Should Trump be impeached for inquiring if the D O J can prosecute his political enemies?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/pre

WASHINGTON — President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. It took on additional significance in recent weeks when Mr. McGahn left the White House and Mr. Trump appointed a relatively inexperienced political loyalist, Matthew G. Whitaker, as the acting attorney general.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump read Mr. McGahn’s memo or whether he pursued the prosecutions further. But the president has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, according to two people who have spoken to Mr. Trump about the issue. He has also repeatedly expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton, calling him weak, one of the people said.


Read more: New York Times

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	10 (77%)
	No
	3 (23%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[msongs]

1. on what specific charge? we dont like him is not a specific charge nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. For asking the Justice Department to prosecute his political ebemies

[onenote]

10. Except, according to the story, he asked about doing it, but didn't actually go ahead

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. The mere asking DOJ to prosecute his enemies is a clear abuse of power.

[onenote]

18. Again. He's didn't ask DOJ.

He told the White House counsel what he wanted to do who advised him not to and then he didn’t. He’s a jerk of them highest order but out of all the shit he’s done he’s not going to be impeached for following the White House counsels advice not to order DOJ to prosecute Clinton and Comey

[Adsos Letter]

37. This.

[qazplm135]

34. but he doesn't appear to have made a formal request

he clearly wanted to do it, was told he couldn't do it, and thus, so far, has not done it.

I think a formal request would definitely cross the line.

[djg21]

13. Asking stupid questions

Is not a crime. If it were . . .

DOJ said no.

[dem4decades]

30. He asked his liaison to DOJ. Abuse of Power.

[djg21]

36. DOJ said no.

So I guess he didn’t have the power in the first place. It was unpresidential no doubt, but that is fodder for his adversaries during the next general election cycle.

[dem4decades]

38. My understanding was it was squashed by McGhan, it never went to DOJ. Doesn't matter

He attempted to. Just like when he asked McGahn to fire Mueller, McGahn stopped that one too but I believe it's still pertinent to an Obstruction charge.

[djg21]

46. Maybe it goes to intent.

As you point out, McGahn convinced Trump not to request or order investigations or prosecutions. He ultimately never did anything.

The guy is unfit. You have no argument from me. But he’s not going to be impeached or removed from office based on his desire to have Clinton and Comey prosecuted. This is very wishful thinking.

[hlthe2b]

9. Abuse of Power

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Only if there's a reasonable chance of conviction in the Senate.

Otherwise it's pointless.

[elocs]

5. And since there is ZERO chance of conviction in the Senate, it's pointless. n/t

[Pope George Ringo II]

11. Worse than pointless.

When you know it's not going to go anywhere in the Senate, but you do it anyway (and talk about it endlessly when it's obviously not going to happen) all you're doing is firing up Trump's base.

Why not just save everybody a lot of trouble and simply write Trump a campaign donation check for a few million dollars?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Who gives two fucks about Trump's base?

We whipped their asses in the mid-terms and we'll whip them again in 2020.

[Pope George Ringo II]

15. Well, we could talk about McConnell laughing his ass off if you'd prefer?

I just didn't think it was as important as firing up Trump's base. But those are about the only two things which are going to come out of a failed impeachment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. We can slow walk impeachment and he would be still be on trial when he runs for re-election.

Oh, fuck Mitch McConnell and anybody who looks like him.

[Pope George Ringo II]

17. Stop. Please. You're making the idea even worse.

Can you imagine the fundraising the GOP as a whole could rake in with a Presidential impeachment at stake? They'll be flush with cash, and getting nearly 100% participation from their voters, and then the impeachment is still going to fail regardless. There's simply nothing else which could conceivably happen as long as they have 35 or so Senators. Hell, McConnell might think this was even funnier than a quick impeachment defeat. And as long as that's true, there's no such thing as a successful impeachment for at least the next two years.

Just a thought: Trump's base doesn't vote for President and then go home. They vote down the rest of the ballot, too. You think they might turn a couple of close House, Senate, Governor, state legislature seats against us if they're motivated enough?

Trump. Will. Not. Be. Successfully. Impeached. By. Sixty. Seven. Senators. Math is undefeated, and you're not going to change that. The only thing you can do is fire up Trump's base, and amuse the hell out of Mitch McConnell. Why the hell would you want to do that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. We just whipped Trump's base.

I don't live in fear of Trump or his base. If you believe Trump and his base are omnipotent and all we can do is cower in their presence there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. It's a horrible way to live though. "Better that we should die on our feet rather than live on our knees." When we uncover all of Trump's 'high crimes and misdemeanors' the American people will demand he be removed from office.

Your argument rests on the belief impeachment will make him more popular. It is just as likely it will make him more unpopular, especially when the backdrop to impeachment is a bear market and a recession. Bill Clinton became more popular during and after impeachment because the economy was booming, and he was likable.

[Pope George Ringo II]

22. If that's how you demonstrate bravery, say hello to Custer and Lord Cardigan.

You want Trump impeached. Great. It's right there with wanting a pony, but whatever. It's not going to happen with this Senate. That's reality. You'd have a better shot at the pony.

There is no benefit to an unsuccessful impeachment attempt. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Think about all the possible benefits of zero successful impeachments. Notice how they're zero? That's not coincidence. Zero often equals zero.

But if you're a Republican rooting for the impeachment to fail, you now have one unsuccessful impeachment attempt on your scorecard. That's a score for the GOP. And you want us to do it to ourselves.

Brave is one thing. It takes a weird definition of the word to make it fit "working for the Republicans," though. And let's be clear: The only people who should be hoping for a failed impeachment right now are Republicans.

Just ask for the pony you won't get instead of trying to blow up some races just to prove we can. That's all I'm asking. Deliberate sabotage is not bravery.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Trump is at 42.4% approval

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/


I find it hard to believe he will become more popular as we go further into bear market territory, economic growth slows, and his malfeasance in office is laid bare.


Bill Clinton survived impeachment because the economy was booming and he was likable. The backdrop to Trump's impeachment, like Nixon's, will be a crappy economy. It is more likely than not impeachment will only make him less popular.


Why wouldn't the Republicans pay a price at the ballot box for protecting a lawless and unpopular president whose incompetence is undermining the economy?

[Pope George Ringo II]

31. It's not about him expanding his base.

It's about motivating what he's still got. Impeachment will do that.

As an aside, you do realise you're not going to get competent politicians involved in pushing it because they know better than to become known as Trump's answer to Marcia Clark, right? Whoever the dumbest or least popular House Democrats are, they'd be the ones who got this job. That's going to make the inevitable failure even uglier. The circle-jerk shitshow of a failed impeachment just keeps getting worse the more I think about it.

Bottom line: Can you name a real benefit (or combination of benefits?) for a failed impeachment which would justify the rallying cry it would be for Trump's base? It's a feel-good for a portion of our own base, probably about offset by the fact that another portion of our base would face-palm. That's about the best I can come up with on the pro- side. On the con- side, I know why impeachment will fail, I know what that will cost us. Can you suggest even one thing which we would gain from a failed impeachment? Make an argument on why a failed impeachment is a good idea? At some point, politics has to be about winning elections and governing. I just don't see any connection between those two things and a failed impeachment. Please, give me one.

[Pope George Ringo II]

35. To be clear, I'm fine with making a stand for history's verdict.

But the frank truth is that a failed impeachment doesn't do anything. Have the House pass a resolution shitting all over Trump and calling out McConnell for enabling the son of a bitch. Same effect, no electoral cost, no waste of taxpayer money, and the House is through with it by lunch.

But we're talking about a group which just successfully elected Ted Cruz and a dead pimp to office. If you think the remnants of the GOP still have standards and a relationship with reality, I'm going to disagree with you about that, too.

[OnDoutside]

3. I voted No, because the votes aren't in the Senate, so no point going down that road. Indict his

family and cronies instead.

[Generic Brad]

23. The question was should - not will

He deserves to be impeached, but I know realistically it is not happening at this time.

[JonLP24]

6. He trial balloons dictatorship

[Stinky The Clown]

7. No No No. bullet meet feets

[bluestarone]

8. Also voted no because

It's yes ONLY if SENATE is willing to do their job!! BOTH houses are ready THEN I'M READY!!!!!!!!!!

[Johnny2X2X]

20. This is a redline for our Democracy.

This is a bigger deal than taking press passes. When a President asks this they are trying to make America into something else.

And he won’t get away with investigating Hillary for nothing, but what about the small guy? What about some small town writer who henwanrs revenge against?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. If he can lock up Hillary and James Comey he can lock up you and me.

[brooklynite]

21. Um, you can prove this, right?

Not just rely on an undocumented newspaper story?

Nb - you can’t ask the WH Counsel to testify as to whether it happens.

[katmondoo]

26. He would kill them if he could get away with it

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I have no doubt he would if as you say he could get away with it.

[uponit7771]

42. +1, he takes helpless peoples children from them as policy ... of course he would kill. There's no

... doubt there's some dark shit going on with that dude.

[shanny]

28. tRump should be impeached for a myriad of reasons.

will it happen? doubtful, and certainly not resulting in a conviction, short an earth-shattering revelation that will destroy the willful blindness and cowardice of the puke party

iow, "no"

[MyOwnPeace]

29. The real question...

is not if it is legal to lock him up - it is WHY are the Republicans STILL sitting still and letting this buffoon ini office? Their failure to take action against this national disaster is enabling this country to go down the drain.

[dewsgirl]

32. Of course he should.

[RDANGELO]

33. In my mind it depends on why the order wasn't carried out.

If it wasn't carried out because everyone refused to to it, then it is an impeachable offense. If it is because he was convinced not to go forward, then I think not. In any event, it shows an extreme lack of understanding of how the justice system is supposed to work.

[VOX]

39. No. But investigate the living shit out of him. Hound that fat bastard all the way to hell.

It’s time to destroy the IOKIYAR “rule.” Investigate the outrageous misuse of funds and private venues. Investigate Russian connections to the ends of the earth. Investigate his family siphoning off government monies. Investigate connections to all alt-right, white nationalist, and neo-nazi groups. Make the Trump name pure poison to EVERYBODY.

Excoriate the Republican Party for 1) allowing Trump access in the first place; and 2) for remaining at best silent, and worse, being on record as enabling the destruction of democracy. Shred the Orange Asshole into bite-size particles and feed him to the sharks.

On edit: Imagine the Chernobyl-gauge meltdown **every** Republican jerkwad would have had if Obama pulled just ONE of 45’s tricks— like a throwing rally in Chicago or Berkeley, and talking for two hours about the very real threat of far-right-wing white domestic terrorism. Or having his family on the payroll. Or selecting only African American and Hispanic women to cabinet posts.

If Obama had even THOUGHT about stunts like that, the R’s would have had him impeached, tried and convicted in less than a month.

[Volaris]

45. And then they would have had him lynched in the rotunda of the capitol building

Yeah, I went there.

They would have, too. Don't kid yourself .

[VOX]

47. Oh, there are more than a few who would revel in such death-dealing behavior.

I used to trust (somewhat) the average American for having a lick of common sense, and for not wanting to destroy everything in sight.

No more. If 30%-40% of Americans still support TrumpCo, then they are too stupid to survive. Unfortunately, they’ll kill us all in the process. It’s “Lord of the Flies” time out there.

[standingtall]

40. Yes Trump should be impeached

he wont be, but after all he is done impeachment would absolutely be justifiable.

[uponit7771]

41. NO !! Not if that's all he did was "inquire" with a simple question.

[Buckeyeblue]

43. Some day he'll be in a position to be prosecuted

[Volaris]

44. Pffft...the daughterfucker should be impeached for waking up in the White House every morning.