Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Impeach Trump

Recommended Posts

The latest season on Everyone’s favorite TV show was released a few hours ago. Just a Recap from past seasons. The dems failed to prevent Trump from gathering all the electoral college stones, completing the Presidency gauntlet, then he snapped away his competition as well as the dem majority in the Supreme Court. Later, they failed to beat him with their own “Russian Collusion” gauntlet. Well now Trump slipped up and now the dems are uniting for one last attack to right the wrongs that have been done. An official impeachment inquiry has been launched.

what do you predict future episodes will hold?

on a serious note. I haven’t done much research into the claims and so far only liberal media (redundant?) has picked up on it so obviously it all sounds terrible.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment didn't work out well for the republicans in the 90's. The democrats painted it as obstructionist, political games, etc. Granted, the country has vastly changed since the 90's but if the democrats aren't  careful, the republicans could do the same thing the democrats did in the 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Impeachment didn't work out well for the republicans in the 90's. The democrats painted it as obstructionist, political games, etc. Granted, the country has vastly changed since the 90's but if the democrats aren't  careful, the republicans could do the same thing the democrats did in the 90s.

I wonder.  Clinton wasn’t removed, but he was tarnished; and the country (barely) went for a Republican at the next election. The conventional wisdom seems to be that impeachment is bad for the party that caused the proceedings; but maybe it isn’t that clear-cut . . z

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with impeachment has always been that you need to get 2/3 of the Senate on board in order to actually remove the president. The Democrats do not have that. Even back when Andrew Johnson was impeached, one of the worst presidents our country ever had, the Radical Republicans, who controlled both the House and the Senate, couldn't get it done. Granted in that case President Johnson was only saved by one vote, but that was with all the cards stacked in the Republican's favor and they still couldn't pull it off. I agree with @MormonGator. I think this is going to backfire and could easily end up improving Trump's popularity. Whether or not that's enough to win him the election is another question, but it's not doing the Democrats any favors.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fether said:

The latest season on Everyone’s favorite TV show was released a few hours ago. Just a Recap from past seasons. The dems failed to prevent Trump from gathering all the electoral college stones, completing the Presidency gauntlet, then he snapped away his competition as well as the dem majority in the Supreme Court. Later, they failed to beat him with their own “Russian Collusion” gauntlet. Well now Trump slipped up and now the dems are uniting for one last attack to right the wrongs that have been done. An official impeachment inquiry has been launched.

what do you predict future episodes will hold?

on a serious note. I haven’t done much research into the claims and so far only liberal media (redundant?) has picked up on it so obviously it all sounds terrible.

Okay, let me correct some Fake News... if you google "impeachment inquiry", all the Fake News bubbles to the first 3 pages of the results and it's laughable.

The House Majority Leader cannot unilaterally "Launch an Impeachment Inquiry".  She doesn't have the authority.  An impeachment inquiry can only be launched by the full House.  The House has tried several times for the past 2 1/2 years to launch one for the Russian Collusion/Obstruction/etc. and failed to get the majority of the House Democrats, let alone the full House.  Therefore, Pelosi's announcement yesterday is not a government action, it was simply a political action to appease the Dem base and donors who are trying to unseat her due to her "inaction".   

So, my opinion on the matter - Pelosi is not anymore looking at winning the Presidency in 2020.  She's shoring up her base and collecting as much money as she can for the party... I'm thinking her sights are now on positioning or 2024 when they wouldn't have to contend with "Orange Man Bad".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let me correct some Fake News... if you google "impeachment inquiry", all the Fake News bubbles to the first 3 pages of the results and it's laughable.

The House Majority Leader cannot unilaterally "Launch an Impeachment Inquiry".  She doesn't have the authority.  An impeachment inquiry can only be launched by the full House.  The House has tried several times for the past 2 1/2 years to launch one for the Russian Collusion/Obstruction/etc. and failed to get the majority of the House Democrats, let alone the full House.  Therefore, Pelosi's announcement yesterday is not a government action, it was simply a political action to appease the Dem base and donors who are trying to unseat her due to her "inaction".   

So, my opinion on the matter - Pelosi is not anymore looking at winning the Presidency in 2020.  She's shoring up her base and collecting as much money as she can for the party... I'm thinking her sights are now on positioning or 2024 when they wouldn't have to contend with "Orange Man Bad".

 

The difference, as I understand it (and I may be wrong), is that previous attempts were made to vote on articles of impeachment without first voting to initiate an inquiry. Procedurally speaking, it's preferred to start with the inquiry so you can build the case for impeachment before drafting and voting on impeachment articles. That's the significant difference this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Godless said:

The difference, as I understand it (and I may be wrong), is that previous attempts were made to vote on articles of impeachment without first voting to initiate an inquiry. Procedurally speaking, it's preferred to start with the inquiry so you can build the case for impeachment before drafting and voting on impeachment articles. That's the significant difference this time around.

Doesn't matter.  The Speaker of the House cannot launch an impeachment inquiry.  So nothing Pelosi said yesterday makes a difference in the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let me correct some Fake News... if you google "impeachment inquiry", all the Fake News bubbles to the first 3 pages of the results and it's laughable.

The House Majority Leader cannot unilaterally "Launch an Impeachment Inquiry".  She doesn't have the authority.  An impeachment inquiry can only be launched by the full House.  The House has tried several times for the past 2 1/2 years to launch one for the Russian Collusion/Obstruction/etc. and failed to get the majority of the House Democrats, let alone the full House.  Therefore, Pelosi's announcement yesterday is not a government action, it was simply a political action to appease the Dem base and donors who are trying to unseat her due to her "inaction".   

So, my opinion on the matter - Pelosi is not anymore looking at winning the Presidency in 2020.  She's shoring up her base and collecting as much money as she can for the party... I'm thinking her sights are now on positioning or 2024 when they wouldn't have to contend with "Orange Man Bad".

 

Appreciate the explanation 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

The difference, as I understand it (and I may be wrong), is that previous attempts were made to vote on articles of impeachment without first voting to initiate an inquiry. Procedurally speaking, it's preferred to start with the inquiry so you can build the case for impeachment before drafting and voting on impeachment articles. That's the significant difference this time around.

 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Doesn't matter.  The Speaker of the House cannot launch an impeachment inquiry.  So nothing Pelosi said yesterday makes a difference in the status quo.

P.S.  The issue of the Russian Collusion/Obstruction doesn't need an inquiry as the FBI already got Mueller on it.  The House, therefore, tried to trigger an impeachment vote through the articles Mueller released.  But the purposes are basically the same - this is the House Democrats trying to get on first base on the impeachment ladder.  

So, why did Pelosi not get a House Vote for impeachment inquiry instead of just holding a press conference about it?  Here's my opinion - she doesn't want one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden's kid got $50k a month for a lot of years, by being involved with Ukranian gas somehow.  Despite not knowing anything about the oil/gas industry, despite not speaking Ukrainian or Russian.  

I absolutely cannot wait to read the declassified unredacted transcript of Pres Trump asking the Ruskies about this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Joe Biden's kid got $50k a month for a lot of years, by being involved with Ukranian gas somehow.  Despite not knowing anything about the oil/gas industry, despite not speaking Ukrainian or Russian.  

I absolutely cannot wait to read the declassified unredacted transcript of Pres Trump asking the Ruskies about this.  

Don't skimp out on the details.... On February 2014, Hunter got discharged from the Naval Reserves for cocaine use.  On April 2014, Hunter was seated on the Burisma board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

The problem with impeachment has always been that you need to get 2/3 of the Senate on board in order to actually remove the president. The Democrats do not have that. Even back when Andrew Johnson was impeached, one of the worst presidents our country ever had, the Radical Republicans, who controlled both the House and the Senate, couldn't get it done. Granted in that case President Johnson was only saved by one vote, but that was with all the cards stacked in the Republican's favor and they still couldn't pull it off. I agree with @MormonGator. I think this is going to backfire and could easily end up improving Trump's popularity. Whether or not that's enough to win him the election is another question, but it's not doing the Democrats any favors.

It'll energize the democratic base, but it'll also energize the republican base. In fact, it might even swing the never Trump republicans into the Trump camp, just because of the "enemy of my enemy is a friend" theory. It won't appeal to the swing voters, because there are no swing voters left in this highly partisan world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Don't skimp out on the details.... On February 2014, Hunter got discharged from the Naval Reserves for cocaine use.  On April 2014, Hunter was seated on the Burisma board.

I'm all for parents bending over backwards to get their troubled drug addict kid a job.  But $50 grand a month for sitting on a board he knows nothing about?  That's not helping a kid, that's enabling and sheltering.

As I said, I can't wait to have the phone call details go public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm all for parents bending over backwards to get their troubled drug addict kid a job.  But $50 grand a month for sitting on a board he knows nothing about?  That's not helping a kid, that's enabling and sheltering.

As I said, I can't wait to have the phone call details go public.

I'm not as interested in Hunter Biden as I am in the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the FBI Investigator and their orders from the Obama Administration to either get information from Ukraine or bury information from Ukraine to get the engines fueled on the Russian Collusion narrative.

But yes, Joe Biden selling the VPOTUS seat to foreign governments in addition to Clinton selling the SOS would be a good thing to investigate - I simply just don't believe Trump can actually penetrate that cabal. 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It'll energize the democratic base, 

I don't think this is the case.  It will energize the fringe base - who are the people with the big microphones glued into the Millenial generation.  But the majority of the Democratic voting public do not want impeachment - that's why they can't get a majority of the Dems in the House to vote for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm all for parents bending over backwards to get their troubled drug addict kid a job.  But $50 grand a month for sitting on a board he knows nothing about?  That's not helping a kid, that's enabling and sheltering.

As I said, I can't wait to have the phone call details go public.

$50K a month cocaine habit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me is that the dems are doing is governing (and running for election) by tweet.

They are going for people who tweet which is mainly millennial's and hollywood.

I have to believe there are many people who consider themselves to be democrats that are wondering why the party is moving away from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mnn2501 said:

$50K a month cocaine habit?

Yeah, that would kill anyone. There is no way a mortal human could do that much cocaine in one month and not die. If you spend that much money on cocaine you are certainly dealing. A kilo costs about 30,000$ and that is a lot of cocaine. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didja read the transcript?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7503623/Transcript-Donald-Trumps-call-Ukraines-president-published.html

So now we know what just about every single call between every single US president and every single friendly head of a foreign state sounds like.  A bunch of mutual back patting, a bunch of discussion on mutual points of interest, a bunch of mutual requesting and favor offering and favor granting.  Probably sounds like all of Obama's and Clinton's and Bush I & II's calls with foreign heads of state.  Much talk about specific individuals.  The Ukrainian president didn't like the old Ukrainian ambassador, Pres Trump didn't like Mueller.

I'm most struck by how much Trump sounds like he always does.  Same guy, whether he's tweeting or speechifying or talking with a foreign head of state?  I never thought I'd believe that about a sitting US president of any side of any aisle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And now we know more about the conversation than the whistleblower did... let that sink in.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked about the quid pro quo issue, Romney said: 'I don't know that I've focused so much on the quid pro quo element … There's just the question of… if the president of the United States asks or presses the leader for a foreign country to carry out an investigation of a political nature, that's troubling. And I feel that. If there were a quid pro quo, that would take it to an entirely more extreme level,' Romney said.

I've never hated Romney like some conservatives have, but I'm beginning to see why he inspires such loathing. If Romney really said what he's quoted to have said above, he is either dangerously naive or simply lying. Trump asking Zelensky to look into the hacked DNC server sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sure there's a political angle to it, as there is to almost everything. Romney...really? I do not want to believe Romney is a bald-faced liar, but the only alternative seems to be that he's so incredibly naive that he thinks the most powerful man in the world shouldn't ask to have a criminal breach of security investigated. As I said, I've never hated Romney, but my esteem for him just dropped ten notches.

Or, as is so often the case, am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Asked about the quid pro quo issue, Romney said: 'I don't know that I've focused so much on the quid pro quo element … There's just the question of… if the president of the United States asks or presses the leader for a foreign country to carry out an investigation of a political nature, that's troubling. And I feel that. If there were a quid pro quo, that would take it to an entirely more extreme level,' Romney said.

I've never hated Romney like some conservatives have, but I'm beginning to see why he inspires such loathing. If Romney really said what he's quoted to have said above, he is either dangerously naive or simply lying. Trump asking Zelensky to look into the hacked DNC server sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sure there's a political angle to it, as there is to almost everything. Romney...really? I do not want to believe Romney is a bald-faced liar, but the only alternative seems to be that he's so incredibly naive that he thinks the most powerful man in the world shouldn't ask to have a criminal breach of security investigated. As I said, I've never hated Romney, but my esteem for him just dropped ten notches.

Or, as is so often the case, am I missing something?

Worlds are colliding because I agree with @Vort 100%. I've never hated Romney either, but if the quote is real, he's lying or foolishly naive. Since it's hard to be as successful in business as he is and be that naive, he's probably lying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vort said:

Asked about the quid pro quo issue, Romney said: 'I don't know that I've focused so much on the quid pro quo element … There's just the question of… if the president of the United States asks or presses the leader for a foreign country to carry out an investigation of a political nature, that's troubling. And I feel that. If there were a quid pro quo, that would take it to an entirely more extreme level,' Romney said.

I've never hated Romney like some conservatives have, but I'm beginning to see why he inspires such loathing. If Romney really said what he's quoted to have said above, he is either dangerously naive or simply lying. Trump asking Zelensky to look into the hacked DNC server sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sure there's a political angle to it, as there is to almost everything. Romney...really? I do not want to believe Romney is a bald-faced liar, but the only alternative seems to be that he's so incredibly naive that he thinks the most powerful man in the world shouldn't ask to have a criminal breach of security investigated. As I said, I've never hated Romney, but my esteem for him just dropped ten notches.

Or, as is so often the case, am I missing something?

Yes, we're missing something.  Because... if we take the assumption that Romney is not a dimwit, then the ONLY explanation for his post-Trump positions ESPECIALLY this one is.... tat-tat-tada... he's involved in Spygate like many of his Republican colleagues are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vort said:

 

Or, as is so often the case, am I missing something?

Romney is an east coast Republican.  He may have attended BYU but his politics are deeply embedded in the east coast mentality.   But I do agree with him that Trump should be impeached.   I know that @anatess2 likes Trump though he is a obvious narcissus that is worse than me (among other things that should not require saying about a man that cannot be trusted by his wife).  Impeaching does not mean removed from office - it is an official reprimand.  

It may be okay for a president to ask the justice department to look into things (including suspicious conduct by any citizen).  That is not the same as "Find me some dirt!!!!" which the #1 effort by liberal Democrats for defeating opponents.   But do not kid yourself - Republicans are great at this as well - but are a bit more subtle with what they do with the information.  The president should not have to say a thing - but looking into dealings of public officials should not require a presidential request.

Every once in awhile some research will show up that indicates that politicians are the least trusted of any profession.  But when was the last time anyone heard about someone being removed for lying to or failure to represent their constituents.  This is because the US citizens are too lazy to care about their representation unless it goes completely off the rails (as per Karen Shepherd) and then will not remove a person until the next election.  If citizens impeached representatives (rather than leaving the process up to other politicians) - this country would be a lot better off.

The current problem is the each party is only interested in criticizing the other party and thinking it is a political sin to make sure your own serve their constituents.  In forcing the law is more about what is popular at the moment than it is what is the law.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this