26 ms·

I must admit, I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S.. Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power because he took advantage of his p

• curuinor 10y ago
  He's 70 years old and his dad had Alzheimer's.
  • beloch 10y ago
    Reagan was 70 when he took office and did later develop Alzheimer's. Did he develop it while in office? If he did, his staff covered for him quite effectively. If you're saying Trump has Alzheimer's now, and that explains his behaviour... Well, Trump's been acting like this for decades!
    • tps5 10y ago
      Did they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair
      • bagels 10y ago
        That page does not mention Alzheimer's. What point are you trying to make?
    • ktRolster 10y ago
      his staff covered for him quite effectively Reports are that yes, they did.
  • blazespin 10y ago
    Yeah, the most likely explanation. And on the basis of that he was elected president. Truth is much more stranger than fiction.
• dllthomas 10y ago
  > I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S. Impeachment requires a crime. Lying isn't usually a crime, and as best I can tell hasn't been one any of the times Trump has done it (.. yet?). It also hasn't been a crime any of the times Obama has done it. Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. When we come up with something criminal (and especially if it rises to the level of "high crimes") we can hope Trump gets impeached. As yet, I don't see it, and certainly not in your examples.
  • anubisresources 10y ago
    Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense. He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses.
    • dllthomas 10y ago
      > He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. You need to be more specific. If you mean the emoluments clause, I think it's more accurate to say that it's hard to verify whether he meets "the requirements set forth in the Constitution." If you know of an instance of his business accepting a gift from a "king, prince or foreign state" since he's assumed office, then he's actually in violation. > He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses. There is also that. Although I think a not insignificant fraction of that party would much prefer Pence, and if they were going to oust him doing it as far from the next election as possible would seem preferable.
      • ryanhuff 10y ago
        Does it say "gifts" or "payments"?
        • dllthomas 10y ago
          "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" Payments in exchange for regular business which would have been engaged in anyway would seem not to apply, although there's disturbing room for corruption there.
• TenOhms 10y ago
  To be fair, alternative facts wasn't meant as sinister as you may have been led to believe. What was meant was "additional" facts.
  • ballsohardy 10y ago
    things like streaming numbers etc, good point.
  • knieveltech 10y ago
    Don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. We all saw the same video. Her intent was quite clear and was backed during the same interview with a naked threat.
• shard972 10y ago
  > "alternative facts" I think people are taking this and running at breakneck speed without stopping to look at what they actually mean by this. After watching the first few press conferences and Kelly Anne's interviews where she said that, it seems clear to me they weren't trying to say there were more people physically at the inauguration in their "alternative facts" but what they are referring to specifically is the viewership. It's very possible they are correct in saying this and I guess their point is "well the media isn't reporting on these facts so we are going to present them ourselves".
  • skylan_q 10y ago
    but only the media can be right cause DRUMPF
  • ftlio 10y ago
    https://youtu.be/pa9YUDNHobE https://youtu.be/pa9YUDNHobE
    • reddytowns 10y ago
      FYI, NSFW
  • JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > * they are referring to...the viewership* Charitably, Conway might have meant that Trump's inauguration may have been the largest if TV viewers are counted. Unfortunately, that's not what she said. You can't be both unambiguous and wrong, repeatedly, in any human game (EDIT: and win).
    • stavrianos 10y ago
      Bet you I can!
  • beatpanda 10y ago
    No, it's still false when you count viewership. This has been covered by countless news organizations. You are making a mistake by imagining that these people are operating in good faith.
• gmu3 10y ago
  The process requires a majority of the House, and then it goes to a trial that requires two thirds of the Senate for conviction. Considering the Republicans have a majority in both, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
  • plugger 10y ago
    Exactly. Clinton's impeachment passed the House majority hurdle but never got the 2/3rds majority of the Senate required for the conviction. Agreed on the Republican majority. I suspect the best the US can hope for is a Republican bloodbath in the 2018 midterms to deliver House and Senate back to Democrat control. I don't believe the chances of that are high though.
    • legodt 10y ago
      Once everyone loses their healthcare they might change their minds
      • rconti 10y ago
        Well, the legislators won't be losing their healthcare :) If you mean the voters, my understanding is it's a fairly high hurdle from a structural standpoint -- there are far more democrats up for reelection than republicans.
        • legodt 10y ago
          I didn't know that last part. Well, shit. Reagan years are here again...
          • rokosbasilisk 10y ago
            Even elizabeth warrens reelection looks rough. Im really hope the non wall street democrats get their act together.
• dredmorbius 10y ago
  Impeachment is about politics and power. For whatever reasons (and I still don't fully understand it, no, check that, I don't understand it at all), the Clintons were an absolute hate-magnet for the Right. Clinton's sexual relations -- essentially no different from what any of the GOP opposition leaders turned out to be engaged with, if not far less serious (Dennis Hastert's long-time homosexual exploitation of minor boys under his care, for example) -- turned out to be the hook that the GOP could finally snag him with. In the case of Trump, I suspect there's a tremendous amount of behind-the-scenes jockeying and assessment of power. Questions over who the party (or any possible coalition or new political force) wants to see him replaced by -- Pence might well be no better, potentially worse. The question of how deeply tainted Trump's entire cabinet (and more) may be. The GOP has been fractured for years, and only barely holds itself together. The prospects of real violent rebellion or reaction to a deposal of Trump may also be staying hands.
  • ComputerGuru 10y ago
    > For whatever reasons (and I still don't fully understand it, no, check that, I don't understand it at all), the Clintons were an absolute hate-magnet for the Right It's funny you mention that, since by all metrics Clinton was about the most conservative democrat to gain office recently. A shame we've steadily moved away from middle-of-the-road since then.
• explainthisth 10y ago
  The Congress that impeached Clinton was controlled by Republicans. If Democrats take over Congress in 2018 it becomes a lot more likely that Trump is impeached.
• tsomctl 10y ago
  The whole point of lying is to blur the lines between truth and lies so people believe nothing.
  • noobermin 10y ago
    HyperNormalisation2016 Going to share that thing until I'm blue in the mouth. That documentary mentions that Surkov[0] uses this tactic, confusing the public about what is true and untrue. I have to say, whether people on the right believe this or not, this has been at least subconsciously adapted as one of their tactics. When there is no truth or lie, then whatever you want is true, which makes you ripe for manipulation by the powers that be. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov
    • pizza 10y ago
      Adam Curtis bingo! https://twitter.com/chrisapplegate/status/787751065315840000/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/chrisapplegate/status/787751065315840000...
• Alex3917 10y ago
  > Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power Interestingly, Clinton was impeached for breaking his own law, the Violence Against Women Act, which he created to win reelection. (The rape shield part of the law is what created the ground rules for how he was questioned in court, and what he was allowed to say and not say in his defense.) This law also created a series of social programs that Trump defunded today via an executive order.
• noobermin 10y ago
  I think you answered the question, he was impeached for perjury. Trump hasn't committed perjury yet. I think the best case to make against him is that he is violating the Emoluments clause, but that's not really lying because we already know he won't really divest himself of his businesses and investments. To answer your possible subtext on Clinton's impeachment, the answer is yes, that impeachment was political.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• arrosenberg 10y ago
  I'd say we're probably closer to 25th amendment territory than impeachment. It isn't clear (to the extent the law requires) that Trump has high crimes or treason, and whether he will or not is immaterial until he does. It does appear very clear that he is not fit to discharge his duties, however. What is going to happen the first time there is a crisis like a shooting or a hurricane. The next time the south gets wiped out by a cat 5 they are going to be BEGGING for Brownie to come do a hell of a job.
  • JauntTrooper 10y ago
    it's actually phrased "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the Constitution, so the President could be impeached for a misdemeanor.
    • neolefty 10y ago
      Different meaning of misdemeanor. "High crimes and misdemeanors" was a phrase in common use at the time of its writing: http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemean...
• rdtsc 10y ago
  Sounds like by that measure we should have impeached every President we've had so far. They all at some point probably told lies. Also just because Clinton was impeached doesn't mean he was removed from office. Those are different things.
• downandout 10y ago
  Trump has been in office for 4 days. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to US Presidents, so the business interest argument is moot. We don't impeach Presidents because a loud group of people dislikes the fact that they lost an election. We impeach Presidents when they commit crimes, which he has not done and hasn't even been in office long enough to do.
  • mstachowiak 10y ago
    The emoluments clause of the constitution applies to all members of government.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • oculusthrift 10y ago
    Yeah I guess to you breaking the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution is nothing. And its funny you say that when that is exactly why they impeached Clinton.
    • loafa 10y ago
      The argument that Trump is breaking the emoluments clause by (for instance) having foreign governments paying market rents as tenants in his building is ridiculously thin. Here's the real trouble with these ridiculously exaggerated criticisms of everything Trump: there's nowhere to go from here. By the time Trump actually does something bad, everyone will be totally immune to the constant wailing, it will be impossible to cut through the noise and say "oh wait, this is actually bad". It's similar to how we got the Iraq War: the left had been complaining about everything that Bush did from day one, so by the time he had a genuinely bad idea everyone just sorta ignored the criticism of it. When everybody is Hitler all the time, nobody is Hitler.
      • ntelson1s 10y ago
        Well said. I wish others would stop typing the same things over and over to read some informed comments such as this instead.
• andrewfromx 10y ago
  Why tell such obvious falsehoods? - because it gives the media something to report on and like a child with ADD the media goes CRAZY for one lie, then CRAZY for the next, meanwhile DJT does 10 other "crazy" things and it's hard to even keep up. Why tell so many such obvious falsehoods? Because it distracts from other stuff he wants to get done. Just like how he made a big deal about the judge in his trump university case. Making a big deal about the judge distracted everyone from what he actually did with trump university!
• afterburner 10y ago
  Clinton was impeached because Congress was Republican and was trying like heck to pin something, anything, on him. It started with Whitewater and went wherever they could push it after that. Remember, this is when the government shutdowns started. Trump is a Republican, so the current Republican Congress isn't going to be too picky.
• pvg 10y ago
  Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not abuse of power.
• Fricken 10y ago
  He was voted in by the people, through a legitimate democratic process. Democracy works. Freedom of speech works. 1984 didn't get it right. It's not the government that needs to be feared. It isn't the big evil corporarions. It's the people. The mob. 4chan ran a more effective propaganda/misinformation campaign than any dark shadowy corporate entity. Our insitutions are less than stellar, but at least they are run by adults. Americans are run by bedtime stories and mass hysteria generated by their own delusions, the manifestation of which now occupies our highest office. 1984 was a warning against communism, but China has a brighter future than we do. Nobody wrote a science fiction novel taught in high schools warning us against democracy in the age of decentralized peer to peer media. Government surveillance isn't ruining lives, but a poorly worded tweet can.
  • Gupie 10y ago
    1984 was a warning against totalitarianism of any kind, communism, fascism, nazism.
  • y04nn 10y ago
    Hitler was also democratically elected, democracy can fail.
  • eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >He was voted in by the people, through a legitimate democratic process. Every part of this is wrong. The people voted for Clinton by a plurality of 3 million votes. The Electoral College is a device for permanent Southern hegemony and, consequently, Republican supremacy -- there's nothing legitimate about it.
• pavanred 10y ago
  I really wish people and the media stop over emphasizing about every gaffe and focus on real news stories. For instance, the "alternative facts" comment/incident is being talked about everywhere, from TV news channels to news parody shows to talk shows to social media etc. But, at the same time it seems like there is so much more important news that one would think deserves more attention like the executive orders, withdrawal from TPP, revival of oil pipelines, changes in healthcare spending etc. I even just saw news articles headlining on the guardian now about agencies being banned from sharing information on social media or to reporters and few journalists getting felony charges after covering the protests around the inauguration. It almost makes me wonder if it would be a good idea if there was a website that covered the latest gaffe and the corresponding actual news worthy story that was lost out on optimal coverage because of it. Edit: I couldn't find this before but here is an interesting article I read yesterday [0]. It's an opinion piece by Alexey Kovalev. - "I’ve reported on Putin – here are my tips for journalists dealing with Trump". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/reported-putin-journalists-trump-media https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/report...
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • TheGRS 10y ago
    This is what people have been noticing during and since the election, you can't pin down Trump on anything because he is a controversy machine. He says something ridiculous and the media gives it attention and even begins to get some momentum on the story, but a week later, sometimes even days later, he does or says something that's even more ridiculous and now most people are concentrating on that new thing. Its hard to say if this is intentional or if his bombastic style is just something we're not used to in politics, but it seems to be effective in that the media is always chasing after the latest controversy. For me it looked like the media had really nailed him on not releasing his tax forms, even going so far as to uncover damning ones from the 90s, but then the inside edition tapes came out and everyone focused on that instead.
    • toyg 10y ago
• edblarney 10y ago
  "This is probably a good time for people to be reading 1984." This is ridiculous. The hate for Trump has caused people to go into utterly misguided tizzies, and it's pathetic. I loathe Trump - but he's not a totalitarian. He has given no indication of encroaching on civil liberties, there's no indication he wants to socialize large parts of the economy, or expand control by government, or even expand surveillance programs. He's boorish, loud-mouthed and says crude things - but his policy actions are not that drastic. 'Enforce immigration laws' - fairly reasonable. 'Build pipelines' - outside of environmental concerns - absolutely normal. 'Re-negotiate trade deals' - not sure if I agree but not crazy. 'Get NATO allies to pay their share' - not crazy. A 'mild' social conservative totalitarian might roll back laws on gay marriage, abortion etc. - but Trump hasn't mentioned it at all. He has been forceful on trying to get American jobs back, and he'll likely overhaul the tax code, likely with some tax breaks. He hasn't been nearly as aggressive in terms of foreign policy as Clinton. He's indicated that he wants to get along with Russia. Is this such a bad thing? Clinton/Obama tried it earlier as well. I think he presents himself in a manner unfit for someone who's in public office, but in the end, his actual actions are not particularly outlandish - and nowhere near totalitarian. Obama would have socialized the entire healthcare system if he had the choice, and vastly expanded the welfare system, and would likely have introduced far more controlling legislation if allowed - and we do know he oversaw a fairly robust expansion of the surveillance state. So Obama happens to be a 'nice guy' and 'not boorish' - does that make him any more or less totalitarian. People need to grow up. Trump is kind of a blow-hard, not a Nazi.
  • mynameishere 10y ago
    Wait...why do you loathe him? You seem reasonable in everything else you say. Trump is basically Nelson Rockefeller with the difference that he never got denounced as the liberal he is outside the pages of the National Review.
  • int_19h 10y ago
    > He has given no indication of encroaching on civil liberties You mean, except for that part where he mentioned that he wants to strengthen the [non-existent] libel laws, so that "press can't get away with lies about me"? Or his early remarks on Muslims? Surveillance etc? > A 'mild' social conservative totalitarian might roll back laws on gay marriage, abortion etc. - but Trump hasn't mentioned it at all. Now we're firmly in the "alternative facts" territory. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dngW-FKKuo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dngW-FKKuo Or when he said that Japanese interment camps were a tough choice, but "that's how you win wars"?
• ChuckMcM 10y ago
  The body politic is slow to react but swift and harsh once engaged. It is literally the first week on the job for this guy, and while it is not showing a lot of promise it takes a couple of months before people really get settled in. That said, if it looks like he is going to put the nation at grave risk by his actions, and grave risk is something a bit more serious than being the butt of a lot of jokes, then there are a wide variety of tools built into our institutions to address that.
• rat87 10y ago
  Theoretically > "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Practically it's all about politics The other impeachment was of Andrew Johnson who barely avoided conviction by one vote was also by radical republicans and also about politics. Although in their case they were radically pro civil rights for former slaves so I'm a lot more sympathetic. Still the law they passed to try to explicitly trip up Johnson (banning him from dismissing Lincoln's secretary of defense) was arguably unconstitutional. The reason Trump may not be impeached is because his party controls both houses of congress and they are afraid of the base. If his popularity craters finding a reason to impeach won't be that hard. The emoluments clause makes for an easy one (no proof of corruption needed just benefit, ultimatley congress is the judge). For other formal charges it may be my bias and low opinion but I have no doubt that if congressional investigations occur something about pre-election russian ties, corruption, or abuse of power will be found.
• ElectronCharge 10y ago
  "This is probably a good time for people to be reading 1984." The best time to have read 1984 was before the 0bama years. Trump at least seems to have America's best interests at heart.
• zouhair 10y ago
  Think of something highly dangerous and highly improbable any POTUS could do and it most likely it will happen with this guy.
• vitro 10y ago
  One has to be careful not to get carried away by those little mistakes, lies and glitches as it may be just a bait to distract general public from the bigger picture and his agenda.
• JulianMorrison 10y ago
  There is no apolitical mechanism to impeach. And the Republican congress, for all they can't stand the man in private, knows they rise and fall with Trump. So essentially he can get away with murder right now.
• posterboy 10y ago
  Now is a good time as any. If only now you become worried about politicians lying, boy do I have bad news for you.
• myblake 10y ago
  Impeachment is done by the congress. We currently have a republican congress as we did in '98 when Clinton was impeached. However, this time there's a republican president, so it's much less likely.
• empath75 10y ago
  I think we're past impeachment, and need to get people on the streets. The women's march was a good start, but it needs to be followed up every weekend. What we really need is a general strike. We have to shut down the economy to force him out.
• thrillgore 10y ago
  If there's another book that people need to read, its "Strange Defeat" by Marc Bloch, as its a commentary/oral history on the fall of France to the Nazis and Vichy regime. The comparisons are eerily similar to what many of us are seeing now.
• beachbum8029 10y ago
  >Already screeching for impeachment when he's been in office for two days And this is why you lost the election.