Current Events > When we talk about Trump impeachment, what is the reason?

(+) Yeah! (+)

When you get down to it, everything is so negative and the media will tell us the sky is falling, but what is it based on?

Russia?

It seems like it's all based on Russia. Of course democrats are going to disagree with his policies and this and that, but he was elected because of those policies. What they think they can impeach for seems to be... Russia.
---

It is just people whining and like you said, Russia. Pretty much every news source was completely wrong about Trump's chances of winning the presidency based on their completely inaccurate and biased polls. Now they are constantly publishing news stories from "anonymous" sources and we are supposed to blindly believe them even though they have yet to show any evidence about Trump colluding with the Russians.
---

Appollyn posted...

It is just people whining and like you said, Russia. Pretty much every news source was completely wrong about Trump's chances of winning the presidency based on their completely inaccurate and biased polls. Now they are constantly publishing news stories from "anonymous" sources and we are supposed to blindly believe them even though they have yet to show any evidence about Trump colluding with the Russians.

Yeah, it's bizarre how far this has gone without any real evidence of this.

When you think about "Pizzagate" and how that's considered conspiracy nonsense, there is actual evidence from emails and such that are behind that. With the Russia conspiracies, we've seen nothing.
---

He cut the line, it wasn't his turn.
---

He is a little bitch.
---

Every single day he gives us a reason not to trust him to run the country. And it's stuff that can't have a political spin, or in which the political spin is obvious and not obscuring the point. The media does have a liberal bias and there are liberal idiots out there who criticize everything he does, but Trump takes this and turns it to his advantage by acting like NOTHING against him is true.
---

The allegation is that he obstructed justice by urging his FBI director not to go too hard on Flynn, a member of his cabinet. And then further obstructed justice in firing the FBI director to stop the investigation of himself.

Trying to put a halt on an FBI investigation is what got Nixon in trouble.
---

Obstruction of Justice

But so far there hasn't been anything released to the public that confirms he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.
---

Nomadic View posted...

But so far there hasn't been anything released to the public that confirms he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Except for his own words
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/862799949196656640
---

Antifar posted...

Nomadic View posted...

But so far there hasn't been anything released to the public that confirms he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Except for his own words
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/862799949196656640

Well, that is fairly damning.
---

Antifar posted...

The allegation is that he obstructed justice by urging his FBI director not to go too hard on Flynn, a member of his cabinet. And then further obstructed justice in firing the FBI director to stop the investigation of himself.

Trying to put a halt on an FBI investigation is what got Nixon in trouble.

So, word usage is important here. Does he want the investigation over? Absolutely, of course. The White House said that Trump got more and more angry about Comey as time passed because he just drags this shit out forever and has made himself into a sort of celebrity. He did the same thing to Hillary and democrats called for his head because of it!

Finally Trump said enough is enough, throw him out so we can get a new boss in there who will finish it and clear Trump's name. He doesn't want to go through his presidency with this hanging over his head and constant speculation. He wants it wrapped up.

That is a little different than the way you're implying that he wants it done because he's guilty.
---

His tweeting, unprofessional behavior, lack of preparedness, weekend trips to HIS resort (its still his families business) should be reason enough material. Sadly none f those are illegal, although the trips to the resort shouldnt they be an ethics issue?
---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

His tweeting, unprofessional behavior, lack of preparedness, weekend trips to HIS resort (its still his families business) should be reason enough material. Sadly none f those are illegal, although the trips to the resort shouldnt they be an ethics issue?

I'm sure the republicans in congress care about ethics.
---

CrowTRobot posted...

Antifar posted...

The allegation is that he obstructed justice by urging his FBI director not to go too hard on Flynn, a member of his cabinet. And then further obstructed justice in firing the FBI director to stop the investigation of himself.

Trying to put a halt on an FBI investigation is what got Nixon in trouble.

Finally Trump said enough is enough, throw him out so we can get a new boss in there who will finish it and clear Trump's name. He doesn't want to go through his presidency with this hanging over his head and constant speculation. He wants it wrapped up.

That is a little different than the way you're implying that he wants it done because he's guilty.

Thing is, that it's the most obvious reason for firing him. Why didnt he do so earlier then? Yes, we're jumping to conclusions, but it's naive to think other wise imo. To think so saintly of politicians, especially Trump.
---

CrowTRobot posted...

So, word usage is important here. Does he want the investigation over? Absolutely, of course. The White House said that Trump got more and more angry about Comey as time passed because he just drags this shit out forever and has made himself into a sort of celebrity. He did the same thing to Hillary and democrats called for his head because of it!

Finally Trump said enough is enough, throw him out so we can get a new boss in there who will finish it and clear Trump's name. He doesn't want to go through his presidency with this hanging over his head and constant speculation. He wants it wrapped up.

That is a little different than the way you're implying that he wants it done because he's guilty.

he said to let flynn go, not "end the russia investigation"
---

He got tired, and they aren't allowing him to take as many naps anymore.
---

Trump is a terrible president but the media is doing Americans a disservice by deliberately flaunting their lack of objectivity. It just means that even legitimate scandals have little effect on public opinion.

You certainly wouldn't expect Trump's job approval to be around 42-45% based on how he's treated by the media. That's legit scary - it means he can basically get away with anything because people don't trust the people who are supposed to keep tabs on corrupt politicians.
---

Antifar posted...

The allegation is that he obstructed justice by urging his FBI director not to go too hard on Flynn, a member of his cabinet. And then further obstructed justice in firing the FBI director to stop the investigation of himself.

Trying to put a halt on an FBI investigation is what got Nixon in trouble.

I would really need to hear more about what exactly happened with this. If he was using coercion or intimidation or somehow ordering him to, then yeah that's a problem. If the context of it is just passing in a conversation or just asking, it might have been inappropriate, but nothing more than that. Right now, we know nothing of the context, so either way the knee jerk reaction is probably premature.
---

tc got dem mental gymnastics skills

Coffeebeanz posted...

You certainly wouldn't expect Trump's job approval to be around 42-45% based on how he's treated by the media. That's legit scary - it means he can basically get away with anything because people don't trust the people who are supposed to keep tabs on corrupt politicians.

his approval rating is at around 38*% and falling, though

most of this new news wont be reflected in the average of polls right now for obvious reasons

Gojak_v3 posted...

I would really need to hear more about what exactly happened with this. If he was using coercion or intimidation or somehow ordering him to, then yeah that's a problem. If the context of it is just passing in a conversation or just asking, it might have been inappropriate, but nothing more than that. Right now, we know nothing of the context, so either way the knee jerk reaction is probably premature.

He allegedly asked Pence and Sessions to leave the room. I don't know how you can spin that in some kind of way to make it anything better than "inappropriate" at best
---

Balrog0 posted...

He allegedly asked Pence and Sessions to leave the room. I don't know how you can spin that in some kind of way to make it anything better than "inappropriate" at best

Did you bother to read my post? I said if it was coercion or something along those lines it could be a problem. If it wasn't I doubt there is much of an issue here. Like I said, we know very little so far.
---

He has orange skin, funny hair, and small hands.
---

Democrats have gotten away with fake outrage for decades, and now it's biting them (and America, IMO) in the ass.

Getting their dirty laundry aired by WikiLeaks certainly didn't help.

The media so horridly misread public opinion in the past year that they were willing to be more blatant about their lack of objectivity. Smugly high-fiving each other and laughing on late-night television about how Trump will "never be president" comes across as astonishingly out of touch with the country. It's like openly disdaining your viewers.

You'd think they would have learned their lesson after that Bush Guard Memo fiasco pretty much got Bush re-elected.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

Did you bother to read my post? I said if it was coercion or something along those lines it could be a problem.

yeah I read it, and you said we knew nothing of the context. That's false. The white house hasn't denied allegations that pence and sessions were asked to leave the room. And I'm making the claim that, given that, you have to rule out the possibility it was a "casual conversation" or "just in passing," because that demonstrates a level of forethought and gravity that is incompatible with those two things
---

He's committed literal treason and abused his position multiple times in a very short time. If you need more (or are in denial of this), that's on you.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Trump is a terrible president but the media is doing Americans a disservice by deliberately flaunting their lack of objectivity. It just means that even legitimate scandals have little effect on public opinion.

You certainly wouldn't expect Trump's job approval to be around 42-45% based on how he's treated by the media. That's legit scary - it means he can basically get away with anything because people don't trust the people who are supposed to keep tabs on corrupt politicians.

If the media reported him accurately his approval ratings would be really high
---

scoobydoobydont posted...

He's committed literal treason and abused his position multiple times in a very short time. If you need more (or are in denial of this), that's on you.

Go with that narrative. Worked great for Republicans under the Obama administration.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

Did you bother to read my post? I said if it was coercion or something along those lines it could be a problem.

yeah I read it, and you said we knew nothing of the context. That's false. The white house hasn't denied allegations that pence and sessions were asked to leave the room. And I'm making the claim that, given that, you have to rule out the possibility it was a "casual conversation" or "just in passing," because that demonstrates a level of forethought and gravity that is incompatible with those two things

Yer still implying intent. I've already said it could be something or not.
---

Appollyn posted...

. Pretty much every news source was completely wrong about Trump's chances of winning the presidency based on their completely inaccurate and biased polls.

Eh, they got the popular vote percentage fairly accurate, just not the electoral college. That's hardly completely inaccurate and biased. I mean Trump himself said he didn't think he'd sweep Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

Yer still implying intent.

No I'm not. We can rule out some scenarios as implausible without making a claim about what actually was going on in his head. The idea that this remark could ahve been said casually or in passing is simply not credible. What you think that implies is up to you -- you seem to think its something bad
---

Balrog0 posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

Yer still implying intent.

No I'm not. We can rule out some scenarios as implausible without making a claim about what actually was going on in his head. The idea that this remark could ahve been said casually or in passing is simply not credible. What you think that implies is up to you -- you seem to think its something bad

You simply don't know that and yer bias is showing. I've admitted it could be bad. You've made up yer mind on the very little that we know so far.

For reference, and I'm sure you'll love this, Hillary removing the classified headers from her email apparently didn't prove intent. With what you are saying it should have.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

You simply don't know that and yer bias is showing.

What's my bias?

Gojak_v3 posted...

I've admitted it could be bad. You've made up yer mind on the very little that we know so far.

I mean, even if he said what he said I'm not sure that would be grounds for impeachment. So you can get that out of your head.

I'm not gonna "admit" it could be innocent on the basis of it being a casual or passing comment when that's clearly not the case, though. It's at least inappropriate.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

For reference, and I'm sure you'll love this, Hillary removing the classified headers from her email apparently didn't prove intent. With what you are saying it should have.

Well, I never said anything about intent here. You're making a mistake by assuming my intentions (which is hilarious in the context of this conversation)

But yeah I could be okay with this interpretation. Who said I like Clinton?
---

Balrog0 posted...

It's at least inappropriate.

Which is what I literally said to begin with. At this point I'm not even sure what yer going on about. I've said it could be a problem.

Balrog0 posted...

on the basis of it being a casual or passing comment when that's clearly not the case

Again, this is an inference on yer end. Maybe it will turn out that way. I don't know yet and as I said originally it's premature. I'll wait to hear more.
---

Honest question, what's so wrong about being friends with Russia?

And in all honesty, I don't trust the media right now. I look at news stories and it's always anonymous sources saying this and that. I read a news site that was sourcing buzzfeed. I feel a lot of sites are using click-bait headlines.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

Which is what I literally said to begin with. At this point I'm not even sure what yer going on about. I've said it could be a problem.

yeah but you're wrong about the scope of the problem because you're implying it could be better than it actually is

Gojak_v3 posted...

Again, this is an inference on yer end. Maybe it will turn out that way. I don't know yet and as I said originally it's premature. I'll wait to hear more.

I mean... yeah, its an inference in the sense that interpreting any sensory information is an inference.

But what would give you more certitude at this point? Unless the Comey memo is fabricated -- but that seems very unlikely given other information I can use (like the fact that no one in the administration has denied the exchange took place, or even that it took place as stated -- just the content of the exchange).

The investigation itself is certainly just going to be he said-he said so I'm not sure what more info. you're waiting for to come to light to make a judgment here
---

The Top Crusader posted...

the popular vote percentage fairly accurate, just not the electoral college. That's hardly completely inaccurate and biased. I mean Trump himself said he didn't think he'd sweep Michigan

They were inaccurate and biased by intentionally over sampling democrats in all of their polls to mislead the public into thinking he had no chance of winning certain states. We elect presidents based on the electoral college. Anyone can get a decent popular vote prediction with a couple percentages.

Like others have mentioned previously in this discussion, the media has shot themselves in the foot the past couple years by crying wolf about every little thing regarding Trump. They need to stop publishing "anonymous" stories every week about some random scandal supposedly involving Trump when nothing ever comes out of it. If there are serious scandals going on in the white house those anonymous sources should provide some significant evidence to get the ball moving but they do not.
---

CrowTRobot posted...

When you get down to it, everything is so negative and the media will tell us the sky is falling, but what is it based on?

Russia?

It seems like it's all based on Russia. Of course democrats are going to disagree with his policies and this and that, but he was elected because of those policies. What they think they can impeach for seems to be... Russia.

It's based on breaking the law. Obstruction of Justice. Doing exactly the same thing that took Nixon down.

Russia is just the cherry on top
---

Nomadic View posted...

Obstruction of Justice

But so far there hasn't been anything released to the public that confirms he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Uh, he publicly said that was a reason himself.
---

Amputation posted...

Doing exactly the same thing that took Nixon down.

it's not the same thing, though

he didn't tell anyone to lie to end an investigation - he asked if the director could see his way to letting Flynn off, which isn't the same thing. And wanting to end the Russia investigation isn't the same thing as investigating Flynn personally, although the two are intertwined

I'm actually really unsure this would lead to an impeachable offense, but it's also clearly something more than just inappropriate. imho
---

Balrog0 posted...

Amputation posted...

Doing exactly the same thing that took Nixon down.

it's not the same thing, though

he didn't tell anyone to lie to end an investigation - he asked if the director could see his way to letting Flynn off, which isn't the same thing. And wanting to end the Russia investigation isn't the same thing as investigating Flynn personally, although the two are intertwined

I'm actually really unsure this would lead to an impeachable offense, but it's also clearly something more than just inappropriate. imho

It doesn't matter If he told then to lie or not - he asked Comey to halt the investigations. That is obstruction if justice - the same thing that brought Nixon down, ultimately. Nobody said they are the exact same situation, but it will be the exact same charge.
---

Amputation posted...

It doesn't matter If he told then to lie or not - he asked Comey to halt the investigations. That is obstruction if justice - the same thing that brought Nixon down, ultimately.

I really don't think it is obstruction of justice, though. It matters very much how he attempted to get Comey to stop investigations. What crime did he commit? He didn't tamper with evidence or knowingly mislead anyone so far as we know. You have to assume he knows something about Flynn and that that something is illegal. I'm not making that jump.
---

Amputation posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Amputation posted...

Doing exactly the same thing that took Nixon down.

it's not the same thing, though

he didn't tell anyone to lie to end an investigation - he asked if the director could see his way to letting Flynn off, which isn't the same thing. And wanting to end the Russia investigation isn't the same thing as investigating Flynn personally, although the two are intertwined

I'm actually really unsure this would lead to an impeachable offense, but it's also clearly something more than just inappropriate. imho

It doesn't matter If he told then to lie or not - he asked Comey to halt the investigations. That is obstruction if justice - the same thing that brought Nixon down, ultimately. Nobody said they are the exact same situation, but it will be the exact same charge.

Nixon got hit with an obstruction of justice charge because the Supreme Court ordered him to release the tapes that were incriminating himself but refused to do so.

Trump just asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation because "“He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”. That's assuming the memo is legit. That is not even close for people to be saying obstruction of justice or calling for his impeachment.
---

Asking Comey to halt the investigation and then firing him shortly after when he doesn't is pretty incriminating. Of course republicans try to spin it and say Trump was just fed up with Comey in general, but anyone with common sense could put two and two together.

I'm so sick of republicans playing dumb to corruption in their own party. :u

Balrog0 posted...

Amputation posted...

It doesn't matter If he told then to lie or not - he asked Comey to halt the investigations. That is obstruction if justice - the same thing that brought Nixon down, ultimately.

I really don't think it is obstruction of justice, though. It matters very much how he attempted to get Comey to stop investigations. What crime did he commit? He didn't tamper with evidence or knowingly mislead anyone so far as we know. You have to assume he knows something about Flynn and that that something is illegal. I'm not making that jump.

Assume? We know Trump knew of Flynn's illegal ties to Russian spies way before he was fired; Sally Yates confirmed that.

Trump tried to use influence to end an investigation. He tried to interfere. That is obstruction if justice.
---

AugustAdoulin posted...

Asking Comey to halt the investigation and then firing him shortly after when he doesn't is pretty incrimination.

The firing wasn't even that shortly after, though.

It was 2 months later
---

Balrog0 posted...

AugustAdoulin posted...

Asking Comey to halt the investigation and then firing him shortly after when he doesn't is pretty incrimination.

The firing wasn't even that shortly after, though.

It was 2 months later

2 months is a long time?

Appollyn posted...

Amputation posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Amputation posted...

Doing exactly the same thing that took Nixon down.

it's not the same thing, though

he didn't tell anyone to lie to end an investigation - he asked if the director could see his way to letting Flynn off, which isn't the same thing. And wanting to end the Russia investigation isn't the same thing as investigating Flynn personally, although the two are intertwined

I'm actually really unsure this would lead to an impeachable offense, but it's also clearly something more than just inappropriate. imho

It doesn't matter If he told then to lie or not - he asked Comey to halt the investigations. That is obstruction if justice - the same thing that brought Nixon down, ultimately. Nobody said they are the exact same situation, but it will be the exact same charge.

Nixon got hit with an obstruction of justice charge because the Supreme Court ordered him to release the tapes that were incriminating himself but refused to do so.

Trump just asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation because "“He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”. That's assuming the memo is legit. That is not even close for people to be saying obstruction of justice or calling for his impeachment.

We can't conveniently leave out the fact that he also asked Comey to halt his own investigation.

Are we also forgetting that he fired Comey because of this?

Asking someone to halt an investigation, then firing them because they will not, is 100% obstruction of justice.
---

Amputation posted...

We can't conveniently leave out the fact that he also asked Comey to halt his own investigation.Are we also forgetting that he fired Comey because of this?Asking someone to halt an investigation, then firing them because they will not, is 100% obstruction of justice.

Not worth the trouble arguing with them. They are willfully ignorant and blind to every shady thing Trump does.