Yeah, it's a cynical outlook and this is his punishment, but if it was anyone else would this be an issue? I believe this is just political squabble that does nothing in the end. I believe this will continue and depending on who's in power this same topic would be thrown under the carpet.

This post was edited by Landmine on Nov 13 2019 11:43am

well let's compare to HRC. we all knew that she was guilty more or less (just as we know Trump uses quid pro quos to get stuff), and we all knew she'd either wipe every bit of damning evidence OR blame it on a subordinate who would go down for her (just as we know the senate wont vote to remove), and we did the hearings then too. in exhausting fashion i might add.

and we're not very far removed from a potus getting impeached for getting a hummer in the oval office.

so ya, i'd say it goes both ways and isn't pure orange man bad.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 13 2019 11:46am

Well this goes back to who's in power at the time. I didn't agree with Clinton's impeachment either. It was also a waste of money and time. Just more political non sense that changed nothing in the end.

- I've come to the conclusion that the impeachment process is justified and should play out, because the charges against Trump are severe enough, and there is enough evidence for his wrongdoings to have "probable cause".

- The things Ive seen and heard so far dont rise up to the point where I would consider impeaching Trump over them is justified, but they're not that far off from this threshold anymore.

- To support him not just getting impeached, but actually removed from office, my bar would be a lot higher. For me to support removal from office, I would need see really compelling proof for actual "high crimes and misdemeanors". We're still quite a distance away from this threshold.

If that's your opinion, and i share it, you should be wanting the legislature to have more incremental checks on the president. the problem that causes impeachment is they have a tool box with 2 tools. a hammer and scotch tape. the hammer is impeachment. the scotch tape is twitter (or in a historical sense newspapers etc). the only way congress (read: the people, who they're supposed to represent) can do anything to the president is to shame him publicly with exposed dirt, and when the dirt pile gets high enough impeach.

the legislature doesnt have enough real time tools to handle this stuff. presidents commit to engagements without declarations of war, presidents use executive orders to get around confirming laws, presidents cant be tried in court while in office, etc. the presidency has gotten too strong. and im not 100% sure how to fix it other than some limitation of executive orders.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 13 2019 11:52am

Limit executive orders, and require cabinet members to be confirmed by both chambers of Congress. Hence, whenever there is a split legislature, only very centrist figures with bipartisan support can get confirmed.

that would be a good idea, i just worry that we'd have vacant seats for a long time and the POTUS would operate the dept as they see fit without a solid head through some propped up "temporary acting secretary". but i do like it.

I do agree with more checks on the President, but I also believe there needs to be more oversight on the House and Senate. Our government is too divided in political ideology.

One more idea: make it so that the President can only fire cabinet members if at least one chamber of Congress agrees. This way, a president who has both chambers against him cant do shit, and if there's a split legislature, he still depends on support from his own party to reshuffle his team. This way, both the parties and the cabinet members would be significantly strengthened relative to the president.