Pelosi directs House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump

[Obscurity]

Trump is eligible to run for election if the House votes to impeach.
Its should the Senate vote to remove him is when he's out.

What I mean is the Senate can vote on a simple majority to disallow him from running in 2020. That's an option instead of removal and has been done previously.

 

[Obscurity]

Again, where's the evidence there was a quid pro quo in connection with the Ukrainian aid?

Do you have a document, a recording, or testimony from anyone that firmly establishes that Trump made demands of the Ukrainians, and refused to release the aid until those demand were met?

Yes or No?

The white house blatantly and flagrantly broke the apportioned funds impoundment law and then got caught red handed and decided to put the cookie back in the jar.

Their defense has become well, I took the cookie. I just didnt eat it. So all is square.

No. It's not square.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Technically, I'm not sure. We are having conflict between the branches that is working it's way through the courts. This has occurred before. However, I would not call it a true Constitutional Crisis until SCOTUS weighs-in, and is rebuffed. We still may get there, though.

Factionalism in our government is already an existential threat. It brought down the Roman Republic and the Founding father’s intended for the United States to avoid suffering the same fate.

 

[Chomsky]

Factionalism in our government is already an existential threat. It brought down the Roman Republic and the Founding father’s intended for the United States to avoid suffering the same fate.

I'll add this:

George Washinton - in his Farewell Address - warned against the rise of political parties, believing they could usurp the republic. His words were sage.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I'll add this:

George Washinton - in his Farewell Address - warned against the rise of political parties, believing they could usurp the republic. His words were sage.

And yet it was his fellow founding fathers—John Adams and Thomas Jefferson— that helped to create the first incarnation of America’s political parties: the federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

 

[Athanasius68]

What I mean is the Senate can vote on a simple majority to disallow him from running in 2020. That's an option instead of removal and has been done previously.

No they can't. Where did you hear this?

 

[Grim17]

The white house blatantly and flagrantly broke the apportioned funds impoundment law and then got caught red handed and decided to put the cookie back in the jar.

Their defense has become well, I took the cookie. I just didnt eat it. So all is square.

No. It's not square.

I asked:

"Do you have a document, a recording, or testimony from anyone that firmly establishes that Trump made demands of the Ukrainians, and refused to release the aid until those demand were met?"

Based on the fact you didn't answer the question and instead decided to talk about something else, the answer to the question must be "NO".

So you are basing the whole quid pro quo/Ukrainian aid thing on what exactly?

 

[Athanasius68]

No, you're correct. But I mean openly flaunting the public's trust bu making stupid, braindead statements like asking China to investigate Elizabeth Warren, or asking Ukraine to investigate joe bidens son.

He shouldn't have said either.
But-- no harm no foul

 

[Chomsky]

And yet it was his fellow founding fathers—John Adams and Thomas Jefferson— that helped to create the first incarnation of America’s political parties: the federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Yes. It all sprang from the Federalists & anti-Federalists, and rose into national political parties during Washington's terms in office. Which is why Washington was so adamantly against political parties in his Farewell Address. Political parties usurp the democratic process, regardless of their protection under free association. They are antithetical to democracy.

 

[Athanasius68]

Well of course there does. But let's look at this logically.

If trump loses the trump base will revolt and declare it a false election that was rigged by the deep state.

If trump wins the Democrats will revolt and declare the election illegitimate because trump welcomed foreign aid with his election.

The problem here is instead of trying to cool this fire, instead of trying to act responsibly, trump has made it worse. Hes thrown gasoline on a fire and blamed the Democrats for it.

This is an egregious abuse of his office and a violation of the public trust.

Let's look at this logically"

If Trump loses, there will be people upset and think the "deep state' did it.
Just like there were people in 2016 who were upset that Clinton lost and thought Russia did it.

If Trump wins, there will be people who think it was because of foreign interference, as Ms. pelosi said today "again."
However, those with knowledge will know that the only candidate in 2016 who sought out foreign interference in the election was the Clinton campaign.
The paranoid anti-Trump types are well simply paranoid.

 

[Obscurity]

No they can't. Where did you hear this?

They sure can.

Could Trump Serve a Second Term if Ousted? It’s Up to the Senate - The New York Times

To summarize:

What is seldom discussed is a more obscure clause of the Constitution that allows the Senate discretion to take a second, even more punitive step, to disqualify the person it convicts from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Imposing that penalty would effectively bar the president from reclaiming his old job. In an added twist, tacking on the extra punishment requires only a majority vote in the Senate, not the two-thirds — or 67 senators — required to convict.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes. It all sprang from the Federalists & anti-Federalists, and rose into national political parties during Washington's terms in office. Which is why Washington was so adamantly against political parties in his Farewell Address. Political parties usurp the democratic process, regardless of their protection under free association. They are antithetical to democracy.

So, the Social Democrat thinks political parties are antithetical to democracy?

 

[PLizzy]

Again, where's the evidence there was a quid pro quo in connection with the Ukrainian aid?

It's been given to you dozens of times.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Do you have a document, a recording, or testimony from anyone that firmly establishes that Trump made demands of the Ukrainians, and refused to release the aid until those demand were met?

We have a transcript where Trump directly demands investigations of his political rivals. Is that acceptable to you when it's an enemy of the GOP?

Yes or No?

The transcript establishes Trump's intent and one clear abuse of power. His public requests for China to do the same are brazen double down.

 

[Conservative]

1. I admitted I erred in posting the 53 percent number, but I guess you missed that.

2. There won't he a legitimate discussion until you stop using ad hominem and generalizing and have a discussion about it instead of telling me what I think and believe.

Does that clear it up for you?

I have posted the video of Sondland and you have yet to acknowledge, and yes, I didn't see you admit your error on the 53%. Now I am waiting on you to admit that the independents are dropping their support as well and that less than 50% popular support for Impeachment doesn't bode well for the Democrats/

 

[Obscurity]

He shouldn't have said either.
But-- no harm no foul

The harm is being completely ignorant to more than half the country, man.

 

[Obscurity]

I have posted the video of Sondland and you have yet to acknowledge, and yes, I didn't see you admit your error on the 53%. Now I am waiting on you to admit that the independents are dropping their support as well and that less than 50% popular support for Impeachment doesn't bode well for the Democrats/

I don't care if independents are stale on impeachment. More support it than oppose it. You have yet to admit that.

 

[Athanasius68]

They sure can.

Could Trump Serve a Second Term if Ousted? It’s Up to the Senate - The New York Times

To summarize:

No. they can't. An impeachment by the house simply means there will be a trial in the Senate. A president isn't removed if he is impeached. A president is removed when convicted by 2/3 of Senators. In addition, the removed official is disqualified from future office under the USA. Its not an additional option for the Senate. Its removal AND disqualification.

 

[Obscurity]

So, the Social Democrat thinks political parties are antithetical to democracy?

Being a social Democrat isnt avout party affiliation. But I digress. I oppose political parties and think they create too much friction to be of use.

 

[Athanasius68]

The harm is being completely ignorant to more than half the country, man.

Then let the country vote him out.

 

[Chomsky]

So, the Social Democrat thinks political parties are antithetical to democracy?

Yes. Are you familiar with the term "social democrat"?

 

[MauiMan]

And that right there shows the intelligence level of the brainwashed cultists.

This is a sad moment in american history that fully one third of the population supports the first illegitimate and most corrupt president in American history, facts be damned...

It proves that disinformation works. Facts do not matter to that third—only apoplectic rhetoric and unsupported conspiracy theories.

 

[PLizzy]

I asked:

"Do you have a document, a recording, or testimony from anyone that firmly establishes that Trump made demands of the Ukrainians, and refused to release the aid until those demand were met?"

Based on the fact you didn't answer the question and instead decided to talk about something else, the answer to the question must be "NO".

So you are basing the whole quid pro quo/Ukrainian aid thing on what exactly?

1. The fact that NO other explanation has been offered.
2. The fact that the WH pushed like crazy for the investigations, following the hold on the aid.
3. The fact that diplomats and the Ukrainians who asked if the two things were connected, were never told different.
4. The fact that Trump released the aid the day after the House began asking questions about the hold.
5. The fact that Trump tried to withhold the WB report, until elements of its contents leaked out.
6. The fact that Trump saw the WB report before us and his reaction was to release the aid the next day.
7. The fact that Mulvaney conceded at least the Crowdstrike/DNC investigation WAS tied to the aid.
8. The fact that Sondland and Volker drafted statements for the Ukrainians to make announcing the investigations, while the aid hold was present.
9. The fact that no other person has the power to place such a hold besides Trump.

Yeah, really thin evidence. :lamo

I recall Starr connected Lewinsky's job search as obstruction on far less evidence, and Republicans accepting it.

 

[Conservative]

I don't care if independents are stale on impeachment. More support it than oppose it. You have yet to admit that.

LOL, again are you ever going to answer the question, are you going to support a Republican Impeachment effort against a Democrat purely for political reasons?

 

[Conservative]

1. The fact that NO other explanation has been offered.
2. The fact that the WH pushed like crazy for the investigations, following the hold on the aid.
3. The fact that diplomats and the Ukrainians who asked if the two things were connected, were never told different.
4. The fact that Trump released the aid the day after the House began asking questions about the hold.
5. The fact that Trump tried to withhold the WB report, until elements of its contents leaked out.
6. The fact that Trump saw the WB report before us and his reaction was to release the aid the next day.
7. The fact that Mulvaney conceded at least the Crowdstrike/DNC investigation WAS tied to the aid.
8. The fact that Sondland and Volker drafted statements for the Ukrainians to make announcing the investigations, while the aid hold was present.
9. The fact that no other person has the power to place such a hold besides Trump.

Yeah, really thin evidence. :lamo

I recall Starr connected Lewinsky's job search as obstruction on far less evidence, and Republicans accepting it.

I also recall that Clinton lied under oath thus committing perjury which is a violation of the law and that is a crime

 

[dobieg]

You love the two presidents that have severely damaged this nation?

President Carter... Double digit inflation.

President Clinton... Exported US jobs to other nations.

How can you speak so highly of such people?

I will agree President Carter appears to be among the best humanity has to offer, but he was a poor president.

I'm a former Democrat who pulled my head out of my ass.


As far as Clinton, he was anti immigration and pro welfare reform. If he was president today, he'd be considered a Stephen Miller Republican. His big downfall to me were his pro China stance and NAFTA agreement. I could care less that he diddled some half ass intern. I was in the military when he was President and fully supported him.


With Carter I was too young to know any difference.