Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

[Ed Parenteau]

Sufficient?

1. Donald never admits to wrongdoing or error, so there's nothing in the record for that.

2. See above

3. Donald has no license to practice law, so there's nothing to take away from him.

4. Donald might deign to pay such a fine... not from his own pocket, of course -- I'm sure his family still has a charity somewhere whose coffers they can raid... That's what they're for, after all...

5. See above... Although with Cohen still in prison, Giuliani will have to take over his duties as Donald's bagman... assuming he hasn't already.

6. Donald will never accept any finding from any court his didn't pack... Not will his followers.

7. The public condemns Donald 2-3 times a month; it just makes his followers love him more.

You've managed to establish that the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton were excessive, since the seven sanctions were indeed quite sufficient.

Alas, none of them will have any effect on curbing Donald's bad behavior... Or even getting either him or his followers to even acknowledge its existence.

After spending 35-40 million of taxpayer dollars and using the whole weight of the DOJ using nothing but Trump-hating Democrats looking under every stone to try and find something against him, they still could find -NOTHING-
As far the Democrats impeachment persecution of Trump, it's a lot like your argumentation whereby there's nothing but innuendo, false accusations and hearsay.

 

[HannahT]

Given that several court cases are going to go through the Supreme Court, I wouldn't rule it out either.

So the question is, do you want one trial in the Senate or More?

Democrats have already said they will do it again. So, chances of it happening again are pretty much there already.

What I'm not looking forward to is when the powers are switched - which will come in time - we get to do this all over again with a Democratic President. Yuck there too.

That's how the political ball bounces. I'm not looking forward to that either.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, so what if he gives people second chances, it's the whole idea of "justice reform".

Or.... considering that working for Donald is pretty much career suicide, the only people who will willingly take employment from him at this point are those whose futures are already in the commode...

Sounds better than saying that Donald offers redemption to those who sufficiently praise him.

And besides you thought it was just fine that Clinton

I'm sorry, but the Clinton-bashing thread is down the hall and to the Right... this is about Donald's wrongdoings.

 

[Vylo]

On the contrary once they cheapen the value of the impeachment process by not even considering it worthy to pass on to the Senate - then by all means we should sit up and take notice of that wrong doing.

Trump cheapens the impeachment process by both obstructing it and continuing to commit impeachable offenses.

 

[BobRyan]

Trump cheapens the impeachment process .

That makes no sense at all. Even if your argument is that Trump is a criminal -- it is still an irrefutable fact that impeaching a criminal does not "cheapen" the impeachment process.

Creating a grand jury indictment against someone you think is bad "does not cheapen" the indictment process.

But if you create an indictment via grand jury -- then toss it out in the trash before it can be submitted to a court/judge to decide the case - you do indeed cheapen it.

Trump cheapens the impeachment process by both obstructing it .

If your argument is that when the executive and legislative branches of government are at odds on requesting a document or a witness then it is "illegal" for the judicial branch to arbitrate/decide the case - then you simply are not familiar with the form of government we have in America and also do not remember Obama doing that very thing during the previous administration.
How is this not the "easy part"?

 

[BobRyan]

Democrats have already said they will do it again. So, chances of it happening again are pretty much there already.

What I'm not looking forward to is when the powers are switched - which will come in time - we get to do this all over again with a Democratic President. Yuck there too.

That's how the political ball bounces. I'm not looking forward to that either.

Indeed - this little "game" that the house is playing is something that could change our form of government for the worse in a short period of time. Hopefully the voters will sort this out fast.

 

[KCfromNC]

Denying the Mueller Investigation are you?

No, my comment was about the obvious falsehoods in the post I was responding to.

 

[KCfromNC]

That I'm not looking forward to is when the powers are switched - which will come in time - we get to do this all over again with a Democratic President.

Yeah, it might even get to the point of ridiculousness of having multiple repeated hearings over the actions of a President's secretary of state.

 

[BobRyan]

From the "More popcorn needed", files: House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again | Politico

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
​

Because they already know they will have another 4 years after 2020 to "try it again"?

Or because they have cheapened impeachment now so that it is down to 12 weeks and they really don't need to hand anything off to the Senate?

Is that a political strategy for "Why serve the American public when you can be nonstop divisive and bitter"???

Do they think the American public will vote for "more of that nonsense" in 2020 or are they thinking that they have until Nov 2020 to try it out before they get booted from office?

Or in January 5 of 2021 do they vote to impeach one more time before handing the keys to the house over to the new group of freshman congressmen? congress-persons?

 

[Paulos23]

Democrats have already said they will do it again. So, chances of it happening again are pretty much there already.

What I'm not looking forward to is when the powers are switched - which will come in time - we get to do this all over again with a Democratic President. Yuck there too.

That's how the political ball bounces. I'm not looking forward to that either.

The Republicans have been doing this for a while now since Nixon, they just got lucky with Clinton. As long as the Dems vote in someone that knows this is going to happen (and they should, Obama acted like he was going to be investigated) and stays on the up and up it will be fine.

I never thought the GOP would have someone this sloppy.

 

[Gigimo]

Perhaps when (if) the polling numbers change from their current state where more voters want Donald removed from office than voted for him in the first place?

Last I seen national numbers were worse than state by state numbers, it seems that most of the battleground states are against impeachment.

By the numbers: In a dozen October and November polls on impeachment in battleground states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin, an average of 44% of those surveyed supported impeachment, with 51% opposed, according to the Post.

 

[Gigimo]

Even if they had everything, it wouldn't matter -- the fix is in as for as the Senate's concerned. They're pro-Donald all the way.

If they actually had something I don't think you would hear Mitch say what he's said he would probably be pretty quiet.

 

[Gigimo]

More precisely, I'm not sure Republicans care about Trump doing wrong. By that I mean, whether Trump ACTUALLY does wrong or not appears to be completely superfluous to the argument. I have, sadly, not seen enough of his supporters show a reasonable rebuttal for any of his side show antics. Perhaps they grow tired of a grown president acting that way but they'll put up with it for now.

It has been demonstrated that for some, a disturbing number to me, so long as the economy is humming Trump could literally do no wrong. For some, I think even if the economy tanked, he STILL could do no wrong because you can guarantee that he's convince them it would be the democrats fault.

The economy is almost always the #1 item in the voters minds when it comes election time, voters always vote for the candidate that promises to improve it unless for some reason they don't believe his/her flowery promises.

Take Obama/McCain for example both promised to make the economy better, polling showed the voters believed Obama. On the other hand polling showed McCain had a big lead over Obama in conducting foreign policy. Looks like we can figure out which is more important in the voters minds even if it didn't work out the way they wanted it to.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If they actually had something I don't think you would hear Mitch say what he's said he would probably be pretty quiet.

Mitch has been taking his cues from his boss, as have most of the GOP... the best defense is to attack, attack, attack...

"Quiet" isn't in the vocabulary of One Nation Under Donald.

 

[Gigimo]

Mitch has been taking his cues from his boss, as have most of the GOP....

Yeah I guess that's why we still have the ACA

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah I guess that's why we still have the ACA

Pretty much. "Competence" -- See "quiet," above.

 

[Aldebaran]

Prior to Donald, the last impeachment process was over a presidential lying over his extramarital shenanigans... I don't see how it can be cheapened any further.

Quite easily! By first claiming over and over again that it must be done, and must be done right now in order to not allow the next election to be influenced while at the same time not allowing the voters to make their own decisions ('cuz that'd be dangerous!), and then not even allowing it to go to the Senate because, well, the case doesn't look at strong as it once seemed to.
Oh, and then try convincing the public that we need to go through this all over again before the first process is even completed. That's how you cheapen the impeachment process.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Quite easily! By first claiming over and over again that it must be done, and must be done right now in order to not allow the next election to be influenced while at the same time not allowing the voters to make their own decisions ('cuz that'd be dangerous!), and then not even allowing it to go to the Senate because, well, the case doesn't look at strong as it once seemed to.
Oh, and then try convincing the public that we need to go through this all over again before the first process is even completed. That's how you cheapen the impeachment process.

I have a question. How long does a voter’s choice last for? Voters made a decision in November 2018 that they wanted the House to actual exercise some oversight over the executive branch. When are their wishes no longer valid and we should wait for word from the next election?

Wisconsin Republicans made it crystal clear that the will of the voters from the gubernatorial election in 2014 was valid all of the way to the end of Walker’s term in January 2019. What voters wanted in November 2018 wasn’t valid until January as Walker spent December 2018 stripping power from the governor so incoming governor Evers had his hands tied. Was that wrong to do since the voters had made their decision and wanted a Democrat (or probably just not Walker) as governor?

 

[Aldebaran]

I have a question. How long does a voter’s choice last for? Voters made a decision in November 2018 that they wanted the House to actual exercise some oversight over the executive branch. When are their wishes no longer valid and we should wait for word from the next election?

Wisconsin Republicans made it crystal clear that the will of the voters from the gubernatorial election in 2014 was valid all of the way to the end of Walker’s term in January 2019. What voters wanted in November 2018 wasn’t valid until January as Walker spent December 2018 stripping power from the governor so incoming governor Evers had his hands tied. Was that wrong to do since the voters had made their decision and wanted a Democrat (or probably just not Walker) as governor?

Your question is based on the idea that when the House changed from Republican controlled to democrat, it was meant to give the House (democrats) oversight over the exec. branch, as in starting impeachment hearings. Do you think it meant that the voters wanted the dems to play politics and attempt to influence the 2020 election while claiming to do the opposite, and then actually delay the process that they said was so important that it had to be be done now?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Your question is based on the idea that when the House changed from Republican controlled to democrat, it was meant to give the House (democrats) oversight over the exec. branch, as in starting impeachment hearings. Do you think it meant that the voters wanted the dems to play politics and attempt to influence the 2020 election while claiming to do the opposite, and then actually delay the process that they said was so important that it had to be be done now?

Did Trump have to wait until the Democratic primary debates to have Biden investigated and influence the 2020 election or could he have done that at any point after taking office?