The road to 2020

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
The house is going to impeach him. They are pursuing it quietly already...if you believe the Washington Post this morning (or yesterday? It’s recent, I just read it but I closed the tab). Impeachment language is not in the constitution but the powers of congress are laid out...according to the legalese in the article that I am not alert enough to absorb right now...the point was, they are already headed down the impeachment path, as evidenced by the information they are pursuing...un-redacted parts of the Meuller report, and grand jury testimony statements that were made.They can also impeach Barr if he blocks their requests. Certainly, it’s not an easy or sure path but they are headed down it.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
The house is going to impeach him. They are pursuing it quietly already...if you believe the Washington Post this morning (or yesterday? It’s recent, I just read it but I closed the tab). Impeachment language is not in the constitution but the powers of congress are laid out...according to the legalese in the article that I am not alert enough to absorb right now...the point was, they are already headed down the impeachment path, as evidenced by the information they are pursuing...un-redacted parts of the Meuller report, and grand jury testimony statements that were made.They can also impeach Barr if he blocks their requests. Certainly, it’s not an easy or sure path but they are headed down it.
Click to expand...

There is impeachment language in the US Constitution.

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 5
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific procedures. Those are laid out in the House and Senate rules.

Is the House going to impeach Trump? Maybe. It would be a gigantic waste of time since he'll never be convicted and removed from office by the Senate, making one wonder why the House should bother. In the same way the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 was a waste of time (and it backfired badly on the Republicans) although one article of impeachment against Clinton did get a 50-50 vote in the Senate (but still way short of two thirds.) Impeachment against Trump likely wouldn't even get a 50-50 split. In normal legal cases, prosecutors (and the House is essentially the prosecutor in an impeachment case) only bring charges if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. I don't see what impeaching Trump would accomplish except to further polarize the already highly polarized American populace and to tie up the Congress in knots, although Mitch McConnell is already doing that by essentially refusing to let the Senate even debate (never mind vote on) legislation the Democratic House is passing.

Better for the Democrats to put their energy into beating Trump in 2020 if they can - although were I a gambling man I'd say Trump has fairly good odds at re-election. I'm not happy about that, but it won't surprise me in the least.
 
I don’t think so. They need to proceed to show he’s not above the law - they need to avail themselves of the Justice people expect when the sitting president has flagrantly broken it (for crying out loud they impeached Clinton over a semen stain on a dress, because it proved he lied about sex with Lewinski but was that a high crime compared to Trump’s team dodging and blocking every effort to get information for an investigation into Russian interference and the campaign’s complicity? Including Trump’s own evasiveness and witness tampering?) - and maybe most importantly, to put that rather than his campaign, out in front of the news. They have more than enough evidence at this point but it looks like Pelosi is the one obstructing justice if she won’t budge in her position - however, that might be optics. They are proceeding because it’s their duty to, whether the clock is running out or not. It’s their duty regardless of whether she wants to or not.


:)
 
Last edited:
The powers over whelm rationality and thus don't observe that lesser powers when isolated integrate out there ... it all adds up to impressive buried impulse beyond the superficial observations. Reality thus confronts facitioness beyond their control ... partisan undergrounds?

Step carefully ... could be go phors ...
 
“Toward the end of an age,” historian John Lukacs (1924-2019) once observed, “more and more people lose faith in their institutions and finally they abandon their belief that these institutions might still be reformed from within.”
 
Perhaps that they believe from that famous first biblical riddler ... Samson ... that the entire thing has to come down to cue dirty foundations ... to be rebuilt on Eire ... tis le gassy whim!

Thus the fight or flight syndrome ... imagine birds gathering!
 
Determinate rules allow no exceptions ... but there is the enigma of that on the other side of the dark MIR ... a large example of the cush of Newton's Law ... reaction may not be here and now ... but a later time! Isn't that a queer bind to be in ...?
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
I don’t think so. They need to proceed to show he’s not above the law - they need to avail themselves of the Justice people expect when the sitting president has flagrantly broken it (for crying out loud they impeached Clinton over a semen stain on a dress, because it proved he lied about sex with Lewinski but was that a high crime compared to Trump’s team dodging and blocking every effort to get information for an investigation into Russian interference and the campaign’s complicity? Including Trump’s own evasiveness and witness tampering?) - and maybe most importantly, to put that rather than his campaign, out in front of the news. They have more than enough evidence at this point but it looks like Pelosi is the one obstructing justice if she won’t budge in her position - however, that might be optics. They are proceeding because it’s their duty to, whether the clock is running out or not. It’s their duty regardless of whether she wants to or not.


:)
Click to expand...
Impeaching him without the ability to convict him essentially makes him above the law to anybody who believes he's done wrong. And, like any prosecutor, it isn't their duty to proceed to trial. It's their duty to decide if there's enough evidence to offer a reasonable prospect of conviction before a jury. In this case, the "jury" is the United States Senate. They're not going to get a two thirds vote to convict Trump. Impeachment - if it proceeds - will be little more than a Democratic Party show to keep this in the spotlight because they know it won't go any farther. And I can't say I'm completely up on what the Senate rules are for trying an impeachment, but I do find myself wondering if they're even required to hold a trial if the House impeaches or if they could just ignore the House vote. My guess is McConnell might choose to ignore the House vote and not even hold a trial. After all, the Constitution says that the Senate has "the sole power to try all impeachments" but doesn't specifically say that they must try all impeachments. That might be an interesting constitutional argument. The wheels turn slowly and I'm guessing McConnell would try to delay until after November 2020 and if Trump is re-elected he'd say "the people have spoken - we don't need a trial."
 
revsdd said:
Impeaching him without the ability to convict him essentially makes him above the law to anybody who believes he's done wrong. And, like any prosecutor, it isn't their duty to proceed to trial. It's their duty to decide if there's enough evidence to offer a reasonable prospect of conviction before a jury. In this case, the "jury" is the United States Senate. They're not going to get a two thirds vote to convict Trump. Impeachment - if it proceeds - will be little more than a Democratic Party show to keep this in the spotlight because they know it won't go any farther. And I can't say I'm completely up on what the Senate rules are for trying an impeachment, but I do find myself wondering if they're even required to hold a trial if the House impeaches or if they could just ignore the House vote. My guess is McConnell might choose to ignore the House vote and not even hold a trial. After all, the Constitution says that the Senate has "the sole power to try all impeachments" but doesn't specifically say that they must try all impeachments. That might be an interesting constitutional argument. The wheels turn slowly and I'm guessing McConnell would try to delay until after November 2020 and if Trump is re-elected he'd say "the people have spoken - we don't need a trial."
Click to expand...

Recall but one thing ... chaos appears to control all physical impressions ... thus mental ally disturbing .. and a great host follows suit ... because that's just the way it is for those expecting everyone to do it the same way! MOB mentality ...
 
mueller indicated that obstruction likely prevented him from getting enough evidence of conspiring with the Russians (collusion...the obstruction prevented the finding of conspiracy). But it's a brain twister because he would need enough evidence to pursue charges, but even if he had it, it would be Congress's job because of DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president - therefore he decided it was out of his purview regardless - and that leaves congress with the duty to pursue impeachment based on the evidence in the report. There is no other body with that responsibility until (and unless) he leaves office. He cannot be charged while in office, so that leaves only impeachment and they'd be better off to start it now in case Trump wins again. Meuller did not exonerate 45. The report laid out a roadmap for congress. Drumft is guilty as sin...he's corrupt on so many levels...and as per high crimes and misdemeanours, it's all through the Meuller report, even the redacted one. And it's congresses job to pursue impeachment. He cannot run again if he's impeached.

I would love to hear Trump busy testifying under oath instead of busy making his bigoted remarks at campaign rallies.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
mueller indicated that obstruction likely prevented him from getting enough evidence of conspiring with the Russians (collusion...the obstruction prevented the finding of conspiracy). But it's a brain twister because he would need enough evidence to pursue charges, but even if he had it, it would be Congress's job because of DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president - therefore he decided it was out of his purview regardless - and that leaves congress with the duty to pursue impeachment based on the evidence in the report. There is no other body with that responsibility until (and unless) he leaves office. He cannot be charged while in office, so that leaves only impeachment and they'd be better off to start it now in case Trump wins again. Meuller did not exonerate 45. The report laid out a roadmap for congress. Drumft is guilty as sin...he's corrupt on so many levels...and as per high crimes and misdemeanours, it's all through the Meuller report, even the redacted one. And it's congresses job to pursue impeachment. He cannot run again if he's impeached.

I would love to hear Trump busy testifying under oath instead of busy making his bigoted remarks at campaign rallies.
Click to expand...

Even if he was impeached tomorrow - he can most certainly run again if he's impeached. Impeachment is nothing. You understand that, right? Impeachment is a vote by the House of Representatives to lay a charge. He would have to be CONVICTED by the Senate in a trial after being impeached. He WILL NOT be convicted by the Senate. The Senate will not come anywhere close to a two thirds vote to remove him from office. As I said I'm not even sure the Senate would agree to hold a trial with McConnell in charge. And even if he were removed from office there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent him from running again since he's only in his first term. And Trump would not be required to testify under oath at an impeachment trial in the Senate. It's just like any other trial. Defendants do not have to take the stand in their own defence. Two presidents have been impeached in history - Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Neither testified before the Senate; neither was removed from office by the Senate.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
mueller indicated that obstruction likely prevented him from getting enough evidence of conspiring with the Russians (collusion...the obstruction prevented the finding of conspiracy). But it's a brain twister because he would need enough evidence to pursue charges, but even if he had it, it would be Congress's job because of DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president - therefore he decided it was out of his purview regardless - and that leaves congress with the duty to pursue impeachment based on the evidence in the report. There is no other body with that responsibility until (and unless) he leaves office. He cannot be charged while in office, so that leaves only impeachment and they'd be better off to start it now in case Trump wins again. Meuller did not exonerate 45. The report laid out a roadmap for congress. Drumft is guilty as sin...he's corrupt on so many levels...and as per high crimes and misdemeanours, it's all through the Meuller report, even the redacted one. And it's congresses job to pursue impeachment. He cannot run again if he's impeached.

I would love to hear Trump busy testifying under oath instead of busy making his bigoted remarks at campaign rallies.
Click to expand...
You realize your brain is twisted because what you have been told cannot match reality.
 
PG 13 ... you are such an expression of gentile christianity ... it drifts apart from the powerful Judy-Anne aspect ... with punch!

I strike out again looking for a kind Christian ... rare birds ... there are consequences! ... mister parts! Zot!
 
revsdd said:
Even if he was impeached tomorrow - he can most certainly run again if he's impeached. Impeachment is nothing. You understand that, right? Impeachment is a vote by the House of Representatives to lay a charge. He would have to be CONVICTED by the Senate in a trial after being impeached. He WILL NOT be convicted by the Senate. The Senate will not come anywhere close to a two thirds vote to remove him from office. As I said I'm not even sure the Senate would agree to hold a trial with McConnell in charge. And even if he were removed from office there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent him from running again since he's only in his first term. And Trump would not be required to testify under oath at an impeachment trial in the Senate. It's just like any other trial. Defendants do not have to take the stand in their own defence. Two presidents have been impeached in history - Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Neither testified before the Senate; neither was removed from office by the Senate.
Click to expand...
Well that's stupid.
 
They have to just tire him out. There has to be a point of exhaustion that can be reached, even for Trump. It's like, at some point he's just going to run out of steam and not be able to get out of bed. Well, lest I confuse him with a normal person...everything's a show for that obnoxious enigma of a creature.
 
Republicans/ right are not behaving like nice people....they are acting like sinister bunch of who get off on being corrupt. That is my assessment of current times.
 
Last edited:
A good case for impeachment proceedings (Russia is trying to interfere again, Mueller made that clear - and McConnell won't pass the election protections bill that passed in the House. The republicans are putting their president before their country.)

www.theatlantic.com

How Mitch McConnell Persuaded a Senior House Democrat to Back Impeachment

It wasn’t Robert Mueller’s testimony that pushed Representative Katherine Clark over the edge.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com


:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top