POLITICS What deserves impeachment of an elected official?

Depends on how impeachment is polling.

I hear you - and when there is no bipartisan support you can question whether it is a wise thing to do.

 

The problem is that the few times this has happened in our history, it is always partisan. Even Nixon was right up till the 11th hour when it was finally so obvious that even Nixon knew the gig was up and left instead of waiting around for impeachment and removal.

So, the question still stands: what is so egregious that it no longer is partisan, but in the nation's best interest to remove its President? And remember, a Congressman or Senator can be arrested and tried and convicted while in office. By practice, the President cannot, so impeachment is the only way to handle him.

 

Yes, we've done it this way, so we must always do it way.

 

Norris,

In the words of Justice Stewart when describing obscenity, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, ..."

It should be something that has some semblance of bipartisan support.

It would be helpful if the accusing party has not perviously spent every moment since the Presidents election searching for a reason to impeach. That really hurts credibility and produces a chicken little effect.

It should generally be something that the American people understand and support (i.e., with Nixon you could feel the shift in the general public understanding of the issue and support of impeachment).

 

And that is not what I am saying at all.

I loathe the idea of impeachment. Yet it is a most necessary mechanism to remove a corrupt politician from office, ESPECIALLY the President who is immune to prosecution while in office and controls the Justice Department.

All I have said is the truth: so far it has always been partisan. And I am not sure it will ever not be partisan unless something so gross happens, that everyone is up in arms about it. And I am simply wondering what the floor is for this.

The most silly and extreme case I can think of is say, having the FBI come in and kill all of the media members during a press conference. So, what below this stupid case would be a cause for impeachment?

 

Except it was.

 

It would be helpful if the executive did not spend much of his term giving out clear opportunities for impeachment, daring the opposition to do it. I still am astounded more don't realize how utterly reckless and lawless this administration has been for the entirety of its term. It seems as if the relentlessness of his recklessness has inured people to this reality of this administration. I mean, this stuff is so exceptionally egregious, but the goal posts keep getting pushed further and further back by those reluctant to anything as impeachment level offenses. It's not a chicken little effect if it actually is happening. He should have been impeached, for sure, after the Mueller Report, but the Barr summary undercut the narrative and most didn't seem to bother with actually reading the report, which was damning (And why it will, almost surely, come back into the conversation).

Plus, if we are going to wait for the Republicans to create some semblance of bipartisan support, then we shouldn't even bother. They'd never support impeachment, whatever he does and the proof is the type of mealy mouthed nonsense support logic he gets. Otherwise, most polls show a majority level of support for the impeachment proceedings.

 

The biggest problem with "I know it when I see it," is that is a bias.

 

Democrats have introduced Articles of Impeachment against five (5) of the six (6) Republican Presidents since Eisenhower.

 

Who is the spineless RINO that they didnt go after

 

Ford, IIRC.

 

Ford, I believe.

 

It's a little misleading. Which ones were real efforts and not just a Congressman or two chasing windmills?

 

Nixon and Trump.

 

Can we just get to the part where Cocaine Mitch keeps Warren, Booker, Sanders and Harris tied up in the Senate's part of this right during Iowa, New Hampshire, and Super Tuesday?

 

people went to jail over Iran-contra.

 

Did I hear this right?!?

Have either of you had direct communications with the President?

Mr Taylor? NO

Mr Kent? NO

 

do you think the burglars had direct communication with nixon?

 

It is my understanding that todays witnesses would be the big guns and other to follow will simply be to coo-borate.

You are saying that the big guns are still to come (i.e., the Dean, LaRue, Kalmbach, Butterfield, Petersen equivalents)? Those with direct knowledge, interaction, communication with the President?

 

Hmm, perhaps, then, those with direct communication with the president should not ignore subpoenas, if there is nothing to hide.