Impeach Trump? Lessons learned from Clinton's impeachment, 20 years later

[TalkRadio1]

WASHINGTON – Democrats who are contemplating impeaching President Donald Trump after they take control of the House of Representatives next month are considering a cautionary tale: what happened the last time a president was impeached.

President Bill Clinton survived, but his top accuser, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, didn't, and it was the Republican Party that lost seats in the next election.

Republicans who played key roles in impeaching the president 20 years ago warned that the possibility of success is low and the prospect of unintended consequences high. Those lessons reinforced caution among top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is likely to be elected speaker in January, and New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is likely to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi urged Democratic colleagues who pushed for impeachment to give Mueller the time and space he needs to complete his inquiry. Associates said Pelosi, a California congresswoman when Clinton was impeached, noted that in the last impeachment, it was the House speaker who lost his seat, not the president.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...essons-loom-trump-congress-russia/2287529002/

 

[Boxlicker101]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...essons-loom-trump-congress-russia/2287529002/

What they learned was that it's a bad idea, because the electorate will see it as just a political ploy, and a waste off everybody's time and effort. San Fran Nan and some others are in safe seats, and would lose little or nothing from such an attempt, but others are not so well situated, and could be booted out of office in 2020. Even in the very unlikely event the House would vote to impeach, the Senate would never vote to convict.

 

[Liar]

While you're right on the procedure - getting a conviction from the Senate in the next two years has very high odds, I think you're wrong on the political fallout.

Clinton was technically speaking impeached for lying under oath. But the context that shaped the non lawyer public view of it, which energized Dem voters, was what he lied about - his sex life. Which made the Reps look like gossip mongering cum stain obsessed nasties, while it made Clinton look human. Hey, who'd say no to a little executive head?

It will depend on what Trump gets impeaced with. But I don't see any potential scenario with Clinton-esque optics here.

 

[coati]

If Mueller comes up with gross felonies committed by the "president", the votes to convict in the Senate will be there. Otherwise the Republicans in the Senate will be toast in 2020.

However, if the crimes are for some reason not completely in the category of "gross", then it would take some horse trading to get Republican votes in the Senate to convict. The number one bargaining chip for Republican senators would probably be "hands off Pence", so their boy would have two years to prove that Repugnicans are boy scouts again.

So, I agree with Pelosi. Cool your jets with this talk about impeachment until Mueller shows his cards. It might be the best strategy to just keep the chief idiot in check for two years and then sweep both him and the pious homophobic boy scout out of office.

Pelosi is looking at the long game.

 

[Boxlicker101]

While you're right on the procedure - getting a conviction from the Senate in the next two years has very high odds, I think you're wrong on the political fallout.

Clinton was technically speaking impeached for lying under oath. But the context that shaped the non lawyer public view of it, which energized Dem voters, was what he lied about - his sex life. Which made the Reps look like gossip mongering cum stain obsessed nasties, while it made Clinton look human. Hey, who'd say no to a little executive head?

It will depend on what Trump gets impeaced with. But I don't see any potential scenario with Clinton-esque optics here.

I read about it at the time, and I did not consider the perjury to constitute "High crimes and misdemeanors." A felony, yes, but a personal matter and not an impeachable offense. I also remember some uptight individuals taking umbrage over the fact it happened in the Oval Office, making the blow job some kind of sacrilege and, therefore, an impeachable offense. I got a good laugh out of them.

I still don't know of anything Trump has done that would amount to a "High crime and misdemeanor." He may have done something illegal as POTUS, but I don't know of anything that would rise - or fall - to that level.

 

[Comshaw]

I read about it at the time, and I did not consider the perjury to constitute "High crimes and misdemeanors." A felony, yes, but a personal matter and not an impeachable offense. I also remember some uptight individuals taking umbrage over the fact it happened in the Oval Office, making the blow job some kind of sacrilege and, therefore, an impeachable offense. I got a good laugh out of them.

I still don't know of anything Trump has done that would amount to a "High crime and misdemeanor." He may have done something illegal as POTUS, but I don't know of anything that would rise - or fall - to that level.

YET. No one knows what the Mueller team has. They have been very professional through this investigation and have had very few leaks, so none of us know much of anything. That doesn't mean they don't have anything. When the investigation is over, when they reveal what they have, then and only then can the real debate begin. Until then it's a waiting game.


Comshaw

 

[BotanyBoy]

If Mueller comes up with gross felonies committed by the "president", the votes to convict in the Senate will be there. Otherwise the Republicans in the Senate will be toast in 2020.

However, if the crimes are for some reason not completely in the category of "gross", then it would take some horse trading to get Republican votes in the Senate to convict.

Nah...they just need the felony, they want his ass gone just as bad if not more than the (D)'z. POTUS Pence is what they want.

The number one bargaining chip for Republican senators would probably be "hands off Pence", so their boy would have two years to prove that Repugnicans are boy scouts again.

Certainly possible they could do that.

I think that would be a TERRIBLE thing though. Because then they will have to play ball with Pence or look horrible, subversive and run a high risk of pushing the center back to the (R)'s, gaining nothing or even losing out and that's a pretty ugly situation. High risk.....

I mean Trump might be a big fat liar who shoots his mouth off on the hour and a provocateur but Pence....he is for real for real hard core right wing as fuck.

Like the most hardcore RW POTUS anyone alive has ever seen far right and he's not an ignorant containable twat like Trump either, he will be playing hard ball with the advantage and he will be bending the (D)'s over everywhere he can and fucking them dry.

So, I agree with Pelosi. Cool your jets with this talk about impeachment until Mueller shows his cards. It might be the best strategy to just keep the chief idiot in check for two years and then sweep both him and the pious homophobic boy scout out of office.

Pelosi is looking at the long game.

I 100% agree with Pelosi too.....if the (D)'s are smart they will contain Trump and let the GOP self destruct.

If they were REALLY smart they'd have some decent plans for when they take back over.

Buuuut....considering how they did last time I'm not holding my breath for anything spectacular.

 

[Comshaw]

WASHINGTON – Democrats who are contemplating impeaching President Donald Trump after they take control of the House of Representatives next month are considering a cautionary tale: what happened the last time a president was impeached.

President Bill Clinton survived, but his top accuser, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, didn't, and it was the Republican Party that lost seats in the next election.

Republicans who played key roles in impeaching the president 20 years ago warned that the possibility of success is low and the prospect of unintended consequences high. Those lessons reinforced caution among top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is likely to be elected speaker in January, and New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is likely to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi urged Democratic colleagues who pushed for impeachment to give Mueller the time and space he needs to complete his inquiry. Associates said Pelosi, a California congresswoman when Clinton was impeached, noted that in the last impeachment, it was the House speaker who lost his seat, not the president.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...essons-loom-trump-congress-russia/2287529002/

Yes they did, for a very specific reason. The public looked at the charges and the years long investigation and were disgusted that our congress could be so damned petty and so damned vindictive as to take the actions they did for the reasons they did. After all that money they got him on lying to congress over elicit sex.

As far as this time around, it all depends on what comes to light. If it's an infraction as small as what Clinton was charged with, I agree that the Dems in congress need to proceed carefully. BUT, if it's something serious, if the Donald has stepped on his dick big time, then it's going to work out just the opposite. In that case, if he isn't impeached, those who vote not to will feel the wrath of the voters.

Al I can say is Congress, choose wisely.


Comshaw

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes they did, for a very specific reason. The public looked at the charges and the years long investigation and were disgusted that our congress could be so damned petty and so damned vindictive as to take the actions they did for the reasons they did. After all that money they got him on lying to congress over elicit sex.

As far as this time around, it all depends on what comes to light. If it's an infraction as small as what Clinton was charged with, I agree that the Dems in congress need to proceed carefully. BUT, if it's something serious, if the Donald has stepped on his dick big time, then it's going to work out just the opposite. In that case, if he isn't impeached, those who vote not to will feel the wrath of the voters.

Al I can say is Congress, choose wisely.


Comshaw

To be honest, you should describe that lying as perjury, and the illicit sex included sexual harassment (Paula Jones) and some other serious activities which, admittedly, were never proven. These were not small infractions.

I have frequently described the accusations against Trump and others as being a witch hunt and, so far at least, I have not changed my mind.

 

[KeithD]

There's absolutely no comparison between what Clinton was impeached for and the smorgasbord (already up to 17 separate investigations) that Trump could be impeached for--right up to being an asset of one or more foreign governments, which rises to the level of treason. We even have our choice of governments that own him--definitely Russia and Saudi Arabia, but perhaps Turkey also. Maybe any country that has a Trump Tower in it or that he wants to have a Trump Tower in. The man has absolutely no brains whatsoever.

That said, the Democrats have bent over backwards to say that impeachment isn't a high priority of what they have to work on starting in January. This is yet another Russian/Republican disinformation campaign, perpetuated here by our resident Trumpettes.

 

[Comshaw]

To be honest, you should describe that lying as perjury, and the illicit sex included sexual harassment (Paula Jones) and some other serious activities which, admittedly, were never proven. These were not small infractions.

I have frequently described the accusations against Trump and others as being a witch hunt and, so far at least, I have not changed my mind.

Sorry but unproven accusations do not factor into it any more then unproven accusations factor into what's happening now. There were only two charges that he was found guilty of, perjury for lying about the sexual contact with Monica and obstruction of justice for trying to cover up what was happening with Paula Jones. He was found guilty of nothing else. In the impeachment hearings, as with any other trial, he was and is innocent until proven guilty. In this the court's (in this case congress) opinion of the facts is the only one that counts.

And while you are correct in your assertion that those two counts are serious, it wasn't the charges that disgusted the people, but the reason for them and why they were brought.

What I don't understand is that many see Clinton as a criminal for lying about what he did, but, even though he hasn't lied under oath yet, they excuse Trump FOR THE SAME DAMNED BEHAVIOR! Why the double standard?

You see Mueller's investigation as a witch hunt and I do not understand why. The Starr investigation originally began to look into the WhiteWater deal. And over its course found and brought to light the sexual misconduct of the president. I take it you have no problem with the fact that the investigation went where it went and found what it found, even though the things they finally found to charge the president with and the original intent of the investigation were widely divergent? If you are comfortable with that then you must be comfortable with the Mueller investigation.

Also the WhiteWater probe was cause for 20 or so indictments in 7 years, while the Mueller probe has issued 33 (and counting) in 2. If the latter is a witch hunt then the former has to be too and should not have been allowed. So which is it? Is it a matter of being logical and consistent, or utterly bias and partisan? Choose wisely.


Comshaw

 

[Liar]

I read about it at the time, and I did not consider the perjury to constitute "High crimes and misdemeanors." A felony, yes, but a personal matter and not an impeachable offense. I also remember some uptight individuals taking umbrage over the fact it happened in the Oval Office, making the blow job some kind of sacrilege and, therefore, an impeachable offense. I got a good laugh out of them.

I still don't know of anything Trump has done that would amount to a "High crime and misdemeanor." He may have done something illegal as POTUS, but I don't know of anything that would rise - or fall - to that level.

What I'm saying is, if Trump gets articles of impeachment thrown at him based on Mueller findings, it will be for crimes that, in the public eye, look more serious. And probably are. Old school stuff like corruption, conspiracy, abuse of power. Aka Nixon shit.

As opposed to crimes related to where his dick has been. Aka Clinton shit.

And thus the politics of it is not comparable and parallells flawed.