Is the recent Trump impeachment the most politically motivated ever?

[Lyndon]

I think their goal is to show everyone what a scumbag Trump really is, its getting pretty damn obvious now, for all but the willfully blind.

 

[sooda]

The ongoing impeachment circus is a disgrace, but I'm glad it happened because it exposes the socialist Democrat mentality and lack of capability for everybody to see.

And you're right, the list of infractions for which President Trump is being accused is noticeably absent from a formal standpoint.

Trump is venal and incompetent.. The issue is extortion and obstruction of justice.

 

[Stevicus]

I think their goal is to show everyone what a scumbag Trump really is, its getting pretty damn obvious now, for all but the willfully blind.

That would indicate that they hope to gain some swing voters in key states in November. That may be enough to do it, as we can probably expect it to be another tight race.

 

[shmogie]

Trump is one of the most corrupt Presidents in history, no one has had as many staff members convicted of crimes, of course there is solid grounds for impeachment, you'd have to be some kind of dufus not to see that!!

Trump is corrupt. Prove it, the house can't.

 

[shmogie]

Trump is venal and incompetent.. The issue is extortion and obstruction of justice.

No, that isn't the issue. Neither of those statutory crimes are in the articles of impeachment.

 

[metis]

In regards to the OP, one might want to consider what Bolton appears to have written about this. Attempting to get another country to interfere with our electioneering process is illegal under our federal law.

And why is it that Trump takes his advice much more from Putin than he does from our own 17 intelligence agencies, including military? Why does he badmouth the Dems and even many Pubs and yet not ever badmouth Putin? And why did he ask the Russians to turn over Hillary's e-mails, which they did the same evening that he asked during one of his campaign rallies? People here in the past used to call such actions as being "traitorous", but apparently that's now out of fashion to say.

I honestly believe that all too many Americans simply do not see how much of a threat to our democracy Trumps words and actions are creating, and even "Trump's fixer", Michael Cohen, warned Congress that if Trump loses in 2020, he simply will not step down. I was quite reluctant to believe him then, but no longer.

 

[shmogie]

No specific laws listed as broken. Previous impeachments listed specific laws.
Divided along party lines. No previous impeachment was like that.

The first impeachment done exclusively by one party, the first impeachment without a statutory crime.

Obstructing congress, because the house DID NOT have a floor vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, it was started on the sole word of Pelosi. Improper. Thus their demand for material for impeachment was not legal, impeachment must begin by congress, not one member of one party.

Then, there is executive privilege, every president has the right to invoke it. To break it, a court must order it, in each case.

The house, in their rush to impeach refused to to go to court to get the witnesses they said they wanted. Now the democrats are whining for witnesses in the senate.

The Democrat goal all along is to dirty up Trump for 2020, knowing their bogus one party impeachment could not have him removed from office.

As the founders warned against, we now have the precedent of impeachment being used as a political tool.

Will the next democrat president be impeached solely by the Republican party, without a law being broken by him/her ?

The precedent now exists, pandoras box has been opened.

 

[Shad]

No specific laws listed as broken. Previous impeachments listed specific laws.
Divided along party lines. No previous impeachment was like that.

No Johnson's impeachment was as he dared to extend an olive branch to the former CSA.

 

[Shad]

Obstructing congress, because the house DID NOT have a floor vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, it was started on the sole word of Pelosi. Improper. Thus their demand for material for impeachment was not legal, impeachment must begin by congress, not one member of one party.

This goes to how the WH can refuse subpoenas and why the Dems failed to challenge in courts. Without an impeachment resolutions voted on by the House the committee has no power to subpoena in the so-called impeachment inquiry.

 

[shmogie]

No Johnson's impeachment was as he dared to extend an olive branch to the former CSA.

I believe Johnson was accused of a statutory crime. I'll look it up.

 

[Shad]

I believe Johnson was accused of a statutory crime. I'll look it up.

He was charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act as he fired one of his own staff. An act which was not only repealed but seen as invalid and illegal in later cases. Johnson was trying to counter hard-line radicals that didn't want any ex-CSA member in office. The violation was only a pretext in a large battle between him and the Radicals.

 

[shmogie]

He was charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act as he fired one of his own staff. An act which was not only repealed but seen as invalid and illegal in later cases. Johnson was trying to counter hard-line radicals that didn't want any ex-CSA member in office. The violation was only a pretext in a large battle between him and the Radicals.

Yes. At the time his actions were breaking the law.

 

[Shad]

Yes. At the time his actions were breaking the law.

The law was unconstitutional. Again go look at the background. Johnson was far more kind to the former CSA than the Union Congress (CSA states was not readmitted at this time thus had no seats). Congress used the military instead of civil servants to administrate the former CSA states while barring an CSA official from office. Johnson has control of the military as POTUS. Stanton was a Radical Republican so he followed Congress not POTUS so he was suspended. Johnson put Grant in charge as interim as Secretary of War (Now of Defense) then made him secretary after Congress voted against Stanton's removal. The move was designed to create a SCOTUS battle but instead the majority of Congress moved to impeach but lost the case.

Again it was political as it was a battle between civilian versus military administration. Reconciliation vs punishment. More so it raises issue with deployment of the military for domestic purposes. The Act was an attempt keep Congresses plans going regardless of what Johnson wanted. It also raised the issue of division of power as an executive branch member followed Congress over the POTUS outside Constitutional authority.

 

[tytlyf]

No specific laws listed as broken.

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

Divided along party lines. No previous impeachment was like that.

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

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think their goal is to show everyone what a scumbag Trump really is, its getting pretty damn obvious now, for all but the willfully blind.

No their goal is to make a bloodless coup attempt to remove a standing president in this country. Face it. Trump is over the heads of the socialist Democrats and they don't know how to handle it because they are so used to being the 'boss' of just about everything.

A lesser qualified Republican candidate will make less of a challenge eh?

 

[shmogie]

The law was unconstitutional. Again go look at the background. Johnson was far more kind to the former CSA than the Union Congress (CSA states was not readmitted at this time thus had no seats). Congress used the military instead of civil servants to administrate the former CSA states while barring an CSA official from office. Johnson has control of the military as POTUS. Stanton was a Radical Republican so he followed Congress not POTUS so he was suspended. Johnson put Grant in charge as interim as Secretary of War (Now of Defense) then made him secretary after Congress voted against Stanton's removal. The move was designed to create a SCOTUS battle but instead the majority of Congress moved to impeach but lost the case.

Again it was political as it was a battle between civilian versus military administration. Reconciliation vs punishment. More so it raises issue with deployment of the military for domestic purposes. The Act was an attempt keep Congresses plans going regardless of what Johnson wanted. It also raised the issue of division of power as an executive branch member followed Congress over the POTUS outside Constitutional authority.

I agree with you. My sole point is that a crime, in effect at the time, was listed in the articles of impeachment.

 

[Shad]

I agree with you. My sole point is that a crime, in effect at the time, was listed in the articles of impeachment.

Listing a crime does not make it less political it just adds more weight to it. As I said look at the background. The law was designed to counter Johnson. If Johnson was a Radical the Act would never have existed. Keep in mind the OP title. I am talking about motivation.

 

[tytlyf]

No their goal is to make a bloodless coup attempt to remove a standing president in this country. Face it. Trump is over the heads of the socialist Democrats and they don't know how to handle it because they are so used to being the 'boss' of just about everything.

A lesser qualified Republican candidate will make less of a challenge eh?

Are you located in St. Petersburg?

 

[Nakosis]

No specific laws listed as broken. Previous impeachments listed specific laws.
Divided along party lines. No previous impeachment was like that.

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.

 

[shmogie]

Listing a crime does not make it less political it just adds more weight to it. As I said look at the background. The law was designed to counter Johnson. If Johnson was a Radical the Act would never have existed. Keep in mind the OP title. I am talking about motivation.

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

ALL Presidential impeachments have a HIGH level of political motivation.