Trump will be impeached. It will leave a permanent mark in history, and will likely as devastating to Trump as it was to President Clinton and his family…
Afterwards, Trump will be free. And he will continue to drain the swamp. Democrats will have nothing left.
After the worse what the heck. No more Mr Nice Guy.
…”and will likely as devastating to Trump…”
It’ll take him a couple of vodka and tonics to set him on his feet again.
I worry that if Trump is successfully removed from office, the MeToo/Vichy Republicans will say, “See? What did I tell you?” and the GOP will be cowed back into its historical gutlessness.
The House can and likely will vote to impeach. All that requires is a majority of votes and Democrats likely have enough to do it without a single Republican vote. A president can only be removed from office by a supermajority vote in the Senate where Republicans have a majority. Trump’s removal from office is extremely unlikely
I’m not at all worried about Trump being removed. I do worry that a few idiots like Romney may do something that would essentially release their seat to Democrats in the next election. Otherwise, this is the inevitable theater that was promised long ago.
Many of us voted from Trump to see him burn it down (or drain the swamp as he phrased it). This is what it looks like. The swamp wasn’t going to go down without a fight. Neither is Trump. The thing is, Trump is a symbol of something else. And until he brought about a robust economy, he was even expendable. This effort is just exposing the true nature of DC to those that didn’t want to pay enough attention. Just look at the photo of the announcement of the articles of impeachment. It is all a New York/California party. Just like we saw with the popular vote.
They hate the rest of America and they get their one punch to let us know. Alas, this is the best punch they can offer, and it is weak. They call it a permanent blemish on the historical record. Yeah, that blemish really hurt the Clintons.
So far, we kept having to wait for reports written by Obama holdovers. Those reports were weak tea, but they couldn’t hide the abuse. The next report is coming from Dunham, and he has already announced a criminal investigation. Republicans that value their phony baloney jobs don’t want to be on the wrong side of that report and investigation.
Finally, did you see what happened in the UK. I was there a few weeks prior the election. There was no way you watched British TV and thought that was ever going to happen. The only hint I got was when the Queen backed Johnson’s suspension of Parliament. She is loved by her people and she understands them. Sad she didn’t raise her offspring better.
If this link below is true, then an acquittal gets Trump three more years BEFORE his second term. I’m sure learning a lot about Watergate today.
That law was unconstitutional. If there had been an attempt to use it, it would have been challenged in court and struck down.
Nixon would almost surely have refused to try to take advantage of it.
Agree with McGehee. Won’t happen. Trump needs to run and win in 2020 to have a 2nd term.
I didn’t have to read beyond the second line to know that this is “fake news” at its finest/stupidest, and a total waste of time.
“In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted.”
There was no “Republican Congress” in 1974. Or any time between 1954 and 1994, just a GOP Senate from 1980-1986.
Fake. But oh the fun we’d have if we can persuade democrat idiots that it’s true.
While the House of Representatives hs each member “speachifying” about the vote — let’s get serious and acknowledge that it’s a “done deal” that the Democratic majority will pass the measure — on the next C-SPAN channel:
Like clockwork the US Senate is appointing Federal Judges one after another. Who is winning, eh?
Well, they did it, and did it without a single Republican vote, plus without a few Democrat votes. Impeachment, without a crime. This is a national disgrace.
Now, they are playing games regarding sending this to the Senate. They have not done so, and are waffling as to when. I’m wondering if they ever actually will.
If they don’t forward the articles of impeachment (and it is probably unconstitutional for Pelosi to withhold them and if the issue is brought to the Supreme Court by the White House there is little doubt they will settle the issue with expedition) there is nothing for the Senate to do. Trump will remain. Does that serve the Democrat base? No. Worse it probably on constitutional grounds prevents any further movement on impeachment within the House until it is passed onto the Senate. We’re definitely in a gray area there. Impeachment is not censure. There are constitutional consequences. It’d be hilarious but Republicans could mount a successful “passed seat” resolution against the Speaker. It would require a 2/3rd’s majority vote between them and the pissed-off wingbat Dems. Unlikely but funny nonetheless.
Sorry I misread that. It only takes a simple majority to strip the Speaker of her seat. The 2/3rds is needed to expel from the House.
A simple majority would need only 19-22 Dems to get on board if the Repubs voted as a unitary block given the current make-up of the 116th Congress in the House.
The constitution does not require that the House actually physically send something that has passed that lower chamber, up to the Senate, before the Senate can take it up. The house would be appointing its managers to be the prosecution, not to present the articles, because that isn’t required. The constitution requires neither that there be impeachment managers, nor that articles are transmitted by them, or at all. Mitch McConnell needs only to make a rule that the passage of the articles triggers the trial, set a date for the trial, and if the House doesn’t appoint and send managers, then the trial proceeds without the prosecution present.
McConnell could do that or without the presentation of articles could just ignore what the House did. That latter might be preferable to the White House because it would put an asterisk next to the “Impeached” category for Trump. Trump could probably rightfully claim he was never impeached since there was never a Senate trial. Or maybe the White House would prefer an acquittal? To borrow a phrase: At this point what difference does it make?
I’ve heard of the “Pocket Veto” but have never seen a “Pocket Impeachment” until now. Fascinating. The only reason I can think of as to why the wingbat Dems that were out for impeachment are not livid with Pelosi is because it was all fake to begin with. Their constituents ought to know that, but then they are used to being lied to. Apparently they support that.
As Rush pointed out today, President Trump really should be invigorated by this – at least, after the Senate votes to acquit. The Democrats will have expended the most powerful political tool they have against him, and he will remain untouched. What else can they do to him? I mean, it sucks that he will permanently have this completely undeserved impeachment on his record, but it is already known to be a sham (his letter to Pelosi was primo, IMHO).
The most they could do is call in an Arkanstrike. Jeffrey Epstein would be looking down upon him in sympathy…
If there’s ever another Democrat president, Republicans should impeach them on made-up charges. Every single one.
Clearly it’s perfectly acceptable behaviour now, so why not?
With a democrat occupation of the White House there will be no need to fabricate charges.
” The Democrats will have expended the most powerful political tool they have against him, and he will remain untouched. What else can they do to him?”
For as long as they control the House, they can keep impeaching him. They can impeach him again for any bogus reasons all next year.
If they retain control of the House after next year’s election they can continue to impeach him.
If the democrats retain control of the House after the upcoming election, several states need a through scouring of their election apparatus.
Agreed, and start with California. Their “jungle primary” system very often results in the only two candidates on the general election ballot for a seat being Democrats. It’s a system the Soviet Union would have very much approved of. They have also instituted “ballot harvesting’, long considered a method of election fraud.
Sure they can, but every single time they do it, they further degrade the currency. The time will eventually come when they really do need to use their power of impeachment, but they will be like he boy who cried wolf and no one will take them seriously.
Trump will be impeached. It will leave a permanent mark in history, and will likely as devastating to Trump as it was to President Clinton and his family…
Afterwards, Trump will be free. And he will continue to drain the swamp. Democrats will have nothing left.
After the worse what the heck. No more Mr Nice Guy.
…”and will likely as devastating to Trump…”
It’ll take him a couple of vodka and tonics to set him on his feet again.
I worry that if Trump is successfully removed from office, the MeToo/Vichy Republicans will say, “See? What did I tell you?” and the GOP will be cowed back into its historical gutlessness.
The House can and likely will vote to impeach. All that requires is a majority of votes and Democrats likely have enough to do it without a single Republican vote. A president can only be removed from office by a supermajority vote in the Senate where Republicans have a majority. Trump’s removal from office is extremely unlikely
I’m not at all worried about Trump being removed. I do worry that a few idiots like Romney may do something that would essentially release their seat to Democrats in the next election. Otherwise, this is the inevitable theater that was promised long ago.
Many of us voted from Trump to see him burn it down (or drain the swamp as he phrased it). This is what it looks like. The swamp wasn’t going to go down without a fight. Neither is Trump. The thing is, Trump is a symbol of something else. And until he brought about a robust economy, he was even expendable. This effort is just exposing the true nature of DC to those that didn’t want to pay enough attention. Just look at the photo of the announcement of the articles of impeachment. It is all a New York/California party. Just like we saw with the popular vote.
They hate the rest of America and they get their one punch to let us know. Alas, this is the best punch they can offer, and it is weak. They call it a permanent blemish on the historical record. Yeah, that blemish really hurt the Clintons.
So far, we kept having to wait for reports written by Obama holdovers. Those reports were weak tea, but they couldn’t hide the abuse. The next report is coming from Dunham, and he has already announced a criminal investigation. Republicans that value their phony baloney jobs don’t want to be on the wrong side of that report and investigation.
Finally, did you see what happened in the UK. I was there a few weeks prior the election. There was no way you watched British TV and thought that was ever going to happen. The only hint I got was when the Queen backed Johnson’s suspension of Parliament. She is loved by her people and she understands them. Sad she didn’t raise her offspring better.
If this link below is true, then an acquittal gets Trump three more years BEFORE his second term. I’m sure learning a lot about Watergate today.
https://apkdownloading.com/2019/12/13/supreme-court-can-extend-trumps-term-by-up-to-3-years-if-hes-acquitted-in-the-senate/
That law was unconstitutional. If there had been an attempt to use it, it would have been challenged in court and struck down.
Nixon would almost surely have refused to try to take advantage of it.
Agree with McGehee. Won’t happen. Trump needs to run and win in 2020 to have a 2nd term.
I didn’t have to read beyond the second line to know that this is “fake news” at its finest/stupidest, and a total waste of time.
“In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted.”
There was no “Republican Congress” in 1974. Or any time between 1954 and 1994, just a GOP Senate from 1980-1986.
Fake. But oh the fun we’d have if we can persuade democrat idiots that it’s true.
While the House of Representatives hs each member “speachifying” about the vote — let’s get serious and acknowledge that it’s a “done deal” that the Democratic majority will pass the measure — on the next C-SPAN channel:
Like clockwork the US Senate is appointing Federal Judges one after another. Who is winning, eh?
Well, they did it, and did it without a single Republican vote, plus without a few Democrat votes. Impeachment, without a crime. This is a national disgrace.
Now, they are playing games regarding sending this to the Senate. They have not done so, and are waffling as to when. I’m wondering if they ever actually will.
If they don’t forward the articles of impeachment (and it is probably unconstitutional for Pelosi to withhold them and if the issue is brought to the Supreme Court by the White House there is little doubt they will settle the issue with expedition) there is nothing for the Senate to do. Trump will remain. Does that serve the Democrat base? No. Worse it probably on constitutional grounds prevents any further movement on impeachment within the House until it is passed onto the Senate. We’re definitely in a gray area there. Impeachment is not censure. There are constitutional consequences. It’d be hilarious but Republicans could mount a successful “passed seat” resolution against the Speaker. It would require a 2/3rd’s majority vote between them and the pissed-off wingbat Dems. Unlikely but funny nonetheless.
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-Speaker-of-the-House-be-impeached
Sorry I misread that. It only takes a simple majority to strip the Speaker of her seat. The 2/3rds is needed to expel from the House.
A simple majority would need only 19-22 Dems to get on board if the Repubs voted as a unitary block given the current make-up of the 116th Congress in the House.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-political-makeup-of-congress-3368266
The constitution does not require that the House actually physically send something that has passed that lower chamber, up to the Senate, before the Senate can take it up. The house would be appointing its managers to be the prosecution, not to present the articles, because that isn’t required. The constitution requires neither that there be impeachment managers, nor that articles are transmitted by them, or at all. Mitch McConnell needs only to make a rule that the passage of the articles triggers the trial, set a date for the trial, and if the House doesn’t appoint and send managers, then the trial proceeds without the prosecution present.
McConnell could do that or without the presentation of articles could just ignore what the House did. That latter might be preferable to the White House because it would put an asterisk next to the “Impeached” category for Trump. Trump could probably rightfully claim he was never impeached since there was never a Senate trial. Or maybe the White House would prefer an acquittal? To borrow a phrase: At this point what difference does it make?
I’ve heard of the “Pocket Veto” but have never seen a “Pocket Impeachment” until now. Fascinating. The only reason I can think of as to why the wingbat Dems that were out for impeachment are not livid with Pelosi is because it was all fake to begin with. Their constituents ought to know that, but then they are used to being lied to. Apparently they support that.
As Rush pointed out today, President Trump really should be invigorated by this – at least, after the Senate votes to acquit. The Democrats will have expended the most powerful political tool they have against him, and he will remain untouched. What else can they do to him? I mean, it sucks that he will permanently have this completely undeserved impeachment on his record, but it is already known to be a sham (his letter to Pelosi was primo, IMHO).
The most they could do is call in an Arkanstrike. Jeffrey Epstein would be looking down upon him in sympathy…
If there’s ever another Democrat president, Republicans should impeach them on made-up charges. Every single one.
Clearly it’s perfectly acceptable behaviour now, so why not?
With a democrat occupation of the White House there will be no need to fabricate charges.
” The Democrats will have expended the most powerful political tool they have against him, and he will remain untouched. What else can they do to him?”
For as long as they control the House, they can keep impeaching him. They can impeach him again for any bogus reasons all next year.
If they retain control of the House after next year’s election they can continue to impeach him.
If the democrats retain control of the House after the upcoming election, several states need a through scouring of their election apparatus.
Agreed, and start with California. Their “jungle primary” system very often results in the only two candidates on the general election ballot for a seat being Democrats. It’s a system the Soviet Union would have very much approved of. They have also instituted “ballot harvesting’, long considered a method of election fraud.
Sure they can, but every single time they do it, they further degrade the currency. The time will eventually come when they really do need to use their power of impeachment, but they will be like he boy who cried wolf and no one will take them seriously.