What Will Happen NOW
Now that President Trump is impeached, what will the ramifications be for American society? Will those who voted for Trump riot & even attack those who the former deem are responsible for this impeachment? Will sociopolitical divisions be further exacerbated than they are now? Will there be attacks on Blacks, Latinos, the LBGT community, & others who were opposed to the election of President Trump? Will there be a new Civil War in America? Your thoughts?Grace, what ramifications? He will never be convicted by a GOP dominated Senate. It is a more an assualt on Agent Orange's oversized ego than anything else.
He will still be in office, but if he loses in the election in 2020, then I would worry about a mad dog Rightwinger response.Credence, I know that well. However, there are elements who can be quite …….VISCERAL, especially those can be described as more extreme, even more reactionary in their sociopolitics. Impeachment is a process as we well know. There are some quite visceral people who believe that impeachment was a conclusive act done by the Democrats. There was some pundits who predicted revenge of the right if Trump is impeached.
Unfortunately this will likely doom the Democrat's chances in 2020.
Not just for the Presidency, but the House has 31 Democrats in purple/blue regions up for re-election, many of those will probably pay the price as well.
Not because of the Impeachment per-say, but because of how it was conducted, they had no real evidence, and they showed they had no real intent to get anything done with their being put in power in the House in 2018 other than to Impeach.
To say the vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of a corrupt and clueless Congress playing their games of politics rather than getting things done for the people would be a massive understatement.
Ignoring facts and trashing the impeachment process is no way to protect democracy. They have made a mockery of the process, and there is nothing but backlash for the Democrats that will come out of this.
I am not upset by this however... I think this will lead to a cleansing of the Democratic Party that is sorely overdue. I think we Americans had the opportunity to hear from some new people with new ideas for the first time in a long time...
And we see what the 'establishment' Democratic machine and its supporting media has done to the likes of Yang, Gabbard and even Warren.
This is the cancer within America today... Trump is but the tool the American people voted into office to combat it. Until the party is cleansed of these corrupt politicians which have been in D.C. for 30 years and more, the Pelosi, Biden, Clinton types, they will never move forward... they will hold back America from any positive progress.We are always going to see this matter differently, Ken
Two things,
McConnell has said that he would like conduct the trial according to the wishes of the White House, so there is absolutely no reason for the Senate to seriously investigate the charges or even to pretend to do so, but take all of Trump's positions at his word with no challenge?
Second, the sheer partisanship revealed in the vote count, Democrats and Republicans taking respective sides to a man. Statistically one would expect far less lockstep and maybe a handful crossing the line from either side.
This bodes ill for the legislative process and provides further proof that the idea of bipartisanship in Washington is a thing of the past.
Impeachment or no, it can be said that Trump used poor judgement in the way this matter has been handled from the beginning,We are still 10 months away from the election, but things are looking pretty clear to me that the Democrats are hanging their 2020 election on the hopes of the Impeachment (over nothing other than Trump inquiring about Biden's corrupt activities)… and Biden as their candidate.
The DNC & the Party backers made it clear they don't want new ideas or a new face for the Party, they want revenge for 2016 and to force Trump out their way... they don't want the voters getting the choice, and more than one of the House Dems has said just that.
They want revenge not just against Trump, but the very voters that put him there, the working class, the average American that D.C. has been screwing over for a quarter century now.
The Dems efforts are only going to get the voters to push back, to side with Trump. Doubly so when the alternative is doddering stuttering Joe Biden.
All they had to do was move on from 2016 and look forward, get behind a candidate with new ideas... Warren & Gabbard, Yang & Bennet, people who are intelligent, can articulate their thoughts well, and have new ideas and new hope for the country... ones that aren't establishment sellouts.
Instead they get petty, Impeach Trump on nothing at all, and back Biden.
If you weren't biased, if you were close to objective, you'd see this for the epic disaster it is becoming.The impeachment proceeding is not how as a Democrat I would deal with Trump. Both I and Nancy Polosi wanted avoid going down this road because it is disruptive. I was content to wait till next November 2020, to remove him permanently without any repercussions.
I am not for the DNC, and I have you before who my preference for the nomination is and it doesn't align with the designs and designs of the DNC.
Yes, I am biased, I have never minced words. I don't like Trump as a "leader" nor as a man, and I could never say that about any of his 43 predecessors.
However, just because I dislike my opponent does not mean that I "break to rules" to obtain the upper hand as Republicans do all of the time.
Now you fall back on the tawdry excuse that the media and Dems have had it out for Trump from the beginning? I get the impression that anything that Trump did or does is acceptable and excusable from "your side". I think that Trump never had any real defense for the charges, but simply takes the childish tack that all Dems and media hate him without any regard for how much of his own behavior contributes to the reaction of others.
So, Ken, could it be possible that your own form of pro-Trump bias has you thinking that you are seeing things so much more clearly than the rest of us mere mortals? You could well be seeing the world through a fun house mirror.
I support Warren because she is both a crusader AND progressive in her political viewpoint.
What make you think that a boorish self promoting coward of a man with a silver spoon in his mouth is really interested in promoting the interests of any one other than himself and his social economic class? This has been the story of his career, what has changed?
It only becomes a disaster if Trump, his ideology and his followers are allowed to prevail.
So the stuff about "working class" champion is just bullsh@t.One idea that I disagree with the dems on is that "maybe" he will be defeated in 2020. My question is why should Trump, who has proven himself to the world that he is an unfit leader (Russia are you listening...?) be allowed to run again. Why should the voters decide if they want this unfit individual to lead them? We have laws that keep criminals out of office, yet, the president and his minions claim that he can't be prosecuted while holding office. Therefore, it is not legal to even decide whether or not he has committed these crimes he is accused of, and someday it may be too late. That is how dictatorships come into power.
Simply because under the circumstances he cannot be prosecuted. A guy that when caught with his left hand in the cookie jar is just that much determined to put his right hand in the other jar. He is defiant toward the law and protocol if it does not serve his interests. From double crossing charitable organizations, to walking the line just this side of the law, he is a first class chiseler.
But as you can see, he still has quite a following, regardless.Credence, I live in the South, and I'm hearing some grumbling from my once staunch Republican friends who are saying that it just isn't right ifTrump doesn't have to be called to account for his misdeeds and can still run in 2020 if the Senate doesn't oust him. They are saying that they are ashamed of the actions (meaning blind allegiance) of their "former" party. One in particular said that he would never vote for another Republican again. I think he will become an independent or a Libertarian rather than joining the democrats. I think history has shown that for each one who goes public, there are at least 100 who quietly join in.
I can't support any of the socialist democrats who are ahead in the primary race. I also won't vote for any of them who plays the race card. I worry about what kind of a president that person would make? I will vote for the one who shows the most middle of the road tendencies. But in the end we may have some 3rd-party surprises in the general election. I'm not ruling them out.I am a southern transplant, a stranger in a strange land.
Being more comfortable with San Francisco than I am with Savannah, my politics and beliefs are going to be quite different from yours.
It is good to hear that although I have always had problems with the Republican brand, some of them are beginning to see some daylight between what it means to be a conservative Republican and blind allegiance to Trump.
I am a not a Socialist, but if making obviously needed reform to the playing field to control the influence of corporate and the highly affluent's ability to tip the scales in their favor at our expense is considered Socialism, then I am a Socialist. Touching the machinery of Capitalism in this culture is like touching the eyeball of Jehovah, himself.
I therefore stand with Liz Warren and Bennie Sanders as people that are addressing themselves to the issues that are paramount in our time. I am not about identity politics, but support the people that address the issues that I am concerned about and have the courage, experience and track record to be credible in their assault. Neither Booker nor Harris gave me such assurances, so there no race card. I want results, not just another beauty contest. I don't see Mayor Pete as having the experience nor earnest desire to attack the adversary rather than be absorbed or assimilated into the collective.
The others are too moderate, committing to returning to an Ante-Trump environment which is really not moving the ball down the court at all. Getting rid of Trump is the prime directive, but I would like to think that we can change course and move in a decisive direction away from Trump and Republican ideas, which allowed someone like Trump to get as far as he has in the first place.
"My side" is being a realist, and being for the working stiffs of America.
"My side" has always been weighing the options and trying to choose the right/best one.
Have you ever voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate?
I have voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my lifetime.
But times have changed, the Democratic Party has substantially changed, and my needs have changed.
My perspective is not frozen in the 1960s or 1970s or any other period of time.
The Democrats once championed the American Middle Class, worker's rights, Unions, etc.
Just as the Republicans were once the party of the millionaires and billionaires, the Business owners and Investors.
What do the Democrats champion today? Open borders and universal healthcare (which would come at a cost of massive tax increases on all who work for a living)?
Extreme 'minority' rights (cross dressing transgenders)… and in general, positions which deny economic and geopolitical realities?
The Republicans on the other hand, are becoming the 'Worker's Party' and the closed borders, America first, anti-war party. The I don't want "free" healthcare and "free" college, I just want to be left alone, and be able to keep as much of what I earn for myself, party.
Interestingly enough, the elites, from Hollywood to Wall St., are either entrenched in supporting the Democrats, or shifting that way. The Anti-Trump sentiment from Hollywood is the norm, the Billionaire boys club (IE Steyer, Bloomberg, Soros) and International Corporations wanting Trump gone is a new and potentially powerful alliance for the Democrats.
Biden being the Democrat's front runner is just more proof that the worst of the worst is the power behind the DNC right now, and it seems a coalition even more corrupt than what was behind Clinton 4 years ago.Sorry, Ken, yeah, we have been "stiffed" alright and it has not benefitted workers.
From my perspective, times have never really changed but our eternal adversaries have simply changed their tactics. For example, remove the white robes in favor of Brooks Brothers suits and gucci's. So, I need fundamental change to how this economic and political system of ours works, I won't be satisfied until I see this, so I work toward this goal in all earnest.
The GOP are STILL the party of millionaires and billionaires.
As for the health care, what is the GOP solution except to resist the most modest suggestions in reforming a system that has not worked?
Do you assume that the rest of us are not capable of looking at the big picture? I never voted Republican because they NEVER represented what I considered a nation moving in the appropriate path. Nixon was about as moderate as they came, but his relative level of moderation and reasonableness has long been relegated to the dust pan of history as far as the GOP is concerned.
Economic and political reality sometimes is nothing more what people tell you that they are. That is how the status quo manages to perpetuate itself, has that not always been the explanation for no change advocates of the current as those least likely to benefit?
So, the economy and ones ability to achieve within it is as simple as something you pick up in a McGuffey reader?
Why isn't Trump part of the billionaire's club as he is one of the more loathsome of their number?
I certainly would like to see the populist anti-establishment wing of our party prevail.Good overall post, you drove home your points well, I appreciate it, I may not come from the same background but when you articulate your perspective so well, it makes it easy fro me to understand your POV.
Trump is NOT the establishment, he is not someone who made himself worth a hundred million dollars or more during his 30+ years in D.C.
He may be a lot of things you don't like, but he is not the one that has lorderd over American policy and created trade agreements that crushed the middle class.
And despite what lies they are peddling in the news, he is a primary reason why the economy is doing as well as it is, which has made him plenty of enemies. There are a lot of factions, from China to our own Democrats, that want him to fail, and our economy to fail under his leadership.
BUT - I would love, just like you, to have an anti-establishment candidate emerge out of the Democrats. Yang, Warren, even Gabbard or some combination there-of... but not Biden. If it is Biden he is worse than Trump for this country and the very causes you believe so deeply in.
Just because he has a (D) beside his name, does not mean he shares your values or will promote your interests. He will merely continue the worst of what D.C. has offered us the last 30 years.
I am genuinely curious about this:
".... the worst of the worst is the power behind the DNC right now, and it seems a coalition even more corrupt than what was behind Clinton 4 years ago."
Who.is this coalition and what are they doing that is corrupt? I have seen you and others make this assertion often enough now that I would genuinely like to know. What evidence do you have of this corruption and what, specifically is this "coalition" doing to make Biden the frontrummer?
Trump used poor judgement? And what did Democrats do with their exhibition of probably the worst case of partisanship in the history of the country? With their impeachment process blocking the other party from any real contribution, and going ahead knowing they would get zero Republican votes and that he will never be removed by the Senate?
I'd have to call that the ultimate in poor judgement...and exactly the sort of thing that got Trump elected.
So says a man who wears Trump blinders. The demos followed the Constitution. McConnell is the one who declared that his mind was made up and there would be no witnesses. Then The Donald declared that the "Democrats were denying him the right to witnesses."
To top it off, many Republicans are pissed at the vicious and totally insane attack Trump made on Representative Debbie Dingell. His chickens are coming home to roost. If Trump had quieted down and started to act like a decent man as president, I doubt that the impeachment would have taken place."The demos followed the Constitution."
By attempting to dictate how the Senate shall conduct it's lawful business? They're mad at Trump for "obstructing Congress", and now they not only obstruct but shut down legal, constitutional, Senate business and you call it "Constitutional"?
I'm not following the logic here.
Trump won't be impeached. But it's not the process that counts but the public opinion. Many voters who voted for Trump will do so again, even knowing that he is misusing his power (The Grab them by the pussy talk showed how he is using his power position to mistreat women, just like Weinstein and Trump's friend Epstein.)
Although it's hard for me to look inside the American society, I don't think Trump will win a second election. He played his part to stir up things and get a tax cut for the rich through, but he has lost it's appeal to the powers that be.
First my bet was on Bidden, although I don't like him. But it could well be that Warren will win the race. Although (in my point of view) Americans are conservative they also like changes and want to show the world that they are a liberated and free country.
That's why it could well be that the US is going for a female president as a contrast to the macho alpha male president of today. The US is full of extremes to me, so I won't be surprised if Warren beats Trump in 2020.Just my opinion, short and sweet... Trump will be reelected in 2020, he will most likely continue to solve problems and walk away in four years as one of the most controversial presidents in our history, but the best we have ever had in regards to accomplishments. the country will continue to be divided, dug in. And if the Dems don't just pick up their marbles and move on they won't see the inside of the WH for decades.
Oh Obi wan, tell us more!
Wishful thinkin' on your part, Shar.Guess we will wait and see. I have been pretty right on with most of my predictions. Hey, maybe I am psychic? Or just use common sense.
Randy, this impeachment is the final nail for the Dems. Hey, it's not your fault, but it just may be time to start demanding your party stop all the crazy.I'm very proud of my party, Shar. They're doing their duty to rid this country of a criminal who will no doubt not learn his lesson and do even more unethical things.
Meanwhile, your party is trying to turn a blind eye from Trump's attacks on honorable people doing the right thing. Be proud...Mitch could easily end it by calling Bolton, Pompeo,Mulcaney, and Giuliani to testify under oath and clear Trump of all of the baseless charges.
That would make the Democrats look.like idiots.Why won't he do it?I've asked several Trumpsters that same question, Sandy. Most of them do not want these witnesses to appear for some strange reason.
No need to call anyone. The Democrats already look like idiots, and there is no need to prove innocence as it is assumed without proof to the contrary.
The latest from Mitch he claims he hopes to have a hearing, and see what the Dem's want to present, and he claimed he will call witnesses if the witnesses have something factual to offer?
On this one I agree with you we need to call some that were in the room when the call was made, and get first-hand info. It will not sit well with me if witnesses from both sides are not called.
I hope once and for all the mysteries are solved, outed.
No gm, because the people that voted for Trump have a life and are level-headed; they aren't bitter, rioting, property-destroying, foul-mouthed indoctrinated brats.
Perhaps I responded emotionally, came on a bit too strong.
I do realize that not everyone that voted for Hillary, acts in this manner.
I will say I was shocked and concerned when I saw the altercation at a Schiff event. Conservatives don't often protest like the left does.
I see no escalation of hostilities due to the circus in the House. It's over. Partisan politics has put itself on full display and is
I'd hope they grow up now and do the job they are paid to do. I'm getting a good laugh at the democrats thinking their bs behavior during the impeachment will be put up with in the Senate.
The democrats have damaged their brand. Possibly irreversibly.So many people do not understand impeachement... it is a charge. It is not a removal from office... the Senate has to verify the charge
Have you been paying attention to anything. Impeachment is not a conviction. It moves to the Senate now and they don't have to wait for Pelosi. Jus t so Robert's or even judge Thomson sit down with them they can move forward. They can say let's make a Court case out of it or dismiss the Articles of Impeachment.
Thank you Leland,
No he has not been found guilty by the Senate.
If the process is allowed to go forward by the House, they know the Republicans in the Senate could call forth Hunter & Joe Biden, they could call forth Comey or Brennan or Clinton, they will have the ability to expose a level of corruption and criminal activity that clearly half of America does not believe has occurred despite the evidence being fairly plain to see.
Of course, this is politics, and there is corruption on both sides of the aisle, I am sure there are plenty of Republicans that do not want to have too much exposed for fear of retribution. And I am sure there are those willing to sell out if their price is met, so how much is going to be brought to light in their hearings remains to be seen.
The reason the Democrats will not send it to the Senate is the possibility of so much criminal activity being exposed. Unless they can come to terms with the Republican leadership in the Senate to avoid that exposure, the Democrats' efforts may be to ensure all the criminal activities of Clinton and Biden (and however many others) be swept under the rug. In return, Trump is given a pass and this Impeachment effort is nullified... welcome to politics in D.C. ... where deals are made so all the criminals protect one another's actions.
This is what I expect to occur. If they do a real investigation, Hunter and Joe Biden, Clinton and Brennan will be exposed as the corrupt traitors to the nation that they are, and labeled as such... that would be a true turn of events and proof that Trump's election did indeed result in a draining of the swamp.Ken, I wish that the GOP Senate do call in Biden and his son or whoever they need to support the fact that Trump acted appropriately in this matter. Let the American people see all the facts and judge for themselves. So,the proceedings should be televised. And, I expect them to conduct this all in a credible fashion, Trump does not get a Carte Blanche.
And, I insist that the GOP allow witnesses to be called from every angle and perspective so that this session does not deteriorate into just another sh@t show. Trump is not going to be absolved by a GOP Senate determined to find him blameless before considering all of the evidence.
Oh, BTW, Happy Holidays..."And, I insist that the GOP allow witnesses to be called from every angle and perspective so that this session does not deteriorate into just another sh@t show."
Are you sure? The Democrats have designed the methodology when Republicans could not call anyone and all those called claimed guilt; should the GOP not stick to it and only allow witness of their choice that further their agenda of proving innocence?
Isn't that how it should work? Once it has been decided how things should be done, how it should proceed, shouldn't everyone be on the same page and follow the agenda?
Or is the Senate truly a separate branch of our government, not subject to rules the House decides for itself, and responsible for setting it's own agenda and methodology of getting there? Pelosi be damned - should the Senate ignore her demands that she design the trial and design it themselves as they are supposed to?I am with you in regard to any unfair tactics denying Trump and his advocates a fair opportunity to defend against charges in the impeachment proceedings. I accede to your point of view, at least this time, that we want to get at the truth and not have lockstep partisanship from EITHER side continue to conceal it.
The Senate has its own procedures and methodology, but let's get it all on TV, so we can all see how reasonable it is.
My thoughts about the man and his rights to a fair hearing are separate issues. Without a "clean" process, there will be continuing doubt among the public, interfering with the role of proper governance by Congress and their delay of their doing what they were sent there for, addressing the "people's" business.
Happy Holidays to you Credence2 & your wife, God bless.
Hope you enjoyed the holidays Credence,
In regards to the Impeachment that transpired in the House, I believe Ken Starr has an excellent view of what transpired and what is transpiring currently. This is his interview on the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy7B61vnf-8
I think his views are a good summary for how I see it. The focus of the country could be better put on other things,
That sure sounds like two wrongs making a right. I am toying with the idea that the witness 'decision' should be the White House Counsel's to make.
The Democrats have 'made' their case in the form of their impeachment articles. If the trial follows the procedural form of the Democrats' investigation and charging process, shouldn't the White House Counsel be allowed to use the same procedures and processes to make their choice of how to defend against the charges?
GAIn other words, no new evidence in the form of documents or witnesses. A POTUS can run out the clock rather than keeping his oath of office by stonewalling all subpoenas. You do realize Trump has never asserted his Executive Privilege, right?. Simply said no to all new witnesses or documents.
Somehow I don't think the Founding Fathers had this in mind, Gus.In other words? Do I need "other words"? I thought my words were fairly clear.
To adopt your logic would be asking for the Republicans to do the Democrats' job for them. If the defense doesn't want to call witnesses, what is your logic for demanding that they do? If the Democrats need more witnesses to make their case, how do you support their impeachment vote with less than complete information?
Don't you have faith in their impeachment investigation?
GAI thought that the House impeachment was similar to a grand jury indictment, where evidence is presented and reviewed to determine if there is enough evidence that a crime was committed to warrant a trial. The impeachment is the indictment and the Senate conducts the trial to determine guilt or innocence.
Is this incoorrect? You sound like you believe the House must determine guikt. If that is the case, what is the role of the Senate?I think your Grand Jury analogy is a fair one. It places the House in the position of the prosecutor, which is who decides guilt.
The prosecutor has determined guilt, which is the reason charges are made. It is the trial that affirms or denies that guilt. It is not the trial's job to present proof either way, but only to set rules and make a judgment on the 'proof' presented to it.
In this case, the trial is a political process with procedural rules determined by political motives. And it is that this point that your Grand Jury analogy fails to be a valid one. In a legal process, there are judicial rules and norms. In a political process, the rules are changeable and the only norm is that Might Makes Right.
At least, (as I continue to "toy with the idea"), that is how I see it now as I work my way to a firm opinion.
GAWhich brings up the question of guilt; is guilt, or right/wrong, true/false even applicable when it is a political process rather than a legal one?
More and more the answer appears to be "No". The House set it up that way and the Senate (at this point) is continuing the exercise in political will and power vs truth and guilt.I get your point, however, I think the determination of guilt is applicable because it will also be judged in the eyes of the public. I think that is why the politicians make such efforts as they do to sell it to the public.
On second thought, maybe I should have qualified that thought with 'the perception' of guilt is applicable. ;-)
GA
I think this is an excellent summary. And it lends to the perception that the abuse of power, and the obstruction even, has come from the House Democrats.
There obviously would be no impeachment, if the Democrats did not hold the majority in the House, this is purely a 'Might Makes Right' effort, it is purely a partisan effort, ill founded on opinions, not facts that could be proven in court.
This is D.C. politics, nothing more, it is why so many in our country despise Congress, on top of their corruption, they waste away months of time on these power struggles that does nothing to advance the interests of Americans... only the interests of those politicians in their quest for power and control.
The Senate can, and should, turn this into an opportunity to investigate Biden and Clinton's activities in the Ukraine, since this is what the Impeachment is founded on, the efforts of Trump to find out the truth regarding the accusations of corrupt dealings between those parties and parties in the Ukraine.
That would be an interesting turn of events, not likely, but it would sure turn the tables on the Democrats who have worked so hard to bury it all.But, Ken, Bill Clinton would not have been impeached if the GOP were not in control of the "House".
How about acknowledging the problem presented by BOTH SIDES?
Ok, we will investigate Biden and Clinton, but we will not leave out Trump and his role in all of this.I'd rather see what Bolton and others, as well as, the subpoenaed documents say. But then, I'm after the truth. I also don't care if Hunter Biden testifies, but the WB is off limits. Besides, what he/she claimed has already been proven.
No, GA, you were right about determination of guilt. The best byproduct of impeachment so far has been devout Christians who have written about how the evangelical support of Trump has hurt the church's witness. It is way past time for this to be said and for the good people of America to come to their senses.
We have had a government, politicians, the entity of D.C., which was not in any way under the control of the people. For decades now.
Americans didn't want unending war with Afghanistan (Iraq, Syria, etc.) but we have had it for two decades running.
Americans didn't want the ACA, that monstrosity may have made the Insurance companies richer, as well as other medical related industries, but it hurt the vast majority of Americans, and if not for Trump, Americans that could not afford insurance would be paying a tax for not having it.
Our governing body has ignored China as it became the world's most dominant economic power, the world's leading technologically advanced nation, at the expense of our national security, and tens of millions of American jobs... for thirty years China grew powerful while America was hollowed out, and every politician that has been sitting in D.C. for the last 30 years has been a willing part of that.
Many of those politicians, like the Clintons, have been receiving donations in a variety of forms from China via Chinese businessmen to the tune of many millions of dollars over the years. Our politicians have been for sale, many becoming worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the corruption has become terminal to America's long term interests.
Until Trump there has been no challenge to China's undeclared economic war on America, nor has there been anyone willing to put a spotlight on the corrupt activities of the likes of Biden, Clinton and others.
Throughout history, it has taken "deplorable" personalities to get the necessary jobs done which no ordinary and well mannered individuals could accomplish. Whether it was a George Patton or Andrew Johnson.
Andrew Johnson was Impeached for acting to save the Republic, and to curb the more eccentric radicals in D.C. in his time.
The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications, the result was maintaining the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office.
We can see that level of civil and intellectual discourse and reasoning is absent in the House, we will see if the Senate can maintain its composure, or if it will allow the tail to wag it along a darker road.I don't know, Ken, how can you compare General Patton and Andrew Johnson as exemplary individuals?
I had no problems with Patton and his style. But you are mistaken if you regard Andrew Johnson as a hero and savior of the republic.
He was the deplorable successor to a great man. How was Andrew Johnson acting to save the republic? He and his policies were intent on undoing outcome of the Civil War and that of Lincoln's hard earned legacy of bringing the union together in its aftermath. The Radical Republicans at the time was not about to allow this man to nullify all the effort and bloodshed of the previous 4 years.
If you think that there was anything great about Andrew Johnson, then we have a lot less in common than I thought.
His impeachment like those of Clinton and as you say, Trump's may well be partisan. Regardless, there is not a historian alive that could regard Andrew Johnson as any more than one of our worst presidents.Understandable, the 'textbook' teachings of Andrew Johnson are not favorable, and do not take into account the realities of that time.
I know you and I have different views on a great many things, not the least of which is what the real history of our country, and its leaders were.
For instance, I think back on the discussion we had about Woodrow Wilson, which you believe was one of our best Presidents, and I see him as our absolute worst, a traitor to our nation, and as racist a man as ever sat in the office. You don't see it that way, and that is not how the 'textbooks' describe him.
Andrew Johnson was the owner of five slaves before the Civil War, but Johnson was a foe of large planters, who he described as a "bloated, corrupted aristocracy."
He was a fervent believer in states rights and was a strong defender of the Union. He was the only Senator from a seceding state to remain at his post in 1861, and when Union forces occupied Tennessee, Abraham Lincoln named him military governor.
Those were complicated times, the North having won the war, wanted to punish and demean the southern states in ways that would have led to future upheaval and conflicts, it could have been as if the south were occupied territories if the radical elements had been allowed their way.
Johnson's decisions while unpopular with many then, and reconstructed by today's sensitivities and rewritten history to appear as spiteful towards ex-slaves is not so.
Johnson forgave and brought the states back into the Union, he offered a pardon to all white Southerners except Confederate leaders and wealthy planters, and authorized them to create new governments.
It was the States, and their leaders, which made things so restrictive to non whites. The Black Codes were laws passed in 1865 and 1866 by Southern states to restrict African Americans.
'Radical' Republicans increasingly fought to take control from the southern states after 1866, they supported federal civil rights for freedmen, which Johnson opposed. By 1867, they defined terms for suffrage for freed slaves and limited early suffrage for many ex-Confederates.
Johnson essentially enacted the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction which was Lincoln’s plan to reintegrate the Confederate states back into the Union.
Republicans had rejected Lincoln’s plan and instead passed the more stringent Wade-Davis Bill. Lincoln pocket vetoed this bill.
President Johnson proved to be an obstacle to the 'Radical' Republicans in Congress, who attempted to completely overhaul the Southern government and economy.
When taken in full context, trying to understand the times and the dire economic situation in the southern states at that time, while Johnson today is considered a villian by most, he took the path that was necessary to save both the sovereignty and rights of the southern states, and the Union as a whole.
Or, we'll see if the Senate truly wants a fair trial for all concerned, Ken. I doubt you do....
Related Discussions
- 767
Biden hasn't won and will not!
by Kenna McHugh 4 years ago
Have you noticed that Trump supporters are not rioting? Why is that? From a friend: Copied and pasted - info from some of the lawyers from my group: Ok in a nutshell. This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country...
- 23
The non-impeachment of President Trump
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 48
Would The Current Senate Impeach President Trump
by Sharlee 5 years ago
Would the current Senate vote to Impeach President Trump? I would like to hear your thoughts, please share.
- 66
Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.
by jeff61b 4 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...
- 92
Kamala Harris will win 2024 Election
by Ken Burgess 2 months ago
Prior to the Debate... and then Assassination attempt... and then Biden stepping down...My evaluation of how things were trending weeks ago led me to believe that (fair election or not) the Democrats were going to win the election... as I have often noted on here before:Women make up 52% or more of...