Outcome of impeachment

[Mountainmanbob]

How about a more realistic set of options.
I’ll go for Impeachment fails Democrats lose House, Senate and Presidency

That's where I would bet my money.

M-Bob

 

[evoeth]

That's where I would bet my money.

M-Bob

Weird how Trump said today that the house has the votes for impeachment. Weird. Isn't it?

 

[His student]

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives can impeach the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is left entirely to their discretion to define high crimes and misdemeanors. There need not be a violation of any statute.

Every high crime and misdemeanor has a statute or it isn't a crime of any kind.

 

[hislegacy]

You're kidding me, right?

Trump withheld military aide to the Ukraine to coerce them to attack his political opponent.

That is a crime.

Not according to the President of Ukraine and several texts

 

[evoeth]

I would agree but,
I would get in trouble.
M-Bob

Do try to keep up with your leader's latest... You're a lie or two behind!

Trump admits Democrats could easily impeach him

 

[Speedwell]

Every high crime and misdemeanor has a statute or it isn't a crime of any kind.

Read the Constitution. The House can impeach the President for anything that a majority of them agree on. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal indictment.

 

[His student]

I'll be expecting your full apology.

When it's determined that there was no law broken - can we all expect a full apology?

Or will you be like tulc and just go on to the next pile of junk?

Read the Constitution. The House can impeach the President for anything that a majority of them agree on. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal indictment.

I have read the Constitution.

Impeachment is a political process for sure. The Constitution lays out exactly what they can impeach for in that political process.

We are not talking about a criminal indictment either in impeachment itself or in the findings of the Senate. Criminal indictments would come later if there was a crime committed (which there wasn't),

You are correct in that the House can impeach the President for anything that a majority of them agree on. They can vote against what the Constitution says they can impeach for.

When it is determined that there was not a crime of any kind - they will loose the battle in the Senate, look like the fools they are, and likely loose the battle at the ballot box for going against what the Constitution clearly allowed them to impeach for and just acting on pure political grounds.

Capiche?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Trump admits Democrats could easily impeach him

Probly just another Trump smoke screen and look at all the ones buying into it.

M-Bob

 

[SimplyMe]

When it's determined that there was no law broken - can we all expect a full apology?

Or will you be like tulc and just go on to the next pile of junk?

I have read the Constitution.

Impeachment is a political process for sure. The Constitution lays out exactly what they can impeach for in that political process.

We are not talking about a criminal indictment either in impeachment itself or in the findings of the Senate. Criminal indictments would come later if there was a crime committed (which there wasn't),

You are correct in that the House can impeach the President for anything that a majority of them agree on. They can vote against what the Constitution says they can impeach for.

When it is determined that there was not a crime of any kind - they will loose the battle in the Senate, look like the fools they are, and likely loose the battle at the ballot box for going against what the Constitution clearly allowed them to impeach for and just acting on pure political grounds.

Capiche?

From what I've seen, most legal experts conclude that the transcript alone is enough to prove Trump committed a crime -- he asked for a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. Yes, there is some debate if Biden is considered a political opponent, since neither Trump nor Biden is the official nominee of their party. OTOH, most seem to think the fact that both are declared candidates for President is the reasonable standard.

Now, the question is what other information will come out. To this point, while both sides are putting out their talking points, most seems to be going against Trump. Like Volker's testimony today that mentioned the text messages. The article in the WSJ today about Senator Johnson, that he was told that the money was being held up until the Ukraine investigated the Bidens. Additionally, these revelations appear to support the idea that, for example, when the former ambassador to the Ukraine and others testify, more evidence will be coming out.

As for the former ambassador to the Ukraine, the whistle blower contends Yovanovitch was working against Trump's investigations of the Bidens and that is why she was fired; and this appears to have been verified now by Giuliani himself, again in the WSJ.

Oh, there is also the question if the President broke classifications law -- falsely marking his conversation with the Ukrainian President as classified in order to limit access to it. Yes, that would be a felony.

There is quite a bit that we don't know and need verified. But, again, just the transcript alone would likely be enough, if Trump were not President, to see him prosecuted for conspiracy with a foreign government to influence the election.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Recently four or five Republican senators have strongly criticized Trump. A few hours ago one Republican Senator even volunteered evidence against him.

It's becoming increasingly likely that he will be impeached and even convicted. I think impeachment is a foregone conclusion right now, so here's a pool about what comes after .

I predict that not only will he not be impeached. It will be Democrats who will be thrown into prison after all is said and done. Mark my words.

 

[SimplyMe]

I predict that not only will he not be impeached. It will be Democrats who will be thrown into prison after all is said and done. Mark my words.

What Democrats and for what crimes?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What Democrats and for what crimes?

Plotting to overthrow the rightfully elected President.

 

[His student]

From what I've seen, most legal experts conclude that the transcript alone is enough to prove Trump committed a crime -- he asked for a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. Yes, there is some debate if Biden is considered a political opponent, since neither Trump nor Biden is the official nominee of their party. OTOH, most seem to think the fact that both are declared candidates for President is the reasonable standard.

You need to get out more.
I know you likely hate FOX news - but if you could just plug your nose for a little while on this one issue alone - you could get a whole other slant on things.

And, before you say that it's a whole Republican slant - I think you'll find it much more fair and balanced than any of the liberal media you're used to.

Now, the question is what other information will come out. To this point, while both sides are putting out their talking points, most seems to be going against Trump. Like Volker's testimony today that mentioned the text messages.

By most expert unbias accounts Volker's testimony was absolutely devastating to the idea that there was a crime committed by Trump or even that there could have been a quid pro quo. Again - you really need to get out more. You're being fed a load of pabulum.

Oh, there is also the question if the President broke classifications law -- falsely marking his conversation with the Ukrainian President as classified in order to limit access to it. Yes, that would be a felony.

There is no mandated access to private conversations between a President and another head of state - as decided by the coutrt during the Obama administration.

There is quite a bit that we don't know and need verified. But, again, just the transcript alone would likely be enough, if Trump were not President, to see him prosecuted for conspiracy with a foreign government to influence the election.

Nonsense.

You need to get away from the liberal party lines and research things for yourself.

 

[Kentonio]

To all liberal liberal robots:

If there were clearly laws broken - Nancy Pelosi would call for a vote of impeachment tomorrow without further delay.

She doesn't dare do that of course and every thinking Democrat (as few as there are) knows why.

Everyone knows that there were no laws broken and this is just a bunch more of the Democrat's attempt to overthrow an election where the people went a different way than the libs and commies wanted the country to go.

I understand why there are liberal talking points on the networks when people really know the true score.

But I can't, for the life of me, understand how born again Christians can think this way.

This isn't exactly rocket surgery - spiritual or otherwise.

But then when you have a thread OP'd by an atheist I can see how it would draw out the worst or at least the most spiritually shallow of us in this forum.

Always hilarious hearing a FOX news fan tell other people they’re not getting the full story.

Your president is an habitual liar and crook who is going to get impeached. He’s hated through the world and has turned your country into a laughing stock. Whether you agree with that or not doesn’t matter one single iota, it’s simply the truth and that doesn’t change just because you or Hannetty want it to.

So feel free to keep defending this immoral, repulsive excuse for a president, and later don’t be surprised when no-one cares a jot for your pretense at morality. When you support criminals and liars you give up any right to be treated as a moral person yourself.

 

[evoeth]

But then when you have a thread OP'd by an atheist I can see how it would draw out the worst or at least the most spiritually shallow of us in this forum.

The door is back thataway towards the Christian only forum if even conversing with atheists hurts your fee fees.

 

[SimplyMe]

You need to get out more.
I know you likely hate FOX news - but if you could just plug your nose for a little while on this one issue alone - you could get a whole other slant on things.

You should quit making assumptions, you are apparently really bad at it. When I said most legal analysts, I meant most (including one on Fox News), including the ones that Fox and other conservative news sites are trotting out.

And, before you say that it's a whole Republican slant - I think you'll find it much more fair and balanced than any of the liberal media you're used to.

That is laughable, particularly since you don't seem to have any clues of the places I get my news.

By most expert unbias accounts Volker's testimony was absolutely devastating to the idea that there was a crime committed by Trump or even that there could have been a quid pro quo. Again - you really need to get out more. You're being fed a load of pabulum.

Again, no, and I'd say you need to listen to a balance of news sources. Volker said nothing that "devastates" anything. Instead, when I read the transcript (before hearing any news reports) he sounded like a man that wanted to make sure he isn't dragged into Trump's mud -- instead, he insisted that he had no real knowledge and that the little work he did was to put Giuliani and the Ukraine together. OTOH, he did confirm that Trump refused to meet or talk with Zelensky until after he agreed to the investigation -- confirming yet another tidbit from the whistleblower's report.

Of course, then the texts were released...

There is no mandated access to private conversations between a President and another head of state - as decided by the coutrt during the Obama administration.

Nice strawman, that isn't at all what I claimed. Instead, I claimed he illegally placed the call transcript on a classified code word server. See, the White House has a limited access server where transcripts of calls with foreign heads of state are placed. The public can't get access to them and only those in the administration that typically have a need to see them (such as someone in the State Department which needs to know what was talked about when drafting US policy towards a country).

Instead, the Zelensky transcript and memo was placed on a classified server, where only conversations and information dealing directly with classified information is placed. There is no classified information in the Zelensky call (unless Trump is hiding things on the unreleased official transcript, not the memo that was released) but it was on the classified server -- you can tell that because of the markings at the top of the transcript, as well as the fact it says Trump declassified them to release them.

Now, if you believe the whistleblower (and at this point, pretty much everything that can be verified appears to be true) it was placed on the classified server because the few administration officials on the call with Trump realized that he had basically committed a crime on the call and were trying to cover up -- so put it on the classified server to limit the access to a select few people.

Nonsense.

You need to get away from the liberal party lines and research things for yourself.

And if you haven't realized, I have researched -- it sounds like far more than you. I have looked at the actual whistleblower's complaint, I've read (or at least skimmed) most of Volker's testimony (I may be missing the last hour or two, which may not have been posted when I read it). In fact, I've avoided the news on Volker's testimony today, preferring to know what he said unfiltered. The only reason I know what any media said is because of people like you -- so largely the conservative media -- and it does not match what I read.

I'm trying not to make up my mind until we have all the evidence but, from the little that has been released thus far, it clearly appears as if Trump broke the law -- numerous laws.

But let me ask you a counter question: If you learned Hillary had put in a call to the Pres. of the Ukraine in 2015, to get information (an investigation started) about Trump, would you think she had broken the law? Would you want it investigated and assume it was completely legal (particularly with laws against foreign interference)?

 

[Belk]

Since this is a Christian forum and it should be what everyone is praying for - what about - "A few of the democrats are patriots under all that donkey hair and even with the majority the Democrats in the House fail to get the votes required to impeach the President (or they do) and they continue to make such fools of themselves that the American people put Republicans in the majority in both the House and Senate as Trump is reelected - and two new Supreme Court judges are appointed in the next 5 years and America pleases God with our status as a Christian nation in His eyes and we prosper as never before."

I checked the imaginary box.

I'm an optimist.

But then someone once said, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much".

Did you seriously just conflate your religion with your politics?

 

[evoeth]

Did you seriously just conflate your religion with your politics?

Exhibit A as to why religion is poison to millennials.

 

[His student]

Did you seriously just conflate your religion with your politics?

Proudly and without shadow of doubt.

 

[wing2000]

Every high crime and misdemeanor has a statute or it isn't a crime of any kind.

I see you need to brush up on both the Constitution and the Bible.

 

[wing2000]

I voted: Trump is convicted. He flees the country with more than a little faith that Sen. Romney's peers find their souls..,,

Trump could find solace in any number of countries whose leaders he is so fond of praising: N. Korea, Russia, The Philippines, etc