Trump Will be Impeached

[rightwinger]

It will only get worse for Trump
His lawyers seem very inept

And many of that claim to be Trumps supporters, particular those that were considering a presidential run are distancing themselves from him, Rubio, Cruz, Giuliani, Paul Ryan, and even Pence. Nobody wants to go down with this ship

It is not just that Trump ignores his legal advice but his lawyers do not seem to be setting up an effective legal firewall

Trump's fire wall is The Turtle, who's bet everything on getting a sixth Justice seat. Trump's not going anywhere.

And the dems would be much better off passing a House bill restoring deductions for state and local taxes and cutting taxes for the 75-120K folks, and make McConnell deep six that.

Agree

But how much water can McConnell carry?

Stormy Daniels is no big deal. But once Mueller drops the whole package, even Mitch can’t hide

He only needs 39 senators who fear they'd be primaried if they voted to convict.

Can he find 39 cowardly Senators?

 

[rightwinger]

"Impeach the bum."

Too late.

Obama's been in exile for two years plus.

What happened?

You guys have the justice Dept?

 

[Flopper]

Democrats (Leftists) seem to have a real problem with the process for criminal prosecution.

First, there has to be a "crime" (...high crimes and misdemeanors...), THEN you can start to think about prosecuting it.

It's not that complicated.

So what is a high crime? It is something from England. Impeachment is not a criminal trial but a political process.

Many people probably think that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” But this interpretation is mistaken.

The term does go back to English law and was used to remove officials in colonies. In fact it was a fairly common term in 18 the century. Most of the framers of the constitution knew the phrase well.

Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

All go to subverting the office to which elected. I'm not sure about the context of "appointing unfit subordinates." "Unfit" is an ambiguous or broad adjective. We can argue about judges we don't like, but qualifications are a more objective standard, for example. But the link also indicates that whatever wrong the person being impeached has done is so sever that it cannot wait to be addressed until another election. I think that's correct. One test I've seen is that the infraction itself must result in the official being made incapable of carrying out his/her duty.

It is clear from the link, that the founders were far from being united on the issue of impeachment or the grounds for impeachment. I think the term high crimes and misdemeanors was a catch all used to define a multitude offenses some legal infractions and some not.

When a president faces the strong possibility of impeachment he begins to loose support from his own party making it difficult to carry out the duties of his office. Trump was never the choice of the leadership within his party. They only begrudgingly gave him their support after it was clear he would be nominated. I suspect much of his support in congress would disappear upon passage of a bill of impeachment.

You expect more from the "spineless" Republicans than I do...

I don't think it would take a lot for republicans in congress to turn on Trump. They never liked him but had no choice but to support him once he was nominated. If you noticed, a lot of them are starting to distance themselves from him.

 

[Lakhota]

In order to smear him for history. Democrats have the House. Priority number one...get Trump! Glad they have their priorities straight. Budget process will come to a halt when they try to defund the Wall and ICE. Enjoy your two years in charge of House liberals.
What will happen if Democrats retake the House?
Senate holds the trial after House indictment. Trump is safe.

Funny. Unlike when NaziCon Teanderthals impeached Clinton for BJs while they totally ignored Osama bin Laden and everything else - Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time - meaning that they can pursue legislation while investigating Trump at the same time.

 

[JimH52]

So what is a high crime? It is something from England. Impeachment is not a criminal trial but a political process.

Many people probably think that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” But this interpretation is mistaken.

The term does go back to English law and was used to remove officials in colonies. In fact it was a fairly common term in 18 the century. Most of the framers of the constitution knew the phrase well.

Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

All go to subverting the office to which elected. I'm not sure about the context of "appointing unfit subordinates." "Unfit" is an ambiguous or broad adjective. We can argue about judges we don't like, but qualifications are a more objective standard, for example. But the link also indicates that whatever wrong the person being impeached has done is so sever that it cannot wait to be addressed until another election. I think that's correct. One test I've seen is that the infraction itself must result in the official being made incapable of carrying out his/her duty.

It is clear from the link, that the founders were far from being united on the issue of impeachment or the grounds for impeachment. I think the term high crimes and misdemeanors was a catch all used to define a multitude offenses some legal infractions and some not.

When a president faces the strong possibility of impeachment he begins to loose support from his own party making it difficult to carry out the duties of his office. Trump was never the choice of the leadership within his party. They only begrudgingly gave him their support after it was clear he would be nominated. I suspect much of his support in congress would disappear upon passage of a bill of impeachment.

You expect more from the "spineless" Republicans than I do...

I don't think it would take a lot for republicans in congress to turn on Trump. They never liked him but had no choice but to support him once he was nominated. If you noticed, a lot of them are starting to distance themselves from him.

That is not what I am hearing from present Senators....they are lining up like little soldiers behind the Liar in Chief....history will record what a spineless group these people are.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is not what I am hearing from present Senators...

True. Where are the senior repuicans, condemning a possible felony by the chief executive?

 

[Flopper]

Mo

Many people probably think that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” But this interpretation is mistaken.

The term does go back to English law and was used to remove officials in colonies. In fact it was a fairly common term in 18 the century. Most of the framers of the constitution knew the phrase well.

Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

All go to subverting the office to which elected. I'm not sure about the context of "appointing unfit subordinates." "Unfit" is an ambiguous or broad adjective. We can argue about judges we don't like, but qualifications are a more objective standard, for example. But the link also indicates that whatever wrong the person being impeached has done is so sever that it cannot wait to be addressed until another election. I think that's correct. One test I've seen is that the infraction itself must result in the official being made incapable of carrying out his/her duty.

It is clear from the link, that the founders were far from being united on the issue of impeachment or the grounds for impeachment. I think the term high crimes and misdemeanors was a catch all used to define a multitude offenses some legal infractions and some not.

When a president faces the strong possibility of impeachment he begins to loose support from his own party making it difficult to carry out the duties of his office. Trump was never the choice of the leadership within his party. They only begrudgingly gave him their support after it was clear he would be nominated. I suspect much of his support in congress would disappear upon passage of a bill of impeachment.

You expect more from the "spineless" Republicans than I do...

I don't think it would take a lot for republicans in congress to turn on Trump. They never liked him but had no choice but to support him once he was nominated. If you noticed, a lot of them are starting to distance themselves from him.

That is not what I am hearing from present Senators....they are lining up like little soldiers behind the Liar in Chief....history will record what a spineless group these people are.....

Most of those supporting Trump will bail like rats off a sinking ship as Mueller lays out more and more of Trump's illegal activity. They have already seen what happened in the House. And it Trump goes down in 2020, he is likely to turn control of government over to the democrats.

 

[bendog]

Mo

All go to subverting the office to which elected. I'm not sure about the context of "appointing unfit subordinates." "Unfit" is an ambiguous or broad adjective. We can argue about judges we don't like, but qualifications are a more objective standard, for example. But the link also indicates that whatever wrong the person being impeached has done is so sever that it cannot wait to be addressed until another election. I think that's correct. One test I've seen is that the infraction itself must result in the official being made incapable of carrying out his/her duty.

It is clear from the link, that the founders were far from being united on the issue of impeachment or the grounds for impeachment. I think the term high crimes and misdemeanors was a catch all used to define a multitude offenses some legal infractions and some not.

When a president faces the strong possibility of impeachment he begins to loose support from his own party making it difficult to carry out the duties of his office. Trump was never the choice of the leadership within his party. They only begrudgingly gave him their support after it was clear he would be nominated. I suspect much of his support in congress would disappear upon passage of a bill of impeachment.

You expect more from the "spineless" Republicans than I do...

I don't think it would take a lot for republicans in congress to turn on Trump. They never liked him but had no choice but to support him once he was nominated. If you noticed, a lot of them are starting to distance themselves from him.

That is not what I am hearing from present Senators....they are lining up like little soldiers behind the Liar in Chief....history will record what a spineless group these people are.....

Most of those supporting Trump will bail like rats off a sinking ship as Mueller lays out more and more of Trump's illegal activity. They have already seen what happened in the House. And it Trump goes down in 2020, he is likely to turn control of government over to the democrats.

You're right that even in the Freedom Caucus, the support for Trump has been more about opportunism and having someone they can manipulate to achieve some goal. Trump's possible embrace of McCarthy for cos would be Trump clinging to them like a lifeline to show his base he has power.

 

[dudmuck]

In order to smear him for history. Democrats have the House. Priority number one...get Trump! Glad they have their priorities straight. Budget process will come to a halt when they try to defund the Wall and ICE. Enjoy your two years in charge of House liberals.
What will happen if Democrats retake the House?
Senate holds the trial after House indictment. Trump is safe.

Funny. Unlike when NaziCon Teanderthals impeached Clinton for BJs while they totally ignored Osama bin Laden and everything else - Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time - meaning that they can pursue legislation while investigating Trump at the same time.

amazing..

 

[HenryBHough]

What happened?

You guys have the justice Dept?

Nope. The swamp remains deep.

In Congress - not enough real Republicans and too many RINOs. True, McCain's final capitulation helped but not enough.

 

[Bush92]

He’s going to be impeached because he won in 2016.

 

[harmonica]

I don't care if he gets impeached
.....he's already done more to help America in 2 years than all these other jackasses combined
...he's has shown how the MSM is BULLSHIT
and how the right/etc are HYPOCRITES/etc

WINNER!!!!!!!
thank you Mr Trump

 

[Bush92]

I don’t want my vote or my States vote overturned by the New York City media and the Socialist/Democratic Party.

 

[Bush92]

And many of that claim to be Trumps supporters, particular those that were considering a presidential run are distancing themselves from him, Rubio, Cruz, Giuliani, Paul Ryan, and even Pence. Nobody wants to go down with this ship

It is not just that Trump ignores his legal advice but his lawyers do not seem to be setting up an effective legal firewall

Trump's fire wall is The Turtle, who's bet everything on getting a sixth Justice seat. Trump's not going anywhere.

And the dems would be much better off passing a House bill restoring deductions for state and local taxes and cutting taxes for the 75-120K folks, and make McConnell deep six that.

Agree

But how much water can McConnell carry?

Stormy Daniels is no big deal. But once Mueller drops the whole package, even Mitch can’t hide

He only needs 39 senators who fear they'd be primaried if they voted to convict.

Can he find 39 cowardly Senators?

He will find common sense in the Senate. Anyone who would vote to impeach Trump does not believe in our democratic process.

 

[cutter]

In order to smear him for history. Democrats have the House. Priority number one...get Trump! Glad they have their priorities straight. Budget process will come to a halt when they try to defund the Wall and ICE. Enjoy your two years in charge of House liberals.
What will happen if Democrats retake the House?
Senate holds the trial after House indictment. Trump is safe.

Funny. Unlike when NaziCon Teanderthals impeached Clinton for BJs while they totally ignored Osama bin Laden and everything else - Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time - meaning that they can pursue legislation while investigating Trump at the same time.

amazing..

clinton wasn’t impeached because he had oral sex, nobody cares, he lied about it while under oath during a trial. That’s why he was impeached. If sex was an impeachable act kennedy wouldn’t have been President long enougt to be assinated.

 

[Bush92]

In order to smear him for history. Democrats have the House. Priority number one...get Trump! Glad they have their priorities straight. Budget process will come to a halt when they try to defund the Wall and ICE. Enjoy your two years in charge of House liberals.
What will happen if Democrats retake the House?
Senate holds the trial after House indictment. Trump is safe.

Funny. Unlike when NaziCon Teanderthals impeached Clinton for BJs while they totally ignored Osama bin Laden and everything else - Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time - meaning that they can pursue legislation while investigating Trump at the same time.

amazing..

clinton wasn’t impeached because he had oral sex, nobody cares, he lied about it while under oath during a trial. That’s why he was impeached. If sex was an impeachable act kennedy wouldn’t have been President long enougt to be assinated.

Liberal media covered for Kennedy’s.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don’t want my vote or my States vote overturned by the New York City media and the Socialist/Democratic Party.

Then stop voting for criminals. See how easy that was? Didn't even break a sweat.

 

[rightwinger]

So what is a high crime? It is something from England. Impeachment is not a criminal trial but a political process.

Many people probably think that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” But this interpretation is mistaken.

The term does go back to English law and was used to remove officials in colonies. In fact it was a fairly common term in 18 the century. Most of the framers of the constitution knew the phrase well.

Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

All go to subverting the office to which elected. I'm not sure about the context of "appointing unfit subordinates." "Unfit" is an ambiguous or broad adjective. We can argue about judges we don't like, but qualifications are a more objective standard, for example. But the link also indicates that whatever wrong the person being impeached has done is so sever that it cannot wait to be addressed until another election. I think that's correct. One test I've seen is that the infraction itself must result in the official being made incapable of carrying out his/her duty.

It is clear from the link, that the founders were far from being united on the issue of impeachment or the grounds for impeachment. I think the term high crimes and misdemeanors was a catch all used to define a multitude offenses some legal infractions and some not.

When a president faces the strong possibility of impeachment he begins to loose support from his own party making it difficult to carry out the duties of his office. Trump was never the choice of the leadership within his party. They only begrudgingly gave him their support after it was clear he would be nominated. I suspect much of his support in congress would disappear upon passage of a bill of impeachment.

You expect more from the "spineless" Republicans than I do...

I don't think it would take a lot for republicans in congress to turn on Trump. They never liked him but had no choice but to support him once he was nominated. If you noticed, a lot of them are starting to distance themselves from him.

Republicans want Trump to nominate Conservative judges

They will milk that cow as long as they can

 

[rightwinger]

What happened?

You guys have the justice Dept?

Nope. The swamp remains deep.

In Congress - not enough real Republicans and too many RINOs. True, McCain's final capitulation helped but not enough.

Trump is the lead alligator

 

[rightwinger]

He’s going to be impeached because he won in 2016.

He will be impeached because he is a criminal