine. In practice it means that something that is a crime under both federal and state laws can be tried twice, just not by the same "sovereign". That is, if you have been tried under state law you can still be tried under federal law for the same crime. In theory that works in reverse also (going from federal court to state court), but many states preclude that option and don't try someone on states-law grounds if he has been acquitted by a federal court. (see here for efforts in New York to overturn that policy)

I don't think it has ever been tested how that would work with impeachement, but my take would be that
(a) impeachement proceedings are not a trial in the strictest sense and therefore do not count for purposes of double jeopardy,
(b) that the Legislative (where impeachement would happen) and the Judicative (where a criminal trial would happen) are "seperate sovereigns", and
(c) if the Senate does not reach a decisive vote for impeachement it might well be the equivalent of a mistrial (like a hung jury) and therefore might not preclude a new trial, as the double jeopardy rule doesn't attach in mistrials (far as I know).

As always, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my best take on the subject.

[Prosak]

It's never going to actually happen, democrats are only trying to pump up the base in order to stay relevant and keep them from steering away. If he were to be impeached it would do more harm then good to the democratic party and they know it. As the democratic party is in a bad place right now. Primarilly in terms of some one to rally the base and be a voice. Of coarse there are a lot of people attempting to do this, but none are saying anything new and are simply repeating samey statements with samey ideas and samey threats towards the president. Which results in no one really being a voice for people to listen to, they all sound the same.

[Mera1506]

I'm not that familiar with American politics and the people I did hear are pro Trump so I'll here. What terrible things did he do other then firing a missile on Syria without as much as an investigation and after it was proven that at least the first of the nerve gas attacks was set off by the rebels.
That aside, after Iraq and Libia we don't want Syria to follow those two nations and become a failed state.

[TheGlyphstone]

What credible proof was there of the nerve gas being used by rebels? I hadn't heard anything to that end.

[Mera1506]

Rebels used nerve gas UN official.
Another source

I know the whole Syria chapter is a huge hornet's nest. These three videos helped me understand it a bit better

A tale of two narratives part 1: The media halo
A tale of two narratives part 2: The first casualty
A tale of two narratives part 3: The road to war #Syria

[Oniya]

Honestly, if he's impeached, it won't be over Syria.  The investigation is (by all accounts) looking into issues regarding collusion with the Russians to get elected.  Having a foreign power that can literally say 'Without our help, you wouldn't be President' is not a situation that lends itself to unbiased international relations.

If we're talking about the man's general inhumanity, consider that this is a man who is defending the actions of people who are separating minor children from their parents.  Where a sitting Senator was turned away from being able to inspect the facilities - and when members of Congress finally got a chance to see them, described the facilities as 'It was orderly, but it was far from what I would call humane'. Where the people supposedly caring for these children are told 'not to pick up or comfort' them.

[Sara Nilsson]

Rebels used nerve gas UN official.
Another source

By - The Washington Times - Monday, May 6, 2013 But it wasn't the 2013 sarin gas attack that prompted the attack. It was the attack on April 7th of this year.

[Mera1506]

By - The Washington Times - Monday, May 6, 2013 But it wasn't the 2013 sarin gas attack that prompted the attack. It was the attack on April 7Th of this year.

All of the attacks however came at times that they were very disadvantageous for Assad, but it did get the US involved again to remove Assad, why would a man who's smart enough to still be in power, be so stupid to keep shooting himself in the foot with nerve gas rather than using more conventional means to get things done that wouldn't have brought the US back into the equation.

As for the children being separated from their parents, the parents broke the law by entering illegally. Any parent who breaks the law and gets arrested can have their kids taken. Not to mention human trafficking also happens. Then there's the gangs that cross the border to the business like MS-13. They have to figure out if there's an adult with the kid weather he or she is the parent/caretaker. Also the photos recently leaked came from 2014, during which Obama was still in power.
With a closed border with a fence, there would be far fewer people crossing and be in that situation to begin with.

[TheGlyphstone]

While that is a valid concern for calling the origin into question, it's not the definitive proof of rebels initiating the attack you claimed. Assad could just have easily done it with the, mistaken, belief that Trump's focus on isolationism would mean he wouldn't intervene.

[Sara Nilsson]

Assad: Proof please. The link you gave didn't provide proof and now you are just guessing.

But crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, hardly something worth throwing kids in jail for. That is like saying "your dad jaywalked, so we are putting you into this cage"

Also also, more than a few of them came seeking asylum, which is legal. You dont rip the kids away from people that do the right thing.

Also http://www.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-in-cages-2014-photos-explained-2018-5

Though the photos are nearly identical to those from 2014, there is one key difference between them: the 2014 photos showed only children who arrived at the border unaccompanied. The 2018 photos also show families that have been separated from one another.

[Avis habilis]

As for the children being separated from their parents, the parents broke the law by entering illegally.

This is, to no one's surprise, not true.

Not to mention human trafficking also happens. Then there's the gangs that cross the border to the business like MS-13.

This is a smokescreen. It's been Littlefinger's intention to terrorize asylum seekers by threatening to seize their children since the beginning of his tenure.

[Skynet]

All of the attacks however came at times that they were very disadvantageous for Assad, but it did get the US involved again to remove Assad, why would a man who's smart enough to still be in power, be so stupid to keep shooting himself in the foot with nerve gas rather than using more conventional means to get things done that wouldn't have brought the US back into the equation.

As for the children being separated from their parents, the parents broke the law by entering illegally. Any parent who breaks the law and gets arrested can have their kids taken. Not to mention human trafficking also happens. Then there's the gangs that cross the border to the business like MS-13. They have to figure out if there's an adult with the kid weather he or she is the parent/caretaker. Also the photos recently leaked came from 2014, during which Obama was still in power.
With a closed border with a fence, there would be far fewer people crossing and be in that situation to begin with.

Actually technically no. If someone's arrested, there's generally a trial and the person can post bail and go home until a trial is held. In such a case said person still has access to their kids (barring things like child abuse, restraining orders, etc). The problem here is that many of these undocumented immigrants are being separated from their children without a trial.

[Sara Nilsson]

A few words about immigration court. Oliver has a good vid about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fB0GBwJ2QA

Now my own little story about immigration court. A few years back I was in deportation proceedings, why you ask? I am glad you did, because a paper from a doctor in Sweden (the country I was born in) was 2 days late. 2 days late. Now what was that paper about? Something serious surely. Nope, the paper was from one of Sweden's leading surgeons stating "I have done the following surgeries on Sara" and listing that he done sex reassignment surgery (ie cut off my dick and gave me a cunt) and given me breast implants. This is what they wanted to deport me over. Nevermind that my doctor here in the USA already had confirmed that I have had those surgeries done, and my husband had already given written statement saying "Yes I knew Sara was born a male, yes I met her during her transition, yes she was totally honest with me about it from day 1. and yes she has never tried to lie about it" Nevermind that.. you know.. that doesn't really matter.

So we show up at the Trenton courthouse here in NJ, with our lawyer (who we had hired when it became painfully obvious that trying to do this without one would be a bad idea). By this point I had been living here in NJ for about 8 years (I don't remember the exact time), started my own business, family, got married all according to the plan we gave them for the visa. Only thing we didn't do was show them our honeymoon photos from Key west (which btw they didn't tell us to bring to one of the many meetings, they sprung that on us and it isn't even something you have to do. and the man shut up when I just told him.. it was our honeymoon, in Key West, I am not showing those pictures. that made him blush and shut up).

Soooo anyway. We show up, I am nervous as hell of course. I spent not an inconsiderable amount of money in getting my visa, greencard, getting my life started here and all other things.. lawyers fees are not exactly cheap either). And to highlight the absurdity of it all, the case before me was a man from Jamaica. He had testified against the drug cartels and in return they offered him asylum in the USA as naturally he would be killed in short order if he stayed. And to make money he was arrested for selling drugs on the streets of Trenton NJ. Now the judge just smiled and went "These things happen" and dismissed the case. And here I am, for a letter being 2 days late about a fucking surgery!

When my time came it was quickly dismissed as the well I don't think her title was prosecutor but the lady representing the government was content that the letter had arrived and was willing to drop it all.

So why is there such a long wait time? Because cases like mine, just absurd. And again, if you don't pay for a lawyer, you do not get one. And good luck defending yourself. We tried doing the whole immigration without one, it is a NIGHTMARE!! They keep asking for more and more absurd things (like the statement my husband had to sign) as soon as we got a lawyer.. all those demands vanished. because as our lawyer said, many of the things they kept demanding they have no right to demand.

[Mera1506]

Actually technically no. If someone's arrested, there's generally a trial and the person can post bail and go home until a trial is held. In such a case said person still has access to their kids (barring things like child abuse, restraining orders, etc). The problem here is that many of these undocumented immigrants are being separated from their children without a trial.

The problem is that the adults could very well not be the kids parents, but human traffickers too, or gangs using kids for their own ends.... So this has to be investigated....

[Oniya]

From the NPR article:

'The breaking point for Davidson came, he says, when he was asked to tell two siblings, ages 6 and 10, that they couldn't hug each other. "They called me over the radio. And they wanted to translate to these kids that the rule of the shelter is that they are not allowed to hug," he says. "And these are kids that had just been separated from their mom — basically just huddling and hugging each other in a desperate attempt to remain together." Southwest Key says it has a clear policy that allows touching and hugging in certain circumstances.'

Key point:  These are two siblings, elementary-school aged - and the shelter workers were saying they couldn't hug each other.  You have two children who are scared - whether they've been abducted for human trafficking or separated from their legal guardians is completely beside the point. 

[Skynet]

The problem is that the adults could very well not be the kids parents, but human traffickers too, or gangs using kids for their own ends.... So this has to be investigated....

Modern-day slavery is a real and present issue, but it's been a political buzzword among the far-right for the last year or so. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory was the most deranged, but it also manifested in people like Lauren Southern misdirecting and blocking Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders vessels from saving Syrian refugees on sinking ships and those lost at sea. She too made the claim that they were fighting "human traffickers..." even though her actions were to get those very people, some of which she claimed were being trafficked, killed.

And that doesn't even touch how FOSTA/SESTA is a sledgehammer for a scalpel's job which ironically ended up sending a lot of consensual adult sex workers onto the less-safe streets when online services were taken off the table.

Although this last example was just as much the Democrats' fault as the GOP, I have little sympathy for the right anymore when they pretend that they're protecting the very people they seek to hurt, oppress, and kill.

[Skynet]

With a closed border with a fence, there would be far fewer people crossing and be in that situation to begin with.

I realize that I responded to another point in Mera's earlier post, but I wanted to handle this part as well.

A lot of undocumented immigrants in the USA didn't just swoop on in with no paperwork, a huge amount of them are those in the country on a worker's visa. But when the deadline is up, they do not go back for various reasons.

Here are two articles by the Pew Research Center:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2006/05/22/modes-of-entry-for-the-unauthorized-migrant-population/

The first source mentions that around two-thirds of undocumented immigrants in the USA already lived there for a decade.

And the second source cites that nearly one half of undocumented immigrants got in to the country on a worker's visa.

Building a wall, which beyond being architecturally unsound and financially disastrous, will not take into account the huge amount of immigrants already here. And unless the Trump administration gets rid of worker's visas entirely (which will turn every free-market capitalist and big corporation against him), the physical wall will not be a barrier against this.

[ReijiTabibito]

Which begs the question.  If these people already qualified for a visa, and are simply letting it expire, why is that the case?  It's obvious that they want to stay here, given their behavior.  (BTW, does anyone know how long a visa is good for?)

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-long-will-your-us-visa-allow-you-stay.html

It varies massively, from six months to three years. I couldnt really find a good article that goes into why they don't renew the visa. Could be anything from forgetting to renew it (it can be rather confusing in some cases), not eligible for renewing due to you can't renew that type of visa more or due to criminal activity.

[Cassandra LeMay]

... Then there's the gangs that cross the border to the business like MS-13. ...

Here's a useful article on MS-13, its history, and how large (or not) a problem they are. MS-13 may press imigrants into service / recruit them, but they don't have to smuggle people across the border to serve in their ranks any more than say, American biker gangs have to bring in European skinheads to swell their ranks.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Given all that's been in the news about Bob Woodward's new book and a certain NYT op-ed, I figure it might be a good idea to resurrect this thread, as there are already headlines in some news media about a "constitutional crisis".

Recently I read a book I can really recommend on the topic of impeachement: "To End A Presidency - The power of impeachement" by Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz. Tribe and Matz make no secret of the fact that they are no fans of Donald Trump, but they still manage to provide a very good overview of how the Impeachement Clause came to be, how it was used in the past, and what actually using it might entail. In the end they warn against talking about impeachement constantly, against making "impeachement talk" just another tool in the toolkit of partisan warfare, least an impeachement (when it is actually needed) splits the nation even more than it already is and does more harm than good to the fabric of society.

Matz gave a talk about the book at the National Constitution Center that sums up the main points very well: https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/past-programs/the-power-of-impeachment-its-history-and-future?utm_source=web&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=video
If you don't have the time, money, or inclination to read a whole book on the subject, 40 minutes of this video make a pretty decent substitute for the whole book.