How will Impeachment play out?

[DarkHunter]

One Democratic representative is defecting, saying he wont vote for the articles of impeachment unless he sees something or learns something new, a second Democratic representative seems to have a high chance of not voting for it but hasn't given a definitive answer yet.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/05/politics/democrats-against-impeachment-jeff-van-drew/index.html

While small in number this could potentially be the start of defections, the Democrats have a 233 to 197 seat majority so to stop the articles of impeachment only 19 Democratic representatives have to defect for everything to end.

[Doug1029]

Making political predictions is a risky business, but here I go:

It now appears to me that Trump will survive the attempt to remove him from office.  The reason I say this is that the very states whose Senators would have to vote against Trump are the very states whose Senators are coming up for re-election next fall.  They don't dare offend their base.

But there may not be a reason to cheer/cry just yet.  Trump is losing his fight to keep his tax returns secret.  While we don't know what's in them, it seems that if it were good news for Trump he would already have Tweeted everybody a copy of them.  Should it turn out that those returns reveal something major, Trump may be inclined to resign rather than face a whole new investigation and possible another impeachment proceeding.  OR:  he may choose to resign rather than face the voters in November.  These are just possibilities; I don't think either of them is very likely.

We will probably have to wait until November and see how much strength there is left in the Blue Wave.  I think it's still going to be a powerful force, especially if the economy goes south between now and then.

In judging how popular a politician is, our own impressions are not valid simply because we do not talk to people on the other side, thus getting the idea that our side is immensely popular when it may not be.  Time will tell.

Doug

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, Doug1029 said:

We will probably have to wait until November and see how much strength there is left in the Blue Wave.  I think it's still going to be a powerful force, especially if the economy goes south between now and then.

The blue wave that saw one of the smaller seat switches in the house of representatives, normally the swing is around 60 seats while the blue wave only did 40, and caused the Democrats to lose seats in the senate.  

[Doug1029]

9 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The blue wave that saw one of the smaller seat switches in the house of representatives, normally the swing is around 60 seats while the blue wave only did 40, and caused the Democrats to lose seats in the senate.  

As I recall, before the election there was little hope that Senate seats could be retained, anyway.  The number of available seats is also an important factor.  We'd have to look at this a lot deeper to figure all that out.  I guess that's what political science is for.

Doug

[RoofGardener]

11 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Making political predictions is a risky business, but here I go:

It now appears to me that Trump will survive the attempt to remove him from office.  The reason I say this is that the very states whose Senators would have to vote against Trump are the very states whose Senators are coming up for re-election next fall.  They don't dare offend their base.

But there may not be a reason to cheer/cry just yet.  Trump is losing his fight to keep his tax returns secret.  While we don't know what's in them, it seems that if it were good news for Trump he would already have Tweeted everybody a copy of them.  Should it turn out that those returns reveal something major, Trump may be inclined to resign rather than face a whole new investigation and possible another impeachment proceeding.  OR:  he may choose to resign rather than face the voters in November.  These are just possibilities; I don't think either of them is very likely.

We will probably have to wait until November and see how much strength there is left in the Blue Wave.  I think it's still going to be a powerful force, especially if the economy goes south between now and then.

In judging how popular a politician is, our own impressions are not valid simply because we do not talk to people on the other side, thus getting the idea that our side is immensely popular when it may not be.  Time will tell.

Doug

Some interesting thoughts there @Doug1029. 

Personally, I doubt there will be any "bombshells" in his tax returns. The Inland Revenue (or whatever you call your tax service over there) have already seen these returns, obviously. If there was anything incriminating in them, they would surely have taken some sort of action ? 

In addition, the request for his tax returns covering the period 5 years before he even announced his candidacy seem to be purely a "fishing expedition" by the Democrats, purely in the HOPE that they can find something embarrassing (not incriminating, but embarrassing) in them. 

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is resisting their release purely to wind the Democrats up. To incite them into creating a huge fuss about them, a.k.a. Mueller etc. That way, when they are finally revealed, and it turns out that there is NOTHING in them of interest, the Democrats credibility will take yet ANOTHER hit. 

And then when the Democrats finally DO find out something TRULY bad, the populace will just shrug and say "pffft... another Democratic fuss about nothing". 

They will be the Party that Cried Wolf.  

[Farmer77]

30 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

ersonally, I doubt there will be any "bombshells" in his tax returns. The Inland Revenue (or whatever you call your tax service over there) have already seen these returns, obviously. If there was anything incriminating in them, they would surely have taken some sort of action ? 

Not necessarily. They are looking only for compliance with tax law and even on that they have admitted they dont look very hard when those being looked at have money and lawyers to fight them.

33 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is resisting their release purely to wind the Democrats up. To incite them into creating a huge fuss about them, a.k.a. Mueller etc. That way, when they are finally revealed, and it turns out that there is NOTHING in them of interest, the Democrats credibility will take yet ANOTHER hit. 

Why would the democrats be the ones taking the hit? Think about it, how many negative headlines could have been avoided had he just followed societal norms and not made himself look shady? Negative headlines that replace what could and sometimes should be positive headlines about policy successes he has had. I know Trumpians dont like it but the potential of a compromised POTUS and his efforts to hide that fact will always be the biggest story of the day regardless of who POTUS is.

So if it turns out there really is nothing to hide isnt it actually the GOP who had their positive headlines stolen, and as a result have been getting crushed in local elections, who will be shown to have taken a hit?

[Doug1029]

34 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Some interesting thoughts there @Doug1029. 

Personally, I doubt there will be any "bombshells" in his tax returns. The Inland Revenue (or whatever you call your tax service over there) have already seen these returns, obviously. If there was anything incriminating in them, they would surely have taken some sort of action ? 

In addition, the request for his tax returns covering the period 5 years before he even announced his candidacy seem to be purely a "fishing expedition" by the Democrats, purely in the HOPE that they can find something embarrassing (not incriminating, but embarrassing) in them. 

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is resisting their release purely to wind the Democrats up. To incite them into creating a huge fuss about them, a.k.a. Mueller etc. That way, when they are finally revealed, and it turns out that there is NOTHING in them of interest, the Democrats credibility will take yet ANOTHER hit. 

And then when the Democrats finally DO find out something TRULY bad, the populace will just shrug and say "pffft... another Democratic fuss about nothing". 

They will be the Party that Cried Wolf.  

Some good points.

It's the Internal Revenue Service.  They are allowed to enforce only tax laws.  Anything else is to remain confidential.  A professional thief could write "Thief" in the occupation line and IRS couldn't tell anybody.  There probably isn't anything in them that would indicate a violation of tax law IF the input data is correct.  That's one thing the Dems will look at:  did he tell the truth on those returns.  We already know of some places where he didn't.

The five year request is related to the statute of limitations.  They're going after everything that might have a legal bearing on the case.  Anything before that couldn't be prosecuted anyway, so why bother asking for it?

And you may be right.  That may be Trump's strategy.

Doug

 

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Not necessarily. They are looking only for compliance with tax law and even on that they have admitted they dont look very hard when those being looked at have money and lawyers to fight them.

Hmmm... weeeeell.. conceivably I suppose. But only JUST conceivably. 

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Why would the democrats be the ones taking the hit?

Because, in the public mind, they are the ones who have been pushing and agitating and shouting and screaming and waving subpeona's around o get the tax returns released. 

So if it turns out to be a bust, it will rebound on THEM.  

[RoofGardener]

3 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Some good points.

It's the Internal Revenue Service.  They are allowed to enforce only tax laws.  Anything else is to remain confidential.  A professional thief could write "Thief" in the occupation line and IRS couldn't tell anybody.  There probably isn't anything in them that would indicate a violation of tax law IF the input data is correct.  That's one thing the Dems will look at:  did he tell the truth on those returns.  We already know of some places where he didn't.

The five year request is related to the statute of limitations.  They're going after everything that might have a legal bearing on the case.  Anything before that couldn't be prosecuted anyway, so why bother asking for it?

And you may be right.  That may be Trump's strategy.

Doug

 

Hmm.. is that REALLY true ? I mean, if a tax inspector found evidence suggestive of money laundering or drug smuggling or whatever, wouldn't he/she/it be obliged to call the FBI ? 

 

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

 

Because, in the public mind, they are the ones who have been pushing and agitating and shouting and screaming and waving subpeona's around o get the tax returns released. 

So if it turns out to be a bust, it will rebound on THEM.  

In 40% (generously) of the publics mind.

Dont forget he didnt even win the most votes in 2016 and has exclusively catered to a small percentage of Americans since.

[Doug1029]

20 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. is that REALLY true ? I mean, if a tax inspector found evidence suggestive of money laundering or drug smuggling or whatever, wouldn't he/she/it be obliged to call the FBI ? 

 

Money laundering would suggest a violation of tax law.  IRS would certainly be interested in that.  But otherwise, no.  IRS could not legally tell the FBI.  To convict for a crime, the FBI/local police have to have information that would not be listed on a tax form.  The tax form might suggest places to look for that information, but in itself, it is not sufficient.

Also, in order to prosecute, the prosecutor has to have information/evidence that was obtained in a legal manner.  The Census Bureau routinely uses tax information from returns submitted to the FBI.  The Dept. of Education has access to my tax data for their purposes.  Even if the FBI had the needed data/evidence, but it wasn't obtained legally, the defense attorney would demolish them in court.

These rules not only protect people from illegal/bad faith prosecutions, but they also guarantee that once properly convicted, a criminal stays properly convicted and won't have a basis for appeal.

Doug

Edited December 10, 2019 by Doug1029

[RoofGardener]

4 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Money laundering would suggest a violation of tax law.  IRS would certainly be interested in that.  But otherwise, no.  IRS could not legally tell the FBI.  To convict for a crime, the FBI/local police have to have information that would not be listed on a tax form.  The tax form might suggest places to look for that information, but in itself, it is not sufficient.

Also, in order to prosecute, the prosecutor has to have information/evidence that was obtained in a legal manner.  The Census Bureau routinely uses tax information from returns submitted to the FBI.  The Dept. of Education has access to my tax data for their purposes.  Even if the FBI had the needed data/evidence, but it wasn't obtained legally, the defense attorney would demolish them in court.

These rules not only protect people from illegal/bad faith prosecutions, but they also guarantee that once properly convicted, a criminal stays properly convicted and won't have a basis for appeal.

Doug

Hmm... OK... to do a  reductio ad absurdum.... what happens if the IRS gets a tax form with the following lines ? 

1) Received: $500,000 for smuggling cocaine

2) Debits: paid $250,000 to arrange assassination of State Attorney General

I mean... are you REALLY suggesting that they wouldn't inform the FBI ?

[RoofGardener]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

In 40% (generously) of the publics mind.

Dont forget he didnt even win the most votes in 2016 and has exclusively catered to a small percentage of Americans since.

Hmm.. not sure that is true. Still, we don't need to speculate. We're going to see it for real fairly soon

[Doug1029]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... OK... to do a  reductio ad absurdum.... what happens if the IRS gets a tax form with the following lines ? 

1) Received: $500,000 for smuggling cocaine

2) Debits: paid $250,000 to arrange assassination of State Attorney General

I mean... are you REALLY suggesting that they wouldn't inform the FBI ?

That's a violation of tax law:  you can't take a deduction for an illegal act.  The guy who submitted it is in deep doo doo.  He owes taxes on the entire $500,000.

Another thought:  all sorts of people have access to tax info for various purposes.  That includes the FBI.  They can't use tax info in a prosecution, but that line would tell them there's something to look at and they could use that to find other information that they COULD use in a prosecution.  I recommend you don't try to get out of paying taxes that way.

Doug

[kobolds]

Will senate impeach Trump ?

From what I see, depend on whether Trump want to signed trade deal with china. 

a lot  Republicans  and Democrats backers effected by the trade war with china   .

Things can go worse or not depend on Trump and Trump know this.

I think Trump will impose the Tariff on 15 Dec to make a point to Senate 

 

 

[Farmer77]

2 GOP senators say McConnell will move to acquit Trump, not merely dismiss charges

Man they're selling it as them wanting him acquitted but reading between the lines it sounds like they may not have the 51 votes needed to dismiss the charges out of hand.

[+DieChecker]

On 12/10/2019 at 6:57 AM, DarkHunter said:

The blue wave that saw one of the smaller seat switches in the house of representatives, normally the swing is around 60 seats while the blue wave only did 40, and caused the Democrats to lose seats in the senate.  

More of a Blue Ripple... 

[+DieChecker]

My guess is, and has been, that the House will impeach, and the Senate not convict. Ever vote, barring a couple Ds in the House, has been directly along political lines.

I hear many Ds who are confused why the Rs and many Independents dont ser it as they do. They claim brainwashing. And point at Fix News. The entire time knowing next to nothing except what they've been fed by CNN and MSNBC. 

Point being... THINK... If so many favor the President's side of things... Dont you think theres probably something to that arguement.

I kind of favor those Ds who would like a Censure of Trump. He gets called out officially, but the Ds dont have to go for a risky Impeachment. 

Those who say theres no risk are just kidding themselves. Even Farmer here says Rs are holding steady to please the Trump Base. In states that the Ds barely won they're going to have a harder time winning over independents that favored them in 2018, if most dont agree with impeachment. 

[+DieChecker]

On 12/10/2019 at 8:03 AM, Farmer77 said:

In 40% (generously) of the publics mind.

Dont forget he didnt even win the most votes in 2016 and has exclusively catered to a small percentage of Americans since.

Dont forget Clinton got a majority of votes in CA and NY that swamped the other States. Winning more votes in specific states isnt how you win the Presidency. Taking out just NY, or CA, Trump wins a majority. 

[Farmer77]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Dont forget Clinton got a majority of votes in CA and NY that swamped the other States. Winning more votes in specific states isnt how you win the Presidency. Taking out just NY, or CA, Trump wins a majority. 

For sure but that doesnt change the fact that Trumpians are the minority in the nation when discussing "the public's mind".

 

[+and-then]

On 12/5/2019 at 6:32 AM, RAyMO said:

That you do not accept my reasoning, I am already aware.  I believe your president abused his power to get a foreign president to carry out and publicise an investigation into a political opponent for no other reason than political gain.

Yes, we are all entitled to our own beliefs but where the LAW is concerned, we aren't entitled to make it up because we think we know better.  There has to be evidence.  I heard Nadler today basically say we could just ignore anything the Ukrainian leadership says because they need our aid and Trump can't be trusted.  THAT kind of "reasoning" simply isn't the way our legal system works.  

The fact that people on the Left hate this man and feel he is illegitimate DESPITE him winning the majority of votes in the majority of states, is NOT sufficient grounds to remove him from office.  You see, in the real world there are at least two sides to most arguments and as the Chief Executive he has every right to behave as he did in asking the leader of Ukraine to look into corruption.  Leaving aside that the D's STILL have not chosen a nominee and they certainly had not chosen Biden back then.  Whether you can accept it or not, Trump was well within his authority to do as he did and Impeach is going to possibly explode in the face of the Dems.  Provided the R's have the guts to allow a trial.  

Not a single witness that appeared in the Kangaroo court that Schiff held could answer affirmatively when directly asked if they heard, saw or otherwise KNEW of Trump bribing or demanding a QPQ.  Technically, the two charges they'll vote on aren't even Constitutional.  They could be rejected out of hand for having NO proof and for being far too vague.

[+and-then]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:21 PM, Agent0range said:

It's illegal for the President to withhold aid approved by congress.

Except that aid flowed to Ukraine well before the deadline that would have caused the appropriation to be lost.  I want you to think about what you're saying here for a moment.  You are calling for the removal of a duly elected president, the choice of the majority of voters in the majority of states because he delayed aid, not just for Ukraine, BTW, but for most countries until he HAD to give it because he's tired of America getting hosed by people we help so generously.  Did you happen to watch the Glenn Beck video that presented documentary evidence of the way 1.8 Billion dollars just disappeared under Obama's administration?  Were you aware of that?  That isn't rumor or unfounded accusation.  It's proven.  To support removing  president because he delayed paying out more money for a few weeks after that much disappeared is ridiculous.  It's worse.  It's totally irrational and partisan.

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

Not a single witness that appeared in the Kangaroo court that Schiff held could answer affirmatively when directly asked if they heard, saw or otherwise KNEW of Trump bribing or demanding a QPQ. 

You do mean besides Sondland right?

Further what you claim is evidence of innocence is actually evidence of impeachable conduct. Mulvaney, Pompeo, Pence and Guiliani could all answer that question. Hence obstruction of congress charges

10 minutes ago, and then said:

Technically, the two charges they'll vote on aren't even Constitutional. 

This opinion is insane. Ensuring the proper use of granted power and providing checks on power are the very reasons we have a constitution.

13 minutes ago, and then said:

Whether you can accept it or not, Trump was well within his authority to do as he did and Impeach is going to possibly explode in the face of the Dems. 

Whether you can accept it or not he wasnt and you are rooting on the conditions that have the ability to permanently end our representative democracy.

[+and-then]

On 12/10/2019 at 8:54 AM, Doug1029 said:

In judging how popular a politician is, our own impressions are not valid simply because we do not talk to people on the other side, thus getting the idea that our side is immensely popular when it may not be.  Time will tell.

Time WILL tell.  I'll make a prediction of my own.  The Democrat party will be hoist on its own petard in the aftermath of this blatant attempt at a coup.  There is NO law that says a presidential candidate OR president MUST produce his tax returns.  You know full well that all they want them for is more fodder to make accusations and demand more investigations.  Do you REALLY believe that Independents and even fair minded Democrats are going to stay on board forever with this kind of behavior?  I think we are going to see a major rejection of the Democrat party in 2020.  Whether we are treated to his tax returns or not.  Americans have heretofore been known for being supporters of equal treatment and innocent until proven guilty.  All that went out the window in the mad rush of your party and its propaganda arms to destroy this man by any means possible.  Do you think people are blind to what's been going on?  Do you?  

I heard a Democrat Representative from California basically saying they'd Impeach him as many times as it took to get rid of him.  THAT is insanity and I hope she and others like her repeat that same mantra next year.  It's the best way I can imagine for the D's to lose the House again.  While you are holding out hope about a "blue wave" you might want to remember that he wasn't standing for election in 2018.  He WILL be on the ticket in 2020 and his coattails are going to be a thing of wonder.

[Farmer77]

18 minutes ago, and then said:

  Do you think people are blind to what's been going on?  Do you?  

Not people who are outside of the Trumpian foxnews bubble. We definitely see whats been going on , a decent example: 

The President Just Admitted in Court He Ran a Crooked Charity and We're All Just Gonna Shrug It Off?

Quote

It's easy to get caught up in impeachment, or the hastening ecological decline of our world, or the fact that the president posted more than 80 tweets before 9:30 this morning, including a suggestion to a teenage climate activist that she should "chill" and consider "Anger Management" classes.

But did you see the charity thing? You should see the charity thing. It was almost water under the bridge. Our politics have gone so far down the rabbit hole that a story about how the President of the United States agreed to pay $2 million at a court's order—while admitting he used his charity for his own gain—barely made a splash. Folks saw the headline and thought to themselves, Well, yeah, of course Donald Trump ran a crooked charity. But really. Look at this

You act as if the guy is a normal human being who hasnt made a career out of screwing people over and skirting the law.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Farmer77