Trump Impeachment

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Aug 23, 2018.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It has nothing to do with the First 100 Days, Dumb Political Correctness, or the NFL, so I decided to start a long overdue new thread. So the calls for impeachment have begun. Bret Stephens has done it. So has Chuck Todd. Link. Of course, both are also framing the GOP leadership in Congress as gutless for not having already launched impeachment proceedings less than 48 hours after the Cohen plea deal. It's pretty clear how the narrative is going to be developed. The media is reversing its previous characterization of Cohen as a dirty "fixer" and portraying him as a man of integrity - much like John Dean. It's saying that Trump is guilty (based solely on Cohen's statement) of the worst presidential act since Watergate, that impeachment should be underway immediately and should be slam-dunk, and that the GOP Congress is a bunch of cowards for not having done so. In other words, they're predictably framing the matter to be as beneficial to Democrats going into the 2018 election as is humanly possible.

    But are we rushing this? First, should Cohen be believed? Just a few months ago, he was a dirty pig. Now we should be impeaching a President based solely on his uncorroborated word? He has reason to lie, and he's represented by a Clinton family fixer. That doesn't mean his statement should be summarily dismissed, but shouldn't we look for some corroboration before jumping into impeachment? And should we be concerned with context? Cohen was Trump's lawyer. Did he tell Trump that what he was allegedly telling Cohen to do was illegal? (Do keep in mind that as a lawyer, that is is friggin' job.) If not, then how do you prove that Trump committed any act knowingly? If he did tell Trump this, then what was Cohen's response? If Trump said, "do it anyway," then why didn't Cohen withdraw from the matter? That was his professional duty. Everything I've read about Cohen's legal work suggests that he is astoundingly dumb and incompetent. I'm willing to hear his side of the story, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that he didn't know any of this was illegal and didn't tell Trump.

    Second, are we really dealing with an impeachable offense? Alan Dershowitz broke down the issue absent the partisan hysteria that is dominating most of the media coverage of this. It's going to take a lot of twisting and bending to make this a serious offense or even much of a crime by Trump.

    Third, the media is crapping in its pants about this like it's some colossal, unprecedented outrage (like they talk about everything related to Trump), but we've down this road before and some precedents have been set. Despite the self-serving Watergate comparisons, this much more resembles the Lewinsky matter from 1998. Democrats made plenty of arguments back then that are applicable to this, and those arguments prevailed in 1998 and set the standard. First, the sexual conduct of a president is inherently private, even when it takes place in the Oval Office (which is federal property, not personal property) with federal personnel and while the president his job. If that's private, then certainly sexual conduct from several years ago would be similarly private. Second, sexual conduct is so private that it is acceptable and even reasonable for the President to commit a crime (even a felony) to conceal that conduct. Bill Clinton committed perjury to cover up his affair. Trump may have committed a campaign finance violation to cover up his affair. If you set aside the sanctimony and shrill, the cases have a lot more in common than not.

    To be clear, I think this was always a ********* argument. It was in 1998, and it is in 2018. Sexual conduct is private, but once you commit a crime, privacy is out the window. If you could get out of a crime just by figuring out a way to incorporate your junk into it, then we couldn't prosecute people for rape. It's just a moronic concept all the way around. However, precedents matter, and following them is essential to basic fairness and predictability. Sorry, but if we're playing by the 1998 rules, Trump walks almost no matter what Cohen says or establishes.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    The ever expanding plausible deniability of Trump. If you could apply him to frying pan he'd put Dupont out of business. For someone who is so great and brilliant, I just wonder how he never seemed to have a clue what his minions were doing on his behalf during the campaign.

    Fact: Donald Trump was running for president.

    Fact: In the course of running for President, hush money payments were made to cover up his extramarital affairs.

    Fact: Donald Trump won the Presidency.

    If we cannot agree on these facts (which i am sure we wont, the second one that is) then there is no reason to continue having a discussion.

    I am not saying he won the presidency as a result of the hush money payments directly. But it doesn’t take a genius to understand the motive for making the hush money payments. And given that the ***** grabber tape was already out and a terrible democratic candidate, I think its plausible he still would have won even if this had come out. And thus enters the campaign finance issue.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  3. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'll wait for Mueller's investigation to conclude before making any impeachment assessment . It's pretty evident that Trump committed significant campaign violations but none that warrant impeachment, yet. It's also evident that Trump is a liar but that is fine with his supporters. Unless that lying is done under oath it's not a crime.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    This is the one that hits me hardest. Here's a guy that watched Manafort get hit with eight counts, and ON THE SAME DAY decides to plead out. Isn't it reasonable to assume that Cohen no longer has faith that he can walk? So now he sees the handwriting and tells his lawyers to make a deal. Unless you argue that Mueller's team worked with Cohen to coordinate this (which would be a really interesting line of questioning...) I don't know how you can simply dismiss this and call Cohen a credible witness.

    Basically, if this is Trump's word versus Cohen's word, we get down to which person you believe and partisans get to line up accordingly. That's by no stretch grounds to impeach anyone.
     
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I think you'd find pretty broad agreement on those statements.

    I don't think he's great or brilliant. Much like his opponent, I think he's a very lucky guy who threads the needle a lot and therefore gets away with a lot. And sometimes he does stupid things. Consider the affairs and the payoffs. Everybody knew Trump was a sleazy pig in his personal life. It has been tabloid fodder for 30 years. If the Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal stories had come out, would it really have made a difference? I think most people just assumed that he banged pornstars and supermodels.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I agree with you, but plenty are jumping the gun now based on one guy's statement.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    It is entirely possible Trump lied. Most do.
    SH Which lies do you think are the worst with the most impact on our country?
     
  9. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Cohen and his hired mouthpiece, Lanny Davis, have set things into motion.
    1. Making allegations that Cohen has evidence Trump colluded with the Kremlin. This is unsubstantiated of course, but by keeping the issue alive it makes it easier for Muellar to prolong the investigation.
    2. Equivocation of payoffs to campaign contributions. While unsavory, it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to equate hush money with illegal campaign contributions.
    3. The accusations will be played in a continual loop to influence the mid-term elections. If Democrats capture Congress, impeachment procedures go forward.

    When was Cohen hired by Trump? Is it possible Trump was on Andrew McCabe’s radar years ago and Cohen was working with McCabe (FBI) to gather dirt on Trump for future reference?
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  10. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    SH conveniently forgets that Clinton and Obama did their fair share of lying. All presidents lie to a certain extent. Even Reagan lied about the Iran-Contra affair.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    Perhaps my sarcasm was understated. But in his mind and his supporter's mind, there is no doubting him.

    If there is agreement on the facts I stated, then it follows that he understood or even feared the repercussions of those facts getting out or else why make the payments. So now we have a Presidential candidate involved (knowingly or not knowingly, a point of discussion i suppose) in illegal activities for the benefit of winning an election.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  12. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    How are you going to prove intent? It is perfectly reasonable to assume Trump did not want his family to find out about the affairs, and thus the hush money. You cannot prove in a court of law what his motivation was, so you're not going to get a conviction on that point.

    Second, how much of Trump's personal money was put into his campaign? If it was more than the money he paid out to the hookers (and it most definitely was), how can it be claimed he misused campaign donations? It was his personal money that went to pay them off.

    There is absolutely no legal case to be made here, no matter how badly you desire to see one.
     
  13. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Yeah I don't get Cohen's big plea deal when he is copping to stuff that is not a crime.
     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    But that's not necessarily so. It's not illegal to buy their silence. He can do that. People execute confidentiality agreements every day
     
  15. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    I never said that paying hush money with confidentiality agreements were illegal per se, but in the context of the campaign creates some legality concerns at a minimum.

    At the end of the day, just fess up and admit that the reason it's okay is because it's our guy with a side of and it's also okay because they did it too.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  16. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    dj
    What does illegal per se even mean ?
    Isn't something either legal or illegal?
    Do you also think someone can be slightly pregnant?
     
  17. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Neither @Mr. Deez nor I voted for Trump, and I have to agree with what Deez has said. Trump has never been “our guy.” From an actual independent viewpoint of someone not sucked into the R and D or Trump and anti-Trump
    baloney, I cannot say I have seen anything impeachable so far. I agree with @Seattle Husker above and will wait and see if anything damning and credible comes out.

    I do not think what Trump does is okay. I do not think cheating on your wife with porn stars is okay, and I did not vote for him. Unfortunately society has lowered its standards and this is where we are. I would love for society to raise its standards again for everyone starting with Trump, rather than just make an exception to the low standards for Trump.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  18. LongestHorn

    LongestHorn 2,500+ Posts

    Science has made remarkable discoveries in organ transplants and spinal cord treatments, but we are a long way from a successful spinal cord implant/replacement.
     
  19. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    Denier!
     
  20. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    per se
    adverb
    adverb: per se; adverb: perse
    by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically.

    In this context, a confidentiality agreement by itself is not illegal.
     
  21. towersniper

    towersniper 100+ Posts

    It is my understanding that the critical issue would be the principal purpose of the payments. If the principal purpose was to protect his family, no crime. If the principal purpose was to assist the campaign, crime. Without considering possible telephone recordings and documentary evidence, we know of several circumstantial data points from which a fact finder could find intent. The timing of the payments, obviously, when the nation was focused on Trump's conduct with women. The requirement in the Stormy Daniels agreement that she cement the deal by November 1 (right before the first Tuesday in November). Evidence of intent to thwart reporting laws is easier to find. Assuming, as most of you will not, that the intent of the payments was to assist in the election, the failure to report the payments was not an accident, inadvertent, or a book keeping oversight. It was carefully orchestrated through specially formed, alias laden business organizations and agreements. This smells to me like sufficient evidence from which a jury could, but might not, find the requisite intent(s). If there are documents or recordings discussing the payoffs in the context of the campaign, then intent becomes easier to prove. The fact that Cohen pleaded out implies that there may be additional documentation. Despite all the talk here about Lanny Davis, he is Cohen's PR lawyer, not his courtroom lawyer. ( And he's doing a good job). Guy Petrillo, Cohen's in-the-trench lawyer is a damn fine lawyer, and knows what he is doing. It is extremely unlikely that he would plead out Cohen if the case is as weak as you all make it out to be, your newly minted FoxNews provided legal educations notwithstanding.
     
  22. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Htown
    Unfortunately I can't think of a time when men ( and women) in power were very good at living moral lives.Having power seems to cause a breakdown in one's moral compass.

    Trump's behavior is a classic example> Because he could he did.At least he was not in office then unlike some other notable men.JFK Clinton, heck Franklin was a notorious womanizer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I do not disagree with you, but there have been examples of prominent Americans with pretty solid personal lives (Robert E. Lee, Jimmy Carter, etc). I am not expecting every leader to be a saint or even Lee/Carter in their personal lives (MLK Jr., Thomas Jefferson and FDR were not faithful), but we can at least TRY to do better than a Clinton or Trump.... I hope.

    Back to the matter at hand, while I want to see America do better in future elections, I have seen nothing impeachable so far. At best they could repeat the Bill Clinton dog and pony show, but the precedent has already been set there as Deez points out above. Like the Clinton impeachment, based on what we have now, such an action would be futile, a waste of time and not lead to any good.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  24. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    As Htown states, this would be a colossal waste of time and money. The uncertainty would harm the economy and the country would become more divided.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    To be sure, I'm content with simply voting Trump out of office. Send this abhorrent character to where he belongs, the dustbin of history.
     
  26. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The equivalent of the Clinton impeachment. Welcome to fiscal conservativism, NOW.
     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here is Pat Buchanan on the question --
    Do Democrats Want an Impeachment Fight?, by Patrick Buchanan

    " .... Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies in the press, would be like.

    Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.

    That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that impeachment is not what they have in mind.

    Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him, and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.

    Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to impeach Trump.

    Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that the first duty demanded of them, by their own rabid followers, is to impeach President Trump, they may wonder why they were so eager to win it."
     
  28. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Deez properly framed it as a very close comparison. Not sure what “fiscal” has to do with it. Trump has terrible character - no question. However, the country is in far better shape one year after Obama left. There is no argument against that fact.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    SH
    " Send this abhorrent character to where he belongs?????
    This Character who has decreased unemployment to record lows
    among all of us including blacks and browns.
    New black ownership of black owners increased by 400 % last year

    who has brought Hundreds of millions of $$ back to USA from Corps who are spending the money here
    who has seen hundreds of millions of 401ks increase Bigly
    who has seen nations of NATO finally start to pay their share. etc etc

    Who is seeing wages rise for the first time in a long time
    Who has seen people receive more in their paychecks that in last 8 years of obama
    and many more verifiable facts
    i don't think abborrent means the same to you as it does to hard working Americans
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Impeaching Trump is a loser politically. It’s only being pushed to get the votes out for the midterms. If the Dems win the house, they will use it to make a deal with Trump on the budget or some such. Dems know the prize is to when the presidency in 2020.
     
    • Like Like x 4

Share This Page