President Trump should be congratulated for the positive changes he has made in
his short tenure as president -- a record that is hard to argue with if one is
willing to look past the media's onslaught from the day he one the
election.The Atlantic, in my opinion, is encouraging the overthrow
-- not so much of the president -- but of the will of the people that elected
him. The media and the political elite in this country worried that he would not
accept the outcome of the election if he lost. Now they are working 24/7/365 to
overthrow his election after his win. It would be funny if it weren't so
serious to the future of elections in this country. I say get over it; stop your
whining; let President Trump govern.
Mad hatterTrying to become a politician and actually being one are
two different things, trump tried with an exploratory committee but failed and
again like you said in 2012. Did he become a politician, has he had training in
public speaking as a politician, has he had training as a public orator?
Obviously he hasnt, that was my point - just because someone exercises political
activism does not make him a politician, he would have to be elected.If someone asked you if trump was a politician 5 years ago you would answer
no, why? Because he had never been one at that time.
All 5 reasons boil down to: we don't like him, let's get him! Nowhere in there was a serious examination of truthful accusations. So
many charges have proven to be straight-up false. Like this most recent one by
Cohen who said Trump suborned perjury. Even Mueller said that was inaccurate
(re: fake news). If you ever think an anti-Trump bombshell has landed, wait 2
days and watch for a tiny retraction. Are none of the Libs
self-aware enough to see how dangerous it is to use the entire might of the
federal gov't to reject the will of the American electorate? Or do the ends
justify the means? Using the FBI, NSA and the entrenched
bureaucracy, in collusion with the mainstream media, pop culture, the
educational/industrial complex, and even foreign actors (lest we forget the
Russian Dossier was generated by an ex-MI-6 agent), to bring down a US
president, for doing nothing more that what he promised in the campaign, is so
dangerous it takes my breath away. "O, that way madness lies;
let me shun that; No more of that."
Sportsfan123 - Herriman, UTJan. 18, 2019 1:46 p.m.said:".....instilling immorality and social degradation as the norm and
encouraging secularism."Right you are! Just look at the posts
here by people hoping someone invents fake evidence against the President.
A big IF:If the results of the Mueller investigation show conspiracy
to defraud, the SDNY shows criminal activity of the part of Donald Trump, his
family and the Trump Organization, and the House investigations show "high
crimes and misdemeanors" that the majority of Republicans in the House and
Senate can agree on . . . . . . would this justify impeachment and a
Senate trial?For 25% of the electorate, probably not.It
appears that many Trump defenders in this thread will neither countenance nor
agree that impeachment can be a reality. It's like the mother whose son has
committed a serious crime and still insists "he's a good boy" and
would do such a thing.Democrats have to consider and be ready that
impeachment may be an ephemeral thought that will not go anywhere. Republicans
also have to consider that impeachment and conviction may become a reality. And
Trump's ardent supporters may have to contend that their Dear Leader really
has no clothes.It's too early to say, but evidence is growing.
And all the while Vladimir Putin is enjoying the chaos he has created in this
country and the distraction it has become for his own nation's adventures.
worf - McAllen, TXJan. 18, 2019 5:20 p.m."Careful what you
wish for!"Impeachment doesn't work if the Senate won't
issue a conviction. Too often impeachment today has become a partisan political
to sideshow due to lack of favorability by one side or the other. Consider all
the calls for impeachment of Barack Obama? It was all tribal noise engendered to
lather up the base.And with Mike Pence waiting in the hallway,
it's not necessarily a better to trade one unfit individual for another
toady sycophant. Better to have the various investigations play out and we
learn the extent of any criminal activity if it has occurred. Although many
Trump supporters will not believe anything that criticizes their Dear Leader
regardless of the evidence, it is better to have it all out there so people
don't do this ever again. Fortunately in 1932 when America was
tottering on the edge and it was ripe for a demagogue to rise out of the putrid
depths, Franklin Roosevelt was elected and we avoided what could have been a
major disaster. It wasn't until 36 years later that the first
mistake was made with the election of Richard Nixon, again during a time of
national stress and chaos.
worf - McAllen, TXJan. 18, 2019 5:20 p.m."Impeach
Trump?"Careful what you wish for!"Mike Pence is
waiting in the wings.Sportsfan123 - Herriman, UTJan. 18, 2019
1:46 p.m." . . . Trump is not a trained orator or politician . .
. "How do you define "politician"? Sarah Palin claimed
not to be the "typical politician" although she had been governor of
Alaska and city council member before that. And what kind of training are you
talking about? Many congresspeople have no legislative experience before running
for office, and how many have training in public speaking? All you need to do is
listen to them and it's quite obvious.My understanding is that
as soon as a person runs for political office, they become a
"politician". Donald Trump initially began his political career in 1999
when he filed an exploratory committee to seek the nomination of the Reform
Party for the 2000 presidential election. He tried again with the Republican
Party in 2012. That sounds a lot like he had decided to become a politician. This does not even include his political activism through his financial
contributions and public advertisements advocating specific political issues.
Impeach Trump?Careful what you wish for!
I love our President. DJT actually cares about Americans suffering from the
years of Democrat and RINO leadership or lack thereof.
America could be proud again if we had a President who put some effort into
being a President, and didn't put his kids in as his "Senior
It sounds like what the Atlantic really wants to do is impeach the half of the
country who voted for Trump in the first place.Remedy for the media:
Take a deep breath, recognize your own hypocrisy, ask the country for
forgiveness, and attempt to honestly report the news.EVERY time
Trump has shouted "fake news" at the media, he has been vindicated.
Please recognize that you, the media, are part of the problem. Perhaps impeach
Yes, please do it. With the new revelation and bombshell on what he's
alleged to have told Cohen to lie before Congress, Trump should definitively be
impeached. It will certainly "make America great again."
Impeach Trump and Ignore Hillary who purposefully and professionally bleached
her servers to cover up illegal use of campaign donations, Uranium deal with
Russians, obstruction of justice, taking bribes (Clinton Foundation) ,
threatening her husband's mistresses, Chinagate, Travelgate scandal,
Whitewater, Filegate need I go on?
I'd be thrilled to see impeachment prosecuted if the DOJ will also
investigate and prosecute HRH Hillary, the FBI leadership, and others (like
Bruce Ohr) for their misconduct with the same vigor that has fueled the Trump
investigation. Too bad there is no remedy for the media's
misdeeds. I think "Equal Justice Under the Law" and has
gone to the same grave as objectivity in these matters.
As a Church-owned and operated news outlet, is Deseret News required to at least
TRY to be politically neutral or fair? If Deseret News had absolutely zero
affiliation with The Church, politically charge pieces and opinions like this
are easily reconciled as "well it's just another liberal news
outlet". And yes, even though this article is about 5 take aways from the
Atlantic article, it's still a thinly veiled opinion piece in support of
impeaching President Trump. Isn't it just a matter of time
before The Church's tax-exempt status is scrutinized, even more than it
usually is, for being in the political arena too much? Whether it's from
the pulpit or The Paper, is it not the same?
BYUalum - South Jordan, UTJan. 17, 2019 4:52 p.m."I
wholeheartedly support President Trump and all that he has done for our great
country!"Well, you are an obvious Donald Trump supporter, but
you don't give us any reasons to justify your position other than you stand
with his tribe. Perhaps you can give some insight into the relationship between
Trump and Vladimir Putin, what gets discussed in their secret meetings, and you
attitude toward other demagogues and dictators around the world.Then
provide your views of democracy and how Trump adheres to "preserve and
protect the Constitution of the United States"? Also, tell us if you support
all Trump administration policies from building his wall to taking children from
their parents. I would bet you thought Barack Obama was a Muslim and illegal,
undocumented immigrant born in Kenya? Maybe you are amused with Trump's
mis-statements, lies, untruths, xenophobia, misogyny, callousness, lack of
empathy, vindictiveness, and other behaviors that disgust most people.If you chose to make such enthusiastic statements in support of Trump, then
take accountability of how he is and what he does. Maybe you just like his hair?
NeifyT - Salt Lake City, UTJan. 17, 2019 5:14 p.m."Trump
deserves to be impeached . . . is absolutely false."There's
a lot of anger from people that want Donald Trump impeached, but they don't
yet have enough evidence to successfully gain a conviction in the Senate. To
impeach just for the sake of embarrassing Trump would be fruitless. However, if
the Mueller investigation and the work by the Southern District of New York
provide evidence sufficient to convince Republican senators of guilt, then
impeachment proceedings will be necessary.Unless you know what these
two investigative bodies have learned and if the House committees provide
additional evidence, then we can discuss whether Trump deserves to be impeached.
My personal preference is full exposure of all criminal activity and possible
traitorous involvement with the Russians. I believe calls for impeachment at
this time are premature, but the more we learn of his actions with the Russians
suggests we have a man in this nation's highest office who is a threat to
the United States.So I choose to wait and see all the evidence that
is accumulated before judgment on impeachment. As a sleaze, I've already
Bob Tanner - Price, UTJan. 18, 2019 11:28 a.m."President
Trump is not a politician . . . Supporting the President just might make things
work better than imagined."What do you call a person who engages
in political activity? Come on now, give it a shot. It's not a difficult
question.How can a person support someone with whom one is
completely opposed regarding policy? You don't support someone you
don't agree with. Did you support Bill Clinton's policies, for
example? Or did you support Newt Gingrich?And last, why should
anyone disgusted with Donald Trump's behavior and antics rally to his side
and accept him like they would anyone else? The man is covered with bad karma
and you recommend "forgive and forget"? Maybe eventually
"forgive" in the Christian sense of the word, but "forget"? Is
he a role model for you sons and the type of man you want your daughters to
admire? Probably not.It is better to give up one's objectives
temporarily for the greater good and have a better person in a leadership role.
Perhaps you can re-examine what you are asking and think about the
ramifications. Why don't you support the next Democratic president and
follow your own advice?
Interesting article I must say. Although personally, I'd wait until
Mueller finishes his work and reveals something concerning first before
proceeding. And as for the argument that failed impeachment will not back fire,
I think you'll be surprised. Trump may not be very popular, but I think
the public can get an impression of passionate bias against the president if the
Democrats aren’t careful when using the process. Remember. Everyone said
Trump wouldn’t win the 2016 election. Do not think Trump winning 2020 is
out of reach (even if it is unlikely). Bottom line. Be smart when using this
Marxist"He spent the 25 years running for president".Where does this none sense come from?Just because the media
and the public and Trump himself claiming he might run for office one day, as he
might have said 30 years ago does not mean he ran for office of the president of
the united states for the last 25 years.No, Trump is not a trained
orator or politician he has infact been learning on the fly, hence his poor
choice of words and antic's.He is the quintessential non
politician with no ties to the globalist elite that run the U.N. like the last
four administrations, he is the last chance for the united states to remain as a
sovereign nation.It is obvious with the last four president's
that have made horrible trade deals with the purpose to weaken and to destroy
the middle class job market of this country and promote open borders like europe
and instilling immorality and social degradation as the norm and encouraging
secularism.These are the sign's of a marxist fascist govt
trying to degrade our founding principals of our constitution on the way to
their ultimate goal of a new world.
@Brave Sir RobinYes, I for one (I am quite sure there are MANY
others) think that he IS smarter than you.You make all kind of wild
claims about President Trump but give no specifics. Based on your claims and
rationale, many former and current members of Congress could be impeached and/or
go to jail.A certain former Secretary of State comes readily to
I've got a new saying: Anyone can impeach a ham sandwich.De
Toqueville wrote extensively about impeachment as a permanent political
punishment that would demonstrate effective checks and balances but not involve
the criminal courts.What we have with the Trump case is mere
spite.Hypothetically, if a senator were involved in a hit-and-run
accident and left behind a woman who died, one could impeach that person.Or, say a member of congress sent nude photos to a teenager. Or make
homosexual advances toward an aide.We've been rather sloppy
about turpitude in the past. I guess that's what makes the Trump case so
ridiculous. Camelot was filled with nude swim parties and infidelity.
That's why "witch hunt" is an apt term for this nonsense.
"He only obstructed justice a few times" Please name one time. Oh
that's right there is no time. " and he only paid off 2
adult film actresses in violation of federal election law." No. Ask Alan
Dershowitz, a democrat, not a federal election law issue. Saying it is like
CNN does not make it so. Please don't speculate on unfounded gossip.
Rick for Truth - Provo, UT--Impeachment is nothing more that a
charge. They will have to obtain 67 votes in the Senate. Unless they have
“real” proof of real crimes, they are spitting into the wind. But.
Truth and honesty is not a high card of the politicians arrayed against
President Trump.---Campaign finance crimes are real crimes.
But apparently to some, they are not real crimes, except of course when the
target is say Hillary Clinton, and the perennial call to "Lock her up!".
Or perhaps those crimes which noone is killed, are less of a crime,
or perhaps totally ignorable crimes, sort of like parking ticket's worth of
@Bob Tanner "President Trump is not a politician. "An
absurd statement! He spent the last 25 years running for president. He's
a politician for sure. Anyone who runs for office is a politician. Some might
say Jimmy Carter is not a politician, he's a peanut farmer. Carter is for
sure a politician like Trump, but Carter has moral character whereas Trump does
It is interesting to note the primary premise of the article. The author
doesn't really care if Trump is convicted or not, he just wants the
impeachment proceedings to happen to ensure he can be made as ineffective as
possible and to diminish his voice. What these people never realize is the
nutty things they do always come back around, just as using the 'nuclear
option' in senate voting practices allowed the senate to override democrats
objections in the last SCOTUS confirmation. It is this childish short-term
thinking that is causing all sorts of problems. So now we will start an
investigation of whatever we kind find the moment a new president is elected,
then start impeachment proceedings on whatever just to nullify presidential
effectiveness? This will become the new norm? This will attract effective
leaders to WANT to take this absurd job? We wonder why all we get are political
hacks and extremists standing in line for this treatment? This is exactly the
scenario needed for those who are trying to destroy America. Couldn't
happen any other way.
President Trump is not a politician. This is something that Washington leftist
Clintonistic cronies are unable to deal with. Because of their total and
absolute lack of any, ever so slight inkling to support even one thing Trump
has done for the nation we find ourselves a nation defined as "bogged down
in gridlock" with no end in sight. Supporting the President just might make
things work better than imagined. The leftists should give it a try.
@I'm smarter than you"Why would we impeach the best
president in over 100 years?"Because he's breaking the
law.You can't impeach a president because you don't like
his politics. But you also can't refuse to impeach him because you do like
his politics. He's already proven to have committed high crimes and
treason, therefore he must be impeached. Yes, even if you like his politics.Are you sure you're smarter than me?
We need this because Trump has dragged down all of us. We now think it is OK to
lie, and lie about really big things. We need to be cleansed of this.
BYUAlum: "I wholeheartedly support President Trump and all that he has done
for our great country!"I agree.Donald Trump is
awesome.He only obstructed justice a few times and he only paid off
2 adult film actresses in violation of federal election law. Obama did the same
thing, didn't he?What's the big deal, liberals?
@bachelors of scienceExactly right. BO had the ability to lead us
right in to the "ditch" which he so ably did.If I like my
proctologist, can I keep my proctologist?🤔
It is going to be way worse than even the most cynical among us can imagine,
Why would we impeach the best president in over 100 years? That simply
doesn't make any sense to anyone who is a free American. Only those in
support of socialism would think that way. Go to china or north korea. Stop
trying to destroy America
When you boil it down, this guy is suggesting using the impeachment process for
purely political reasons. You can't impeach the president because you
don't like him or because he says mean things that contribute to your
constant state of outrage and willingness to be offended. The president is not
guilty of any impeachable offenses. These "Trumped" up impeachment
reasons will never make it through the Senate. Just more proof that it is all
political posturing by another liberal that allows Trump to live in his head
@John MillHe's already proven to have done 2 of those 3 things.
Get on with the impeachment already!
Donald Trump is incompetent and doesn't know what he's doing.President Obama was educated and had the ability to lead our country.
Can there be any doubt where the D News and its owners stand regarding our
president when they not only repeat this media gossip but assign a reporter to
do an in-depth story about it?Shame on you.
The impeachment sagas are always driven by the media. We should all contemplate
by now whether the media deserves it's exalted position as the Fourth
Estate or should be, instead, be regarded as a part of the Fifth Column.
If Trump is guilty of crimes sufficient for impeachment may still remain to be
proven. However, his time in office at the White House has definitely proven
that he is too incompetent and too destructive to hold the high office of POTUS.
This is nothing more than another liberal hack trying to make a case for
impeachment. Reading this made me feel like I was listening to CNN. You
can’t impeach because you don’t like the president. Conservatives
had to deal with Obama for 8 years.
Yoni Applebaum graduated with AB in History from Columbia, a PHD from Brandeis,
taught at Harvard. He is so Blue and so entrenched in the liberal idea that
Trump stole the election and Mueller will prove it. It is precisely having Sean
Hannity or Rush Limbaugh write an editorial for the impeachment of Barack Obama
or if Hillary we’re elected her impeachment. Right now there is no
evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Trump won the election by playing by
the rules and defeating Hillary in the electoral college significantly. The
popular vote is summed by New York and California which gave all of the popular
vote advantage to Clinton. Without them Trump is way ahead in popular vote. The
electoral college is how we elect presidents. The constitution is still the law
of the land.
@John MillI agree with your comment that this kind of talk is
"premature".Not only that, it is impertinent and absolutely
silly on so many levels.
How does paraphrasing and summarizing an opinion article in a left leaning
magazine pass for journalism at the Deseret News?Since this piece
essentially just reprints the Atlantic piece, can we assume this is just a proxy
for the editorial opinion of the Deseret News? Why not state the case for
yourselves rather than repeating the arguments made in another publication?The original author claims there are benefits to the impeachment process
but then rightly points to the one and only modern example which ultimately
benefited the man being impeached, resulted in a more politically fractured
nation, wasted time and taxpayer money and resulted in no conviction or removal
from office. From that one example, the original author argues that
while the outcome would be the same, essentially, there would be political
benefits for the partisan enemies of the president. Yet these are the same
arguments the Republicans foolishly fell for in impeaching Clinton.
How about "impeaching" Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and a
few other avowed "obstructionists"?Seems only fair.
I get it. The jist of the article is, I don't like Trump, let's
impeach him. A real good reason to impeach, yep.Impeaching a
sitting president would be bad for the country. Luckily, Nixon resigned before
that happened sparing us from a prolonged circus.Clinton got
impeached, even though I supported it, I'm still not sure it was the right
thing to do.Trump is up for re-election in a little less than two
years. That's when the decision should be made to dump him or not. Not a
prolonged Congressional circus that will damage the country.
The problem with Trump is that he appointed two strict constructionists to the
Supreme Court and very well could appoint another in the next six years. Should
the next Justice be someone like Amy Coney Barrett, the left wings’ hair
is going to spontaneously combust.Just like the Mueller
investigation is basically a SWATting of the presidency, the philosophical
argument to impeach Trump as a governmental systems check is like throwing the
kids in the water to check for sharks
Remember during one of the debates in 2016 when Trump said he might not
necessarily accept the results of the election and Hillary Clinton called that
"Horrifying?" For two years the Democrats have not accepted
the results of the election.
@A W The only problem with your claims is:Trump has divested
himself of control of his business empire. That is all we ask of any
politician. We don't require them to sell off all their business assets
and put the proceeds in a locked vault where it can't generate any interest
as profit.Tax cut, yes he benefits as does every other tax payer.
There were no cuts specific to his empire only. He can benefit from the cuts
just like all the rest of us poor and rich alike.None of those
claims are valid.But go ahead Impeach him. And when the Senate
votes and gets a few Repubs to cross the line but gets only 66 votes to remove.
He's Acquitted. The vote wouldn't even be that close. But it takes
67 guilty votes in the Senate to remove a sitting President. Get even one vote
less and he's acquitted and can not be impeached for those charges
again.Go Ahead Impeach him, the Right and the honest swing voters
will see it for the partisan attack that it would be and that would guarantee
re-election in 2020.But you can't impeach because you dislike
him. It requires irrefutable proof of actual criminal acts. Which proof does
@AW.You have provided evidence of corruption (although somewhat flimsy)
rather than evidence of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”First, similar (although flimsy) evidence was abundantly provided by
right-leaning media against Barack Obama. The case against Obama had no more
nor less validity than the case against Trump. Secondly, the
Founders specifically rejected “corruption” alone as a basis for
impeachment. So, members of Congress would have violate their oath of office
while claiming to prosecute Trump for violating his oath of office. For more detail, see Alan Dershowitz’s brilliant rebuttal to the
Atlantic piece. The Atlantic piece is essentially calling for the
right of Congress to impeach anyone the majority of them don’t like.
That’s a parliamentary system, not a Constitutional system. Cooler Democratic minds will not take the bait offered here because they
rightly fear the people.
NeifyT - Salt Lake City, UT, above, suggests that it is "[h]ard to get
through this article when [the allegation that] Trump deserves to be impeached
because he has violated the presidential oath of office is absolutely
false."But it's not; it's absolutely true. We might
well all agree that there is precedent for shutting down the government when a
president feels that is necessary on the basis of some identifiable national
emergency, but just to do it for the reason that the Congress is not giving him
what he wants is beyond deplorable. Indeed, it is dangerous to the functioning
of our democratic republic. The Constitution of the United States requires that
the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Those
laws do not enforce themselves -- they are enforced by numerous federal agencies
on a day-to-day basis, and when those agencies are prevented from functioning by
order of the President, it can no longer be said that our federal laws are being
"faithfully executed" by anyone at all. So, yes. It's
time to roll out that impeachment carpet. Unfortunately, it may already be too
late for that.
Impeach, that's all we've heard for over 2 years. We lived with Obama
for 8 years. Dems just deal with it.
I have thus far opposed impeachment. But if it proves true that President Trump
directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower, that may
change things. Suborning perjury is a felony, and would satisfy the requirement
oh high crimes and misdemeanors.
toosmartforyou - Kaysville, UTJan. 17, 2019 8:16 p.m." . .
. only President that likely would have been convicted when impeached was
Richard Nixon and he quit rather . . . "Richard Nixon was not
impeached, although there was a move to impeach him. Barry Goldwater and the
Republican leadership went to Nixon and told him that his time was short and he
would be impeached and convicted if he stayed in office. The man resigned rather
than go through a trial that would not work to his favor.It is
interesting to note that 24% of voters continued to support Nixon after he
resigned and probably would have supported him if he had been convicted. Some
people stay loyal regardless. Even Joseph McCarthy retained support by true
believers after he was censured by the Senate. So there are always some who stay
with whoever gets disgraced.In the case of Donald Trump, his
hardcore following is estimated at about 25% (similar to Nixon), but there is
not yet the case to be made against Trump as it was for Nixon. However, as we
wait for the Mueller investigation to wrap up, the SDNY investigation to finish,
we may see Republicans in Congress move to remove Trump from office.
David - Centerville, UTJan. 17, 2019 4:39 p.m."Having said
that, I do not trust Democrats to oversee impeachment proceedings for
Trump."David, you need to understand the process. The House
(Democratic majority) would draw up articles of impeachment (an indictment for
"high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Constitution) which would just
be a formality. The Senate, on the other hand, is the body where the accused is
tried, articles of impeachment considered, and a judgment rendered. Take note
that the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate, so your concern about
"trust" is unwarranted.It would be foolish, partisan
politics to impeach and not convict as it would be a futile effort as in the
case of Bill Clinton. And since Republicans control the Senate, the evidence
would have to be substantial. This is serious stuff. You should hope that the
Senate would deliberate in its responsibilities with honest and fair thought and
not be a partisan body afraid of offending the Trump base. If the evidence is
there for impeachment with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, than you
should have no objection unless your are a loyal Trumpie.Bipartisan
is the key word here.
JohnMill - Australia, 00Jan. 17, 2019 9:53 p.m." . . .
can't just impeach a President because you don't like them.They
need to be found guilty by both the House and Senate. . . "A few
pertinent facts from the U.S. Constitution. The House impeaches
("indicts") and the Senate tries and convicts if the facts from the
impeachment support the conviction. Impeachment charges must be drafted in the
House of Representatives and usually only requires a majority. The Senate can
convict with a minimum of 60 votes.No president has ever been
convicted, but two have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard
Nixon never was impeached as he learned that he would be convicted by the Senate
if impeached and he chose to resign. Unfortunately, impeachment had become a
political tool for partisan retribution in the case of Bill Clinton where
frustrated Republicans took action where there existed no possibility of
conviction in the Senate.This is why impeachment and conviction
needs to be bipartisan. There needs to be a 60 vote majority in the Senate.
Otherwise, it is just an exercise in partisan futility. And as long as there are
not enough votes, a president is safe.
Impeachment is nothing more that a charge. They will have to obtain 67 votes in
the Senate. Unless they have “real” proof of real crimes, they are
spitting into the wind. But. Truth and honesty is not a high card of the
politicians arrayed against President Trump.
One, ultra wealthy man's, vague point of view. It's quite apparent
that he disapproves and dislikes this president and the solution to his problem
is too impeach the problem.
I can't just impeach a President because you don't like them.They need to be found guilty by both the House and Senate of:1.
Treason2. Bribery, or3. High crimes or misdemeanours.The
process is essentially a trial for one or more of the above charges.You
don't say that criminal trials are about the process more than the result.
You don't start a criminal prosecution when you know you have no chance of
securing a conviction.Wait for the Mueller report, then you will know
whether you have a basis for proceeding. Gauge the feeling in the Senate once
the report is released, then you will know whether you have any chance of
success.All of this talk is premature.
It doesn't matter how it's done. Just DO it !trump needs
to be out of that office and the sooner, the better.Make America
Sane (and Safe) Again
Mr Cohen implicated President Trump in a felony related to campaign finance law.
There is a tape that seems to prove the President was party to breaking
campaign finance law. The facts seem indisputable. Now do we want to give
President Trump a pass? It seems we already have since no impeachment hearings
are in progress, but it is not unreasonable to ask the question whether or not
we should have. The author of the Atlantic article believes the process
designed by the founding fathers should be invoked and impeachment hearings
begun. Seems reasonable but not something that would be welcomed by either
party. So, I say let us wait for Muller and what his indictments and any
Well, this is a Johnny-come-lately political spin on events. Many of these same
accusations could have been made about Obama, Democrats wanted to get rid of
George Bush, and Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. That itself proved
to be a big waste of time, money and effort without any benefit. Why was that
conveniently not discussed if impeachment in and of itself is so very valuable?
The only President that likely would have been convicted when impeached was
Richard Nixon and he quit rather than facing that music. This is just rhetoric
to keep people's mind in "anti-Trump mode" when the media has been
in since he first decided to run. You remember, they said he was not a
candidate that could be taken as serious, then he was a clown, then a buffoon,
then unqualified, then un-presidential, then out-of-touch, then....(suddenly to
their surprise and dismay) winner of the election. They still can't
stomach the fact that Hillary lost! Now all their hopes are riding high with
Nancy, who can say "No" but can't take "No" for an answer
herself from the President. And so it goes.....
@NeifyT:"There is no evidence (although I believe it also to be
the case) that Trump is financially gaining from being the president."Evidence for this includes:1. Trump pushed a tax reform
package that overwhelmingly favors the very wealthy, including real estate
magnates like himself.2. Trump directs government money to his properties
whenever he visits them for golf, etc., and his businesses advertise to their
clientele the prospect of being able to meet (and, implicitly, influence) the
president of the United States.3. Trump's properties take profits
from foreign governments, GOP officials, and business figures seeking to curry
favor with him due to the office he holds. Trump's continued ownership of
his businesses means that he is directly profiting from them.4. Trump and
his family have been granted valuable trademarks from countries like China at an
unusual rate and speed since his election."Comey was trying to
first keep Trump from ever being elected"This is patently
untrue, since Comey wouldn't have sent the letter right before the election
that Clinton was under investigation if he'd been anti-Trump. Please
don't falsify history like that.
Hard to get through this article when everything under "2. Trump deserves to
be impeached because he has violated the presidential oath of office." is
absolutely false.There is no evidence (although I believe it also to
be the case) that Trump is financially gaining from being the president.
Although if that were the standard; every prior President in this nation should
have been impeached; we have long since abandoned the Democratic-Republic form
of government instituted by the U.S. Constitution; in place we have a clear
Plutocracy (the rich ruling for and on behalf of the rich).As for
the "loyalty" argument, that is again spreading a false narrative. It
is clear from the very documents released from the secret court that Comey was
trying to first keep Trump from ever being elected; and then to oust Trump; all
using completely fictitious information and pushing it through secret courts.
Trump had every reason to fire Comey for his civil rights abuses. (Actually
Comey should be on trial; but as usual government officials are given a pass as
if they are "above the law.")Trump has shown no more nor
less disrespect for the rule of the law; than every person he has called out.
Way to go. No refutation of the Atlantic's outrageous arguments
here.....should we be surprised?
I wholeheartedly support President Trump and all that he has done for our great
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
I did not vote for Trump, and I would prefer to vote for another conservative
option in the next presidential election.Having said that, I do not
trust Democrats to oversee impeachment proceedings for Trump. For Democrats
fiction is fact and they twist events to achieve their desired outcome. Additionally, some, if not much, of Democrats and the media's
complaints about Trump are political, not criminal.I expect the
Congress and the country to wait for Mueller's report before deciding
whether to proceed with impeachment. If there is evidence of high crimes &
misdemeaners, or other points worthy of impeachment, then proceed. If there is
not evidence, then don't go ahead with impeachment.Regardless,
I do not trust Democrats to run an impeachment. Look what they tried with