Exclusive poll: Americans believe Cohen, don't want impeachment

[JA]

Exclusive poll: Americans believe Cohen, don't want impeachment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[°Leprechaun's Rainbow]

If the Democrats take the House, Trump could be impeached, but what would that mean?
I doubt that enough GOP Senators would vote to remove him from office.
Can anyone name one GOP Senator that would vote to remove him from office?

Edit:
The point of winning the House is to restrain Trump. Right now the GOP controls everything and they are unwilling to stand up to Trump.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

It makes sense to me.

People believe politicians are doing things that are sleazy, and even illegal, but they have come to believe that most of this is all for "gotcha" value, and not because it really "corrupts" the system.

At a certain level, I've come to agree with this.  None of the "ethics reforms" of four decades have produced honest government.  It's produced, in its stead, highly partisan public officials hoping to find a Watergate-type scandal to hamstring the opposition with, making their own nests more secure in the process.  It's not at all about using their position to make sound public policy and convince voters honestly that they are right.  

A stripper got paid to shut up.  Most people don't find that all that terrible.  She wasn't murdered, or mysteriously run over by a car (which happened to a stripper that worked in Jack Ruby's club after the JFK Assasination).  And no one is shocked that Trump cavorted with a stripper (indeed a very buxom stripper).  

Much of the public has come to believe that Mueller and Friends are seeking to hang Trump over a series of minor techicalities to make him look bad.  Truthfully, most of the public sees Hillary's e-mails in the same light; she lost the election because of her nauseating persona, IMO.  That's where we're at.  I do believe, to some degree, that "ethics issues" have become a cheap way for politicians to win arguments when they can't convince voters that they're right about the things that might really make a difference.

[°Leprechaun's Rainbow]

It makes sense to me.

People believe politicians are doing things that are sleazy, and even illegal, but they have come to believe that most of this is all for "gotcha" value, and not because it really "corrupts" the system.

At a certain level, I've come to agree with this.  None of the "ethics reforms" of four decades have produced honest government.  It's produced, in its stead, highly partisan public officials hoping to find a Watergate-type scandal to hamstring the opposition with, making their own nests more secure in the process.  It's not at all about using their position to make sound public policy and convince voters honestly that they are right.  

A stripper got paid to shut up.  Most people don't find that all that terrible.  She wasn't murdered, or mysteriously run over by a car (which happened to a stripper that worked in Jack Ruby's club after the JFK Assasination).  And no one is shocked that Trump cavorted with a stripper (indeed a very buxom stripper).  

Much of the public has come to believe that Mueller and Friends are seeking to hang Trump over a series of minor techicalities to make him look bad.  Truthfully, most of the public sees Hillary's e-mails in the same light; she lost the election because of her nauseating persona, IMO.  That's where we're at.  I do believe, to some degree, that "ethics issues" have become a cheap way for politicians to win arguments when they can't convince voters that they're right about the things that might really make a difference.

The GOP no longer cares about character... unless it's the Democrat that has a bad character. Such hypocrisy.

[Panda Express]

44% wanting impeachment with only the surface scratched is not a good place to be in.

Much of the public has come to believe that Mueller and Friends are seeking to hang Trump over a series of minor techicalities to make him look bad.

Absolutely completely wrong. A recent (as in 6 days ago) Fox News poll shows 59% of Americans approve of Mueller's investigation.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

A stripper got paid to shut up.  Most people don't find that all that terrible.  She wasn't murdered, or mysteriously run over by a car (which happened to a stripper that worked in Jack Ruby's club after the JFK Assasination).  And no one is shocked that Trump cavorted with a stripper (indeed a very buxom stripper).  

Family values

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

It makes sense to me.

People believe politicians are doing things that are sleazy, and even illegal, but they have come to believe that most of this is all for "gotcha" value, and not because it really "corrupts" the system.

At a certain level, I've come to agree with this.  None of the "ethics reforms" of four decades have produced honest government.  It's produced, in its stead, highly partisan public officials hoping to find a Watergate-type scandal to hamstring the opposition with, making their own nests more secure in the process.  It's not at all about using their position to make sound public policy and convince voters honestly that they are right.  

A stripper got paid to shut up.  Most people don't find that all that terrible.  She wasn't murdered, or mysteriously run over by a car (which happened to a stripper that worked in Jack Ruby's club after the JFK Assasination).  And no one is shocked that Trump cavorted with a stripper (indeed a very buxom stripper).  

Much of the public has come to believe that Mueller and Friends are seeking to hang Trump over a series of minor techicalities to make him look bad.  Truthfully, most of the public sees Hillary's e-mails in the same light; she lost the election because of her nauseating persona, IMO.  That's where we're at.  I do believe, to some degree, that "ethics issues" have become a cheap way for politicians to win arguments when they can't convince voters that they're right about the things that might really make a difference.

The GOP no longer cares about character... unless it's the Democrat that has a bad character. Such hypocrisy.

Before Watergate, the only "ethics" people cared about was bribes and other payola.  People could understand that.  Watergate changed that; now, you could hang people on where they got their campaign cash from, did they report it correctly, etc.  And it was a scandal that people supported the prosecution of.  It made careers in journalism as well as politics.  People are constantly trying to recreate it, and recreate the "reform" process so as to claim faux progress; it's easier to pass an "ethics" bill than a healthcare plan.

[Intell]

Impeaching Trump is a bad and stupid idea, yes. Cohen is also right, yes.

[Frodo]

Yeah, we should probably hold off on impeachment hearings until Mueller comes out with a report effectively indicting Trump for more serious charges than campaign finance violations, like money laundering and conspiracy.  Otherwise, it would look more like the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public, and less like Watergate. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

Unless there's votes in the Senate for conviction, a failed impeachment is going to look like exoneration.

[Doomer]

I'm for impeachment, but I know it'll never happen.

Trump is unstable, unintelligent, immoral man, and possibly a traitor.  I'd rather take my chances with Pence.  I don't see him as a traitor, and his ego doesn't seem to be anywhere close to as fragile as Trump's.

[Torie]

Unless it can be proven that Trump knew he was violating campaign finance laws (and it is not intuitively obvious that using your own money to hush someone up that would politically embarrass you is considered a campaign contribution), there is no felony, and no grounds for impeachment. So absent such proof being adduced that is at least close to beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not a proper ground for impeachment. Indeed, in my opinion, absent a crime being particularly heinous, I don't think crimes not related to the discharge of the duties of POTUS should be deemed an impeachable offense, and thus I would vote against impeachment even if Trump knew that would he did constituted an illegal failure to disclose a campaign contribution.

It is going to be very hard to prove that Trump knew the law, unless Cohen secretly recorded himself telling Trump that. Cohen's word against Trump's is not going to cut it. Both have zero credibility.

[หมูเด้ง]

I think that Trump has bigger legal fish to fry.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Unless it can be proven that Trump knew he was violating campaign finance laws (and it is not intuitively obvious that using your own money to hush someone up that would politically embarrass you is considered a campaign contribution), there is no felony, and no grounds for impeachment. So absent such proof being adduced that is at least close to beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not a proper ground for impeachment. Indeed, in my opinion, absent a crime being particularly heinous, I don't think crimes not related to the discharge of the duties of POTUS should be deemed an impeachable offense, and thus I would vote against impeachment even if Trump knew that would he did constituted an illegal failure to disclose a campaign contribution.

It is going to be very hard to prove that Trump knew the law, unless Cohen secretly recorded himself telling Trump that. Cohen's word against Trump's is not going to cut it. Both have zero credibility.

That feels an awful lot like saying ignorance of the law is a defense, unless I'm missing something.

[Koharu]

As much as I personally think Trump violated/is violating the emoluments clause, Congress seems to have no interest in that particular issue, so until the Mueller investigation is completed, I don't want the Democrats to push for impeachment. I think that is the attitude this poll reflects. Americans realize that there is a good chance that Trump has broken the law, but until there is solid proof, there is no reason to move forward with impeachment. Once evidence has been found (or not), then impeachment can be considered.

[Torie]

Unless it can be proven that Trump knew he was violating campaign finance laws (and it is not intuitively obvious that using your own money to hush someone up that would politically embarrass you is considered a campaign contribution), there is no felony, and no grounds for impeachment. So absent such proof being adduced that is at least close to beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not a proper ground for impeachment. Indeed, in my opinion, absent a crime being particularly heinous, I don't think crimes not related to the discharge of the duties of POTUS should be deemed an impeachable offense, and thus I would vote against impeachment even if Trump knew that would he did constituted an illegal failure to disclose a campaign contribution.

It is going to be very hard to prove that Trump knew the law, unless Cohen secretly recorded himself telling Trump that. Cohen's word against Trump's is not going to cut it. Both have zero credibility.

That feels an awful lot like saying ignorance of the law is a defense, unless I'm missing something.

It is a defense for certain crimes, that have the element of "knowingly," and that includes this crime.

[emailking]

It is a defense for certain crimes, that have the element of "knowingly," and that includes this crime.

Cohen said he knew what he was doing was illegal and that the President told him to do it. So then the only possible defenses I see are that Cohen didn't tell his client that he just asked him to do something illegal, that Cohen is lying that Trump told him to do it, or that Cohen is lying that he knew it was illegal. All seem unlikely to me.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Unless it can be proven that Trump knew he was violating campaign finance laws (and it is not intuitively obvious that using your own money to hush someone up that would politically embarrass you is considered a campaign contribution), there is no felony, and no grounds for impeachment. So absent such proof being adduced that is at least close to beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not a proper ground for impeachment. Indeed, in my opinion, absent a crime being particularly heinous, I don't think crimes not related to the discharge of the duties of POTUS should be deemed an impeachable offense, and thus I would vote against impeachment even if Trump knew that would he did constituted an illegal failure to disclose a campaign contribution.

It is going to be very hard to prove that Trump knew the law, unless Cohen secretly recorded himself telling Trump that. Cohen's word against Trump's is not going to cut it. Both have zero credibility.

That feels an awful lot like saying ignorance of the law is a defense, unless I'm missing something.

It is a defense for certain crimes, that have the element of "knowingly," and that includes this crime.

I'm looking at 52 USC section 30116 right now, and I don't see anything indicating what you're saying.

[Cold War Liberal]

Unless there's votes in the Senate for conviction, a failed impeachment is going to look like exoneration.

[หมูเด้ง]

Unless it can be proven that Trump knew he was violating campaign finance laws (and it is not intuitively obvious that using your own money to hush someone up that would politically embarrass you is considered a campaign contribution), there is no felony, and no grounds for impeachment. So absent such proof being adduced that is at least close to beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not a proper ground for impeachment. Indeed, in my opinion, absent a crime being particularly heinous, I don't think crimes not related to the discharge of the duties of POTUS should be deemed an impeachable offense, and thus I would vote against impeachment even if Trump knew that would he did constituted an illegal failure to disclose a campaign contribution.

It is going to be very hard to prove that Trump knew the law, unless Cohen secretly recorded himself telling Trump that. Cohen's word against Trump's is not going to cut it. Both have zero credibility.

That feels an awful lot like saying ignorance of the law is a defense, unless I'm missing something.

It is a defense for certain crimes, that have the element of "knowingly," and that includes this crime.

But even that defense has limits. For example, can you use as a defense you hired a teenaged girl to be a stripper and simply say "she said she was 18". Beyond that, there is a defense of "scienter" or whether Trump was expected to know in addition to should have known. Does Trump's situation and general facts allow him to claim he didn't know any better?

[Koharu]

I oppose impeachment because it should have been very obvious to American voters that Trump was a crook and a dipsh!t. The fact that some people came to this revelation after the fact warrants no sympathy from me. People deserve what they voted for (in those swing states in particular)

In fact, if I were a member of the Senate, I probably wouldn’t vote to convict Trump under just about any circumstance short of genocide/murder. Everyone should have known what we were dealing with when they stepped into the voting booth on November 8, 2016.

They did. The majority of the country voted for Hillary Clinton. If nothing else, IMO, this was a failure of the Electoral College, as this is exactly the situation it exists for: to vote against demagogues and protect the American people.

So, yeah, that's an absolutely ridiculous opinion. If you want to hold people responsible, hold Republicans responsible for letting him get the nomination in the first place, or again, the Electoral College for not doing its job. A total of 73,684,448 votes were cast that were not for Trump, which is 54% of the votes cast in the presidential election in 2016, so you can't put it on the American people as a whole.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

What this poll seems to be saying is that with no formal finding from Mueller's investigation, and with Trump and his cronies running near-constant propaganda operations, and with the support of a 60-80 million strong cult of personality, and with an apparently good economy, 44% of the country thinks he should be removed from office immediately. Seems about right.

[Dwarven Dragon]

Trump should be impeached, but not necessarily over Cohengate specifically.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Yeah, we should probably hold off on impeachment hearings until Mueller comes out with a report effectively indicting Trump for more serious charges than campaign finance violations, like money laundering and conspiracy.  Otherwise, it would look more like the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public, and less like Watergate. 

[Technocracy Timmy]

They did. The majority of the country voted for Hillary Clinton.

I think you meant plurality.