What is all this Impeachment about...

because mainstream media gives a disproportionate amount of coverage to the crazy fringes of both groups. They feed on the conflict caused by the division they cause. Just a few decades ago the left and right were able to conduct business in a civil fashion. The vultures ensure those days are long gone.

 

I think a realistic goal for Democrats would be about 55% at the end of this process. That would give them an unprecedented control of the House. I haven't done the numbers yet, but I think it would give them a majority in the Senate. And a definite Presidential mandate. As well as big gains with State Legislators and some governorships.

Two separate things that should not be confused. One is if he has committed enough proven crimes and high crimes to meet the constitutional conditions that would warrant his removal. The other is if there are enough votes to actually remove him. The former has been met. It's for the latter that public support is necessary.

I'm not convinced that this is true. Nothing would have done more to demotivate Democrats than giving Trump a free pass after all he has done. It's possible that they would have turned out in large numbers regardless. But to most Democrats this is not about removing Trump. It's about the act of holding him accountable. If Democrats can't do that, they have lost part of their base. Democrats are ok with their Party if it's Republicans who derail this. They will be angry with Republicans and come out to vote with great fervor. On the Democratic side, it's not just that the base comes out to vote. It's that they will motivate others to do the same. Republicans will come out to vote regardless.

Not a stretch at all. There is ample evidence that higher turnout favors Democrats. This is why "Suppress the Vote" campaigns are always orchestrated by Republicans.

Hard to foretell the future, but there are indicators that if the loss in popularity of the Republican Party is significant in this election cycle, it will be very hard to overcome.

Thank you. I don't know for sure that Trump won't be removed. I've always held it's highly unlikely. But I just don't think that removing Trump is even the main objective. So I wouldn't call that "failing".

 

-While I would agree that 55% is in the realm of possibility ( although I personally have doubts that it will go that high), I do not necessarily agree that it is some sort of magic number that gives them the house. The house is made up of a lot of very safe seats and a scant few swing seats. It is the swing seats that determine control, and 55% means nothing in regards to control of those swing seats. If there were a number that would supposedly determine control of the house, it would be amongst the elusive independent vote, which would not be necessarily impacted by an overall popular vote number like saying 55% support.

-There is nothing concrete in regards to what is the constitutional bar for removal. That bar is whatever public support says it is. There would be no basis for the Supreme Court to jump in and determine whether something meets or falls short of the bar. The only bar that has been met is enough support for the party in power to move forward. The bar for that requirement is actually quite low. What stops other majorities from doing so is the fear of an over agrressive impeachment turning off independents and hurting that party at the ballot box. Democrats face that reality with this situation. You obviously think that it will not hurt them. I disagree vehemently and honestly believe that this situation is the best thing that could have happened for Trump in terms of getting re-elected and pushing forth his agenda. Time will tell. We should know next November.

-Higher turnout favors Democrats from a generic perspective, but we arebnt talking about a generic perspective. We are talking about respective bases being motivated to turn out, and this issue motivates both sides. What you need is for these actions to be approved by independents, and whether or not that is the case is very much in doubt.

-The whole "lost for a generation" nonsense is silly. Both sides claim it, and it is NEVER true.

-Removing Trump is the objective of the more rabid parts of the Democrat base. The more practical side, including Nancy Pelosi, knows full well that he will not be removed. Nancy had no choice but to go forward with impeachment or she would likely lose her grip on power, eventhough her praxctical side knows that Democrats election chances are being put at great risk. In that sense, the goal is different for differing factions within the Democrats.

 

Democrats already have the house. I'm talking about expanding their lead. Obviously it's not a magic number. It's a number I would associate with guaranteeing that expansion. It simply means that all Democrats are on the same "frequency",

Bar for what would drive Senators to remove the President, no. Bar for illegality (I'll call it that to avoid confusion, though a High Crime isn't necessarily a crime), yes. It's the latter that has been met.

No... wait a minute. The Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to "jump" into anything.. Congress has the sole power of impeachment.

I can't even imagine any possible reason of how any of this could in any conceivable way benefit Trump.

I don't know what a "generic perspective" even is. High turnout favor Democrats in any perspective.

Motivation to turn out is vital for Democrats. Republicans, motivated or not, always show up.

The large majority of independents, by far, are clueless. It's nice to have a majority of independents, but not vital.

I gave my arguments as to why I think this time it's plausible.

I don't know who these "rabid parts" you mention are (there is no such thing as a "Democrat" base). If what you say is their objective, they are an extremely small part. Democrats have no appetite for a Mike Pence Presidency.

Many Democrats talk about "removal". Because they know that that's what Trump deserves. And it would be great to attain that. But that's nobody's main objective (nobody of consequence). The objective is to preserve Democracy and the Constitutionality of the Republic. This is always the objective. This is why you would never see a "Roy Moore" or a "Rick Kavanaugh" or, much less, a "Donald Trump" ever running for anything on the Democratic Party. This is why you see Democrats like Al Franken resign. Or others like Charlie Rangel who refuse to resign, stripped of all their power. It's why you never saw anybody whatsoever defending Blagojevich. Democrats only demand one thing: reasonable evidence. Not even definite evidence. Just reasonable. And they will turn on any politician in a heartbeat. .

I'm afraid your vision of Democrats is what right wingnut radio and the Fox echo chamber tries to project. It's not based on reality, though.

Anyway... I agree that Trump will not be removed from office by Republicans. But this is not due to lack of evidence. And if the evidence is there, and Republicans still protect him, they will pay in November. And it's for this reason that, politically (though not in any other aspect) not removing Trump would be more beneficial for Democrats than for Republicans for several election cycles. I am so convinced of this that I have been wondering if maybe Republicans will realize this fact, and just go ahead an remove him. Sure... Republicans currently in Congress would pay the consequences in November. Trump followers would make sure of that. But after the first 100 days, they would come back with such moral clout that they would be a formidable force.

If I were a professional Democratic strategist, this is the outcome I would be most afraid of.

 

Actually, a bank robbery would be documented - by security guards writing incident reports, cameras, etc.

 

But not by the criminals, which is what seems to be demanded here.

Many of the witnesses seem to have taken copious notes.

 

The problem with Trump is that the agenda, that he was elected to pursue, isn't the agenda that the Washington insiders want pursued.

Therefore, those insiders, both elected and unelected, have employed every dirty, underhanded, slimy trick that their corrupt minds can invent in order to prevent his success.

 

Yeah... and then they move all of that to a highly classified server reserved for national secrets.

 

But no direct witnesses.
Think about it - in the White House there are body guards, aides, intelligence officers everywhere. Did you notice how Trump can’t help himself and learn when to shut up? That’s actually one of his weaknesses.
I will never believe that there was no one in the White House who haven’t heard trump talking about QPQ who isn’t his ally.

Have you ever thought of what it is to be the president of this country? You are pretty much never alone. Walls have ears in the White House. Even your cell phone is issued by the government and I bet all your activity on that phone is tracked by CIA. If there is real QPQ then there’s got to be a document or a record somewhere. If Democrats cant produce direct evidence then it’s their own damn fault!

Look, I voted for Hillary. I was born and raised in Ukraine. I’m a living, breathing Ukrainian American. Here are my thoughts on this - the way Biden was boasting about firing that prosecutor who served just 13 months is begging for investigation about Burisma, prosecution in Ukraine and Hunter Biden. In my opinion Trump has every right to ask about it. And when he asked about it, Biden wasn’t even the top candidate from the democrats. I think this definitely warrants the investigation on Biden and I do hope that it happens. At the same time, if there is real proof of Trump seeking QPQ I would totally support some form of punishment for Trump. At the same time - what could Trump legally do? At the worst - bluff and delay by up to the end of the fiscal year (September). The president can’t really hold authorized aid indefinitely unless it was authorized by Congress.
A major hole in this whole story about Bidens - if that prosecutor was seen as a major problem by “pretty much everyone” then why didn’t Congress add some conditions to the aid package when they passed that bill? Congress would be perfectly in its right to do so. If there were no such conditions then Bidens threats were illegal. And it was at the time when the war in Ukraine was hot, their people were dying every minute/hour and they desperately needed help.
At least that’s my point of view.

 

Congress can access anything if they really want to.

 

... or need to

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

If Congress really wants to, they can force you to come and testify.
If Democrats are not doing it then it’s their own fault.

 

Impeach him for what?

 

And how many jobs did he produce?

 

Oh yeah... contempt of Congress. That ought a get the criminals in this administration scared!

Look... Threatening the criminals in this administration with accusing them for Contempt of Congress is like trying to stop bank robbers in their getaway car by threatening them with a speeding ticket.

But I must give you that what you wrote is really funny!

 

Why are you being shown as "not online"?

 

So you mad he didn't lose his money, I dont get your point?

 

He did lose money, massive amounts of money — at the taxpayer and businesses that closed expense.

The point is “success” is not measured in jobs created when you are destroying lives all around you.

 

So do you call it success when he is president and all you do is argue on an anonymous message board?

 

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.
...
He then provided a list of witnesses in his Senate trial. The list included the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden.

Conspicuous by their absence are witnesses close to Trump and close to the issues surrounding Ukraine and the July 25 phone call. Absent are Mick Mulvaney, director of the OMB, the agency that withheld the military aid to Ukraine. Also, SecState Mike Pompeo is missing, and he was the boss of many of the witnesses who appeared in the hearings. Absent also is John Bolton, the fired NSA and the person most knowledgeable of the events surrounding the July 25 phone call. Also missing is Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer who played a key role in the Ukrainian controversy.

If Trump is innocent like he says he is, and the call was "perfect" then, hypothetically, these witnesses could tell their story and prove Trump was, indeed, innocent.

However, Trump does not want these people to appear at his Senate trial. Why? They have first hand knowledge of Trump's wants and desires ... and the motivation.

That's why.

 

Trial for what crimes?

 

What?
That doesn’t even make any sense.

Also, I am not the topic of the conversation but I understand your need to shift it.

 

Despite a preponderance of evidence of Trump's deceit and abuse of power, it would be a mistake for the House to impeach Trump.

The ultimate purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Passing an Articles of Impeachment and a Senate trial is enormously divisive. The ultimate result of an impeachment is that it would tear our country apart.

The ultimate goal of Democrats, in one form or another, is to remove Trump from office. Many observers feel that would not be accomplished if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Why? One reason is the Democrats would be doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do, or so he says. He wants a Senate trial. He thinks it is his only chance to win reelection because everything he has done has turned sour. His forlorn accomplishments would include a failed Middle East policy, the lunacy of freeing up Iran to resume her nuclear research, his retreat in Syria which enhanced Russian interests in the pivotal Middle East, and his months long trade war with China which resulted in higher prices and a stagnant Wall Street from Jan. 2018 through Oct. 2019. The stock market only now is beginning to recover because analysts think Trump's trade war is coming to an end.

Another reason is, Americans are not behind impeachment. For impeachment to be successful, it would require an overwhelming support of Americans, somewhere in the area of 85 to 95%. Then Republicans in the Senate would listen.

Which brings us to the third reason why impeachment will fail. Many Republicans think what Trump did in Ukraine was inappropriate, but not a reason to remove him from office. Many disagree, thinking that a Presidential request for foreign interference in our Presidential election does warrant removal from office. They would ask Republicans, is foreign interference in our elections now acceptable? Apparently it is for Republicans because they are not breaking ranks. As things stand right now, not one Republican would vote to remove Trump from office.

So, what is the point of impeaching Trump? The best chance Democrats have of removing Trump from office is to continue to question his honesty and competence. Trump is an extremely unpopular President. They should feed on that, and maybe they will win next November.

 

Impeach him for what crime?

 

No shift, you claim Trump is broke living under a bridge somewhere