Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration The Impeachment of Donald trump

I have been saying it for a while. If a dead ham sandwich has charisma, I'll vote for it against Mr Trump.

So should we just consider someone from this list and forget the debates?

George Clooney, Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Christopher Walken ... these are highly popular actors who, some would have to say, have the ying yang stuff of presidents

Was your post a long version of simply ... The dumbing down of America?

I have noticed that Folks continue to refer to Trump as a "rich" guy. I tend to doubt this. This is, however, a guy who's daddy gave something like 45 million dollars to who took the money and proceeded to go banko at least 4 times. In addition to that he rarely paid his bills and contractors would no longer work for him unless he paid up front. Its also thought that the Russians bailed him out with approximately 4 billion dollars 9 or 10 year ago (this was explained in a book by a man who has spent most of the last 20 years studying Trump). I suspect he has blowed through that too. Trump is, basically, the demonstrably worst businessman in the history of the nation! (possibly even the World!)

In my own mind he is, basically, a bankrupt, traitorous, really bad businessman with a penchant for conning a LOT of people which tend to confuse just about everybody who is not a member of the Trump worshipping group.

I believe that Trump runs a criminal enterprise. The Dems could actually get the goods on him if they would go directly to the supremes and force them to decide whether they are actually going to support the constitution and give the Democratic house the power to subpoena the top tier of which house staff who, I also believe, have probably broken laws at the behest of Trump and can report stuff not even thought of yet. Our Government is divided into 2 parts; executive, legislative and Judicial. I also believe that when one part of the government is battling another part of the government then one can go directly to the supremes for sorting. The legislative party, battling the executive, certainly qualifies for that, I think. The House can also convict, for instance, refusal to obey a subpoena with contempt of congress and then proceed to arrest and put the miscreant in jail. That is actually a law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
I they actually did arrest, and jail, a Republican miscreant I betcha you would see the Republicans get it into court, and to the supremes VERY fast!

Until the House actually gets off its collective butt, and use their power, I will not consider their efforts to be reasonable or believable. Right now they just seem to be almost entertaining and little else. Since they are not, obviously, going to have a senate that will convict their current current path to impeachment The house can, however, if there is no trial or the trial fails then they can censure the president. Censured presidents are not exactly thought of well. If they do have a trial the senate not only has to remove Trump but also make sure he can never again run for office (otherwise he can).

Just saying.................

It actually has gone up the Judicial Branch to see if they can enforce the subpoena of Trump's financial data from his accountant. The federal judge said yes, the appeals judge said yes, and now the Chief Justice says he wants to think about it for a while.

The law and the Constitution both say yes, so all he can do and stay on the good side of history is to make it take the usual delay for the court to consider it. If the court says no, they go down in the history books as totally corrupt and Justice Roberts' legacy is destroyed. The smartest thing Roberts could do is to refuse to hear it.

Hmm, the dumbing down of America. Or perhaps it was a case of both parties choosing candidates America didn't want. 25% of all Americans disliked both major party candidates and didn't want neither one to become president. This included 54% of all independents.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...ans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Maybe it was the political parties that were dumb, not so much America as a whole or the voting public. Each nominated a candidate that they knew that a majority of Americans didn't like.

When the two major parties come up with candidates viewed by 56% and 60% negatively on election day, you're asking a lot of those voters to choose between negative A and Negative B. Yet, that is exactly what each major party expected the voter to do.

Perhaps if America is so dumb when it comes to popular voting, we should go back to the pre-civil war days when quite a lot of states awarded their electoral votes via their state legislature.

Now I have this feeling that even if we did, if the state legislature or even the people at large in today's political world didn't vote for your candidate, that somehow they end up being dumb.

Perhaps for the next go around, a better candidate is needed. One more acceptable to America as a whole and not just their avid supporters. I suppose we'll learn in 2020 if any lessons were learned from 2016.

I have to strongly recommend this video. It's an hour long, but one of the best dissections/discussions of impeachment history and intent I've ever seen. https://constitutioncenter.org/deba...tein-and-a-citizens-guide-to-impeachment

Why would an intelligent, well informed electorate vote for candidates who fail the basics of fitness?

Despite the fact the Democrat Party machine selected a candidate who was less than inspiring, and the Republican Party machine recognized the power of the bigotry in THE BASE and selected their voice of bigotry as their candidate, a well informed, intelligent electorate would have seen, or should have seen, the Republican candidate did not represent the best of Republican or American ideals and not voted for him. My conclusion is the electorate is ignorant at best, and at worst wallows in the most craven of human characteristics and certainly antithetical to the fundamental values of our Founders.

"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."

This is (thankfully) a little-used article of the Constitution. It is, however, a critical provision and informs every other one. What I mean by that is that it is the "enforcement mechanism" that ensures faithful execution of office for all federal officers.

Using multiple devices to post here creates some mistiming of responses....

It appears that last weeks hearings have accelerated public support of removing Trump through impeachment. Somme of it may have been his bullying tweets. Polls habe swung in opposite directions (within their margins of error), but are collectively hovering around 48%-42% Approval vs. Disapproval.

I saw that notice yesterday. My problem with this stuff getting to the Supremes is twofold. The first is exactly what The chief justice said (he wanted to think about it) - no reference to a time length - could be years. The second possible problem is the narrowness of the decision. Even if they rule in favor of those wanting the data it may be very narrow in width. This is why I would prefer a direct approach asking for a wider judgment which would force the administration to grant the house full access to everybody who has anything to do with the president and all testimony given after being sworn in.

This would solve most of the problems for the House, and give them the actual ability to run a real investigation instead of what is going on right now.

I guess I should mention that a lot of the drama, I think, has to do with the simple fact that the house has not, in my estimation, pointed out that they are investigating, just like a police department and should not be expected to allow opposing parties any more authority than the police would allow any other opposing parties to influence or access to their investigations until such investigations are done and charges made. Apparently making such a suggestion is too offensive to the opposition and likely to encourage their ire.

The very fact of media does cover such nonsense kinda points to the problem of the media. Their coverage, as far as I can tell, pretty much controls all of it and, I think, is just flat out wrong. They are no longer not only picking candidates, for us ALL, but now also seem to be more or less controlling the investigations themselves. I have no solution for this but I am sure that they are, in large part, responsible for all the drama and bullsh*t.