Should President Trump be Impeached and Removed?

First off. I dont know where you confused The 1 with a j. Thats stupid on its own. Second, i believe the S1W in the video may refer to some sort of police unit. The SJW I was referring to stands for Social Justice Warrior. And bunch of clueless fucks that get up in arms when even the smallest perceived "infraction" is acted out on people they deemed should be protected. There are a lot sjw cucks here on this website. And I wish I could name them. But alas I cannot for Lord Myke and his deputy Maid Man will dole out the harshness post haste. But I will say the biggest one i've gotten discombobulated recently name rhymes with dacockkeeper. Lol

 

didnt you used to bitch about VF4 evo and ft? About how the execution barrier wasnt beginner friendly or some shit?

 

security of the first world

 

Oh.,., so the S1Ws and SJWs aren't the same I'll take your word for it. But I'm not quite sure how the S1Ws or the SJWs are related to my original question about whether Trump should be impeached and removed.

If Impeachment is nullifying the 2016 election and the will of the people, isn't President Trump ignoring the authority or the House of Representatives nullifying the 2018 election and the will of the people?

I don't see what the the S1Ws, or SJWs have to do with those questions

 

You are right. I diverged the conversation into unrelated digression. Yes Trump should be impeached. There is countless evidence of misconduct. Im mean, when he damn near fired his whole staff after only being in for about 6 months that should have been a big red fucking flag. I've never seen, nor heard of shit like this happening in any other presidential term. The clusterfuck of all that has happened is cartoonishly mind boggling... Like any other president and their career would be fucking finished... I mean...we used to make jokes about this man becoming president bruh...

 

I remember when vfdc used to be about VF

 

I am not sure if you properly understand the Mueller Report. It concluded that while Trump and his campaign team colluded with Russia, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that they knowingly or willingly colluded with any member of the Russian government to alter the outcome of the 2016 election.

However, in an entirely different section of the report, Mueller concluded that he was guilty of obstruction of justice, but that he does not suggest indictment, following DOJ guidelines that a POTUS should not be indicted.

William Barr is an institutionalist, which is something that most people seem to misunderstand. His job is to protect the executive (the institution in this case), which entails presenting the POTUS in the best way without lying. He walks a very thin line, but he has not done anything illegal... He has simply done his job as an institutionalist, which is the same duty he performed as when he whitewashed the Iran Contras.

Now, as you have mentioned, there are plenty of reasons to impeach. The process is intended for all members of the US government for high crimes AND misdemeanors. Stated simply, impeachment is a way to remove officers of the state who are incompetent in the performance of their duties...

It is bad timing to have started the impeachment process now, a year away from the general election, as it makes the process seem partisan to the voting public. It is also extremely unlikely that it will pass the Senate with its Republican majority.

Personally, I do not believe that anything will happen to Trump, and I think that he will win another term.

 

I do not recall such a time as you, when the General section was primarily about VF... unless you are suggesting that the majority of the posts on this forum have appeared in this section lately...

 

1. There is a difference between presenting the POTUS in the best possible light, and presenting the office of the POTUS in the best possible light.

For example: if President Trump raped, sodomized, and then murdered a child on the White House Lawn at 3:00 on a Monday, it would not be the Attorney General's job to try to depict President Trump in the best possible light. Although clearly there are a contingent of Americans that would see nothing wrong with the rape, the sodomy or the murder and instead of outrage and warranted condemnation, they would find comfort in bringing up a grievance with a past president, vice president or administration all while continuing to support President Trump and pointing to his executive privilege and Article 2 of the US constitution. Effectively demonstrating the adage that; Birds of a feather flock together.

At best Barr's charge is concerned with the office of the POTUS not the POTUS.

2. Notice that I made a distinction in Mueller's report between conspiracy and collusion. Also I posted that Mueller's report elucidates collusion. And that the Mueller report was sufficient evidence for impeachment. I didn't say it was sufficient evidence for removal. But clearly there was enough evidence for the President to be charged. It would be left up to a trial to determine the weight of that evidence. As you know that's how the process works.

 

I believe that Barr acted to protect the presidency and not Trump the person. In preparing his "principal conclusions" of the Mueller Report, I believe that he went out of his way to not tell an outright lie, though he didn't tell the complete truth, either.

This is why Mueller reproached him in his letter. The details were accurate, but they were incomplete and the overall picture confusing.

As I said in my last post, this is understandable from the perspective of an institutionalist. This was to be expected from him, and I mentioned his handling of the Iran-Contra affair as an example of his past defense of the presidency.

An institutionalist shall lie to protect the institution that he works for, but not necessarily to protect himself. This is motivated by the esteem that he has for the office of the POTUS, no matter who the executor is.

This is the difference between an "institutionalist" and a corrupt opportunist.

They shall minimize their lies, they shall attempt to lie by "omission", indirectly, by stating part of the truth, they shall lie as seldomly as possible, etc., but their lies will be to protect the institution.

Do you understand when a situation is so f*cked up (as detailed in pages 1 and 2 of the second volume of the Mueller Report, as well as in the discussion from pages 159 to 181) that an institutionalist needs to tell half-truths or even lies to save the institution, not the man heading the institution?

It is a tight rope to walk, especially when the rope is being shaken by Trump. However, I am convinced that Barr is not trying to protect the POTUS as a person, as evidenced by his release of the Mueller Report, containing the information as it does to refute the "no collusion" narrative. In the way in which the report was released, I believe that there is no reasonable way of reading it to suggest that Trump should be exonerated.

Also keep in mind that as AG, Barr was under no obligation to make the report public, but he did with minimal redactions. The Russian interference, the corruption of Trump's campaign team, and Trump's own deceptions can be read in detail.

In order to further elaborate, consider this statement from Barr:

"After two years of investigation, the special counsel did confirm Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, but no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia."

The Trumpettes will read this and think that the POTUS is exonerated, but we who know the details of the Mueller Report know better. This is a carefully constructed statement... not false, but not completely the truth.

Yes, and I would add that there are plenty of non-criminal abuses that are sufficient for his impeachment. Because the purpose of impeachment seems to be misunderstood from what I read around the internet, I think that it is helpful to post the words of James Madison:

"It is very possible that an officer who may not incur the displeasure of the President, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place. The power of this House may reach him by the means of an impeachment, and he may be removed even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplemental security for the good behaviour of the public officers. It is possible the case I have stated may happen. Indeed, it may, perhaps, on some occasion, be found necessary to impeach the President himself; surely, therefore, it may happen to a subordinate officer, whose bad actions may be connived at or overlooked by the President. Hence the people have an additional security in this Constitutional provision.

I think it absolutely necessary that the President should have the power of removing from office; it will make him, in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses. On the Constitutionality of the declaration I have no manner of doubt."

 

@masterpo

Today has not gone well for Trump's defense that there was no quid pro quo. Not even the partisan hack Andrew C. McCarthy, who's definition of an impeachable offense keeps changing, can defend Trump on this:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/bolton-blows-up-trump-teams-foolhardy-quid-pro-quo-defense/

This, along with Madison's words in my previous post, should leave no doubt as to whether Trump should be impeached. However, my feeling is that the Senate will resist and that the public may lose interest. Impeachment isn't popular, and the latter may wish to handle this matter in the general election.

 

Well, the President's defense was clearly an insult to the intelligence of US citizens.
They presented a defense as though the House manager's didn't put on a case, and that the average American has no ability to retain information or facts. There is also the assumption that the average American does not have access to a constitution and even if they do it won't be read. The fact of the matter is there is a clear and compelling case for obstruction of Congress and that alone is enough to impeach and remove President Trump from office.

The 2018 election put the House of Representative in the hands of Democrats and Independents. President Trump has simply chosen to defy and ignore the power given to the House of Representatives by the Constitution. And that is tantamount to defying and ignoring the constitution which is enough to impeach and remove him. Notwithstanding the other article of impeachment.

The smartest move the senators could do would be to unanimously vote to convict and remove President Trump. This would allow some of the Republican Senators to keep their seats in November and possibly even win the Presidency with Pence as the nominee. On the other hand if they vote to not have witnesses and documents and they vote to acquit President Trump, the Republicans will lose their majority in the Senate, and they will lose the Presidency.

Trump was elected in 2020 on a fluke and with the involvement by the Russians in our election. He needed a certain percentage of Democrats and Independents along with Russian help to win the election.

Trump will not get those Democrats this time. Trump will not get those Independents this time, also there are some Republicans that are so disenchanted with Donald Trump that they will either stay home, or simply not cast a vote for Trump. Short of our ballots being hacked by domestic or foreign enemies, Trump's defeat in November is inevitable.

But it is still possible that Trump may be convicted and removed from office. The situation is still volatile. If witnesses and documents are allowed all bets are off.

The Republican Senators have one real way out of this conundrum, only one move is available to them, and that is:

Wait until the very last minute, then vote to convict and remove President Trump. That way Trump won't be able to retaliate. Pence becomes President and there is a possibility that they all keep their seats. Any other move and its simply checkmate

 

@masterpo

First, I don't know if you've read my comments on institutionalists and William Barr at:

https://virtuafighter.com/threads/s...mpeached-and-removed.21334/page-2#post-406304

I edited this post multiple times until it was properly expressive... I admit that my initial assessment that Barr had not lied was not completely accurate.


Second, I don't know about the thoughts of the average American. I only know what I read from the comments of conservative web sites... most of these comments are disappointing. They do not read the Constitution, or the Federalist papers, or anything except from what they like from their favorite pundits. If they read any primary sources of information, it is in a postmodernist style in which they are free to interpret it in whatever way suits their confirmation biases...

It is especially disappointing considering that I am a conservative...

I don't believe that the 2016 election was illegitimate. The only Russian meddling that could have influenced the election substantially was the WikiLeaks story of HRC's rigging of the democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders. However, we do not know what the outcome of the election would have been without this. Many people were determined to vote for anybody who wasn't Hillary Clinton, and she refused to campaign in areas that she assumed that she would win without any effort.

This time around, Trump may still win, because many believe that he is the only thing preventing the radical left from gaining power. The democrats are too stupid to put forward a center-left candidate, so the 2020 election will be the identity politics of the left vs. the identity politics of the right.

Neither the 25th amendment (no, I don't believe that Trump is incapacitated) nor impeachment are viable options.

After 2 years of investigation against a POTUS who cannot be indicted and who cannot be declared guilty (see page 1 and 2 of volume ii), this is obvious.

It is an investigation that is forbidden under the guidelines of the DOJ to find the POTUS guilty of anything; it is forbidden to be "clear and compelling". Replace the word "President" in the executive summary of volume ii on pages 3 to 8 with any other title, and it is clear that there was obstruction of justice. It was only the guidelines contained within pages 1 to 2 that prevented Mueller from saying "Guilty".

The only other recourse is impeachment. However, it will not work as long as half of the Senate does not wish to impeach for political reasons, even if the House votes for impeachment.

This would also take another 2 years...

The only solution is for Republicans to run another candidate themselves.

However, this will not happen. We are instead left with a POTUS who can do whatever he wants, and not be bothered about impeachment until his second term...

When impeachment was implemented, it wasn't expected for us to have a binary system which encourages this level of partisanship... this is not a good system.

 

TOP FLIGHT SECURITY OF THE WORLD CRAIG!!

 

SO.. what good is impeachment if there's soo much red tape?

 

@Libertine I haven't had the opportunity to read your comments on Institutionalists yet.
In terms of far left politics or far right politics I'm not qualified to comment and I literally have my hands tied with bigger fish to fry. But I can say this that fundamentalism whether religious, political or otherwise is usually a response to dramatic change and perceived threat to some way of life.

The dramatic impact and coming impact of Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Robotics, Nano technology, Genetic Engineering, Synthetic Chemistry, Synthetic Biology, Quantum computing is having and will have a profound impact on societies world wide, on the concepts of economy, government, and politics. Its all happening and will continue to happen at a pace that the average person can't cope with. So the human reflex response is to cling to the familiar, go back to the way things use to be, find comfort in a tribe, or clan, hearken back to the old ways, days of old, or first principles and to hold on tight with eyes closed out of fear. This is the nature of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in its many forms resists extreme or dramatic change.

But because of human technological and scientific progress and its geometrical increase life as humans have known it, is at a major crossroads. Magnanimous decisions will have to be made. Current economic systems will have to undergo massive change. Global subsistence strategies will be altered beyond recognition. How we define self worth, purpose, and even our own species will have to be redefined. Politics and Economics in its current form is insufficient to handle the changes that we are facing and are about to face.

@Libertine although many aspects of the current political landscape seem inevitable, the social, cultural, political, and economic change that we are all about to experience as result of the dramatic impact and coming impact of Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Robotics, Nano technology, Genetic Engineering, Synthetic Chemistry, Synthetic Biology, Quantum computing will make this current political in-fighting seem small, petty, and unimportant. This fact I am qualified to speak on.

Humanity is on an exciting and yet terrible technological and scientific precipice. Considerable evolutionary biological and cognitive change is imminent. The upheaval of governments and politics around the world is but one symptom. Trump in office, Trump out of office is actually the least of our worries.

@Jason Elbow , sadly because of the complexity and diversity of our society, the red tape is necessary. Although progress is slow we will move forward one inch at a time. We all must be patient, diligent, and remain civilized.

 

Yeah but it will have 0 effect on Trump. Honestly, Trump is one of the forces keeping all this pc shit from fully infecting America. Although thank god we haven't fully bent over spreading our ass cheeks open like England has. The tip of the dick head is still in. Just not the whole shaft.

 

@Jason Elbow

Last year, Trump tweeted 7,700 times. This is more than double the amount of tweets from the previous year of 3,600 tweets.

Over half of these tweets were of him attacking people he doesn't like. The most times he tweeted in single day was in December of 2019, when he tweeted 123 times, complaining about the impeachment process and claiming that he had done nothing wrong.

He pretends to be a victim as much, if not more, than anyone on the left. One of my main criticisms of Trump is that he, as a Democrat for most of his life, is responsible for bringing identity politics over to the right.

The effect this has had is further radicalizing the left and merging the right with the alt-right, and you say that he has prevented political correctness from infecting America...

 

Hey, Trump isnt the best option. I will not ever deny that. He really shouldn't be Pres. You meantioned before that he looked weak when compared to say Putin and I agree. Trump wishes he was Putin. But although he doesnt prevent pc-izms from spreading, he does stunt its growth. You should be able to call out people you dont like. Even if you may warrant criticism for doing so. Freedom of speech should not be hindered.

 

Also did not know Trump was a Democrat. Thats laughable.. Thanks for the info.