Will House Dems impeach Trump?

vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
They're finagling and noodling even as we speak.

They have the votes - it just takes a majority to impeach and they don't really need to have anything legitimate. They can impeach for literally any reason. But there are a couple of problems:

#1, it will get kicked out in the Senate and they know that. Impeachment doesn't mean a hill of sh*t - Bill Clinton taught us that, in case we didn't already know. They need 2/3 of the Senate to convict and they aren't going to get that. The howling bots think that impeachment means removal from office, and they will bust the place up when it doesn't.

#2, there are a number of House Democrats who are on shaky ground. They barely won their district in a state that went for Trump overwhelmingly. If they vote to impeach, they'll likely be out of a job come election time and then there goes all that yummy graft money.

Nancy knows the score but she's old and may not give a **** at this point. It must be stressful herding the cats and constantly massaging the media, and she could certainly retire and live high on the hog for the rest of her days. We know she has no life outside of politics, but she'd be in big demand as an "elder statesman" and could pad her already enormous bank account with speeches and public appearances.

Now she's stuck - damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. She should push for the vote, get the impeachment on the books, then immediately announce her retirement. That's her only way out of this while saving some face.
 
gemma_rae

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
It must be stressful herding the cats and constantly massaging the media, and she could certainly retire and live high on the hog for the rest of her days. We know she has no life outside of politics, but she'd be in big demand as an "elder statesman" and could pad her already enormous bank account with speeches and public appearances.
Click to expand...
I wonder if she has anything exculpatory to say for herself?
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
They're finagling and noodling even as we speak.
Click to expand...

they would be stupid to

  1. Senators get pulled of the campaign trail, giving others a huge margin
  2. the Senate gets to call witnesses - including Schiff and the Whistle Blower .... then we can get to the bottom of what really went on
  3. the Senate will not be convicting Trump
  4. Dem Senators do not get to directly as any questions, so no sound bites for the news or campaign trail of them acting all edgy and tough during the hearings - the only thing they get is the Sergeant at Arms asking there question
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
GURPS said:
they would be stupid to

the Senate gets to call witnesses - including Schiff and the Whistle Blower .... then we can get to the bottom of what really went on
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

During the Clinton trial, no witnesses were called. Each side (the House managers and Clinton's defense team) had their turn to present their arguments. After that, senators were allowed to ask questions of the House managers and/or Clinton's defense team; however, the questions had to be submitted to and read by William Rehnquist to the person being questioned.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
awpitt said:
Not necessarily.

During the Clinton trial, no witnesses were called. Each side (the House managers and Clinton's defense team) had their turn to present their arguments. After that, senators were allowed to ask questions of the House managers and/or Clinton's defense team; however, the questions had to be submitted to and read by William Rehnquist to the person being questioned.
Click to expand...

You're sane - I'm curious what you think of this? Think they should go ahead and impeach?
 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I'm in favor.

Treat it like the Harry Reid Rule in the Senate and use it at the next elected Democrat! :yahoo:

Start the Impeachment the day after election day.
 
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
They will certainly vote to impeachment. There is more than enough evidence on Obstruction of Justice alone.

"Nancy knows the score but she's old and may not give a **** at this point. It must be stressful herding the cats and constantly massaging the media, and she could certainly retire and live high on the hog for the rest of her days. We know she has no life outside of politics, but she'd be in big demand as an "elder statesman" and could pad her already enormous bank account with speeches and public appearances."

You could say the same about Mcconell or Mcarthy or Graham.

At least Nancy's money came from her husband not the shady crap those two have been up to brown nosing Trump.

Let's recall what Lindsay thought about Trump prior to the election:

"During the 2016 campaign, Graham had called Trump a “nutjob” and a loser,” as well as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.” He predicted that if the GOP nominated him, “we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”

And McCarthy:

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia"


These members of the GOP would eat their young if it meant saving their seats. That is all they care about.

As soon as the polling turns and they believe Trump won't win reelection they will abandon him and pretend they never supported him
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Stjohns3269 said:
They will certainly vote to impeachment. There is more than enough evidence on Obstruction of Justice alone.

"Nancy knows the score but she's old and may not give a **** at this point. It must be stressful herding the cats and constantly massaging the media, and she could certainly retire and live high on the hog for the rest of her days. We know she has no life outside of politics, but she'd be in big demand as an "elder statesman" and could pad her already enormous bank account with speeches and public appearances."

You could say the same about Mcconell or Mcarthy or Graham.

At least Nancy's money came from her husband not the shady crap those two have been up to brown nosing Trump.

Let's recall what Lindsay thought about Trump prior to the election:

"During the 2016 campaign, Graham had called Trump a “nutjob” and a loser,” as well as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.” He predicted that if the GOP nominated him, “we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”

And McCarthy:

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia"


These members of the GOP would eat their young if it meant saving their seats. That is all they care about.

As soon as the polling turns and they believe Trump won't win reelection they will abandon him and pretend they never supported him
Click to expand...
:killingme
 
Toxick

Toxick

Splat
Stjohns3269 said:
They will certainly vote to impeachment.
Click to expand...


Yes they will.


At which point it goes to the Senate.

Where Republicans will drag out the process through the election cycle, effectively removing .... what? 7 - 8 Democratic senators with Presidential aspirations ... OUT of the running while Mitch McConnell slurs through his wattle making sure the process doesn't end until at least November 4th when it will be promptly squashed with ease.

Then we can listen to you guys bitch and complain that Trump is unfairly president again because the impeachment was not done right.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Stjohns3269 said:
They will certainly vote to impeachment. There is more than enough evidence on Obstruction of Justice alone.
Click to expand...
So, what do we know?

We know there's no possible way to prove obstruction in a court of law because you have no intent and no way to prove intent.

We know that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process, so having no legal case is not the impediment.

So, for a political process we must convince the public that Trump was trying to impede the investigation into his campaign to thwart justice. To be able to do that, we need to show he, his family, or his campaign were involved with the Russian attempt at disrupting our election. The problem here is that the investigation Trump allegedly would have been trying to obstruct shows that no American was involved. The logic would therefore have to be that he was trying to stop the investigation that would show he did nothing wrong.


Sorry, I just don't see what case you are making. This became official on a strictly party-line vote with bipartisan opposition. It's never going to look like anything but a partisan attempt to oust a duly elected president.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Stjohns3269 said:
They will certainly vote to impeachment. There is more than enough evidence on Obstruction of Justice alone.
Click to expand...

Be Specific WHAT Obstruction .....

Fantasy Supposition and Opinion

You are delusional ....


Stjohns3269 said:
As soon as the polling turns and they believe Trump won't win reelection they will abandon him and pretend they never supported him
Click to expand...

Trump WILL BE Re-Elected and Appoint a Replacement for RGB


What is falling is SUPPORT for Impeachment .... Schiff WHO SUPPOSEDLY HAS ALL THIS EVIDENCE suddenly has to ' check with his constituents ' to see if he should move forward with impeachment
 
Last edited:
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
This_person said:
So, what do we know?

We know there's no possible way to prove obstruction in a court of law because you have no intent and no way to prove intent.

We know that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process, so having no legal case is not the impediment.

So, for a political process we must convince the public that Trump was trying to impede the investigation into his campaign to thwart justice. To be able to do that, we need to show he, his family, or his campaign were involved with the Russian attempt at disrupting our election. The problem here is that the investigation Trump allegedly would have been trying to obstruct shows that no American was involved. The logic would therefore have to be that he was trying to stop the investigation that would show he did nothing wrong.


Sorry, I just don't see what case you are making. This became official on a strictly party-line vote with bipartisan opposition. It's never going to look like anything but a partisan attempt to oust a duly elected president.
Click to expand...

Refusing to provide documents and instructing your employs to ignore subpoenas is obstruction of justice. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

To your last point you could say that of any impeachment effort in that case.

however in the case we have multiple witnesses to prove intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top