Will Trump be impeached or not?

That was about as rabid a Trump frother statement as I have seen on this website---wild accusations, no smoking gun.

 

Actually I would say President Trump is more of a marsh than a swamp.

 

Save it for that competency hearing.

 

Congress is in recess and you may bet they're sounding out their constituents on the impeachment issue. Watch carefully what goes on upon their return. Pelosi moved the focus of the "inquiry" from Nadler's Judiciary Committee to Schiff's Intelligence Committee. She was furious over what Nadler allowed Cory Lewandoski get away with, saying that he should have been arrested in the hearing for contempt of Congress. Conclusion: Nadler, from NYC, isn't strong enough to lay the ground work for an impeachment vote. It will have to come back to him for the "articles of impeachment," but by then it will be packaged, gift-wrapped and tied up with a bow...with little for him to do other than follow parliamentary procedures.
Yes...Trump will be impeached. Nancy's best support on the issue isn't Nadler, but Trump himself. He couldn't let it go. He had a "free pass" to get around "GO," with the Mueller Report and Bob Barr's help and blew his advantage by not being able to let go of his conspiracy theories. He has basically "reopened" the Mueller investigation.
Will he be "convicted," in the Senate? Depends on just how intent he his on destroying himself. It's certainly possible.

 

Democrats in Congress are just playing party politics. Which one from a red district would want to be the first to raise their for impeachment after the Ukraine Hoax is revealed?

Sitting on the fence is the best tactic for them. All they have to do is do NOTHING but sit and listen.

Today, they can appear as heroes to Trump frothers while not pissing off too many Republicans in their districts.

Tomorrow, they can appear as heroes to their constituents while telling the party hacks that they were just being fair.

It's a great gig.

 

And, it will get worse for the President. The Biden issue isn't going to go anywhere once the details are out. The prosecutor Biden wanted fired was a pro-Russian prosecutor who wasn't prosecuting corruption enough, not too much...which was the reason the IMF and EU wanted him out as well. "Crowdstrike" has already been debunked. Trying to get the Ukrainians to revive it is also a Trump rejection of the intelligence agencies and Mueller Report conclusions regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

A. IT WILL GET WORSE FOR THE PRESIDENT:
That is what they said DAILY in the mass media during the Russia Hoax. ("The walls are closing in...(ad nauseum)" was my favorite rant)

B.THE BIDEN ISSUE ISN'T GO ANYWHERE ONCE THE DETAILS ARE OUT:
Incorrect grammar.The issue is either not going anywhere now, or will go nowhere in the future.

It may go nowhere in the future, but not now. The questions are:

1).Did Biden Participate In Graft Getting His Son A No-Show Job At Burisma After A Big Oil Deal?

The timing of Joe's involvement in the Ukraine oil industry and his son getting a seat at Burisma with no qualifications merits a look.

2). Did Biden Profit From Laundering Money From Ukraine To Latvia To Cypress To The US?

It could be direct payment, or money that went to Biden family/institutions. That merits a look also


3).Did Biden Blackmail The Ukraine Governmen Into Dropping Prosecutor Sholkin's Investigation Into Burisma Oil And Hunter Biden.

Prosecutor Sholkin swore a court statement to the effect and Biden carelessly bagged about it on camera. That merits a look, or second look if it makes you happy.

4). The Prosecutor Wasn't Doing His Job?

Media reports that bounce around the internet have their own smell.
They bring up memories of the Steel Dossier bouncing from one media source to another to get a FISA warrant.

Resistance to looking at Joe and fils smell of supporting a coverup. President Trump asked the new Ukraine president to follow the smoke to see if there is a fire.

The suspicions are significant. Why would anyone--except Trump frothers--think it required a quid pro quo to investigate?

TRUMP REJECTIONS OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES?

That is a laugh. It was intelligence officials that tried to frame him in the Russian Hoax and now a CIA snitch in the White House conjured up hearsay to start this hoax.

A president (not just Trump) has the constitutional duty to conduct foreign affairs. There is nothing that says he cannot ASK another government to investigate corruption by a member of a previous administration. Running for a nomination, not the office itself yet, does not grant immunity.

Trump himself was investigated during his run for the nomination and the office.

There is enough here for a Senate inquiry into Joe, his son and concerned Ukrainians (on both sides) answering honest questions.

Why be afraid to let the chips fall?

 

Fine with me. If Lindsey wants to investigate Joe & his son, that's his prerogative if he has the votes. But, that doesn't make the President's problems go away. During that time, the impeachment inquiry can continue in the House.

 

Lindsey was the guy I had in mind. He can run side-by-side investigations

1. Who in the intelligence community started the Russia Hoax to depose an elected president?
2. Who in the intelligence community started the Ukraine Hoax to depose an elected president?

The white heat to vote for impeachment will fade in the House when democrat fence sitters realize they've been duped--AGAIN

 

Lindsey is head of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Senator Burr (R-NC) is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee; he would lead those investigations, not Lindsey.
Basically, Trump himself, by not accepting the Mueller Report, has restarted its investigation.

 

Impeachment in the house will be entirely partisan and as Pelosi has shown, no evidence needed to call for one.

 

Not accepting the Mueller report that absolved the admin from collusion or conspiracy which is what the investigation was all about?

 

It's Trump who doesn't seem satisfied with the findings of the Mueller report. The purpose of the investigation was two-fold: 1) Was there conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Answer: None that we could find that would result in indictments beyond those we've already indicted. 2) Was the President involved in obstruction of justice crimes designed to damage 1)? Answer: We don't reach any conclusion, due to the DoJ policy prohibiting the indictment of sitting presidents and defer that decision to the AG.
My "theory" is that Trump can't leave it at that...he has to totally discredit the Mueller Report to justify presidential pardons and the lifting of sanctions against Russia.

 

Link? Why Trumpets make outrageous claims without substance? Because what they are saying is false?

What did Hunter Biden do wrong?

What did Joe Biden do wrong?

 

As vice-president? How did he do that? Biden didn't have the authority.

What did Hunter Biden do wrong?

What did Joe Biden do wrong?

 

He will get impeached. The democrats are aching to be able to put the word "impeached" in front of his name and title during the election season.

 

Another wet dream. There is a lot of that going around.

 

Nobody but the board of directors has the authority. It is question influence and presssure, not authority.

Nothing.

He used his political power to get his son a job he wouldn't have gotten without it. He did what the left is accusing Trump of doing. Understand that this is common stuff in the corrupt world of politics.

 

It is interesting to note that Trump, those in the White House defending Trump, the few Republicans in Congress willing to defend Trump, and Trump supporters on this thread never go into the specifics of the call's transcript or the whistleblower's complaint. They use various vague, outdated characterizations, pretend the call was innocent, and try desperately to change the subject, but they dare not venture into the substance of the alleged impeachment charges against Trump.

This is really quite comical. Trumpets know their hero is guilty as hell.

 

It is called GRAFT.

 

Innocent men are not guilty.

Ask Mueller.

BTW: The IG report on fraud in the intelligence community under Obama is due out soon.

 

I think the proper term is nepotism which is normally not illegal. Graft, on the other hand is normally illegal.

 

I resent your comments. President Trump is no hero of mine. And the quotes of mine you used had nothing to do with President Trump. They were about Nixon and Ford.

 

Thank you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping a son get a job.

 

That was the point.