Should Senate Republicans Allow a Trial of Trump...or Kill the Farce Quickly?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

 

[Jitss617]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

Because he was planted as a spy, and a interview will expose who he meet with, we will subpoena his phone records his emails.

he will have to answer questions, did he meet with schiff? Yes he did.

Trump did something you didn’t expect he released the transcript which shows nothing wrong at all. and if it is, we will never have a president, they will all be impeached based on your standards.

You lost the election in 2016.. it’s mean YOU SUCK America doesn’t like you.. you were supposed to try to get better to win again instead you suck even more, you have Democrats leaving your party. Lol

 

[Care4all]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

Because he was planted as a spy, and a interview will expose who he meet with, we will subpoena his phone records his emails.

he will have to answer questions, did he meet with schiff? Yes he did.

Trump did something you didn’t expect he released the transcript which shows nothing wrong at all. and if it is, we will never have a president, they will all be impeached based on your standards.

You lost the election in 2016.. it’s mean YOU SUCK America doesn’t like you.. you were supposed to try to get better to win again instead you suck even more, you have Democrats leaving your party. Lol

Such a silly fool, you are...

The phone call memorandum does not exonerate the President, when coupled with the two months of witnesses testimony...

Matters naught on the WB complaint when it was a valid complaint.... even if God or the devil created it....

The question is, was it true? Is there evidence to support it, and does the President have a defence for his actions? Which he possibly could have... I suppose....?

What is the President's actual defense?

 

[Jitss617]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

Because he was planted as a spy, and a interview will expose who he meet with, we will subpoena his phone records his emails.

he will have to answer questions, did he meet with schiff? Yes he did.

Trump did something you didn’t expect he released the transcript which shows nothing wrong at all. and if it is, we will never have a president, they will all be impeached based on your standards.

You lost the election in 2016.. it’s mean YOU SUCK America doesn’t like you.. you were supposed to try to get better to win again instead you suck even more, you have Democrats leaving your party. Lol

Such a silly fool, you are...

The phone call memorandum does not exonerate the President, when coupled with the two months of witnesses testimony...

Matters naught on the WB complaint when it was a valid complaint.... even if God or the devil created it....

The question is, was it true? Is there evidence to support it, and does the President have a defence for his actions? Which he possibly could have... I suppose....?

What is the President's actual defense?

If that transcript does not exonerate the president of the United States of America we will never have a president of the United States of America they will get impeached every year.. you are retarted... grow up you lost .. even Colonel Trader said the transcript was correct .. go away..

 

[FA_Q2]

Should Senate Republicans draw out a trial of President Trump in the Senate to make the Democrats look like the petty, churlish, political extremists that they are? Or should they smash this common joke immediately to show the superfluous nature of it and move on?
High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation
Lindsey Graham predicts Trump impeachment trial will 'die quickly' in Senate - CNNPolitics
As much as I want the “second hand info whistleblower” and Schiff to be exposed and hopefully face legal charges, a quick bitch slap of this clown operation by Democrats would also be good. Tough call. Don’t know if I want to hear anything more from Spartacus, Harris, and Durbin after the Kavanaugh travesty.

They should star recusing themselves on by one, as they run their mouths about the pre-determined verdict.

Funny, I never heard these claims from the left when the House was running its predetermined dog and pony show.

 

[FA_Q2]

Have a real, honest trial... the American people deserve that from our government.

No dog and pony shows....

The Senate is suppose to be the level headed lot, they need to prove it by being adults and following the founders intent for impeachment that is in the Constitution.

Not really.

They were supposed to be elected by statesmen and that was why they were the level headed ones. We changed the fundamentals of the senate when we converted them to a majority vote.

The people are many things but level headed is not and never has been one of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

Because he was planted as a spy, and a interview will expose who he meet with, we will subpoena his phone records his emails.

he will have to answer questions, did he meet with schiff? Yes he did.

Trump did something you didn’t expect he released the transcript which shows nothing wrong at all. and if it is, we will never have a president, they will all be impeached based on your standards.

You lost the election in 2016.. it’s mean YOU SUCK America doesn’t like you.. you were supposed to try to get better to win again instead you suck even more, you have Democrats leaving your party. Lol

Such a silly fool, you are...

The phone call memorandum does not exonerate the President, when coupled with the two months of witnesses testimony...

Matters naught on the WB complaint when it was a valid complaint.... even if God or the devil created it....

The question is, was it true? Is there evidence to support it, and does the President have a defence for his actions? Which he possibly could have... I suppose....?

What is the President's actual defense?

So you want to have an impeachment trial without the main component of it all which is the whistleblower. You don't want the leaker disclosed either. How can you say it's a fair trial when those people, who started it all in the first place, remain hidden from not only the President, but the people of the United States?

There is nothing fair about it.

What witness testimony? The only witness to actually hear the words of Trump directly was Sondland, and we all know what he testified to in his conversation with Trump.

I don't trust the IG, the FBI, and particularly, Schiff Face. I don't care what they determined about the whistleblower. I want to hear him or her swear under oath and be questioned by Republicans.

 

[Care4all]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

 

[Care4all]

Should Senate Republicans draw out a trial of President Trump in the Senate to make the Democrats look like the petty, churlish, political extremists that they are? Or should they smash this common joke immediately to show the superfluous nature of it and move on?
High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation
Lindsey Graham predicts Trump impeachment trial will 'die quickly' in Senate - CNNPolitics
As much as I want the “second hand info whistleblower” and Schiff to be exposed and hopefully face legal charges, a quick bitch slap of this clown operation by Democrats would also be good. Tough call. Don’t know if I want to hear anything more from Spartacus, Harris, and Durbin after the Kavanaugh travesty.

They should star recusing themselves on by one, as they run their mouths about the pre-determined verdict.

Funny, I never heard these claims from the left when the House was running its predetermined dog and pony show.

The House is not the jury, they are the over zealous prosecutors mouthing off...

The Senators are the jurists, they take an impeachment oath to be non biased and hear the testimony and evidence before making a decision.

The House does not take that oath.

 

[Care4all]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

The people chose Hillary, you mean the elector' s choice.... which is the valid entity that chooses our President.

No one is overturning the choice of the electors as President, it does not go to Hillary if he is removed, it goes to the elector's choice as VP, Mike Pence.... there s no change of party rule in the executive branch.

Impeachment and removal is constitutional, and does not usurp the people's choice in any illegal manner.

This is why, it is very hard, to ever remove a president....And why our founders made it 2/3s of senators voting to remove.... if the Senate gets to that 2/3s to remove.... then you can bet your booty, the President being removed, deserved to be removed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m torn! I’d have 3 witnesses, Democrats get one, Republicans get two, Adam schiff, and Eric the whistle blower, interview them for 12 hours, expose them, then close shop.

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

The people chose Hillary, you mean the elector' s choice.... which is the valid entity that chooses our President.

No one is overturning the choice of the electors as President, it does not go to Hillary if he is removed, it goes to the elector's choice as VP, Mike Pence.... there s no change of party rule in the executive branch.

Impeachment and removal is constitutional, and does not usurp the people's choice in any illegal manner.

This is why, it is very hard, to ever remove a president....And why our founders made it 2/3s of senators voting to remove.... if the Senate gets to that 2/3s to remove.... then you can bet your booty, the President being removed, deserved to be removed.

Then there is no reason for impeachment by the Democrats other than to try and tarnish his name. The Constitution also says that impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors--neither of which Trump committed.

We elected Trump no matter what metrics you wish to use. Just because Pence would take over doesn't mean we didn't lose our choice of President. And let me ask: how many times has the Democrats talked about impeaching him as well?

Yes, it is a long shot getting rid of Trump, but the left is trying to stop him thus stopping Barr and Durham before they find damaging evidence against members of their party. Now that the Democrats started this impeachment war, we will have more impeachments in the next 25 years than we have since the founding of this country. And again, remember who started it.

 

[Care4all]

Out of curiosity, how will interviewing the WB help Trump defend himself against the articles of impeachment?

Every thing he complained, has been verified by first and second hand witnesses... And it was the IG who determined the credibility of the complaint.... if the IF had not found evidence to support the complaint, then the IG would have dismissed it.

So how would the man reporting the fire, be of any help to Trump in proving his innocence?

What is Trump's defense???

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

The people chose Hillary, you mean the elector' s choice.... which is the valid entity that chooses our President.

No one is overturning the choice of the electors as President, it does not go to Hillary if he is removed, it goes to the elector's choice as VP, Mike Pence.... there s no change of party rule in the executive branch.

Impeachment and removal is constitutional, and does not usurp the people's choice in any illegal manner.

This is why, it is very hard, to ever remove a president....And why our founders made it 2/3s of senators voting to remove.... if the Senate gets to that 2/3s to remove.... then you can bet your booty, the President being removed, deserved to be removed.

Then there is no reason for impeachment by the Democrats other than to try and tarnish his name. The Constitution also says that impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors--neither of which Trump committed.

We elected Trump no matter what metrics you wish to use. Just because Pence would take over doesn't mean we didn't lose our choice of President. And let me ask: how many times has the Democrats talked about impeaching him as well?

Yes, it is a long shot getting rid of Trump, but the left is trying to stop him thus stopping Barr and Durham before they find damaging evidence against members of their party. Now that the Democrats started this impeachment war, we will have more impeachments in the next 25 years than we have since the founding of this country. And again, remember who started it.

The founders defined high crimes and misdemeanors AS AN ABUSE OF POWER, loss of the public trust.

Federalist papers #65.

 

[Care4all]

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

The people chose Hillary, you mean the elector' s choice.... which is the valid entity that chooses our President.

No one is overturning the choice of the electors as President, it does not go to Hillary if he is removed, it goes to the elector's choice as VP, Mike Pence.... there s no change of party rule in the executive branch.

Impeachment and removal is constitutional, and does not usurp the people's choice in any illegal manner.

This is why, it is very hard, to ever remove a president....And why our founders made it 2/3s of senators voting to remove.... if the Senate gets to that 2/3s to remove.... then you can bet your booty, the President being removed, deserved to be removed.

Then there is no reason for impeachment by the Democrats other than to try and tarnish his name. The Constitution also says that impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors--neither of which Trump committed.

We elected Trump no matter what metrics you wish to use. Just because Pence would take over doesn't mean we didn't lose our choice of President. And let me ask: how many times has the Democrats talked about impeaching him as well?

Yes, it is a long shot getting rid of Trump, but the left is trying to stop him thus stopping Barr and Durham before they find damaging evidence against members of their party. Now that the Democrats started this impeachment war, we will have more impeachments in the next 25 years than we have since the founding of this country. And again, remember who started it.

The founders defined high crimes and misdemeanors AS AN ABUSE OF POWER, loss of the public trust.

Federalist papers #65.

Just like prosecutors only need probable cause, to charge.... it's easier, but in a trial to convict, takes all 12 jurors to convict... if only 1 out of the 12 does not find the defendant guilty, the defendant is not convicted.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see both arguments.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First off, the accused has the right to face his accuser. Secondly, if we have people in the White House working against the President, then those people need to be removed. We only have Schiff Face's word on what happened. I would like to know who the whistleblower is, where he got his information, where did he go first with that information, what is his association with the Democrat party and the swamp. There are a lot of things I think all of us need to know, and I want to see this joker swear under oath to Congress.

Given the weak case made against Trump, it seems more like a conspiracy than an actual concern.

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

The people chose Hillary, you mean the elector' s choice.... which is the valid entity that chooses our President.

No one is overturning the choice of the electors as President, it does not go to Hillary if he is removed, it goes to the elector's choice as VP, Mike Pence.... there s no change of party rule in the executive branch.

Impeachment and removal is constitutional, and does not usurp the people's choice in any illegal manner.

This is why, it is very hard, to ever remove a president....And why our founders made it 2/3s of senators voting to remove.... if the Senate gets to that 2/3s to remove.... then you can bet your booty, the President being removed, deserved to be removed.

Then there is no reason for impeachment by the Democrats other than to try and tarnish his name. The Constitution also says that impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors--neither of which Trump committed.

We elected Trump no matter what metrics you wish to use. Just because Pence would take over doesn't mean we didn't lose our choice of President. And let me ask: how many times has the Democrats talked about impeaching him as well?

Yes, it is a long shot getting rid of Trump, but the left is trying to stop him thus stopping Barr and Durham before they find damaging evidence against members of their party. Now that the Democrats started this impeachment war, we will have more impeachments in the next 25 years than we have since the founding of this country. And again, remember who started it.

The founders defined high crimes and misdemeanors AS AN ABUSE OF POWER, loss of the public trust.

Federalist papers #65.

Abuse of power and obstruction are generic and something you could have charged any President with. Like I say, what goes around comes around. After all, how many times did the court go after DumBama after he made decisions?

So now it's a matter if the Democrats are either stupid enough to proceed with this, or plan it so they don't have enough votes to pass an impeachment.

 

[task0778]

Support for impeachment is falling in recent days. For the first time, the RCP (Real Clear Politics) average of polls taken shows more respondents opposed than support impeachment and removal. That average takes into account several of the major political polls since Dec 4, and while the value of any or all polls is somewhat questionable, the overall average suggests dwindling support, hence the Democrats' rush to push through the vote ASAP. And I suspect more and more Dems in red and purple districts are getting feedback from their constituents to cut the crap and get something done. "Everybody knows the Senate isn't going to remove Trump from office, so why are you still screwing around with this instead of working on the things that matter to us? You know the stuff we sent you to Washington to do."


Trump Impeachment and Removal
From Office: Support/Oppose
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Yes/Remove No Spread
RCP Average 12/4 - 12/14 -- 46.7 47.3 No +0.6
NPR/PBS/Marist 12/9 - 12/11 1508 RV 46 49 No +3
USA Today/Suffolk 12/10 - 12/14 1000 RV 45 50 No +5
FOX News 12/8 - 12/11 1000 RV 50 46 Yes/Remove +4
Economist/YouGov 12/7 - 12/10 1209 RV 47 43 Yes/Remove +4
Quinnipiac 12/4 - 12/9 1553 RV 45 51 No +6
Politico/Morning Consult 12/6 - 12/8 1994 RV 50 41 Yes/Remove +9
Monmouth 12/4 - 12/8 838 RV 44 51 No +7

These are overall numbers, Dems + Repubs + Independents. My understanding that among Independents the opposed number is even greater, and so is the numbers in the swing states.

Added: among Independents the opposed is +4.7 according to the RCP. And my guess is that these numbers will worsen for the Dems .

 

[Thunk]

Welp, he's not here to vote in the poll (I don't thunk) but Rush Limbaugh says MAKE THEM BLEED!

 

[Thunk]

There's a bit of a problem with the percentages on the poll...

50% to 53.8% comes to 103.8%

 

[Care4all]

He is not an accusor, he called in a possible robbery, anonymously. Thru a tip line, so to say.....

The actual witnesses, to the robbery as an example, are the ones his defense should be trying to discredit, the complaint called in, is meaningless in Trump's actual legitimate defense.... but discrediting the actual witnesses, would be....of help to Trump imo.

When you try to overturn the presidential choice of the people, the people have the right to know everything. Everything should be laid out on the table and nothing hidden.

I could just imagine the outrage if the Republicans tried to impeach DumBama without bringing their informants to the President and the people. There would be riots in the street; accusations that there was no whistleblower in the first place; all a conspiracy.

The people chose Hillary, you mean the elector' s choice.... which is the valid entity that chooses our President.

No one is overturning the choice of the electors as President, it does not go to Hillary if he is removed, it goes to the elector's choice as VP, Mike Pence.... there s no change of party rule in the executive branch.

Impeachment and removal is constitutional, and does not usurp the people's choice in any illegal manner.

This is why, it is very hard, to ever remove a president....And why our founders made it 2/3s of senators voting to remove.... if the Senate gets to that 2/3s to remove.... then you can bet your booty, the President being removed, deserved to be removed.

Then there is no reason for impeachment by the Democrats other than to try and tarnish his name. The Constitution also says that impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors--neither of which Trump committed.

We elected Trump no matter what metrics you wish to use. Just because Pence would take over doesn't mean we didn't lose our choice of President. And let me ask: how many times has the Democrats talked about impeaching him as well?

Yes, it is a long shot getting rid of Trump, but the left is trying to stop him thus stopping Barr and Durham before they find damaging evidence against members of their party. Now that the Democrats started this impeachment war, we will have more impeachments in the next 25 years than we have since the founding of this country. And again, remember who started it.

The founders defined high crimes and misdemeanors AS AN ABUSE OF POWER, loss of the public trust.

Federalist papers #65.

Abuse of power and obstruction are generic and something you could have charged any President with. Like I say, what goes around comes around. After all, how many times did the court go after DumBama after he made decisions?

So now it's a matter if the Democrats are either stupid enough to proceed with this, or plan it so they don't have enough votes to pass an impeachment.

Nahh, I don't think so Ray... it isn't willy nilly as much as one would think... it's not political positions taken that can be considered a high crime or misdemeanor.... Shoot, they all would have been impeached for that.... because obviously, the 2 parties have different political stances on all kinds of things our Presidents touch.

It's primarily for breaking their oath of office... not putting the government and the USA first, or not honoring our laws and constitution, not accepting 3 separate but equal branches of govt, or abusing the power of their office by asking for favors, or punishing for a personal nature or gain or advantage, self dealing, self enriching and those type of things that can make the citizenry, the public, lose the public trust in him or her to be following the laws and or to be putting the needs of the USA before himself... as his oath of office demands.

And Ray, the Republicans n advocate groups aligned with them, took Obama to court on everything.... some they won and some they lost.