Should President Trump Be Censured?

[Mister Mets]

Nancy Pelosi has the authority to call for a vote to censure Trump, but has largely ruled this out, because she feels that if there's the goods to go after a President, congress should impeach.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/nancy-pelosi-censure/index.html

Do you guys agree with her on this?

I've noticed that a lot of Trump does is stupid but not illegal (IE- his statements that AOC and company should go back to the countries they left.) There are nice ways to twist the knife, such as letting the White House know that Trump will be censured unless he makes a formal apology.

This would be an interesting part of the 2020 election, but the Democrats would have to be careful to keep it to the type of stuff that no reasonable person can disagree with.

[Badger]

Nancy Pelosi has the authority to call for a vote to censure Trump, but has largely ruled this out, because she feels that if there's the goods to go after a President, congress should impeach.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/nancy-pelosi-censure/index.html

Do you guys agree with her on this?

I've noticed that a lot of Trump does is stupid but not illegal (IE- his statements that AOC and company should go back to the countries they left.) There are nice ways to twist the knife, such as letting the White House know that Trump will be censured unless he makes a formal apology.

This would be an interesting part of the 2020 election, but the Democrats would have to be careful to keep it to the type of stuff that no reasonable person can disagree with.

I believe there needs to be an impeachment INQUIRY, with all options left on the table. If after that the House Majority believes that only censure is in order so be it.

That said, I have a hard time believing that a full inquiry would do anything less than establish grounds for impeachment. Not that the Republican Senate would actually convict, but the facts would be there I have no doubt.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Pelosi wont do anything of the sort and it can be erased by a future congress

[brucejoel99]

Censure would be bulls*it. He's a criminal.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's maybe the only consequence that will be left for him (outside of possibly losing re-election) once impeachment attempts flop. It's the least that he deserves. At a minimum it would get under his skin, I guess.

[HisGrace]

Should have censured him a long time ago, should be impeaching him now.

[Frodo]

Before we censure or start impeachment proceedings against Trump, let us wait until Bob Mueller testifies before Congress and verbalize his findings before the American people -especially the vast majority who haven't read his findings.  Preferably in the format outlined by Rep. Donna Edwards so we can avoid a Republican-led circus:

Democrats should reset the hearing rules and change the format. There is precedent for a change in process. During Watergate, Iran-contra and most recently the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, congressional committees have allowed professionals to question witnesses - to organize and consolidate questions, to allow the witness to complete his thoughts and to follow up in the immediacy of the witness’s response. This is what experienced litigators do. Democrats should engage professional counsel so that Mueller can share his most significant conclusions. This would enable Americans to hear and process what happened during the 2016 election cycle and the months following. Republicans and Democrats could each control one hour and allot two 30-minute question periods, alternating sides. Should Republicans choose to use their hour by apportioning a series of attacks on Mueller among themselves, let them. That’s bad television.

It is not the time for a slam-dunk contest between Democrats and Republicans. There is too much at stake. Though it is asking a lot of committee members to leave the questioning to professionals, it would be the smart thing.

[Mister Mets]

Before we censure or start impeachment proceedings against Trump, let us wait until Bob Mueller testifies before Congress and verbalize his findings before the American people -especially the vast majority who haven't read his findings.  Preferably in the format outlined by Rep. Donna Edwards so we can avoid a Republican-led circus:

Democrats should reset the hearing rules and change the format. There is precedent for a change in process. During Watergate, Iran-contra and most recently the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, congressional committees have allowed professionals to question witnesses - to organize and consolidate questions, to allow the witness to complete his thoughts and to follow up in the immediacy of the witness’s response. This is what experienced litigators do. Democrats should engage professional counsel so that Mueller can share his most significant conclusions. This would enable Americans to hear and process what happened during the 2016 election cycle and the months following. Republicans and Democrats could each control one hour and allot two 30-minute question periods, alternating sides. Should Republicans choose to use their hour by apportioning a series of attacks on Mueller among themselves, let them. That’s bad television.

It is not the time for a slam-dunk contest between Democrats and Republicans. There is too much at stake. Though it is asking a lot of committee members to leave the questioning to professionals, it would be the smart thing.

To clarify, is your view that an effort to censure Trump on racist comments might impede potential impeachment since Mueller might provide testimony in that direction?

[Sir Mohamed]

Nah, I don't believe in censorship.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, at least it would be a first step....

[Frodo]

Before we censure or start impeachment proceedings against Trump, let us wait until Bob Mueller testifies before Congress and verbalize his findings before the American people -especially the vast majority who haven't read his findings.  Preferably in the format outlined by Rep. Donna Edwards so we can avoid a Republican-led circus:

Democrats should reset the hearing rules and change the format. There is precedent for a change in process. During Watergate, Iran-contra and most recently the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, congressional committees have allowed professionals to question witnesses - to organize and consolidate questions, to allow the witness to complete his thoughts and to follow up in the immediacy of the witness’s response. This is what experienced litigators do. Democrats should engage professional counsel so that Mueller can share his most significant conclusions. This would enable Americans to hear and process what happened during the 2016 election cycle and the months following. Republicans and Democrats could each control one hour and allot two 30-minute question periods, alternating sides. Should Republicans choose to use their hour by apportioning a series of attacks on Mueller among themselves, let them. That’s bad television.

It is not the time for a slam-dunk contest between Democrats and Republicans. There is too much at stake. Though it is asking a lot of committee members to leave the questioning to professionals, it would be the smart thing.

To clarify, is your view that an effort to censure Trump on racist comments might impede potential impeachment since Mueller might provide testimony in that direction?

Pretty much. Also, his racist comments are a distraction from the main issue, which is his illegal conduct and abuse of power which Mueller has amply documented. 

[Santander]

He should be impeached, convicted, and locked up along with his family and cronies.

[Sir Mohamed]

He should be impeached, convicted, and locked up along with his family and cronies.

Are you trolling or is this for real? I thought you support Trump?

[Koharu]

No, he should not be censured. He should be impeached (by which everyone means "impeachment inquiry," pedants).

"Censure" would help Pelosi feel like she "did something," even though it's completely meaningless when there are multiple cases for impeachment.

I could actually see her trying this to prove that she does think Trump is a meany-face without actually having to do anything that matters.

[Crumpets]

Does censuring even do anything? I seem to remember Charlie Rangel being censured to absolutely no effect.

[Green Line]

Impeach & incarcerate.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Censure would be worse than meaningless. It would be an admission that it's all they had it in their power to do. It's a super weak move.

[Mr. Smith]

That should've happened a long time ago.