Trump Impeachment Inquiry

Should President Trump Be Impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 62.8%
  • No

    Votes: 9 11.5%
  • Undecided and awaiting evidence before making a decision

    Votes: 5 6.4%
  • Hillary Did it

    Votes: 9 11.5%
  • It Should be Left to the Election

    Votes: 5 6.4%
  • Get over it!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rudy Giuliani Did it

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Total voters
    78

Green Demon

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
1,455
Points
113

Richard Spencer: I was fired as Navy secretary. Here’s what I’ve learned because of it.


Richard Spencer is the former secretary of the Navy.

The case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was charged with multiple war crimes before being convicted of a single lesser charge earlier this year, was troubling enough before things became even more troubling over the past few weeks. The trail of events that led to me being fired as secretary of the Navy is marked with lessons for me and for the nation.

It is highly irregular for a secretary to become deeply involved in most personnel matters. Normally, military justice works best when senior leadership stays far away. A system that prevents command influence is what separates our armed forces from others. Our system of military justice has helped build the world’s most powerful navy; good leaders get promoted, bad ones get moved out, and criminals are punished.

In combat zones, the stakes are even higher. We train our forces to be both disciplined and lethal. We strive to use proportional force, protect civilians and treat detainees fairly. Ethical conduct is what sets our military apart. I have believed that every day since joining the Marine Corps in 1976.

We are effective overseas not because we have the best equipment but because we are professionals. Our troops are held to the highest standards. We expect those who lead our forces to exercise excellent judgment. The soldiers and sailors they lead must be able to count on that.

Earlier this year, Gallagher was formally charged with more than a dozen criminal acts, including premeditated murder, which occurred during his eighth deployment overseas. He was tried in a military court in San Diego and acquitted in July of all charges, except one count of wrongfully posing for photographs with the body of a dead Islamic State fighter. The jury sentenced him to four months, the maximum possible; because he had served that amount of time waiting for trial, he was released.

President Trump involved himself in the case almost from the start. Before the trial began, in March, I received two calls from the president asking me to lift Gallagher’s confinement in a Navy brig; I pushed back twice, because the presiding judge, acting on information about the accused’s conduct, had decided that confinement was important. Eventually, the president ordered me to have him transferred to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks. I came to believe that Trump’s interest in the case stemmed partly from the way the defendant’s lawyers and others had worked to keep it front and center in the media.

After the verdict was delivered, the Navy’s normal process wasn’t finished. Gallagher had voluntarily submitted his request to retire. In his case, there were three questions: Would he be permitted to retire at the rank of chief, which is also known as an E-7? (The jury had said he should be busted to an E-6, a demotion.) The second was: Should he be allowed to leave the service with an “honorable” or “general under honorable” discharge? And a third: Should he be able to keep his Trident pin, the medal all SEALs wear and treasure as members of an elite force?

On Nov. 14, partly because the president had already contacted me twice, I sent him a note asking him not to get involved in these questions. The next day, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called me and said the president would remain involved. Shortly thereafter, I received a second call from Cipollone, who said the president would order me to restore Gallagher to the rank of chief.

This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.

Given my desire to resolve a festering issue, I tried to find a way that would prevent the president from further involvement while trying all avenues to get Gallagher’s file in front of a peer-review board. Why? The Naval Special Warfare community owns the Trident pin, not the secretary of the Navy, not the defense secretary, not even the president. If the review board concluded that Gallagher deserved to keep it, so be it.

I also began to work without personally consulting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on every step. That was, I see in retrospect, a mistake for which I am solely responsible.

On Nov. 19, I briefed Esper’s chief of staff concerning my plan. I briefed acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that evening.

The next day, the Navy established a review board to decide the status of Gallagher’s Trident pin. According to long-standing procedure, a group of four senior enlisted SEALs would rule on the question. This was critical: It would be Gallagher’s peers managing their own community. The senior enlisted ranks in our services are the foundation of good order and discipline.

But the question was quickly made moot: On Nov. 21, the president tweeted that Gallagher would be allowed to keep his pin — Trump’s third intervention in the case. I recognized that the tweet revealed the president’s intent. But I did not believe it to be an official order, chiefly because every action taken by the president in the case so far had either been a verbal or written command.

The rest is history. We must now move on and learn from what has transpired. The public should know that we have extensive screening procedures in place to assess the health and well-being of our forces. But we must keep fine-tuning those procedures to prevent a case such as this one from happening again.

More importantly, Americans need to know that 99.9 percent of our uniformed members always have, always are and always will make the right decision. Our allies need to know that we remain a force for good, and to please bear with us as we move through this moment in time.
 

Phills14

Cleveland Sports Fan
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
10,676
Reaction score
13,299
Points
123
"This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices."

wow
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,070
Reaction score
6,679
Points
113
The report makes it clear. Time for impeachment to move forward. Will anything happen to change the minds of the complicit GOP? Time will tell but at the moment it seems unlikely.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
4,690
Reaction score
2,805
Points
113
The report makes it clear. Time for impeachment to move forward. Will anything happen to change the minds of the complicit GOP? Time will tell but at the moment it seems unlikely.
It is pretty clear to those who are in favor of it. I am interested in the next stage, as they make the case for why it is impeachment worthy. There definitely is some cringe worth stuff though, that is not acceptable for a president to be doing.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,070
Reaction score
6,679
Points
113
It is pretty clear to those who are in favor of it.
It makes it clear to anyone willing to look at the report, not simply those already in favor. Whether a person is willing to accept reality is their own prerogative.

I am interested in the next stage, as they make the case for why it is impeachment worthy. There definitely is some cringe worth stuff though, that is not acceptable for a president to be doing.
Where do you stand based on the evidence? If something isn't acceptable from a president, what can/should be done about that? What does "impeachment worthy" mean to you?

I think pressing a foreign government to help you win an election is impeachment worthy. I think using the office of the president, including a scheme to bribe/extort that foreign government with presidential power, is unquestionably impeachment worthy. And I think explicitly obstructing the oversight powers of congress to cover up this corruption is impeachment worthy.
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
13,842
Reaction score
18,444
Points
123
It is pretty clear to those who are in favor of it. I am interested in the next stage, as they make the case for why it is impeachment worthy. There definitely is some cringe worth stuff though, that is not acceptable for a president to be doing.
Do you think he'll ever stop trying to do shady things?

How does the GOP send a message to him to stop acting like a mob boss?
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,070
Reaction score
6,679
Points
113
Pelosi has announced that they will in fact draft articles of impeachment. This has felt inevitable for a while, but it is frankly sad that the GOP has basically no vocal dissent among them when the evidence is so overwhelming. They've decided this has to be a partisan process because they aren't scared enough of the polling to jump ship from an obviously criminal administration.

The behavior of GOP representatives in the proceedings has been absolutely repugnant.

They complain about the lack of fairness in the process while the President refuses to cooperate with oversight completely.
They complain about a lack of due process when the White House won't send counsel upon invitation.
They complain erroneously that Schiff was involved with the Whistleblower while their ranking member was IN ON THE SCHEME.
They complain that the Whistleblower doesn't know anything and then complain when they don't hear from the oh so important Whistleblower, all without mentioning that they've been threatened by the President himself.
They complain about the enforcement of rules when they knowingly break them as a stunt.
They complain to scholars that they aren't fact witnesses.
They complain to fact witnesses that they don't know enough.
They complain about lack of direct evidence without acknowledging that it's being blocked illegally by the president.

They have tried desperately to paint the process as partisan, boring, empty, corrupt, a waste, a scam, a sham, a COUP. Ah yes, one of those coups that takes months of bureaucracy, the couped leader's party gets equal time for questioning, and the trial is run by the party of the leader. But it hasn't really worked. The polling still overwhelmingly favors the process and a majority of the American people want Trump impeached.



Schiff's report lays it out clearly what the president did, and every aspect is backed up by the available evidence and testimony. Meanwhile, mountains of evidence and a slew of relevant depositions are blocked by the White House, how innocent of them.

I truly hope that if the GOP never breaks and stands by this shitshow president that they pay the price in November 2020, but there's no guarantee of justice in our electoral system. It is quite likely that the president could be acquitted and re-elected in a compromised election. What kind of Democracy, or Republic even, do we have left at that point? We basically already know now that a president serves as a King so long as they have a complicit ruling Party in either House.

And while we could talk for days about the faults of the Democratic Party, especially the actions of its various corrupt members, I truly could not see the current makeup of the party ever trying to pull shit this extreme. This is not a both sides problem, this is not even simply a polarization problem, we have one party that is simply put, corrupt.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,070
Reaction score
6,679
Points
113
Oh by the way Rudy is back in Ukraine continuing the scheme to get investigations into Biden. And the Pentagon confirmed that another $35 million in aid to Ukraine is still being withheld. Continues to be very legal and very cool what they're doing while denying they've done anything...


 

BigErieCavsFan

Old man
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
2,252
Points
113
I was going to say this Monday night when I went through the 300 page report. (which could have been <100, lot of repetition). I was initially disappointed that the Mueller report was hardly mentioned. I still think there is enough in that report to impeach and even criminally charge (after removal of course). I am glad to see that some of it now seems to be being considered. I really hope the final articles include a lot from the Mueller report. Between that and the Ukraine shit, it really should be a no brainer. Especially on obstruction of's...
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,070
Reaction score
6,679
Points
113
I was going to say this Monday night when I went through the 300 page report. (which could have been <100, lot of repetition). I was initially disappointed that the Mueller report was hardly mentioned. I still think there is enough in that report to impeach and even criminally charge (after removal of course). I am glad to see that some of it now seems to be being considered. I really hope the final articles include a lot from the Mueller report. Between that and the Ukraine shit, it really should be a no brainer. Especially on obstruction of's...
I think the Mueller report is being used as a basis of a repeating pattern, showing that Trump welcomed previous interference, and now we are seeing him orchestrate it.

The Mueller Report should have had more impact in general, but its findings were obfuscated by a corrupt DOJ and the GOP won the narrative war with a head start. Focusing on the clear Ukraine issue still makes the most sense to me. The more "extra" stuff you throw into the articles and the more people may see it as the Dems trying to see what sticks. It's stupid but the whole thing is about politics and public perception unfortunately.
 

BigErieCavsFan

Old man
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
2,252
Points
113
I still think the Mueller report could stand on its own. I believe and Mueller pretty much said it was the evidence to charge after his term was up. Wtf, if it's enough to charge how can it not be enough to impeach? It's definitely stupid that the whole thing is about politics and public perception.
 

Radio

Top