Will trump get impeached?

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Oh but we DID. We distracted bits of the Imperial Japanese Navy over in Malaysia. The battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse bravely took on the Japanese Navy Air Force, and bravely exploded and sank !

Brave maybe, but our Pres likes battleships that don't sink.

[Hankenhunter]

41 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Brave maybe, but our Pres likes battleships that don't sink.

I C what you did there. Lol

[+and-then]

On 10/13/2019 at 2:47 PM, Tatetopa said:

It may have been an act, but Clinton was contrite and expressed remorse.  He did not challenge the authority of Congress. 

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a president must accede to the will of Congress during their attempt to remove him from office.  It has been assumed due to tradition what roles are played in the process.  If Trump refuses access to records or personnel for subpoena by the House then he would be justified considering THEIR choice to change the rules of tradition.  They've refused minority House members the right to question or subpoena witnesses and they are doing their work with an anonymous "whistleblower" in private, no less.  This is REAL star chamber, call the gulag stuff.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-gives-depth-history-lesson-impeachment-dems-media-wont-want-see/ 

What the Dems are trying here is unprecedented and Trump will succeed in stiff-arming them because of their own heavy handedness.

[the13bats]

2 wrongs do not make a right 3 lefts make a right.

No one not even trump no matter what his worshippers believe is above the law,

So they dont play the way he wants he can break laws, sure and he will be open to the consequences of his actions, now remember i dont support any camp i dont much care what he does its just entertainment for me.

I recall his veiled threat of a tweet where some preacher suggested if impeached it would cause a civil war,  I also recall threats that if he doesn't win 2020 he will refuse to step down,

Before my mind got too carried away Jonathan Turley puts it back down to earth, if trump refused to step down the new pres would be signed in, trump would be out and if he wouldn't move on grown man style he would be carried out baby tantrum style,

I get it his worshippers see him as a god, it works because in cult leader fashion he agrees with them on that,  I also believe some of his supporters love him so much they would give their lives and even their families lives ( if they have a family ) to fight for him, but that's a small percent and who would they fight Congress? What will trump supporters do storm capital hill with pitchforks and torches then live with him in the whitehouse?

Seriously, if trump calls for his worshippers to fight for him who do they fight, ladt time I asked this it was crickets and tumbleweeds.

 

[Tatetopa]

40 minutes ago, and then said:

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a president must accede to the will of Congress during their attempt to remove him from office.  It has been assumed due to tradition what roles are played in the process.  If Trump refuses access to records or personnel for subpoena by the House then he would be justified considering THEIR choice to change the rules of tradition.  They've refused minority House members the right to question or subpoena witnesses and they are doing their work with an anonymous "whistleblower" in private, no less.  This is REAL star chamber, call the gulag stuff.

My point was that Clinton behaved like a bad puppy, gave the big eyes and the Senate said, "AW, I reckon he learned his lesson. Go back to work Willie."    

But since we are on the subject. did Ken Starr invite Democrats to participate in his investigation and cross examine witnesses while he was in the process of an investigation?  So far as I can tell the Democrats have only had committee investigations.  It is not even up for discussion on the house floor yet.

As I understand it, this is an investigation to see if there is enough evidence to present to the house to take a vote on impeachment.

Before a vote is taken on the floor, the  Democrats have to present their evidence in a convincing way.  It is not likely to convince many Republicans granted.  

But I would say that if they don't produce a witness to testify in public, even an ultra Pelosi liberal like me is going to find the whole thing hard to believe and be in favor of calling it quits.

[Raptor Witness]

I’m beginning to change my mind about impeachment, being successful.

Here’s why......

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Raptor Witness

[acidhead]

 

[RoofGardener]

5 hours ago, the13bats said:

..... I also recall threats that if he doesn't win 2020 he will refuse to step down,...

Really ? Trump actually threatened that ? I thought that was Democrats slandering him ? ("..oh.. and Trump will refuse to step down. And eat babies and small puppies... ")

So Donald Trump actually stated - or implied - that he wouldn't stand down ? 

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, the13bats said:

No one not even trump no matter what his worshippers believe is above the law,

I agree.  Would you care to cite the code he'd be breaking if he refuses to obey the demands of another coEQUAL branch of our government?  Not trying to be a wise guy here, just pointing out the realities.  The three branches were designed to be equal and to also operate under a system of checks and balances.  The three Impeachments that have occurred in our 243-year history have yielded not a single conviction and removal.  The two most recent, modern era examples shared some traditions that are now being voluntarily violated by the Democrats.  The proceedings against Nixon and Clinton were approached with grave seriousness.  In both cases, they acknowledged the gravity of effectively overturning the choice of the majority of voters in the majority of states and behaved with the decorum and sense of equity that such a move demanded.

The minority party in the House had full rights to subpoena witnesses and to depose them under oath.  Evidence was shared, just as in discovery phase of any other legal proceeding.  There was no attempt to literally hide the identity of a person leveling charges nor is that justified today.  This is America and we are innocent until proven guilty and we have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to face our accusers.

Does it not bother you at all as an American that the Democrats in congress are refusing to call witnesses in the open, allow minority members to see the evidence or to depose witnesses under oath?  If it doesn't, would you mind explaining why you think such behavior is compatible with our system of government?  It's a valid question that deserves a thoughtful answer.

Edited October 15, 2019 by and then

[+and-then]

31 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Really ? Trump actually threatened that ? I thought that was Democrats slandering him ? ("..oh.. and Trump will refuse to step down. And eat babies and small puppies... ")

So Donald Trump actually stated - or implied - that he wouldn't stand down ? 

Not that I've heard or read.  Had he done so, it would have been wall to wall for weeks and you'd be sick of hearing the phrase, uttered in urgently somber tones, CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

[the13bats]

33 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Really ? Trump actually threatened that ? I thought that was Democrats slandering him ? ("..oh.. and Trump will refuse to step down. And eat babies and small puppies... ")

So Donald Trump actually stated - or implied - that he wouldn't stand down ? 

Forgive any confusion, if you re read what i wrote ( quote below )

I didnt say who made that threat or where I heard it i did hear it,  and i never heard the part about baby and puppy eating until now, maybe it was that guy that went to jail, his ex lawyer? You know the one who paid hush money to porn stars trump was cheating on his wife with, well, so they claimed and got paid for. if its just the dems making up stuff about him and you can assure me its not true, that if impeached and asked to leave or if beat in 2020 trump will act adult, accept it, step down and and move on,  it sure would make things less confusing for me.

 

6 hours ago, the13bats said:

I recall his veiled threat of a tweet where some preacher suggested if impeached it would cause a civil war,  I also recall threats that if he doesn't win 2020 he will refuse to step down

 

 

 

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Forgive any confusion, if you re read what i wrote ( quote below )

I didnt say who made that threat or where I heard it i did hear it,  and i never heard the part about baby and puppy eating until now, maybe it was that guy that went to jail, his ex lawyer? You know the one who paid hush money to porn stars trump was cheating on his wife with, well, so they claimed and got paid for. if its just the dems making up stuff about him and you can assure me its not true, that if impeached and asked to leave or if beat in 2020 trump will act adult, accept it, step down and and move on,  it sure would make things less confusing for me.

I made the babies/puppies up as a hyperbolic illustration. 

You are correct that it WAS Michael Cohen who made the statement that "...Given my experience working for Mr. Trump,” Cohen said, “I fear that if he loses in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power...” 

Newspapers picked up on this, and it has subsequently become the basis for dozens of "Trump won't step down" theories, all designed to damage the Presidents image in the eyes of their readers. 

So far as I am aware, President Trump has never said ANYTHING that suggests he would refuse to step down if beaten in the 2020 election. 

[the13bats]

11 minutes ago, and then said:

Does it not bother you at all as an American that the Democrats in congress are refusing to call witnesses in the open, allow minority members to see the evidence or to depose witnesses under oath?  If it doesn't, would you mind explaining why you think such behavior is compatible with our system of government?  It's a valid question that deserves a thoughtful answer

I posted this thread not to flaunt my political ignorance, you won't teach me much just raving about how one side is all wrong the other side is all right.

I posted this thread for people to post their opinions if trump will be impeached and what will become of it if he is, 

As for your question above since im not dem or rep things both sides do bugs me,  and the rest of your rant about dems being unfair to trump so he will lets say, do what he feels is the right thing for him to do that is fine and what i would expect it from anyone, doesnt mean it will end how either side desires.

Please try to understand i am not saying impeach him nor do i have a clue if he deserves it I'm very superficial here, like i said i was curious what other members here thought would happen, 

As you see what i dont know about politics would be an ocean.

[the13bats]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I made the babies/puppies up as a hyperbolic illustration. 

You are correct that it WAS Michael Cohen who made the statement that "...Given my experience working for Mr. Trump,” Cohen said, “I fear that if he loses in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power...” 

Newspapers picked up on this, and it has subsequently become the basis for dozens of "Trump won't step down" theories, all designed to damage the Presidents image in the eyes of their readers. 

So far as I am aware, President Trump has never said ANYTHING that suggests he would refuse to step down if beaten in the 2020 election. 

I want to thank you for clearing that up for me in a non belittling to the point way I grasp it.

The baby puppy part, I get it, I have said many times even when trump does something good no one gives him any kudos, it's got to get to him after a while,

Yes, I read an article a while back that Cohen fellow said that, seems it was about the time he was getting locked up, boy hes sure off the radar now.

I did hear i believe it was during the debates trump skirt as i will call it answering the question that if he lost in 2016 would he accept that, and i didnt see that as any big deal, he's ego driven why would he want to admit Hillary beat him, had that happened.

So let me get your gut opinion on another topic, do you believe trump will beat Biden 2020?

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

But since we are on the subject. did Ken Starr invite Democrats to participate in his investigation and cross examine witnesses while he was in the process of an investigation? 

Kenn Starr was duly appointed as a Special Prosecutor.  That is a different kind of cat and the rules of Impeachment aren't the same.

 

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

As I understand it, this is an investigation to see if there is enough evidence to present to the house to take a vote on impeachment.

You are correct but the traditional approach in the last two instances was to have a House floor vote to officially begin such investigations.  It was only when that "trigger" was pulled that the House acquired funding and expanded subpoena power to pursue the investigation thoroughly.  In absence of that "official" imprimatur, they avoid having to behave in any way that makes individual members go on record and risk a public electorate backlash.  It also leaves them free to hide their investigation, even the witnesses to be called, and still allows them to leak whatever damning innuendo they choose to without ever having to prove anything if they don't vote to Impeach.  That sound fair to you?  Especially after more than two years of investigations with an unlimited budget and scope?  I mean, when will it be enough?  They've badly overplayed their hand here though.  Americans may be easily distracted but they have a sense of what is "fair" and what isn't and secret witnesses, hidden testimony, not being able to face and answer your accuser is going to stick in a lot of craws out there.

I believe this is a response to the coming announcements from Barr and Durham.  This is a noise, light and smoke generator to deflect what could be some catastrophic news for DC Dems.  Rhetoric aside and the whole,"I have my truth and you have yours" nonsense belayed, what these Obama era people did was to attempt a quiet overthrow of a duly elected president by using the levers of power in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.  There has never been anything to compare to it and if people don't go down for it, the rule of law will have become a bad punchline.  I mean "bad" in the sense that a lot of angry people will feel they have a perfect right to obey only the laws they like and to fight back violently if a government agent tries to arrest them.  Lawlessness can never be just for the privileged.  Once it begins, EVERYBODY gets to come to the party.

[+and-then]

10 minutes ago, the13bats said:

As you see what i dont know about politics would be an ocean.

Fair enough, no offense intended.  The short answer is that the Constitution does not spell out specific actions that the House members must take in their drafting of charges (Articles of Impeachment) it just says that Impeachment is THEIR responsibility.  It also does not spell out what the Senate MUST do, it just says the trial is their responsibility.  Since there were no hard and fast rules, traditions came into being as Impeachments occurred and in the last two, the standards that were followed are being ignored by the Democrats in the way they are investigating the supposed crimes.  Since there are no written rules and one side has rejected the traditional method of Impeachment hearings it is only fair that the President and Republicans be free to "improvise" their responses as well.  What's good for the goose...

[RoofGardener]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

Fair enough, no offense intended.  The short answer is that the Constitution does not spell out specific actions that the House members must take in their drafting of charges (Articles of Impeachment) it just says that Impeachment is THEIR responsibility.  It also does not spell out what the Senate MUST do, it just says the trial is their responsibility.  Since there were no hard and fast rules, traditions came into being as Impeachments occurred and in the last two, the standards that were followed are being ignored by the Democrats in the way they are investigating the supposed crimes.  Since there are no written rules and one side has rejected the traditional method of Impeachment hearings it is only fair that the President and Republicans be free to "improvise" their responses as well.  What's good for the goose...

Both yourself and @Farmer77 have - quite correctly - pointed this out. I'd only add one thing though; Congress can do what it likes. However, if they decide to forward Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, then the Senate would HAVE to have all of the details of the investigation. If it transpires that Congress used dodgy procedures to gather their case together, then it would be ripped to shreds in the Senate. 

This - in and of itself - protects The People from machinations in Congress to impeach. 

[the13bats]

And then,

I was reading some of your other replies, to me impeachment is a really big deal and if this is just some preliminary, seeing if there is even something to impeach for, what a waste of time and money, do you see why I dont like things about both sides?

If the man has done anything worthy of impeachment then both sides already know it,  this is like a merry melodies cartoon before a 3 stooges flick?

And if this is because of some mystery whistle blowers claims, really? not just rep party but America deserves to know who is making what claims against the potus, it sure wasnt hidden from nixion or Clinton or the American people then, Why now?

 

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by the13bats

[RoofGardener]

22 minutes ago, the13bats said:

And then,

I was reading some of your other replies, to me impeachment is a really big deal and if this is just some preliminary, seeing if there is even something to impeach for, what a waste of time and money, do you see why I dont like things about both sides?

If the man has done anything worthy of impeachment then both sides already know it,  this is like a merry melodies cartoon before a 3 stooges flick?

And if this is because of some mystery whistle blowers claims, really? not just rep party but America deserves to know who is making what claims against the potus, it sure wasnt hidden from nixion or Clinton or the American people then, Why now?

You raise an interesting point there @the13bats. As I understand it, the grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress want them to be. It is not a "defined" crime. To use a ridiculous example: if Congress decided to impeach President Trump for Jaywalking, they COULD do. And if the Senate where dominated by Democrats, it could conceivably pass ! 

They wouldn't do anything THAT outrageous though, because they would be crucified by the electorate at the next election. 

[the13bats]

41 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You raise an interesting point there @the13bats. As I understand it, the grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress want them to be. It is not a "defined" crime. To use a ridiculous example: if Congress decided to impeach President Trump for Jaywalking, they COULD do. And if the Senate where dominated by Democrats, it could conceivably pass ! 

They wouldn't do anything THAT outrageous though, because they would be crucified by the electorate at the next election. 

I would love to think you made that up to muck with my ignorance but i know, sadly its true, well I didnt know it was that bad but yeah,

You know it really doesn't matter who a person likes the clowns are running all 3 rings.

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, and then said:

There has never been anything to compare to it and if people don't go down for it, the rule of law will have become a bad punchline.  I mean "bad" in the sense that a lot of angry people will feel they have a perfect right to obey only the laws they like and to fight back violently if a government agent tries to arrest them.  Lawlessness can never be just for the privileged.  Once it begins, EVERYBODY gets to come to the party.

Is there a difference that you see in Trumps refusal to cooperate?  Is it the beginning of everybody coming to the party?

[Farmer77]

On 10/15/2019 at 5:33 AM, and then said:

Would you care to cite the code he'd be breaking if he refuses to obey the demands of another coEQUAL branch of our government? 

Do you realize what youre arguing here? You gleefully accepted that he cant be criminally prosecuted and now youre arguing that he cant face impeachment. Does that sound American to you?

BTW the answer youre looking for is Article 2, Section4 of the US constitution.

On 10/15/2019 at 5:33 AM, and then said:

.  This is America and we are innocent until proven guilty and we have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to face our accusers.

Yes sir that is embedded in the Constitution....regarding criminal trials. It actually specifically says criminal trials and the USSC has upheld that it means only criminal trials.

For folks who scream about the Constitution you guys sure dont seem to actually know much about it.

On 10/15/2019 at 5:33 AM, and then said:

Does it not bother you at all as an American that the Democrats in congress are refusing to call witnesses in the open, allow minority members to see the evidence or to depose witnesses under oath?  If it doesn't, would you mind explaining why you think such behavior is compatible with our system of government?  It's a valid question that deserves a thoughtful answer.

Well the really simple answer is because thats what the Constitutions says.

Another answer is this is a really good example of how power at all cost politics has long term and unforeseeable affects. Ill let you google that one to figure it out but hopefully that reality will help serve as a wake up call to you guys.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Farmer77

[acidhead]

 

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, acidhead said:

 

I cant believe he used the exact same words she used to describe him hours earlier (im rubber and youre glue)

Trump’s attempt to humiliate Nancy Pelosi with a photo backfired spectacularly

[Kismit]

I don't care which side you are on you have to admit Nany Pelosi's current twitter header is amusing.

Link