Is the recent Trump impeachment the most politically motivated ever?

[Shad]

It's all politics. It's not a actual criminal trial. No punishment, no one goes to jail. It's just an attempt to remove someone from political office. It's all 100% politically motivated. This latest impeachment is no exception. The only time it won't be political is after Trump is removed from office, loses the election or is termed out.

Being divided along party lines I think means we've just become politically polarized. It about two parties wielding as much power as possible to decide the political future of the US. There's a conservative vision and a liberal vision. There used to be some common ground. Now it's like, "my way or the highway". Democrats want Trump to hit the highway, mosey on down the road.

There is still plenty of common ground. The Patriot act still exists for one. The issue is the disagreements are highlighted by the media while normal Congressional acts are not front page news.

 

[Shad]

Fine. I am talking about all previous impeachments having a statutory crime as part of the articles, including Johnson.

Yes that is why I clarified what I was addressing.

ALL Presidential impeachments have a HIGH level of political motivation.

Pretty much. Even the impeachment of Nixon had motivation as Dems believed the GOP would vote against the Resolution thus there would be a public record; optics. Instead the GOP voted for it. In a similar way how this impeachment is about optics. The verdict is a forgone conclusion. Now it is about getting various people on record for the public making absurd statement for "points" in order to sway people in 2020. Impeachment is a giant 2020 ad for both sides.

 

[shmogie]

A crime isn't required to impeach. Laws were broken according to the OAB. Quid pro quo to toss in there as well.
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

Amazing isn't it? People have traded their country for a Red Hat

The Constitution says Treason, Bribery or OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason, and bribery are statutory crimes, so OTHER has to mean statutory crimes.

The OAB said Obama committed crimes as well. What crimes?

Quid pro quo literally means " this for that".

So, factually, factually, where is it related to Trump and Ukraine?

 

[Nakosis]

There is still plenty of common ground. The Patriot act still exists for one. The issue is the disagreements are highlighted by the media while normal Congressional acts are not front page news.

Why do you think it is the polarization that gets the media attention?

And it's not just a matter of different opinions on policy, says Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, a nonpartisan group that studies politics, culture and religion. People have largely picked a side, and they really don't like the other one.

"Several decades ago or a generation ago, partisanship was something people took to the ballot box," Jones says. "Today, it's something we bring home and take to bed. It's very personal, and it's very visceral."

Nearly half the country (48%) thinks the Republican Party has been taken over by racists, a view held by 80% of Democrats. And the Democratic Party? Nationally, 44% think it's been taken over by socialists – and 82% of Republicans share that opinion, according to the extensive study, "Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections."
https://www.usnews.com/news/electio...rats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate

 

[Shad]

The Constitution says Treason, Bribery or OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason, and bribery are statutory crimes, so OTHER has to mean statutory crimes.

The OAB said Obama committed crimes as well. What crimes?

Quid pro quo literally means " this for that".

So, factually, factually, where is it related to Trump and Ukraine?

Read the Constitution Convention documents. Misdemeanors have more meaning than the criminal type.

 

[shmogie]

Yes that is why I clarified what I was addressing.



Pretty much. Even the impeachment of Nixon had motivation as Dems believed the GOP would vote against the Resolution thus there would be a public record; optics. Instead the GOP voted for it. In a similar way how this impeachment is about optics. The verdict is a forgone conclusion. Now it is about getting various people on record for the public making absurd statement for "points" in order to sway people in 2020. Impeachment is a giant 2020 ad for both sides.

My position for years is that no Presidential removal will ever occur, the bar is too high.

Attempting it is a massive waste of time and money.

Yet, as a political tool it can be used to bloody up the President as its only goal.

 

[tytlyf]

The Constitution says Treason, Bribery or OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors.
Treason, and bribery are statutory crimes, so OTHER has to mean statutory crimes.

"has to mean" isn't sufficient. This isn't a guessing game.

The OAB said Obama committed crimes as well. What crimes?

Didn't you state there were no laws broken by Trump? I pointed out a law that was broken. And you go whataboutism on Obama.
What crime did Obama commit?

Quid pro quo literally means " this for that".

Pretty much

So, factually, factually, where is it related to Trump and Ukraine?

Abuse of power, bribery, extortion, quid pro quo. Illegally withholding congressional approved aid in secret. We have first hand knowledge of the secret scheme.

 

[shmogie]

Read the Constitution Convention documents. Misdemeanors have more meaning than the criminal type.

The word misdemeanor meant something significantly different in the days of the Founders.

 

[Shad]

Why do you think it is the polarization that gets the media attention?

Ratings. Channels need viewer to gain better advertisements. Low rates means cheap ads. Ergo the Superbowl vs the View, prime-time vs night schedules. Hence why Fox and CNN sound insane as their rhetoric to get views. Look at cable news ratings. Fox dominates other news channels. Do you think it is because Fox has great honest reporting or because they only appeal to Conservatives telling them what they want to hear?

Politics has become another "blood sports" in that extreme actions brings in views. Toss in legacy media is battling with internet media which does not rely upon advertisement for revenue but merely viewers' patronage. CNN/Fox have to cover huge costs of staff not merely the reporter; equipment, licensing, broadcast rights, etc. Each has to compete over time slot dominance hence various channels compete at a basic show versus show level. Internet media can be as simple as someone with a cheap camera recording at home with no staff and uploading to YouTube at no costs. Beyond a camera they just need to pay for the interest itself via an isp.

And it's not just a matter of different opinions on policy, says Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, a nonpartisan group that studies politics, culture and religion. People have largely picked a side, and they really don't like the other one.

Opinion... Yawn.

"Several decades ago or a generation ago, partisanship was something people took to the ballot box," Jones says. "Today, it's something we bring home and take to bed. It's very personal, and it's very visceral."

That just means people are obsessed with the differences. Obsessive people tend to ignore things they do not obsess over. Again go look at Congressional records. Daily business is done without issue.

Nearly half the country (48%) thinks the Republican Party has been taken over by racists, a view held by 80% of Democrats. And the Democratic Party? Nationally, 44% think it's been taken over by socialists – and 82% of Republicans share that opinion, according to the extensive study, "Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections."
https://www.usnews.com/news/electio...rats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate

As this study never polled all Americans it's stats are made up. Read what you link and consider what it actually says. Learn how to spot an openly absurd claim when you see it. It sample less than 3k people yet treats it like that represent a nation of 330 million... Please... This junk science is like treating Twitter as if it represent 330 million Americans.

All of this is found in the study' methodology chapter which you didn't read.

 

[shmogie]

"has to mean" isn't sufficient. This isn't a guessing game.


Didn't you state there were no laws broken by Trump? I pointed out a law that was broken. And you go whataboutism on Obama.
What crime did Obama commit?


Pretty much


Abuse of power, bribery, extortion, quid pro quo. Illegally withholding congressional approved aid in secret. We have first hand knowledge of the secret scheme.

Abuse of power is no crime. If it is show me the statute.

You said someone said he had broken the law. Which law?

 

[Shad]

The word misdemeanor meant something significantly different in the days of the Founders.

Yes it include non-criminal offenses. Dems tried to use breach of public trust except polling is not nearly showing the public agreeing as a super-majority. More so using the trust angle of attack can easily backfire later. Ergo abuse of power and a charge only created as the Dems are aimed for 2020 as the House refuses to follow procedure.

 

[tytlyf]

Abuse of power is no crime. If it is show me the statute.

A crime isn't required to impeach.

You said someone said he had broken the law. Which law?

I already posted the source above. Take a gander

 

[Shad]

Abuse of power is no crime. If it is show me the statute.

You said someone said he had broken the law. Which law?

Abuse of power is being used as a placeholder for a future verdict and opinion.

 

[Nakosis]

Ratings. Channels need viewer to gain better advertisements. Low rates means cheap ads. Ergo the Superbowl vs the View, prime-time vs night schedules. Hence why Fox and CNN sound insane as their rhetoric to get views. Look at cable news ratings. Fox dominates other news channels. Do you think it is because Fox has great honest reporting or because they only appeal to Conservatives telling them what they want to hear?

Politics has become another "blood sports" in that extreme actions brings in views. Toss in legacy media is battling with internet media which does not rely upon advertise for revenue but merely viewers' patronage. CNN/Fox have to cover huge costs of staff not merely the reporter, equipment, licensing, broadcast rights. Each has to compete over time slot dominance hence various channels compete at a basic show versus show level. Internet media can be as simple as someone with a cheap camera recording at home with no staff and uploading to YouTube at no costs. Beyond a camera they just need to pay for the interest itself via an isp.


As this study never polled all Americans it's stats are made up. Read what you link and consider what it actually says. Learn how to spot an openly absurd claim when you see it. It sample less than 3k people yet treats it like that represent a nation of 330 million... Please... This junk science is like treating Twitter as if it represent 330 million Americans.

All of this is found in the study' methodology chapter which you didn't read.

The point was, this is what comes up, our news is biased towards polarization. You Google compromise you don't see compromise.

Sure CNN and FOX but it's like its has infected all news.

Maybe I rely too much on search engines the internet but where are you going to go for facts?

 

[shmogie]

A crime isn't required to impeach.


I already posted the source above. Take a gander

So, you disagree with the Constitution.

 

[tytlyf]

So, you disagree with the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't say a crime is required to impeach. Stop disagreeing with the constitition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Alan Dershowitz made the same argument during Clinton's impeachment. Now he says there must be an actual crime. When Fox pressed him on his flip-flop, he said he had done a lot more studying since Clinton and he is certain he is right this time.

I saw him tell Anderson Cooper that he was correct back then and "much more correct now."

 

[shmogie]

The constitution doesn't say a crime is required to impeach. Stop disagreeing with the constitition.

You are right, the Constitution says NO treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor is required to impeach a President.

You are a brilliant legal scholar

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You are right, the Constitution says NO treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor is required to impeach a President.

You are a brilliant legal scholar

shmogie, I have a question.

You are strongly of the opinion that the articles of impeachment must be statutory crimes. However, how would you characterize the body of legal scholarship on this issue? Do you assert that your view is the predominant view among constitutional law experts, or do you acknowledge it is a minority view among the experts (notwithstanding, that you maintain it is the correct view)?

I am not trying to imply that if most legal experts disagree with you, that means your view is wrong. I am just curious.

 

[Shad]

The point was, this is what comes up, our news is biased towards polarization. You Google compromise you don't see compromise.

I didn't say Google it. I said look up Congressional records which are /drum roll... on Congress' website.

Sure CNN and FOX but it's like its has infected all news.

All channels need revenue. The audience is the product offered for ad revenue. This has been a standard for years. The only change I can think of is a lot of people didn't clue in until Trump became POTUS. Sensationalism sells.

Maybe I rely too much on search engines the internet but where are you going to go for facts?

Yes you do and a biased one at that.

Action on Legislation - Browse by Date