Impeachment: The Process Begins

Trump is damaging the Republican brand so severely that there will be no Re;ublican majority in either house of Congress and no Republican president again for the next twenty years, and you know these things run in twenty year increments, don't you. No Democratic impeachments til 2040 at the earliest ,plenty of repub impeachments til then.

Let's compare notes after election day 2032 and see if the Republicans haven't just been elected to the White House for the fifth time in a row.

For God's sake, that's pages and pages. Which part specifically did he violate, and how?

She's saying that "investigating the Bidens" is an illegal campaign contribution.

I feel like we are stuck in a circle Brandon. Let's try again. This whole game of up pulling up Federal Statutes is irrelevant.

If the president abused his Constitutional power for personal benefit, then he can be impeached. The process of impeachment involves Congress in a process that is clearly defined in the Constitution. There are several historical precedents for people being impeached for abuse of power... it was one of the articles of impeachment in the case of Nixon.

You are making up a requirement that is not in the Constitution by claiming that for something to be a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" that it has to be outlined in a federal statute There is nothing to back up your claim, and throughout history this has never been true.

The Constitution is clear. It is the House of Representatives that has the sole power to decide if the President's misbehavior is a "high crime or misdemeanor". And then the Senate will vote to convict.

That's what the Constitution says. To all the liberals who are arguing over federal statutes, you are being equally silly. This is a completely irrelevant tangent.

Not if they vote to acquit.

That's true Oralloy. I think it is 50/50 if we make it to that point. The prediction markets are putting conviction at around a 20% chance. Yes, I have put my money down (I am a little worried that Trump resigns before that point and I lose my money).

You should look into the fact that the charges against Trump are spurious. It will help you perceive the likelihood of acquittal a bit better.

When I read your posts, I have learned to replace the word "fact" with "extreme partisan opinion". Then they make sense.

Let's compare notes after the 2020 election when trump is out and facing years in Leavenworth.

Not spurious.

Cmon, quit trying to stretch the truth. When you and I ere tiffing last week about the word "evidence" we only had one secondhand "hearsay" witness who would be entered into "evidence"
By last Friday (I beleieve) we then had TWO and possibly more first hand witnesses to the content of the phone calls.

ince I was on a boat sailing since last Tuesday, you may have noted I was off lin a coupl days. (Lotsa work to break in a vol crew to help deliver their new sail boat to Maine).
I dodnt hear about the econd witness till Friday so dont get all whiny about how you said it first and I diagreed ith you. YOU , initially, posted a crock of unintelligent dribble about what contitutes good evidence and I (experienced in forensics as I am) disagreed mightily because that would have been a losing case from the start. Perhaps you noted how the GOP started tossing around the "hearsay" as their epidictic that could really constitute a point of law that Trump would be found not guilty in the follow-on trials.

You were excited about having a rising hypothesis of guilt by our president. Nobody would have presented that in vidence without substantial real facts in proof.

Now we have a whole different level of substantiation of fact. The only thing the GOP has in its quiver is to impach THAT itness as some kind of toady to the DEMS. (Itd be really nice if the second whistle-blower were a conservative leaning FBI agent or NSA ).

I think we still need a competent time-line so none of these facts are mussed up by showing they were divulged after some important issue in the 2020 campaign.


Will the GOP jump hip??? You seem to hold a strong belief that enough will. Id like to see a big number of Senators or else just a very small amount that carries the majority. With a number 2 scenario it would appear that the GOP was spending time mulling over Trumps worth to the Legislative bodies, and selected just a coupl of volunteers whove already hown some more centrist or even progressive leanings. (like Maine).

I was in Maine hen the Senator announced her decision and , as would be expected, the Washington, Hancock and NortherEast tier folks were angry, whereas the from Orono South, its was a matter of relizing that this guy is a total nutbag who will destroy the Republic if hes re-elected.

Youre wrongedy wrong wrong sir, Colbert ANNOUNCED about the second whistlebloer after Id already left the discussion to go to sea so Colbert didnt say anything even close about a second whistleblower after we were talking. AND, as you recall(I think you will)< I was totally afraid that the first whistle -blower was correctly considered hearsay and that did not constitute anything that could be called evidence(It woulda been tossed in a real court)

While I do offer opinions as well, anything that I label as a fact is a fact, and is not in any way an opinion.

If you find any of my claimed facts to be questionable, feel free to ask for a cite. I will provide one.

Or, if it transpires that you are confused about what I am claiming as a fact, perhaps I'll clarify that a certain line of text is an opinion. In that case you will be correct to count it as an opinion.

But I'll provide a cite for anything that I'm claiming as a fact.

As I recall back in 2013 you were making similarly brash statements about 2016.

But sure. We can compare notes after the 2020 election.

I think 2032 will be the more interesting one though. After two full terms of Trump, and two full terms of Trump's successor, the Democrats will really want to win in 2032. Watching the voters state their preference for the Republican candidate once again will be a rare pleasure. The Democrats really have become a force for evil in this country, and that is exactly the sort of comeuppance that they deserve.



Unlikely. For what crime?

Can you imagine what Max's late night chat show would be called. I can think of a few names, but none of them repeatable.

Sure they are. What crime or wrongdoing has Trump actually committed?

maybe all his cronies will help him cross that line. Think Giuliani's bus under which he will be lain, left the terminal yet?

We voted for a Democrat in 2016 not for trump. He has done nothing to gain more voters since. What makes you think he'll gget more votes in 2020.

That is incorrect. Trump won the 2016 election.