Is it time to impeach Trump?

[RFayette]

I support impeachment proceedings in order to distract the GOP from their sociopathic agenda, but if I were the 68th vote to remove him in the Senate I would vote against, because I'm even more terrified of a President Pence.

Your fellow libs need to realize that this is true and I'm glad you pointed it out.  Everyone wants the Donald out........be careful what you wish for.

President Pence would be utterly fantastic, though he'd be a bit weakened if he came in under these circumstances.  Still, I'd be willing to take it to get such a great conservative leader.  Bring it on!

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Let's take time to get all the evidence in order.

I think June-August of 2018 is a perfect time to start proceedings.

[Kingpoleon]

No. They won't impeach him for the exact same reason they wouldn't impeach Obama - they fear the Vice President's competence and say the opposite, calling him an idiot.

[Mr. Smith]

Nope.

He needs to be Cartered out in a failed re-election campaign first. Start talking impeachment if that fails.

[This account no longer in use.]

No. They won't impeach him for the exact same reason they wouldn't impeach Obama - they fear the Vice President's competence and say the opposite, calling him an idiot.

The difference is that Trump may legitimately be impeachable.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A Republican should sit in the White House, following Trump. Changing parties is not acceptable, because the country voted for a GOP Presidency. They didn't vote for President Pelosi. So if we move down the line of succession, it should be a Republican.

It would be President Pence if Trump is impeached - the impeachment of the president only removes the president. And Pelosi is not in the line of succession and will only be in it if Democrats win the house in 2018 - and even then, she wouldn't ascend to the speakership until January 2019. With how things are going, Trump might very well be out of office LONG before January 2019.

[The_Doctor]

A Republican should sit in the White House, following Trump. Changing parties is not acceptable, because the country voted for a GOP Presidency. They didn't vote for President Pelosi. So if we move down the line of succession, it should be a Republican.

It would be President Pence if Trump is impeached - the impeachment of the president only removes the president. And Pelosi is not in the line of succession and will only be in it if Democrats win the house in 2018 - and even then, she wouldn't ascend to the speakership until January 2019. With how things are going, Trump might very well be out of office LONG before January 2019.

I mean, if somehow, the Democrats won the House, and Pence went down, the Democrats should let Pence name a Republican to the Vice Presidency and then resign - any non-complicit Republican and they should be granted confirmation. It would be a power grab to seize the White House since the Electoral College gave the Republicans the White House and voted for a Republican agenda.

One thing I really hated about Nixon's resignation is that Tip O'Neill later admitted they made him pick Ford because they could beat Ford in 1976. The Democrats became really petty towards the end. (To be fair, we got Reagan, so it all worked out).

[Virginiá]

A Republican should sit in the White House, following Trump. Changing parties is not acceptable, because the country voted for a GOP Presidency. They didn't vote for President Pelosi. So if we move down the line of succession, it should be a Republican.

I'd support another Republican just to avoid the insane level of fighting that would come with a Democrat taking over. However, I would note that I have been against the electoral college for years, and Trump is the 2nd Republican in a row to become president against a plurality of the people, and considering the margin Clinton won the PV by, it is a completely valid argument for Democrats to say the country voted for their leadership.

-

As for the topic - we need to take time and care to collect evidence and build a strong case before pushing forward with something like that. Reading various liberal sites like DailyKos comments, I think that is lost on some of them.

[The_Doctor]

A Republican should sit in the White House, following Trump. Changing parties is not acceptable, because the country voted for a GOP Presidency. They didn't vote for President Pelosi. So if we move down the line of succession, it should be a Republican.

I'd support another Republican just to avoid the insane level of fighting that would come with a Democrat taking over. However, I would note that I have been against the electoral college for years, and Trump is the 2nd Republican in a row to become president against a plurality of the people, and considering the margin Clinton won the PV by, it is a completely valid argument for Democrats to say the country voted for their leadership.

Certainly but under the system we have, Trump won the electoral college and that's how he's the legitimate president. By extension I feel that all things being equal, the GOP is entitled to hold the White House because that system has dominated who we elect President. The Democrats did win the popular vote but the constitutional system says the GOP won.

That said most things point to Pence taking over. He's doing quite the effort to inoculate himself.

[Virginiá]

Certainly but under the system we have, Trump won the electoral college and that's how he's the legitimate president. By extension I feel that all things being equal, the GOP is entitled to hold the White House because that system has dominated who we elect President. The Democrats did win the popular vote but the constitutional system says the GOP won.

That said most things point to Pence taking over. He's doing quite the effort to inoculate himself.

If we grant legitimacy strictly based on the system/constitution itself, wouldn't the legitimate option be a Speaker Pelosi in this scenario? Just like Democrats have gotten screwed out of the presidency twice in the past 17 years due to the electoral college, Republicans would get screwed out of the presidency because they all got behind a blatantly obvious corrupt, incompetent simpleton. I just don't think it is fair to say Democrats must respect the idea of the electoral college but not the line of succession. In this situation, it is entirely the GOP's fault that they would be losing control of the White House, and with little to fight back with due to losing the popular vote by millions of votes. Rules would be rules, after all.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Constitutionally, yes. Politically, based on the 2016 elections, no. I'm saying the party that won the White House in 2016 should be allowed to keep it and Democrats should make a conscious political decision to respect that electoral decision.

I'm not saying it's illegitimate for Pelosi to take power were she speaker; that's spelled out within the Constitution. But I'm saying my preference is for a separate political - constitutional decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh, I am not sure that 2016 and 2000 were "screwed" out so much as the constitutional system didn't reward the Democrats. Is that right or wrong? I don't know. I think the Electoral College has drawbacks and pluses. But I wouldn't call either election a loss in the sense that it was fraud, in either case (yes, more controversially so in 2000).

If we hold that 2000 and 2016 were fair elections where the winner won the constitutional way, why should Republicans be "screwed" out of the presidency? (Per se, you would be right, if we held that the Electoral College is illegitimate in which the popular vote and electoral college differ. But I don't agree because I think the current constitutional system means the winner of the EC won the presidency. 2000 is purely a subjective decision because if you contend Florida was stolen by the Bush camp (I don't), then you would have an additional point in your favor).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That they are. We're just debating how to interpret them.

[Virginiá]

I've never really decided on 2000, tbh. Florida was really an interesting case. However, 2016 was a huge mess. Putting together the facts that Russia intervened to tilt the election towards Trump (an issue which is currently exacting a massive toll on his presidency so far), and that Clinton won the popular vote decisively, I'm just saying there is a strong argument (imo) that a Democratic Speaker ascending to the White House would be a fair decision. Now, as I said, I don't think it'd be a good one necessarily, mainly because I don't want to enrage a huge portion of the country and damage our institutions further, but the election last year was very..sketchy, to put it bluntly.

Tbh, it's very hard for me to even debate this. I'm simply too biased. I despise the electoral college not only in theory but in its practice during my lifetime, and this doesn't even count my feelings of last year's election.

[politicallefty]

If I was in the House, I would vote to impeach. However, if I were in the Senate, I would not vote to convict right now. Republicans need to face the consequences of President Trump next year and that means having to endure the 2018 midterms. If Trump goes down based on what we know now, everyone he has appointed should down as well. I will go as far to say that Nancy Pelosi should become President in 2019 if Donald Trump has done what many of us suspect he has done. At least the midterms reflect the closest viewpoint of the American people. If the House falls, perhaps by a significant margin, I think the American people will have spoken. This isn't merely obstruction of justice or abuse of power we're dealing with right now. It is outright treason at the highest levels of government.