Sometimes you have to look at extremes in order to understand why policies and laws don’t work. We always took hypotheticals to extremes in law school. So to take this policy to the extreme, if a president armed himself and went to Congress and all of Congress was there - both houses, and he walked in and killed every member of Congress, here’s what would happen under that damn policy. We would have to replace Congress, impeach the president, replace the Senate to convict and remove him before he could be indicted. This policy is legal bullshit.
While I agree that it is Congress’ job to address Mr. I-am-F aka Individual1’s misdeeds, there are still so many loose ends & questions…
Who followed the money trail?
What did the counter-intel probe find?
What did the interpreter in the Helsinki say about the notes?
Mueller did point out that political redress does NOT absolve the criminal offense which can be addressed after leaving office.
That said, Dem Congress needs to educate the American people the whats, whys, and underlying evidence or further evidences found before impeachment. One effective way to do that is to INVESTIGATE first before making IMPEACHMENT!
P9 RedactedMR: “Those lies materially impaired the investigation…”
There’s so much more to investigate for Congress…
Follow the money…
Follow the lies…
Follow the notes…
Follow the counter-intel…
Follow the corruptions
So that not only have you prepared the Americans for impeachment but you might uncover additional evidence and catch more criminals that badly needs to be caught for the sake of our national security!
But I’ve certainly seen more than one expert saying of course if he shot somebody he’d be arrested and tried like anyone else. It’s a DOJ policy. Does that mean police and prosecutors in D.C. or Palm Beach are bound by it? These people dismissed it as absurd, at any rate.
I know that profile importance > who’s first, but depending on who proceeded her, Gillibrand might (again might) have been the first to call for impeachment (she wanted to sack Trump because of Comey).
It doesn’t even need to be that drastic - if he shoots Mel on the South Lawn in front of dozens of journalists and Secret Service agents, he can’t be charged or arrested and he can’t be removed from office if 2/3 of the senate doesn’t agree that cold blooded, premeditated murder of the First Lady warrants removal.
He’s been doing all of that practically since he took office. Certainly before Mueller’s appointment. I wonder, under what circumstances would Trump do anything else?
We cannot permit “Republicans will scream bloody murder” to be part of our decision-making process. The GOP will scream bloody murder for literally every second of every day that we don’t spend talking about tax cuts for their plutocratic paymasters. It’s not a rational discussion. They’re not seeking the truth, or a way forward, or shared governance. At a fundamental level, they dispute our assessment of reality:
We say income inequality leads to corrupt politics and increased crime. They say “jobs jobs jobs” as though it engages with the topic (which it does not).
We say climate change poses an existential threat to human life and industry, that the biggest problems lie in the energy sector, and that we need to research and experiment with changes to avoid an inevitable mass extinction. They say “rich people will stop getting richer, and then they’ll kill jobs” (often, it is implied, out of spite rather than necessity), again refusing to even engage with the problem.
We say that abstinence-only education leads to more teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs. They say “my God never talks about the birds and the bees. So you can’t, either,” completely ignoring the concrete facts we’ve painstakingly collected and summarized about every generation of kids for decades.
We say that white supremacy motivates more terrorism on American soil than any other cause. They say “oh, now we believe in ‘economic anxiety,’ and ‘good people on both sides.’” They rightly view the violent disease as a source of political support.
We should impeach Trump now. Maybe not literally today, but in the next few weeks. Consider the likelihood that we’ve only seen the crimes that have been discovered, rather than all the crimes that have occurred. That spy at Mar-a-Lago was likely not a one-off incident. Erik Prince and Jared Kushner and Ivanka and Donald Trump have almost certainly been selling out the national interest for their private gain (and at pennies on the dollar).
Even if nothing bad happens to Trump as a result of impeachment, national security requires that we put an immediate end to the literal treason that has been incidental to the universal graft that is the raison d’etre of the Trump administration.
You and I are in the same Congressional District and I emailed our Rep at lunchtime and told him that I was in favor of impeachment proceedings and public hearings.
I don’t see why a state level DA would be bound by it but I’ve seen it argued otherwise because it begins with the premise that a president can only be removed through Impeachment.
@spencersmom - even better hypo. you should have gone to law school
Yeah, she appears to be the real deal, and not just from a personality impression (though that’s part of it): she doesn’t have a mixed past of supporting non-progressive policies like some of the other candidates do.
Even if nothing bad happens to Trump as a result of impeachment, national security requires that we put an immediate end to the literal treason that has been incidental to the universal graft that is the raison d’etre of the Trump administration.
That makes no sense at all. if nothing bad happens to Trump as a result of impeachment, then there’s little to stop another POTUS from doing the same thing. Impeachment does NOT put an end to treason. It’s the knowledge that conviction will come from it that acts as a barrier to treason and other wrong doings. I agree with Rep. Swallwell completely on this. There is no rational reason why a sitting POTUS can’t and shouldn’t be indicted for criminal acts.
