-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
John Crow
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author ------ Message
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:22 pm 
This is a continuation of the discussion of impeachment on the topic "They both do it.." which is part of Richard Earnheart's column "View from Starlight Way". I'm not sure why people are complaining about that thread being long. The forum used to have many long threads about political issues. Recently most threads have been about trivia. I don't see any problem with continuing the discussion. But since Richard started it and wants it to end, here's a new thread for those who want to continue discussing impeachment. If you want to discuss Al Milligan's credibility or any of the other topics that came up in passing in that thread, start your own topic.

Samarpan: I read Robert Reich's article about 4 (And maybe 5) Grounds to Impeach Trump (http://robertreich.org/post/159255024465). Although I respect Reich's opinion on economic issues, he's about the last person I would consult on impeachment. A better and more objective source would be Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide by Cass Sunstein. But any source would be incomplete without evaluation of politics, which do not favor impeachment.

Reich's four issues are mostly unprovable or bogus. For example, Trump has a first amendment right to criticize the press, as we all do. I frequently criticize the press including the Daily Press, the New York Times, and this forum. Is that illegal or impeachable? Of course not. Trying to shut down the press would be impeachable, but not criticizing it. Reich's fifth issue--treason--is the real cause for impeachment. And that's what Mueller is investigating. Until he finds and reveals evidence that Trump himself (not his henchmen) cooperated with Russia to undermine our elections, it's not worth discussing.

Also, I can't think of many people (other than Trump) who would be a worse president for the United States than Nancy Pelosi. She might even be a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. Like Trump, she is very old and totally partisan. She would be despised by conservatives in the way that Trump is despised by liberals. She would create gridlock in the other direction. If there is a Democratic landslide in the midterm elections, I would hope the new representatives would push for a new minority leader.

We need less partisanship, not more. We need new ideas, not more of the same.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:11 pm 
I think it is still early for talk of impeachment. Need to wait a while. The Mueller investigation will be a key component. As recently, as last month the general consensus among mainstream republicans was that if Mueller is fired, then impeachment proceedings would begin. All seem to have backed away from that prediction and the aggressive smear attack against Mueller and his team may well be laying the groundwork his dismissal. At the very least, the smear campaign, will likely taint the jury pool making jury nullification a real possibility when those close to the president face trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: samarpan
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:24 pm 
Are we talking about the same thing when we use the word "impeachment"?

My understanding is that impeachment is NOT removal from office. Impeachment is just 51% of the House of Representatives deciding to send a message to the Senate saying "Hey, we think, for the good of the Nation, there should be an investigation." Then, if sufficient grounds are discovered, and if 2/3 of the Senate is in agreement... then and only then should there be a removal from office.

My understanding is that impeachment by 51% of the House does NOT require proving that a specific crime has been committed. Removal from office, by 2/3 of the Senate, does require a finding to justify removal.

Is my understanding is correct? If so, I will proceed to show why I think sufficient evidence exists of malfeasance and treason by 45... which is endangering national security... and which warrants articles of impeachment be sent to the Senate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: upcountry
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:31 pm 
"Impeachment" has been thrown around rather casually. The only 2 presidents to have been successfully impeached in the US (to my knowledge) were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither went any further because an "extraordinary burden off proof" is required. Very few politicians are willing to take that step as well. There have been movements to impeach several others--Nixon bailed out before it could happen, they went after LBJ, and Obama was a target for discussion in congress.
It's a complicated and serious business that most, including myself, aren't really familiar with.

Reich is a less than objective source, having drunk gallons of the ideological Kool Aide over the years.

This is why Special Council and due process are so important.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:02 am 
Apparently, to experts on dictatorships and corruption in government, there is growing consensus that T is clearly running our country as a kleptocracy largely to enrich himself and his offspring. The constitution does not discus kleptocracy but seems like the emoluments clause covers this. T is in clear violation of the constitution. That must rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe there is ongoing litigation filed by CREW and DC business owners. Perhaps Mueller is not the key?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:43 am 
I'm not sure samarpan had his/her question about impeachment answered so here goes. You can substitute the "indicted" for impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee can appoint a Special Prosecutor (Mueller) to investigate and when or if he comes up with enough evidence the House Judiciary Committee can ask the full House to consider a vote to indict (Impeach). If the full house votes to impeach the charges go to the Senate where there is a trial with the Senators as jury and a group of House Representatives are prosecutors. If the Senate votes "Guilty" as charged the person on trial is removed from office.

A House member, Senator, vice Prez, Prez or Judge can be impeached and stand trial before the Senate. Clinton was impeached by the House but won his case at trial before the Senate.

The case of Nixon, I remember it well, was particularly interesting. Even before Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor Cox, his vice president, Agnew, had resigned for tax evasion issues so the House and Senate were looking for someone to appoint as VP and decided on Gerald Ford. Between the time that the House Judiciary voted to ask the full House to indict (impeach) and the full house voting Nixon resigned and Ford became the president just months after being appointed as VP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:06 pm 
That sounds right to me Crow. I don't about the very high standard of proof that was mentioned earilier. I think the evidence against Clinton of lying under oath was very strong if not impeccable. In that case I think Clinton was not convicted by the senate as a form of jury nullification. Not certain but that is how I remember that case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:07 pm 
Remember it is all about "how you define what is is". I forgot the Judge in the above rap, House members are prosecutors, the Senate is Jury and the Judge is the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:27 pm 
Correct. My thought is that the house in the Clinton case the house acted as overzealous prosecutors in essentially overcharging Clinton for what amounted to undeniable pergury, unless you bought into the that depends what is means defense, as a high crime and misdemeanor. I personally never believed he was actually having sex with ms Lewinski at the time he said he was not, in actual time, having sex with her. She was not hiding beneath the table at the grand jury. I did believe that such things had occurred and perhaps were ongoing. Seems like a clear case of pergury. Acting as jury, I think the senate could not deny the facts regarding the pergury, but did not convict because the entire excercise was ridiculous. Long time ago and mind is failing...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:55 pm 
The reason Clinton was not convicted is that the Senate judged that he had not committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. There was no doubt that he had lied about sex. But having sex with a willing partner (even in what many would consider an obnoxious situation) and lying about it is not the type of crime the constitution is talking about. Neither is being extremely partisan and unwise, which is the reason President Andrew Johnson and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase were not convicted in their impeachment trials. The term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has a long legal history, but it still vague and open to interpretation. But generally you can't be impeached and convicted for being a jerk, a partisan, or a fool. You have to be undermining the government of the United States, and not in a vague sense of making bad choices but in a very specific sense of being corrupt or traitorous. Trump has walked a thin line, but has so far not provably stepped over it.

I think there should be a procedure for removing a President for being a jerk or a fool, or just because the country changed its mind. I think presidents should be elected by majority vote (with a runoff or preference voting if no one gets a majority) rather than the imbecilic electoral college. I think we should all be working to get those changes in government. But currently all we have is impeachment, and I doubt you could currently get two thirds of Democratic Senators to convict Trump of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, much less two thirds of all Senators.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:44 am 
Totally agree! So far


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:21 pm 
One step closer today. The campaign's claim of ignorance and inexperience in the ways of politics no longer holds any water. They were notified, by the FBI, as was the HRC team, that when the nominations were secured that the Russians would try to infiltrate their campaigns. By that time, there were already 8 or 9 contacts with Russia by T team. None were reported to the FBI. Then at least 5 T peeps met with Russians after being notified. Let's see what happens tomorrow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:33 am 
Although conventional thinking seems shakey to me ever since we were all so suprised in 2016, a democratic takeover in at least the house of represensatives looks very possible. When/if that happens impeachment may be likely. At the very least, the house can take the president to court over his emoluments violations. The court dismissed the CREW case citing lack of standing and stating that such a case must come from congress. Perhaps the really obvious elements of the T kleptocracy can be stopped.

The question at this time seems "how low will republican house and senate members will go?". Paul Ryan's response to the Sxxxhole comment was just sad. Cotton and Purdue claim ignorance, which seems a bit suspect. And out man Mitch Mc has been silent. At least Grahm apparently told the man off. Only time will tell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:58 pm 
The more I think about it, an effective emoluments law suit filed by the house, if taken by the dems, might be the best way to rid our country and the world of pres Shxthole. If the case is won, and FD is required to liquidate and or stop reaping profits from foreign states, I think he would quit. He does not like the job, apparently. Shutting the flow of cash down might just put him over the edge. This sounds so much more doable than either the 25 amendment or impeachment. And would be difficult to call the process totally political. While there is no precedent for this, it seems that the house has a responsibility to try. We cannot have a president act in violation of the US constitution without some kind of check.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:35 pm 
If this worked we would get Pence. Better an incompetent fool than a competent one.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:54 pm 
Perhaps that would happen Bruce. And it might actually be worse. I fear the emergence of an American theocracy. However, I believe that Fat Donnie has set-up Pence, largely through Pence's sincere lies to the American people, so that he can throw Pence to the wolves to take pressure off himself. Would he do this just before his own departure so he could appoint someone from his own gene pool? Don't know but it could be a way to keep the money flowing into the trump Corp. and I think that is the ultimate goal. If we are lucky, I guess, Pence is already caught up in the special counsel's investigation. I believe that Mr Pence was involved on the ground floor in the entire scandal and cover-up. I realize this qualifies as grasping at straws, and the future is wild, but it is an interesting scenario.
How could it help us? Ivanka would be a far better pres than her father seems. She appears to have empathy and compassion and seems smart enough to heed the advice of of experts. Don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:23 pm 
Back in the day everyone said Nixon had Spiro Agnew as VP for life insurance because no one would shoot Nixon if they knew they were getting Agnew.

Perhaps Pence is doing the same for Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:11 pm 
Good point Al. I had forgotten that. And the same was said, I thinking jokingly, about poor Dan Quayle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:08 pm 
With the Nixon impeachment by this stage of the investigation Spiro Agnew had already resigned do to tax issues.
Thelynno22- Trump cannot appoint his nor the VP's successor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:21 pm 
Right Crow. Unless he gets rid of Pence. Then, like Nixon he can choose anyone but they need to be confirmed by the senate, I think. Well they whould not confirm Ivanka one would think. However, the senate republicans continue to suprise. I think it could be possible. The big hurdle is getting of old pumpkin face. But unlike the president, he could simply be indicted as Agnew was. Could happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: bdlb
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:55 am 
Exquisite irony that to mark the anniversary of #45's inauguration the government shuts down.
One perspective is that the Democrats orchestrated a strike. Another is that the Republicans' dream of smaller government is manifest.
Newly-minted Doug Jones voted with Republicans. As did Manchin, McCaskill, Heitkamp and Donnelly. Five Republicans voted with Democrats, including McConnell.
Could the times get any stranger?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Thelynno22
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:03 am 
Very strange indeed! Watching the senate floor last night was surreal. At some point, even hard core Trumpistas will grow impatient with this master deal making and they will begin to turn on the president. When that happens, we will see just how loyal these congressional republicans are.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group