Pelosi to announce formal impeachment inquiry of Trump

he won 30% of the primary vote, that means 15% support Trump. The other GOP voters voted for him due to the supreme court. They would have no problem with Pence as president.

The military would decimate those insane enough to take up arms.

 

You sound delusional about who voted for Trump and that the US military would kill their own or that they could win against a force superior in numbers.

 

What don't you understand, if there is no whistleblowing there is no whistleblower

Good they can then ask the person who leaked the information to them and we can then prosecute them.

But to what is the person going to testify to, the person has no first hand knowledge, anything they would say is hearsay, hearsay is not evidence of anything.

 

Voted for and support are 2 different things, most voted for him because they wanted those federal judges. Most did not support Trump during the primary.

Yes they could win against larger numbers when they have planes drowns automatic weapons tanks and so on.

 

They dropped that a few days they can't even say what it is about. There are NO reports of a quid pro quo.

 

I said specific charges not guesses if you are so sure they are going to impeach if the Dems are so intent then they MUST have some specific charge. What will it be what will the first article state or is this still just a partisan witch-hunt.

 

Why would any foreign political leader going forward freely talk to any POTUS after this conversation was spied on and will come out in transcript form, by someone the latest reports say is biased against Trump?

The Democrats are guilty of exactly what they say Trump did, use foreign persons to dig up dirt against their opponents, it was what the whole phony Steele dossier was about.

Pelosi declared this investigation open rather than have a vote like she is supposed to because she knew she didn't even have the votes from her own party.

 

How would you know? You also apparently are not aware how poorly the US has done against disparate focused forces.

 

Everybody knows impeachment isn’t happening. It will never get enough votes in the Senate.
Democrats will hurt themselves tremendously, especially if the transcript turns out to be a nothingburger.

 

Oh and this whole "urgent concern" canard people are saying means of imminent danger. Here is Andy McCarthy explaining the difference between the common usage of the pharas people are trying to use and the statutory meaning of the phrase.

Urgent Concern’ — Another Confusing Dual-Use Term
This brings us to a common situation that we rarely notice but that often skews public debate. I’ll call it the dual-use term: A word or phrase that has both a common meaning because it is invoked in everyday parlance and a specialized meaning in statutory law — either because Congress has taken the trouble to define it or the courts have authoritatively construed it.

“Urgent concern” is a dual-use term. Such terms confuse things because politicians seamlessly shift from the common to the specialized meaning. Frequently, legal consequences limited to the narrower legal sense of the term are triggered by anything that fits the term’s broad general understanding. To take a notorious example, “collusion” — the subject, ahem, of a certain new book — has both a broad general connotation (concerted activity that can be benign or sinister, or anything in between) and a narrow specialized meaning when invoked in law-enforcement investigations (criminal conspiracy). For years, Chairman Schiff and other Trump critics have intimated that episodes of unremarkable collusion in the broad sense (e.g., negotiating policy or real-estate deals with Russians) are evidence of illegal collusion in the narrow, specialized sense (conspiracy to commit cyberespionage with Russians).

The common meaning of urgent concern is obvious: It could describe anything that raises the specter of imminent harm. But urgent concern is also a specialized term in federal law. Under Section 3033(k)(5)(G) (of Title 50, U.S. Code), an “urgent concern” relates to specified problems involving intelligence activities and classified information that are within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI is the cabinet official who oversees the so-called community of intelligence agencies. The urgent concerns Section 3033 outlines include, for example, violations or abuses of laws or executive orders, or deficiencies in the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity. Section 3033 urgent concerns also include misleading of Congress regarding intelligence activities, and reprisals against whistleblowers who report an urgent concern.

Notice the difference between the common and statutory meaning.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/trump-whistleblower-claim-congress-should-investigate/

 

Yeah, cute theory. Unfortunately for you, law enforcement and the military are strongly conservative. And your 15% number is bullshit. Way more than 15% support Trump over liberalism.

But let's say your 15% is true. That's what 45 million people? Let's lower it further, and remove the elderly, women, etc. Say 20 million, gun-owning, bible-clinging conservatives. That makes for the largest army in the world. The U.S. military (again, most lean right), total about 2 million, and they're spread out around the world. They literally would have no chance, unless you think they're going to nuke American citizens? Which if that's the case, then a **** storm will ensue from every other world power.

So again, careful what you wish for

 

The 14th amendment sections 2-4 would stop anyone who swore to uphold the constitution from fighting against the government, anyone who fought against the US would be able to have their property taken without compensation, they would be barred from ever holding office or voting ever again. The government would be able to put a ban on firearms and as all law abiding citizens turn them in to not look like party of the insurgency. Police would then have the power to kill anyone who is rebelling. Only the southeast quarter of the country would have any rebels so those states would be under federal martial law, and suspended again, meaning any amendments that needed their votes to pass would be ratified (the ERA).

It would be a really bad idea.

 

The reason we have a 2A is that the Founders wanted a way to oppose a tyrannical government. You know, the kind that launch soft coups against a duly elected POTUS.

 

Forget the Senate, estimates say she would only get 160 votes in the House, far short of what is needed, which is why she was too cowardly to hold a vote.

Beyond Ukraine corruption, Biden Jr. went on Air Force 2 with his dad to China. Ten days later, despite having no experience with China or banking, his firm landed a 1,500,000,000 contract with a large Chinese bank. This is a loser whose resume includes being kicked out of the Navy for cocaine use. Does anyone think if his name was Hunter Smith he would have gotten that contract?

The new Ukraine president ran on an anti-corruption platform, Trump had ever right to discuss corruption, including that that may relate to Biden Jr.

 

Clinton and Nixon were duly elected, too. Were They victims of soft coups?

 

Or maybe it’s because the investigation part comes first?

Never mind the silliness of calling someone “cowardly” for being able to count votes.

Hunter undoubtedly traded on his father’s name. If you’re upset by that, are you equally upset by Trump’s relatives and businesses trading on Trump’s position?

But your China accusation has several logical holes. Notably that the sole source for it is Peter Schweitzer, and all he has is a timeline: Hunter traveled to China a few weeks before the investment firm he worked for closed a $1.5 billion private-equity deal with a Chinese bank. There is literally no evidence of wrongdoing, and Hunter wasn’t even an equity partner, so it wasn’t a payday for him.

If you want to claim corruption, you need more than innuendo.

 

The military will NOT fight against its citizens in a civil war. Remember they have families also.

 

Those without family in the rebellion would fight. I bet you would see a serge in volunteers from the north/liberal states if they got declared an insurgency.

 

I doubt it. I deal with a lot of military personnel in my business and 90% of them hate what the Democrats are doing. Giving free everything to illegals while they fight for our country. Also Trump just gave the military raises and upgraded their equipment, so they are very happy about that.

 

Pelosi is sitting on some in the House, she is worthless.

 

Remember when Trump tried to save the asses of black shoplifting basketball players in China? That could be seen as politically motivated as it would enhance Trump in the public eye.

So when will the articles of impeachment be drawn up?

 

The Senate doesn't impeach, it is the jury. The House does the impeaching, which means that trump will suffer the embarrassment of having to answer the charges in person in Congress. The Senate can find him no guilty but they have to sit there to do it. The House could impeachment him every week if they had the guts to do it and he would have to answer the charges in person, in Congress, or quit.

 

Democrats have had Trump nailed since Inauguration Day.

 

And now they are "Ridin' with Biden"....

 

This is so ridiculous, she couldn't even articulate a crime.