Rep. Al Green calls Trump 'bigot,' vows to renew impeachment effort
19 replies, posted
[URL]https://www.click2houston.com/news/politics/rep-al-green-calls-trump-bigot-vows-to-renew-impeachment-effort[/URL]
[QUOTE]
HOUSTON - Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, used strong words Friday to describe President Donald Trump and vowed to renew efforts to impeach him.
During a news conference at his office in Houston, Green condemned Trump after accusations that the president used an expletive to describe Haiti and African countries during a meeting with lawmakers about immigration. Trump has denied making the remark.
Green recounted his experiences during the civil rights movement, saying he knows what bigotry and racism looks like.
“We have a president who is a bigot,” Green said. “I regret to say the words I have to say.”
Green said Trump has made comments on many occasions with racist and bigoted overtones, and the world expects action.
“The world knows that the soul of America is at a crossroads,” Green said.
Green said that next week, he will again bring articles of impeachment against the president. He said he will not lobby for votes, and that every representative will have to vote their conscience.
[/QUOTE]
Stop trying to impeach him before the evidence is out, damn it.
[QUOTE=Pigbear;53052789]Stop trying to impeach him before the evidence is out, damn it.[/QUOTE]
Trump has taken numerous actions that would have led to impeachment in any other political climate.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;53052817]Trump has taken numerous actions that would have led to impeachment in any other political climate.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but it makes more sense to wait till last least the November elections when there will be a possibility of a blue house and Senate. The gop has no desire to work against trump
Can this primadonna please calm his impeachment boner before he destroys the credibility of the actual, ongoing, unfinished investigation? We know you want to impeach Trump already. So do I but you can't do it without just cause as determined by the rule of law and you sure as hell can't do it with a minority in both houses of congress. This is nothing but political showboating and it's damaging the credibility of the investigation. Just fuck off already.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;53052817]Trump has taken numerous actions that would have led to impeachment in any other political climate.[/QUOTE]
Inappropriate and unprecedented, yes, but not necessarily criminal until a court of law says so, and that case is a long way from decided considering we haven't finished the investigation much less brought actual articles of impeachment.
[QUOTE=mcharest;53052831]Can this primadonna please calm his impeachment boner before he destroys the credibility of the actual, ongoing, unfinished investigation? We know you want to impeach Trump already. So do I but you can't do it without just cause as determined by the rule of law and you sure as hell can't do it with a minority in both houses of congress. This is nothing but political showboating and it's damaging the credibility of the investigation. Just fuck off already.
Inappropriate and unprecedented, yes, but not necessarily criminal until a court of law says so, and that case is a long way from decided considering we haven't finished the investigation much less brought actual articles of impeachment.[/QUOTE]
Impeachment is[B] purely political[/B]. It doesn't need to be 'necessarily criminal' - it doesn't need a 'just cause', all it needs is something that could be argued as 'high crimes [I]or misdemeanors[/I]'. They could impeach him for wearing a wig if they felt like it. And yes, I mean remove the sitting President of the United States from his office for wearing a wig. There's no judge*. There's no trial*. There's no preponderance of the evidence or discovery or any of that. It's just senators either agreeing to or not agreeing to impeach the President by a vote brought on the floor; the articles of impeachment being the 'argument for why Senators should vote Yea'. If 3/4s say 'Yea' then that's it: The President's impeached. There's no appeals process; there's no room for debate; the 'accused' is not given a chance to defend themselves. At that point, the President is impeached.
E: Furthermore, even if he was [I]found guilty[/I] of actual criminal and federal crimes Congress still could decide not to impeach because, again, it's [B]purely[/B] political. It's like a District Attorney's (in most but not all districts*) powers; where they could literally indict a ham sandwich if they felt like it -- or simply and flatly refuse to go after a particular case. The only thing at stake is their job. I'll restate it once more for clarity: [U]it has nothing to do with the rule of law[/U]. You can tell by reading the above and realizing that it's not at all how the Justice wing of our government operates by any respect.
I can illustrate this with the case for the impeachment of Andrew Jackson, which failed by a singular vote, and one of the reasons given for 'why didn't you vote Yea' was:
[quote=Iowa senator, James Grimes]I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable president.[/quote]
Or in other words: 'Even though the President is unacceptable and I can't defend the arguments given in the articles of impeachment, I'm just going to vote no because the Constitution or something'. Purely political.
* in the conventional sense of the words.
Fucking hell that is an excellent point.
Theres going to be a comittee hearing later this week where one of the people present at the negotiations will be testifying under oath. Lets hope she can recall what was said in that room
If the president can't be held accountable what's the point in having laws
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53053432]If the president can't be held accountable what's the point in having laws[/QUOTE]
If Congress refuses to check the Executive, what is the point of the government whatsoever except to serve as a nice facade behind which you can hide a oligarchical dictatorship (hello Russia)?
Trying to defeat him on the basis of him being a racist or him being an asshole is never going to work
He's a master of enjoying attention, even bad attention. Being called a racist doesn't mean shit to him or any of his followers, and everyone who hates him already thinks that so it basically means nothing.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53053443]Trying to defeat him on the basis of him being a racist or him being an asshole is never going to work
He's a master of enjoying attention, even bad attention. Being called a racist doesn't mean shit to him or any of his followers, and everyone who hates him already thinks that so it basically means nothing.[/QUOTE]
They're not going after Trump or his base. They're going after undecideds and the races of 2018; either way, they either stockpile ammunition to use against the GOP to further upset this already upset primary year or they force the GOP to concede Trump if they can prove that they're starting to mobilize the undecideds and the rest of America.
Trump is only useful to the GOP so long as his base keeps them in their seats. The moment it looks like they might lose them, they'll lose Trump instead. Most of America doesn't vote - if they can find a way to surge Democrat representation then the Republicans don't stand a chance. This racism and bigotry does a great job of upsetting people. Refusing to stand up against that racism and bigotry also does a fantastic job of upsetting people.
I do wish he would reel it in a bit, I don't want Trump to think he is unimpeachable.
I highly recommend anyone who doesn't know much about American impeachment to listen to this [URL="https://trumpconlaw.com/10-impeachment"]podcast episode[/URL] about it. Basically, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language means impeachment can be leveled for anything congress deems potentially dangerous to our constitutional democracy. In my opinion, we're well past that point. But solid evidence that he undermined our democracy would be the last nail in the coffin, I hope.
[QUOTE=Most wanteD;53053479][...] solid evidence that he undermined our democracy would be the last nail in the coffin, I hope.[/QUOTE]
So say we all, lest we be forced into oligarchy and despotism.
[QUOTE]“The world knows that the soul of America is at a crossroads,” Green said[/QUOTE]
The soul of America is tainted with horrible acts of racism throughout its history. We need to do everything we can to never ever go back to that kind of America, but racial segregation wasn't that long ago, it's still a part of [I]recent [/I]memory.
I'd say what America [I]was[/I], and what the rest of the world is [I]trying [/I]to be, is at a crossroads.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53053453]They're not going after Trump or his base. They're going after undecideds and the races of 2018; either way, they either stockpile ammunition to use against the GOP to further upset this already upset primary year or they force the GOP to concede Trump if they can prove that they're starting to mobilize the undecideds and the rest of America.
Trump is only useful to the GOP so long as his base keeps them in their seats. The moment it looks like they might lose them, they'll lose Trump instead. Most of America doesn't vote - if they can find a way to surge Democrat representation then the Republicans don't stand a chance. This racism and bigotry does a great job of upsetting people. Refusing to stand up against that racism and bigotry also does a fantastic job of upsetting people.[/QUOTE]
I agree that we should stand up against racism and bigotry.
But there are far deeper issues with Trump's administration than racism, such as potential obstruction of justice, and a laundry list of potentially criminal shit that is swimming around in the rumor mill. If there is ammo to use against Trump, it needs to be used to pull out the root of the issues. Standing up to racism is great, however it's becoming a card used so often that it's slowly beginning to not work as effectively.
I guess what I'm saying is that, basically, I get the feeling that many undecideds would have already voted against Trump if they thought that he was racist or thought it was worthy of voting against. Trump wore an anti-muslim agenda on his sleeve before he was even president, nothing has changed, he's still pretty much doing the same bullshit. But that's just the impression I get from how everything is going down.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53053503]I get the feeling that many undecideds would have already voted against Trump if they were about fighting racism or thought it was worthy of voting against. Trump wore an anti-muslim agenda on his sleeve before he was even president, nothing has changed. But that's just the impression I get from how everything went down.[/QUOTE]
Nah. Only about 25% of America voted in the last presidential election. 25%. Of that 25%, some roughly halfish voted for Trump - so 16%. Of that 16% only 30% approve of him right now -- that's, what, 5%? This is the Democrats' primary to lose; all that needs be done is getting apathetic voters out and shaming Trump voters into apathy. Besides, it's one thing to dream about Presidents - it's another to see them in the office, doing what they will - and I can see a lot of Trump voters being disillusioned from the dream Trump sold them. Now, that's not to say there's no reason to not worry. Voter apathy is the primary problem (literally); if the Dems can't get people off their butts and into voting booths for their local and federal elections then the predicted wave will die.
Find an issue that resonates with America, shake people from their apathy, and get them organized and this won't just be a shitshow for the Republican party -- it'd be the shitshow to end all shitshows, especially with how gerrymandered things are.
That's the thing with gerrymandering, after all: It helps you when elections are close. When elections are [I]not[/I] close, then you are beholden to a crushing wave that will absolutely trash you.
This feels more like he's desperate to get in the history books than actually caring about the integrity of the impeachment effort.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53053432]If the president can't be held accountable what's the point in having laws[/QUOTE]
This whole idea came up again during the Nixon administration and it was pretty much agreed upon that the President can't be charged with a crime while in office, not because established law prohibits it but because the people in charge of prosecuting wouldn't proceed to trial without first impeaching and removing them from office. Having to deal with a criminal case is a massive hindrance on the President's constitutional obligations.
Of course this is just an interpretation. The Supreme Court allowed a harassment case to go to court against Clinton so if the prosecutor's office believes they can pull off a case against Trump, anything could happen.
[QUOTE=Omali;53054276]This whole idea came up again during the Nixon administration and it was pretty much agreed upon that the President can't be charged with a crime while in office, not because established law prohibits it but because the people in charge of prosecuting wouldn't proceed to trial without first impeaching and removing them from office. Having to deal with a criminal case is a massive hindrance on the President's constitutional obligations.[/QUOTE]
In Trump's case, it wouldn't make any difference if he was on the golf course or in a courtroom. He's not doing his job either way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.