Impeachment

@DanaScottlo

Sounds like @RepJerryNadler is going to launch a

preliminary impeachment inquiry in the

judiciary committee. That’s exactly what happened in Nixon’s

case on Oct. 30, 1973.

That would also explain why he’s planning

to request the Grand Jury evidence this week.


Angus Johnston

CNN reporting that Jerry Nadler told a closed-door meeting of the

Dem House caucus this afternoon that he has the authority to launch

impeachment proceedings on his own initiative, without a full House vote.
 
Grant Stern
@grantstern
·
16h
“Swing district Democrats want the strongest case possible before
moving forward on impeachment,” says the source familiar with
Speaker Pelosi’s thinking, “and we’re getting closer to that.”

97
 
57Brave said:
Grant Stern
@grantstern
·
16h
“Swing district Democrats want the strongest case possible before
moving forward on impeachment,” says the source familiar with
Speaker Pelosi’s thinking, “and we’re getting closer to that.”

97
Click to expand...

Impeachment would be a huge political mistake. First, this would stir up Trump's base better than anything Trump could do. There would be outrage from his supporters. It would be like throwing a rock at a hornet's nest.

Second, there's zero chance Trump gets removed from office as you're never getting to two thirds of the Senate. So at the end of the day this would just be handing Trump something he could call a win. You know he'd travel around to his rallies gloating about how he beat the Democrat's evil attempt to subvert our democracy.

Finally, this would put another bullet in the head of impeachment as a legitimate check on executive power. The Clinton impeachment was the first bullet. This would be the double tap. The impeachment bullet should never be fired unless there's a legitimate chance of it landing. Firing it as a political move is beyond stupid.
 
I don't know about "stupid" but definitely risky.
Polling in October 1973 about mirrors polling today. Vote counts in '73 as well
To your point that age old fact remains, if you go after the king, don't miss.

3 factors in play
Epstein
Roger Stone
History --- how will this Congress be seen in history. And, how do they want to be seen

And remember, at this time this is solely in the House and by law, the House's responsibility is to gather evidence to present to the Senate.
On that footing, with the Mueller hearing submitted to the House record, the House is all but compelled to begin proceedings
..........

I personally think the (R) Senate has more to lose at this point.
It looks indisputable Trump does not, by law, deserve to be President one more day.
There are barrels of High Crimes and Misdemeanors


and more coming in by the day

....

let me add one more thing --- the (R) made electoral gains in 2000 despite the debacle of the Clinton Impeachment.
History tells us, there might be more risk in not impeaching
 
Last edited:
57, you are now grasping at straws.

Let this go and vote him out in 2020. That will put an end to him and then let NY or the Feds get him on money crimes he has committed but this fairy tale needs to be laid to rest.
 
57Brave said:
I don't know about "stupid" but definitely risky.
Polling in October 1973 about mirrors polling today. Vote counts in '73 as well
To your point that age old fact remains, if you go after the king, don't miss.

3 factors in play
Epstein
Roger Stone
History --- how will this Congress be seen in history. And, how do they want to be seen

And remember, at this time this is solely in the House and by law, the House's responsibility is to gather evidence to present to the Senate.
On that footing, with the Mueller hearing submitted to the House record, the House is all but compelled to begin proceedings
..........

I personally think the (R) Senate has more to lose at this point.
It looks indisputable Trump does not, by law, deserve to be President one more day.
There are barrels of High Crimes and Misdemeanors


and more coming in by the day

....

let me add one more thing --- the (R) made electoral gains in 2000 despite the debacle of the Clinton Impeachment.
History tells us, there might be more risk in not impeaching
Click to expand...

You're looking at this through the lens of your despising Trump. You see things as incontrovertible and the House having no choice.

You forget that a large portion of the country will look at this through the lens that Trump is infallible and can do no wrong.

Also, the idea that the House is required to impeach is incorrect. Impeachment is a legislative check on the executive. They can use it or not use it at their will.

Electoral gains in 2000 had virtually nothing to do with impeachment. Clinton exited office more popular than when he entered it. Republicans had phenomenal strategy that year to get their base out to the polls. That was the difference maker.
 
Scott Dworkin
@funder
·
9h
BREAKING: Articles of impeachment are now under consideration

in the Judiciary Committee, as described in a new lawsuit filed by the

committee to get Mueller’s grand jury evidence.

Speaker Pelosi signed off on the language.
 
I still imagine after a few years the hemorrhoids in the butt crack has not healed when Hillary lost and kept them reminding of that.

I moved on, the other Dems haven't.

I don't like the ape in the office. Outside of his odd, egotistical and brutish behavior I don't have much to complain about because the economy is humming along. He is not creating any oligarchy which Hillary would have because she is greedy and need control. Chump is greedy but his only exploits were for his on-going business deals or sustaining it and that is much it. We can all see that. He is tiptoeing around the best he can and just do as his party dictate in other matters, but it all about money for him in the long run. He really does not care about immigrants, health care or any other things that the Dems think he does. He is an Independent in Republican armor and just want to do as the people that voted him wants, that is all. It's all about him and wealth and power in business.

But he will has some serious issues when he leaves the office. Because of his pursuit of greed and power in business, it left him vulnerable to some outside interests and believe me they are going to go after him.

Impeachment was a joke but it embolden him when he is now exonerated from it. He survived which makes him even more powerful. Leave him alone and vote him out in 2020.
 
When did he survive impeachment? When was he exonerated? Cops will be the first people to tell you that "not guilty" does not mean innocent and that innocent people dont obstruct justice when they are innocent. Trump says cops are the most trustworthy people in America. There is not enough time to impeach Trump at this point. The only thing holding it back is a lack of faith in the Senate to vote objectively based on the facts.




Hillary is pretty widely despised on the left from what I see. She fell into the trap Republicans set for her in that she cared more about appealing to moderates and Republicans than she did the base of the Democratic party. The trick is that Republicans were never going to vote for her and by getting her to move to the right destroyed her popularity on the left. When you see Hannity on tv or thethe here talking about what Democrats need to do this is what they are doing. Thethe is never going to vote for a Democrat. Joe Biden could come out in favor of building a 700 foot high ice wall on the border, Massive tax cuts, and making abortion illegal and he wouldnt consider voting for him. As General Akhbar would say "its a trap".
 
Last edited:
Jon Cooper
@joncoopertweets
·
2h
I just asked my neighbor why he removed the Trump sign from his lawn,

where it had been since 2016. He replied,

“I couldn’t ignore his racism any longer.

My son [10 years old] asked why I still support him, and I had no answer.

If you lose your kid’s respect, you’ve got nothing.”
 
yeah I would call BS on that story. I dont believe anyone is suddenly going to have an epiphany if they havent already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top