Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate

Status
Not open for further replies.
But he is getting away with it, isn't he?

Clearly the process cannot enforce a bi-partisan approach as one might have thought the founding fathers would have expected it to do, therefore perhaps it should only be used when a bi-partisan outcome can be assured? Otherwise it is open to the charge of being misused, or as as part of a coup, and of wasting tax payers dollars!
Why do you insist on using the word coup when it's been explained that its nothing of the sort.
 
No, but they have been after Trump since he took office. They appear to be continually opposing the man not his ideology, hence since they have not been able to lay a glove on him, then whatever the impeachment plays like in the US, to the outside world it looks like another attempt to 'get Trump' and a ham-fisted one at that. The numbers across both houses do not add up and there has been no sign whatsoever that enough Republicans would vote against in the Senate to get a guilty verdict. This is not a surprise, not an unknown, not an unforeseeable outcome, it is as clear as day.

Hence, for the Democrats to proceed on this basis then this has indeed become a 'coup,' they have taken a serious constitutional process and used it very wantonly, simply just as a big stick to beat Trump about the head, to embarrass, to wound, but knowing it cannot to kill. I'm afraid that's what it looks like to all but the most ardent Democrats. The fact that Pelosi had to hold up her hand to prevent Democrats cheering at the announcement of Article 1, says it all, that shot went around the world!

Only to those who haven’t done the slightest bit of research.
 
In the US, you impeach if the conduct of the President warrants it and there are enough votes in the House to move the articles along to the Senate. At that point, the House has done its job and its the Senate's job to have a trial and ultimately vote whether not to convict.

Also worth noting that Hamilton actively lobbied for impeachment to be included in the constitution with language that is pretty much bang on about Trump in the present.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-12-02-0184-0002

So if the Republicans (who presumably saw nothing wrong in the Presidents actions) had the majority votes in the House of Representatives then there would have been no impeachment at all, is that correct?
 
Why do you insist on using the word coup when it's been explained that its nothing of the sort.

Because if the impeachment is being used in a non bi-partisan way simply as a means to bring down Trump, then 'coup' is the correct term and clearly many Republicans feel that it is!
 
So if the Republicans (who presumably saw nothing wrong in the Presidents actions) had the majority votes in the House of Representatives then there would have been no impeachment at all, is that correct?

That's precisely what happened between Jan 2017 to Jan 2019. There were plenty of emoluments issues during that time, that the Paul Ryan led house ignored.
 
Because if the impeachment is being used in a non bi-partisan way simply as a means to bring down Trump, then 'coup' is the correct term and clearly many Republicans feel that it is!

Impeachment doesn't have to be bi-partisan to be credible. It simply requires the sort of actions and corrupt behavior Trump has exhibited, and the political conditions in each house of Congress to proceed.
 
Impeachment doesn't have to be bi-partisan to be credible.
It is when both Houses have different majorities and each are voting according to party, which is what seems to be happening now and hence it cannot be seen as being a credible process!
 
It is when both Houses have different majorities and each are voting according to party, which is what seems to be happening now and hence it cannot be seen as being a credible process!

It is indeed credible since voters elected each house and senate member, so their actions, however irrational are simply an extension of the democratic process.
 
It is indeed credible since voters elected each house and senate member, so their actions, however irrational are simply an extension of the democratic process.
Even when the process is being used questionably, even when it stirs up partisan ideals, when it doesn't get a result, is seen to vindicate the person charged, almost by default, and costs the tax payers lots of money?

And that' is credible?

Incredible, more like surely?
 
Source: the Encyclopedia Britannica

“Impeachment, in common law, a proceeding instituted by a legislative body to address serious misconduct by a public official”

“Coup d’état, also called Coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.”

But yeah - they’re basically the same :rolleyes:
 
Because if the impeachment is being used in a non bi-partisan way simply as a means to bring down Trump, then 'coup' is the correct term and clearly many Republicans feel that it is!

2 things:
1) The Democrats are following a legal process as set out in the US consitution, a coup, by definition, is an illegal process, hence this is not a coup
2) You argue that the Democrats know the senate won't convict, and so they know the outcome will not be the removal of Trump. If indeed you are correct and they know before they start that it is impossible that the result of their actions will be the removal of Trump, then if can't be coup, which by definition is a change in government.

It is when both Houses have different majorities and each are voting according to party, which is what seems to be happening now and hence it cannot be seen as being a credible process!

Credible is not the same as successful, an unsuccessful process can of course be a credible process.
 
2)Disagree. If it looks like a coup, the result is the same as a coup, is undertaken like a coup...then its a coup!

Coup d'etat
"a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army " - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup

1) it isn't sudden, the Democrats are following the exact process they should be doing, calling witnesses etc and taking their time about it

2) it isn't violent

3) they aren't a military organisation

4) according to you they know before they start it won't result in a change of government as the senate will never convict.

So seeing as it doesn't meet any of the criteria, in what possible way could it be defined as a coup?
 
then if can't be coup, which by definition is a change in government.
Not according to everyone on here, but my argument was that a Coup (koo) n. is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a successful stroke or move
since this won't be successful stroke or move, then it would be a failed coup.
 
Thank you to all contributors to the great 'Coup' debate. I have spent a pleasant Monday afternoon on the Caf, off now to make our evening meal.
Thanks once again and a very Merry Christmas to you all... first class posters (well most of you are!)
 
Because if the impeachment is being used in a non bi-partisan way simply as a means to bring down Trump, then 'coup' is the correct term and clearly many Republicans feel that it is!
Nope. Impeachment is quite literally following constitutional law.

There aren't many constitutions that articulate if there is dissatisfaction with a leader the correct process is overthrowing the government by force - an actual coup.
 
Thank you to all contributors to the great 'Coup' debate. I have spent a pleasant Monday afternoon on the Caf, off now to make our evening meal.
Thanks once again and a very Merry Christmas to you all... first class posters (well most of you are!)

It's been thoroughly enjoyable.
 
I choose to define ‘coup’ as “The act of tilting or shooting rubbish from a cart, wheelbarrow” since this definition clearly makes the most sense within the context of this conversation.
 
Not according to everyone on here, but my argument was that a Coup (koo) n. is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a successful stroke or move
since this won't be successful stroke or move, then it would be a failed coup.
From the Oxford dictionary...

5. French phrases frequent in English use. a. coup d'état (ku deta) [F. état state]: a sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00052245
 
I choose to define ‘coup’ as “The act of tilting or shooting rubbish from a cart, wheelbarrow” since this definition clearly makes the most sense within the context of this conversation.
There’s also the “counting coup” meaning used by Plains Natives when they bashed folks heads in...
 
Not according to everyone on here, but my argument was that a Coup (koo) n. is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a successful stroke or move
since this won't be successful stroke or move, then it would be a failed coup.

But that definition is inherently apolitical and lacks the pejorative slant you seek to lend it. It just means that some surprising objective or other has nevertheless been achieved. Under this definition Ancelotti to Everton would be considered a coup; it would be a failed coup every time Colchester were defeated by Manchester United, or every time the execution of my Christmas dinners failed to live up to the ambition. Politically speaking it would refer to Trump outlasting the Republican field or AOC beating a powerful incumbent to wrest control of Queens from the Democratic establishment. A failed coup in this sense is just the expected outcome, something unworthy of note. That you choose to nevertheless note it demonstrates that it really isn't the definition you're actually using and that what you're really doing is obfuscating between meanings in order to imply Democratic malfeasance.
 
In 2014 United, possibly supported by the CIA, pulled off a coup in South America - coup
 
The main issue with the question of this being credible due to the partisan or non-partisan nature of it is the behaviour of the Republic members of the House and Senate.

When faced with the overwhelming evidence that has been provided the Republicans have not voted based on the merits of the evidence. The have voted for partisan reasons and so have broken their promise of being a check and balance on the power and activity of the executive.

That is their core function and if they had contrary evidence to prove the President innocent, they would have provided it and given a compelling argument against impeachment. They have failed to do this, and simply closed ranks in a classic case of, ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’ as, because the majority of the Senate will vote against impeachment, the truth of these proceedings will become that Trump was innocent of this wrongdoing.
 
I am not attacking the process, just the use of it when the outcome is already known, waste of taxpayers dollars don't you think?
If anything it shows that the process should be changed. The outcome is known because the people in the senate will ignore the facts in favor of towing the party line. Surely just giving up and saying well, he's crooked, but feck it, nothing we can do about isn't the way to go?
 
Not really, I am just surprised at how impotent the Democrats seem to be/are in the face of a man they believe to be stupid, a buffoon, a racist and God knows what else. Surely someone of that ilk should be easy meat? However Trump appears to be giving them the run-around and so they have come up with the idea of using the impeachment process to get rid of him.

OK, fair enough this is a major constitutional weapon, but they are using a serious constitutional process, effectively as part of a coup to get rid of Trump; but the trouble is the figures don't add up, they will not get the two thirds needed in the Senate and they know this going in, but still they put the country through this process.

Why have they done this? Surely there has to be a fifty-fifty chance at least of seeing the process through, otherwise what is the point? Won't Trump garner even more support if he is vindicated by the Senate?

I would have thought that if you are going to try to 'stick it' to the most powerful man on earth, you should at least load both barrels?

Mate, I'd leave it. You really don't get it. How are the Democrats impotent?? They've impeached the fecker!
 
It is when both Houses have different majorities and each are voting according to party, which is what seems to be happening now and hence it cannot be seen as being a credible process!
You realise of course that there have been numerous times that the house and senate are split regarding representation re: the President and impeachment hasn't been a serious thought regardless of how the sides hate each other. None of those Presidents committed impeachable acts and so it wasn't used. Trump has committed impeachable acts and so was impeached.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.