anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif)
Posts: 4,400
![](./avatars/Independent/INT_I_NL.gif)
|
![](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/post/xx.gif) |
« on: July 22, 2018, 07:34:14 AM » |
|
Having a House majority of the party opposing the president always poses a theoretical danger of impeachment. Trump has certainly increased the danger to him in the way he has conducted his office. Like True Federalist, I think at least hearings are likely in this scenario, and how those hearings go would test the waters about whether to go farther. But there are risks in doing it too. If the Dems go farther than a good case would warrant, they can alienate the voters, just as the '98 impeachment of Clinton did. Second, focusing on booting Trump from office may detract the Dems from the surest-fire way of unseating him, namely finding a candidate that the voters like better in 2020. Right now, I admit, that is looking difficult to me, but it's a safer political route.
This is all an analytical take on the situation. I certainly do think Trump is the most, no, the only genuine, impeachment-worthy president since Nixon. Emolument violations would be serious in themselves, but If Moeller does come up with substantial evidence that the Trump campaign actively sought assistance from Russian government actors for its campaign, I think he should be removed from office by whatever party is in the majority.
|