Trumpers getting slapped upside the head by reality

The House must act based on the findings of its investigations. Likewise, the Senate must try him on the basis of whatever House charges are put forward in the "bill of impeachment." Will it hurt the Democratic chances in the 2020 election, if he's not convicted and removed from office, by the Senate? Maybe, but it's doubtful. He now has a base of around 43%. He is not likely to INCREASE that base by the Senate vote, either way. In fact, it is likely that the charges to be voted upon will expose MORE wrong doing, not less. That may take AWAY current undecided Republican and Independent votes. If he goes much below his current base of support, he is unlikely to repeat the electoral college fluke of 2016.

 

Sure sounds like one

 

Trump may be impeached (I, for one, would like to see a vote on it), but he will not be convicted in the Senate. As of this month, Trump has an 87% approval rating among Republicans, which control the Senate. So put down the doobie, my friend, and welcome to reality.

As for actual proof of a quid pro quo by Trump, there is none. But we do have video of one quid pro quo, one salient evidence of collusion with Russia by a president that does not require a multimillion-dollar investigation:

 

It's "too"

 

Ahh the spelling monitor, well aint you cool

 

And "isn't"

Really?

 

To say Trump is incompetent is to say water is wet. Throughout his Presidency he replaces one controversy illustrating his incompetence with worse controversy illustrating his incompetence.

Where to begin? In 32 months there are so many. Let's begin with his disastrous trade war with China, which fortunately has not hurt our economy too much, no thanks to Trump. To illustrate the problem, currently the Dow is 281 points above where it was in January 2018. The stock market is standing still, and his trade war with no end in sight is a disaster while contrary to Republican Party principles.

Trump changed the subject from his disastrous trade war with China to his cowardly response to Iran capturing ships, mining ships, destroying the largest oil refinery in the world, and shooting down a very sophisticated American aircraft. Trump's response was meaningless economic sanctions. Trump seemed to have forgotten the fact that he caused the entire mess by removing the U.S. from a perfectly good working agreement that barred Iran from making a nuke.

As things got more serious with his handling of Iran, Trump began still another controversy to change the subject. He called a foreign power, asked them to interfere in our Presidential election by investigating one of his opponents and used bribery to get the foreign power to do what he wanted. This jacked up the impeachment charges against Trump.

But Trump didn't care. The mindless President quickly started a far worse controversy to remove the previous one from the front pages. He betrayed an important ally in the Middle East, an ally that had destroyed ISIS and curtailed Assad's monstrosities, and gave his friend, dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, everything he wanted. This imbecilic decision caused him support of Republicans in Congress, and both McConnell and Graham have turned on him.

Trump hasn't replaced this disaster yet, but he will.

What could be worse than betraying an important ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism? I don't know, but we will find out. Trump will find something. He always does.

With all the chaos Trump is creating, is there any doubt he is acting like a Russian puppet?

 

EP has ZERO value when it comes to CRIMES by the BLOTUS.

 

Kucinich isn’t a Senator. Is he even in the government anymore? If not, who cares what he thinks about it?

 

EP has zero value when there is a vote of the full house to launch an impeachment inquiry.

Departures from precedent to date:
1. No vote of the full house to launch an inquiry;
2. Hearings held in a dungeon behind closed doors in the Intel Committee in lieu of the Judiciary Committee that historically handled such matters;
3. Only the chairman is allowed to spin his version of testimony to the media;
4. The minority party has not been allowed to subpoena witnesses;
5. The President's attorney has been locked out and is unable to cross examine witnesses.

Pelosi is scared to let the news out that this circus is nothing more or less than the Dem's election campaign, a Kangaroo Court with Schiff for Brains playing the Kangaroo.

 

There is ZERO REQUIREMENT to have a full house vote for an inquiry.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house-vote-authorize-impeachment-inquiry

There are NO DUNGEONS in the House either so that emotive drivel is ludicrous.

Closed door hearings happen ALL THE TIME in BOTH houses of Congress!

The inability of the minority party to subpoena witnesses to SELF INFLICTED! Paul Ryan made those changes in the 115th Congress. Sucks when your own party's malfeasance comes back to bite it on the ass!

The BLOTUS's attorney has NO REASON nor any right to cross examine anyone in front of a congressional committee. There has NEVER been any such imaginary "right" so that is just another YUUUGE load of bovine excrement!

IOW's you have NOTHING of any substance to support your utterly BOGUS allegations.

 

Congrats, you just described the entire "impeachment" in a single sentence, well done.

 

While i rarely read more than the first few sentences of your screeds, have you considered seeking a job with CNN? They need creative people who hate our President.

Seriously, I dont read much of your posts. If you have read one, you have seen them all. Wash, rinse and repeat, ad naseum. Seriously.

 

I see no virtue to rushing this. If Pelosi rushes it, it looks like a railroad job rather than a deliberative process, the documentation and testimony in the public record is incomplete and she knows there won't be any republican votes to provide even the faintest cover of bipartisanship in the Senate, but more to the point Pelosi and the Dems lose their control over impeachment the moment articles are scheduled for a vote. As her controls ebbs, McConnell's grows. . Further she actually exerts control over the news cycle as well as Donald Trump himself and those are very valuable to have before any election.

Pelosi has been smart enough to lead from behind with her caucus. She opposed impeachment until the freshmen and the moderates in her caucus jumped on board, and they will play a large role in determining when these articles will come down the pike. But I think the votes are already pretty much there to impeach, but gauging the right time while voters support is peaking is crucial.

Dems won't pay much of a price for this with voters regardless because voters are uneasy that Russia, China, and Ukraine will be playing a bigger role in this 2020 process than they will! That fear in their gut that Putin is manipulating Trump and the American voter again is going to lead to a counter-balancing fundraising effort.once the Senate kills the articles.

 

CNN, patriotic Americans, our troops and intel and well over half the country

 

What you said above makes a great deal of sense.

Pelosi retaining control over the process to ensure that it is done in a deliberative fashion until it reaches a point where the majority of the electorate support the removal of the BLOTUS is definitely the way to go. Needless to say the BLOTUS cult members will never support this and be unhappy about it being dragged out but that is their problem, not hers.

Timing it so that the GOP Senate majority is caught between a rock and a hard place leading up to the election will be interesting. There are already signs that rural America has growing support for impeaching and removing the BLOTUS albeit it is still a minority but it has already reached 40%. If it continues to increase then the 22 Republican senators who are on the ballot in November are going to be have to make a difficult choice between party loyalty and doing what is right for America and We the People.

I doubt that there will be enough of them joining the Dems to vote to remove the BLOTUS from office but if any impeachment article gets more than 50% of the Senate that sets up the 2020 election in the Dems favor. They can argue that it is now up to We the People to remove the BLOTUS from office by voting against the GOP.

There is a possibility that the Senate MIGHT reach 67 votes on one article and then the BLOTUS is removed and Pence replaces him. This risk must be considered because he is a more "palatable" candidate for GOP voters to get behind. Those same rural Republicans who want the BLOTUS removed will be more than happy to vote for Pence instead.

Therein lies the danger to the Dems IMO.

They need the BLOTUS on the ticket in order to win in 2020 so it would not surprise me in the least if it looks like the Senate might reach 67 votes for any of the articles then it is possible that some of the Dems might change their votes to Abstain instead. I can see both Manchin and Schumer doing exactly that and there are probably a couple of others.

Yes, impeachment is a political process and it is going to be fascinating to watch how it plays out.

 

"Seriously, I dont read much of your posts".

Obviously, since your nonsense posts have been debunked over and over, but you will continue. Like Trump rallies, you only make brownie points with the rest of the base..

 

Well said!

 

Speaking of some inconvenient truths for The Following...........

https://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Trump Shakedown and Coverup.pdf

 

Trump claims to want to end “endless wars” while doing nothing of the sort. His surrender order in Syria started a war. "It's time to bring our soldiers back home." — Trump said at a news conference on Wednesday. He was lying.

Fox News reports, "All U.S. troops leaving Syria as part of the withdrawal plan recently announced by President Trump will be stationed in western Iraq, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Saturday."

The U.S. departure from Syria will take “weeks not days,” Esper said, and involve both aircraft and ground convoys as about 1,000 troops relocate, Reuters reported.

Does this mean there won't be any pullout at all? I am a retired Marine officer and a amateur military historian. It does not take weeks to withdraw 1,000 troops and their equipment. Is the Pentagon countermanding Trump's order? It has happened before.

Suddenly, Trump changed his mind, or the Pentagon changed it for him. The Times reports, "Trump is leaning in favor of a new Pentagon plan to keep a small contingent of American troops in eastern Syria, perhaps numbering about 200, to combat the Islamic State and block the advance of Syrian government and Russian forces into the region’s coveted oil fields, a senior administration official said on Sunday."

Fox added, "In addition, the U.S. military will continue its efforts to prevent a resurgence by Islamic State group (ISIS) terrorists, he said."

More evidence Trump is backing down from his dishonorable surrender order that betrayed an ally. Trump's order resulted in the Turkish invasion of Syria to annihilate the Kurds and forcing the survivors to leave their homes. In the process, thousands of ISIS terrorists were allowed to escape. Now because of Trump's order, we are forced to fight them again.

It doesn't take genius to figure out that the U.S. can't fight ISIS terrorists in Syria if our C-in-C foolishly orders our troops to go to Iraq.

Conclusion: As a result of the Pentagon's order to the troops and Trump's belated change of heart after much of the damage has already been done, the troops are staying for the reasons provided by Esper.

Trump's obvious attempt to turn the region over to Russia was a bit too obvious. Trump has about as much discretion as a pit bull.

 

LOL, someone has an inflated sense of self importance.

 

‘We Absolutely Could Not Do That’: When Seeking Foreign Help Was Out of the Question
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/us/politics/trump-foreign-influence.html?module=inline

To paraphrase the article, it was suggested to pappy Bush by four Repub congressmen when running against Bill Clinton in 1992 that he seek help from Russia and Britain in order to raise questions about Billy Bob's patriotism because Bush was behind in the polls. This due to the fact that Bill had protested the Vietnam War while visiting those countries. James A. Baker III, Bush’s chief of staff, wrote in a memo later that day. “I said we absolutely could not do that.”

A survey of 10 former WH chiefs of staff under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama found that none recalled any circumstance under which the WH had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds. (in anticipation of the Hillary did it whataboutism, she no no idea what methods Steele was using in his research)

So.......this is how deep the conman known as Crooked Donald has dragged us in to the mud. Bribery, no problem. Extortion, no problem. Unethical behavior, no problem. Illegal behavior, no problem. Anything goes if it serves the interests of President Sharpie. Even illegally altering an official US weather map.

 

How many subpoenas did Gowdy allow the minority party to issue during the Benghazi hearings?

 

I don't tink you want to compare how Gowdy comported himself with the current bunch of Democrat hacks ,, or even minority Democrats when Gowdy was the chair. You will or at least should be embarrassed.


The House Select Committee on Benghazi has held three public hearings. Mr. Gowdy allowed Democratic members to choose the first two topics. They predictably focused on the work of the State Department’s Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which they like to claim has already settled what happened in Libya. Mr. Gowdy nonetheless committed to thorough hearings. When Washington Democrat Adam Smith looked likely to miss a hearing because of hip surgery, Mr. Gowdy set up a Skype connection so that he could ask his questions. Mr. Gowdy made the same offer to Illinois’s Tammy Duckworth, who’d just had a child. When she politely declined, he allotted her question time to Mr. Cummings—a fair-play move rarely seen in D.C.

Washington lawmakers love their powers, and Mr. Gowdy has plenty. He has exercised them prudently. The Benghazi committee has issued only threes subpoenas. One to Mr. Blumenthal, whom the committee had trouble tracking down. One to the State Department for a specific batch of emails. And one to Mrs. Clinton, when the news first broke that she had maintained a private server for her email. When Mrs. Clinton later claimed that she was not under subpoena, Mr. Gowdy didn’t complain, he simply released the subpoena to set the record straight. He has declined to answer questions about whether he thinks she has committed any crimes.

Mr. Gowdy hasn’t needed to use subpoenas because agencies are willingly giving him documents. He has obtained materials from the CIA and Defense Department that those agencies refused to give to other committees. The White House has also agreed to give him material. Mr. Gowdy inspires confidence that, unlike most congressional committees, his group isn’t going to leak information to sabotage political targets.

That’s because Mr. Gowdy handpicked a staff of 16 professionals, many recruited from law-enforcement and legal backgrounds, headed up by retired Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who was an Obama-appointed Army judge advocate general. Mr. Gowdy told every hire on day one that leaking was a firing offense.

Keeping the Benghazi committee on the straight and narrow hasn’t been fun. Democrats work with Mr. Gowdy in private but then berate his committee in public. Conservative activists and talk-radio hosts blast him for depriving them of the drama they crave—for not running a get-Hillary committee. The State Department blocks him. And now his own side has made his job that much harder.

Don’t expect Mr. Gowdy to give up. He has run his committee with one goal in mind: finding answers for the families of four dead Americans. Mrs. Clinton flatters herself if she thinks it’s all about her.

https://archives-benghazi-republica...ses/wsj-op-ed-the-real-benghazi-investigation

 

A more practical reality is that the Senate could simply dimiss the impeachment with a mere majority vote.

Even if all Dem and Independent Senators vote not to dismiss, it still leaves room for 3 Senate rinos to also vote not to dismiss, giving VP Mike Pence the tie-breaking vote. It would be a fitting end to an impeachment process that was illegitimate from the get-go.