The Democrates must be admitting defeat

[Original Happy Camper]

based on this headline

Dem Rep. Green: ‘No Limit’ to How Many Times We Can Try to Impeach Trump
(only if they keep the majority in the house)

Thursday on C-SPAN, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) discussed impeachment, saying “there is no limit” to how many times the House and Senate can try to impeach President Donald Trump.

Green said he suspects Trump will have additional offenses in the future, so he believes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will “move forward” with a vote to impeach Trump for his alleged quid pro quo demand with Ukraine and then try again “at a later time” if they find more during their investigations.

Dem Rep. Green: 'No Limit' to How Many Times We Can Try to Impeach Trump | Breitbart

 

[A Realist]

Not sure how this means they're "admitting defeat".

 

[tulc]

...shouldn't they be, I don't know, defeated or something before they have to admit defeat?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Not sure how this means they're "admitting defeat".

Dem Rep. Green: ‘No Limit’ to How Many Times We Can Try to Impeach Trump

He used the word TRY

If they can impeach him now they would not need to keep trying IE he is admitting by default that they cannot impeach him now.

Unless their whole intent is just to put a black mark on his presidency by saying the house impeached him but the Senate did not convict.

 

[A Realist]

Dem Rep. Green: ‘No Limit’ to How Many Times We Can Try to Impeach Trump

He used the word TRY

If they can impeach him now they would not need to keep trying IE he is admitting by default that they cannot impeach him now.

Unless their whole intent is just to put a black mark on his presidency by saying the house impeached him but the Senate did not convict.

Read the article again. You're misconstruing its meaning.

What do you think "impeach" means?

 

[tulc]

Dem Rep. Green: ‘No Limit’ to How Many Times We Can Try to Impeach Trump

He used the word TRY

If they can impeach him now they would not need to keep trying IE he is admitting by default that they cannot impeach him now.

Unless their whole intent is just to put a black mark on his presidency by saying the house impeached him but the Senate did not convict.

...Then isn't it the Republicans that should admit defeat? If the only reason the face of their Party isn't kicked out of office is because they keep letting him commit impeachable offense and get away with it?
tulc(doesn't really see a down side to this)

 

[Original Happy Camper]

...Then isn't it the Republicans that should admit defeat? If the only reason the face of their Party isn't kicked out of office is because they keep letting him commit impeachable offense and get away with it?
tulc(doesn't really see a down side to this)

Not one witness has provided factual evidence of a crime. Based on your statement please list one crime he has committed, please.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Read the article again. You're misconstruing its meaning.

What do you think "impeach" means?

Please tell me what I have "misconstrued".

 

[tulc]

Not one witness has provided factual evidence of a crime. Based on your statement please list one crime he has committed, please.

Why? Let's be honest here, there's very little chance you'll accept anything any one says that will change your mind is there? But here you go: quid-pro-quo: demanding a foreign government do something to help a President with an internal political situation in exchange for aid already allotted for them.
tulc(is going to fetch more coffee)

 

[A Realist]

Please tell me what I have "misconstrued".

The article isn't about the Democrats admitting defeat.

You need to key in on the third paragraph:
“A president can be impeached more than once. So, we can do this: we can move forward with what we have on the table currently, we can take this before the Senate (IOW impeach him) and we can still investigate other issues, and when the president has committed additional offenses – and my suspicion is that he will – we can take those before the Senate.”

So, they can impeach him now to bring it to the Senate...keep investigating....and if he has committed what the House deems to be additional offenses, they can vote to impeach him again.

This is a far cry from saying they've been defeated.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

The article isn't about the Democrats admitting defeat.

You need to key in on the third paragraph:
“A president can be impeached more than once. So, we can do this: we can move forward with what we have on the table currently, we can take this before the Senate (IOW impeach him) and we can still investigate other issues, and when the president has committed additional offenses – and my suspicion is that he will – we can take those before the Senate.”

So, they can impeach him now to bring it to the Senate...keep investigating....and if he has committed what the House deems to be additional offenses, they can vote to impeach him again.

This is a far cry from saying they've been defeated.

Defeat on this try is what they are saying

another one

Clinton adviser and Democrat operative Paul Begala went on CNN this morning to discuss the Democrats’ plans to impeach President Trump over a ham sandwich.


Begala and the CNN host were STUNNED that more Republicans did not buy into their sham impeachment.

And Begala then said Democrats may have to keep impeaching President Trump over pure nonsense to damage him.

Pelosi Schedules First Impeachment Hearing Monday to Compete with IG Report and Obama Deep State Spying on Trump Campaign

 

[Sparagmos]

Not one witness has provided factual evidence of a crime. Based on your statement please list one crime he has committed, please.

Obstruction of justice, in not allowing the most important witnesses to testify.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Obstruction of justice, in not allowing the most important witnesses to testify.

Executive privilege is not a crime Take it to the Supreme Court and let the third leg of the government decide if that it is obstruction

 

[A Realist]

Defeat on this try is what they are saying

Nope. Don't see the word "defeat" or "defeated" anywhere. Keep trying.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nope. Don't see the word "defeat" or "defeated" anywhere. Keep trying.

If they succeeded, then they wouldn't have to keep trying unless they had been previously defeated in their attempt.

 

[Sparagmos]

Executive privilege is not a crime Take it to the Supreme Court and let the third leg of the government decide if that it is obstruction

A judge just ruled that executive privilege cannot he used to escape a congressional subpoena. Yes it may end up in front of the Supreme Court, but if all you’ve got to refute the obstruction charge is a claim of executive privilege that has recently been shot down by a judge, you’re not on solid ground. You’re advocating for a government where the president can conspire with others to commit crimes and there is no way for the truth to be revealed. Who then acts as a check on the power of the executive branch, and how do we investigate presidential crimes? We live in a democracy, not a monarchy and I have faith that even the conservative Supreme Court will not tell the president that he can shield himself from congressional oversight.

 

[A Realist]

Man, this forum is going to get out of control once he's been impeached.

 

[Aldebaran]

Man, this forum is going to get out of control once he's been impeached.

Not really. Impeachment itself doesn't mean much, and it's already pretty well determined that the House will vote to impeach. It's also equally well-known that the Senate will not vote to remove him from office. Therefore, it will all end up just like when Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed. Nothing really changed.

 

[A Realist]

Not really. Impeachment itself doesn't mean much, and it's already pretty well determined that the House will vote to impeach. It's also equally well-known that the Senate will not vote to remove him from office. Therefore, it will all end up just like when Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed. Nothing really changed.

Hide and watch.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hide and watch.

I was watching as Bill Clinton was impeached and nothing changed, and I watched from out in the open. It's no different now, unless the dems want to change the definition of impeachment.