How Big Will the Impeachment Blowback Be?

[CrusaderFrank]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

Trump's 57 State Sweep! Every Senate and governorship turns Republican, Stalinist democrats down to 10 or 12 House seats

 

[JGalt]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

Sending the impeachment proceedings to the Senate will be a disaster for the Democrats.

Five reasons why:

5 Reasons A Senate Trial Would Be A Nightmare For Democrats

it's not an impeachment however.

Wrong choice of words on my part. It's not an "impeachment", it's more like a Tijuana Donkey Show..

 

[Billiejeens]

It is an impeachment - If they vote to impeach.
There is no definition for cause of impeachment beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Since this is a political function and not a legal one - it can be any cause.
The Dems should simply say - Trump is not good for the country.
The House could impeach for that.
The Senate would never convict - But it would more honestly reflect the Democrats position, and the blowback would probably be less.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no definition for cause of impeachment beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Except for the "... treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" part of the Constitution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might

be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

it all depends on what they present. If they present information that seems nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election, they will suffer for it in the battleground States.

If they can present clear evidence of actual wrongdoing, they may gain votes in the battleground states.

Increasing the turnout in NY and CA does nothing but give them a bully pulpit if the EC and popular vote again do not match.

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

 

[Billiejeens]

There is no definition for cause of impeachment beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Except for the "... treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" part of the Constitution.

So you are confirming that - other high crimes and misdemeanors is not further defined.

Thanks - I guess.

 

[Mac1958]

The story of the reason for the impeachment just isn't all that riveting interesting or animating.

Risky move for the Dems, but impeachment has been the goal all along.

 

[martybegan]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might

be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

it all depends on what they present. If they present information that seems nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election, they will suffer for it in the battleground States.

If they can present clear evidence of actual wrongdoing, they may gain votes in the battleground states.

Increasing the turnout in NY and CA does nothing but give them a bully pulpit if the EC and popular vote again do not match.

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

What am I lying about?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might

be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

it all depends on what they present. If they present information that seems nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election, they will suffer for it in the battleground States.

If they can present clear evidence of actual wrongdoing, they may gain votes in the battleground states.

Increasing the turnout in NY and CA does nothing but give them a bully pulpit if the EC and popular vote again do not match.

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

What am I lying about?

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016? is the lie. The Dems didn't bring it up, you did and your bunch always brings it up meanwhile claiming the Dems do. You are trotting out the old dog and pony carnie act on this one.

 

[martybegan]

it all depends on what they present. If they present information that seems nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election, they will suffer for it in the battleground States.

If they can present clear evidence of actual wrongdoing, they may gain votes in the battleground states.

Increasing the turnout in NY and CA does nothing but give them a bully pulpit if the EC and popular vote again do not match.

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

What am I lying about?

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016? is the lie. The Dems didn't bring it up, you did and your bunch always brings it up meanwhile claiming the Dems do. You are trotting out the old dog and pony carnie act on this one.

It's my observation. So no Dem has ever brought it up?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

What am I lying about?

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016? is the lie. The Dems didn't bring it up, you did and your bunch always brings it up meanwhile claiming the Dems do. You are trotting out the old dog and pony carnie act on this one.

It's my observation. So no Dem has ever brought it up?

You been bagged in your lie. You can stop now.

 

[Zorro!]

It is an impeachment - If they vote to impeach.
There is no definition for cause of impeachment beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Since this is a political function and not a legal one - it can be any cause.
The Dems should simply say - Trump is not good for the country.
The House could impeach for that.
The Senate would never convict - But it would more honestly reflect the Democrats position, and the blowback would probably be less.

Dems are misusing impeachment as an election year stunt. In less than a year voters will determine whether Trump should continue in office. Dems should be using their majority to further the interests of the United States rather than trying to overturn the 2016 election.

IT’S A PAGEANT. IT’S JUST LIKE THE OSCARS: NBC Panel: Dems Must ‘Dramatize’ Impeachment With Crying Witnesses.

With these folks it's all fakery and drama, all the way down.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it all depends on what they present. If they present information that seems nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election, they will suffer for it in the battleground States.

If they can present clear evidence of actual wrongdoing, they may gain votes in the battleground states.

Increasing the turnout in NY and CA does nothing but give them a bully pulpit if the EC and popular vote again do not match.

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

What am I lying about?

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016? is the lie. The Dems didn't bring it up, you did and your bunch always brings it up meanwhile claiming the Dems do. You are trotting out the old dog and pony carnie act on this one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no definition for cause of impeachment beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Except for the "... treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" part of the Constitution.

 

[eagle7_31]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

Depends. If it blows up in the house for whatever reason, Pelosi will make sure Schiff takes the fall for it to cover the rest of the dems backsides.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

My idea is Trump should have one of his people calculate how much time the House Democrats have wasted trying to get him out of office, and put that as a percentage of their time spent since taking leadership. To me it's clear it's the only thing they've been doing since being the majority.

And if they do impeach Trump, that's the first thing that should come out of his mouth, and continue to talk about it until election day. I think people will be shocked at how much they didn't accomplish because of that. It may turn a lot of voters away from the Democrat party.

 

[Zorro!]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

My idea is Trump should have one of his people calculate how much time the House Democrats have wasted trying to get him out of office, and put that as a percentage of their time spent since taking leadership. To me it's clear it's the only thing they've been doing since being the majority.

And if they do impeach Trump, that's the first thing that should come out of his mouth, and continue to talk about it until election day. I think people will be shocked at how much they didn't accomplish because of that. It may turn a lot of voters away from the Democrat party.

Trump's a damn good communicator. Expect this to be a topic at the SOTU. These guys will rue the day they didn't simply accept the election results and walk away.

If attaching strings to foreign aid is impeachable, cancel it all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It is an impeachment - If they vote to impeach.
There is no definition for cause of impeachment beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Since this is a political function and not a legal one - it can be any cause.
The Dems should simply say - Trump is not good for the country.
The House could impeach for that.
The Senate would never convict - But it would more honestly reflect the Democrats position, and the blowback would probably be less.

Dems are misusing impeachment as an election year stunt. In less than a year voters will determine whether Trump should continue in office. Dems should be using their majority to further the interests of the United States rather than trying to overturn the 2016 election.

IT’S A PAGEANT. IT’S JUST LIKE THE OSCARS: NBC Panel: Dems Must ‘Dramatize’ Impeachment With Crying Witnesses.

With these folks it's all fakery and drama, all the way down.

Or they can replace Rump with someone that doesn't use his office and various charities for his own personal needs. Rump never stopped campaigning. During the first 100 days of any Presidents job the President gets a lot done on his agenda and then settles in and works with congress. Rump kept right on campaigning, wasted most of his first 100 days and has NEVER tried to work well with Congress. Most of what you keep giving him credit for would have happened even if he had gone golfing and fishing for the first 2 years.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There will be no conviction by the senate because there is no way to get to the needed 67 votes. In fact the D house with its lack of due process the impeachment might be reasonable cause for the dismissal all by itself. The Durham Grand jury may start handing out indictments before the House launches its conviction and could lead to indictments of sitting D representatives as co-conspirators with Comey MCabe et al might take the intelligent move of rolling over on the Obama administration. How bad could this get for the house Ds?

My idea is Trump should have one of his people calculate how much time the House Democrats have wasted trying to get him out of office, and put that as a percentage of their time spent since taking leadership. To me it's clear it's the only thing they've been doing since being the majority.

And if they do impeach Trump, that's the first thing that should come out of his mouth, and continue to talk about it until election day. I think people will be shocked at how much they didn't accomplish because of that. It may turn a lot of voters away from the Democrat party.

Over 400 bills are sitting on Moscow Mitch's desk from the House today and it just keeps piling up. The House is doing the work. Moscow Mitch isn't allow most of the bills onto the Senate Floor. Including those designed to clean up the elections that may be dirty as hell with corruption. That means NO PART of congress is really getting the job done because of Moscow Mitch and Rump's refusal to view those bills. In the end, it's all in the lap of Rump and his Lapdog Moscow Mitch. In order to change that both of these need to be gone. And you Rumpsters need to be sent packing along with those two.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There is no popular vote contest.

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016?

The only ones dwelling (or should I say basking) in the 2016 election is the rightees. Please stay focused. Obama isn't President, Hillary is no longer relevant, it's getting close to 2020 and the next election. 2016 is a done deal. So stop lying about who brings this up.

What am I lying about?

Then why do dems always bring it up when discussing 2016? is the lie. The Dems didn't bring it up, you did and your bunch always brings it up meanwhile claiming the Dems do. You are trotting out the old dog and pony carnie act on this one.

I live in Colorado. And this stupidity won't last. What they are not telling you is that it doesn't affect the 2020 elections. But it's headed for a court battle that should make it fail.