Impeachment: The Process Begins

Yes, livinglava, it is illegal.

The Rule of Law is quite clear here. Unless you think Trump is above the law.

What law do you contend has been violated?

No. I am not convinced that he broke the law. And if he did, I say that impeachment is completely inappropriate.

There is only one impeachment process that I find appropriate right now. We need to start laying the groundwork for impeaching the next Democratic president (even if it's going to be awhile before we have another Democratic president). That way we can impeach them as soon as they take office.

The Federal Election Campaign Law Section 30121

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/feca.pdf

The idea that "investigating Biden" counts as a campaign contribution is quite a stretch.

And as I recall, the Democrats received some sort of questionable slander of Trump from a foreign source. Is it time to arrest all of the Democrats?

Well, Trump is a special kind of stupid. Instead of wanting to investigate the inner workings of a possible corrupt business entity such as Burisma, Trump opened himself up to campaign interference when he asked the Ukraine government for information specifically on Biden and Biden's son.

The law is clear.

Trump broke the law.

He's under impeachment inquiry. The inquiry will prove he asked for information about Biden, specifically. There's no spinning it how you want, that's the truth.

Rule of law is just a slogan for Democrats who want the US to be more authoritarian/socialist.

Try tempering rule of law with rule of liberty and see if you can come up with something less treasonous.

And the president is indeed above the law, literally; i.e. he presides over it.

Um. Wow.

And that's all I have to say about that.

I assumed you wouldn't, i.e. because you only propagate the party agenda.

Why don't you engage in discussion about posts you don't agree with?

Afraid that it might validate speech you would prefer be suppressed/censored/ignored?

There's so much to unpack that I thought it would take at least three days and a dissertation to explain it to you. You seemed like a learned person yet you come out with this ****? Ok, I'll try to do my best...

Rule of Law is capitalized not because I want to use extra finger typing, but because it has an actual meaning. It means, "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." It's not just a slogan, it is how our Constitution was structured. Now, rule of liberty means "the right to exercise the rights enumerated by the constitution or available or under natural law." It is not capitalized because there's not an actual thing of "rule of liberty." It's just Liberty.

Now treason is "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."

So, in connection of Thing One and Thing Two to equal Thing Three is not in any way a viable, coherent means.

The President can execute laws but he doesn't preside over any type of court proceedings. So I don't know what the **** you're talking about.

And no one person, group or entity is "above the law." For you to assert that the President is ABOVE the law is so far fetched I thought it best just to let it ride...

Your effort is appreciated.


In principle, rule of law is a guideline that should be honored based on the axiom that all are created equal. In practice, it is a concept that delights authoritarians who are interested in using law, rules, and/or structure of any kind to overpower individuals and suppress individual liberty.

Liberty is the principle that people can rule themselves by resisting the temptation to take advantage of freedom to exploit, abuse, and generally misbehave. It is a rather optimistic philosophy, but it is the only one that provides any hope of overcoming the kind of authoritarian rule-enforcement that results in obvious failures of judgement and abuses of power by people who defend their actions by claiming, "rules are rules."


Subordinating liberty to rule of law is treasonous unless there is good reason to disregard someone's liberty. Yes, there are situations where people abuse their liberty to the point of warranting intervention, but to ignore liberty altogether in order to subjugate someone to rule of law, whether it's the president or anyone else, defies the fundamental principles of the republic.

The president has the liberty to exercise judgment that might superficially violate some rules/law. If the reason for the violation is in defiance of constitutional principles, then there's a case to be made that liberty is being abused. But in general there's a reason to break rules and laws in pursuit of certain objectives, and judging such actions requires taking into account the overall situation and what sacrifices are being made toward what ends.


The president is the head of the executive branch. The supreme court's job is to review cases in which lower-court findings are appealed as being in conflict with the constitution.


I think what you mean to say is that no one is exempt from respecting the law. The president takes the following oath to defend the constitution "to the best of his ability," not to 'obey' any law in particular:

If he failed to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," "to the best of his ability," then there is a case to be made for impeachment. Otherwise, I don't know what 'law' you're referring to that he's supposed to be subjugated to.

Yeah.

Trump broke the law and he's going to get impeached.

So, there's that.

The notion that an investigation into the Bidens is an illegal campaign contribution is a stretch to say the least.

And if such a thing is a campaign contribution, then the Democrats have violated the law far worse than Trump ever did.

What we really need to do here is impeach the next Democratic president.

It may be quite awhile before we have another Democrat in the White House, but we can start laying the groundwork now so that we are all ready to impeach them as soon as they take office.

We shall see.

Anti-Trumpers are part of a larger movement, which abuses free speech, to spread propaganda of collective attack and pressure as something that is eminent in a democratic free society.

Take the following headlines, for example:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-the-democratic-floodgates-are-opening-impeachment
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-floodgates-open-on-trump

When metaphors like 'floodgates,' and other collective bullying imagery is used to threaten an individual, whether its the president or anyone else, it evokes imagery of fascism. Mob/gang violence, like blitzkrieg, uses the motif of overwhelming the individual with collective action to drive individuals into submission to collectivism.

It is an ideological tactic of socialism that can pass as free speech, but where freedom can't be regulated, and thus gets abused, there will always be retaliation in kind b/c your opponents will note your tactics and reflect them back to you when the opportunity presents itself.

You could argue that this is the reason Democrat hostilities toward Trump have been so great and malicious, i.e. in reflection of how Obama was treated by House republicans during his term. But by perpetuating this negative appropriation of democratic institutions, it is going to get even worse the next time a Democrat is president.

The only way to de-escalate this political-cultural warfare is to start operating in a way that listens to the political views of those you may disagree with, but who have a right to be represented and responded to in democracy. As long as you do nothing but attack the sitting president or the GOP more generally, you are just inviting further obstruction and negativity further down the line.

So go ahead and continue with your rallying for impeachment if you choose, but then don't be surprised when the next GOP House treats your party as badly or worse. If you thought the anti-Obama malice was bad, and you think anti-Trumpism adequately retaliates against it, wait until you see how the GOP validates their next wave of retaliatory politics, which is going to be just as frustrating/irritating/disheartening to Democrats and probably moreso as this anti-Trumpism is to Republicans.

It is a sad substitute for democracy, and the longer this war on constructive multi-party coalition government goes on, the worse things are going to be. So why not stop this nonsense and start the healing?

How about this...

How about a US President NOT ask not one but multiple foreign governments for information on a specific political opponent. You completely gloss over that's what happened. You're giving a pass for breaking the law. Then, you go on to say, hey, better watch out, cuz we'll remember you impeached our guy.

Yes, yes we did. Wanna know why? Because he BROKE THE LAW. It doesn't get any more clearer than that.

Telling me we are "abusing" free speech. WTF? Trump is saying a Congressperson should be arrested and tried for for treason. TREASON!! You know, the wartime act against your own government. Wanna be mad at someone? Be mad over that. Trump doesn't even know the laws that govern the country he's leading. And you seem to be perfectly ok with that.

You're so ok with that, you give out thinly veiled jibes that you'll refuse to work with one political party in the future. Where's YOUR healing, livinglava? Or is that not even your responsibility, just blame everyone else... OOO, not just anyone, democrats in particular.

And what really tops the cake, is your "When metaphors like 'floodgates,' and other collective bullying imagery is used to threaten an individual, whether its the president or anyone else, it evokes imagery of fascism. " It seems to have escaped your attention Trump using derogatory terms any chance he gets for people that oppose him. Turn your attention around. Start looking at yourself, what you believe in and what you stand for. Unless you want to kneel. That's ok too. After all, that is the point of free speech.

Except it is quite a stretch to say that "investigating the Bidens" is an illegal campaign contribution.

Your claim that the law was broken relies on a pretty absurd interpretation of the law.

And even if this did count as a campaign finance violation, that is an offense that should probably be dealt with by imposing a fine.

Jaywalking may be against the law, but it would be pretty absurd to impeach someone over jaywalking.

I'm not one of the jurors. I don't have a say so on the punishment that will be doled out if he is found guilty on Impeachment Articles. Either do you. He may just get fined, I don't know.

That doesn't change the fact that you are calling for impeachment over a trivial offense.

And you are stretching the bounds of reality in claiming that even a minor crime was committed.

To use your analogy, only idiots would go to trial over a jaywalking charge. They'd plead guilty, pay the fine and go on.

Do you see Trump pleading guilty to federal campaign violations at any point?