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

I agree with you across the board. But...

Remember how I said the obstruction charge wasn't enough for impeachment? Well this here aint enough either. I think of impeachment as a last resort and times just aren't that desperate.

It was inevitable though and no president has ever deserved it more, I just woulda liked to have an even chance of getting a conviction before i pulled the trigger.

What bewilders me most is that no amount of investigation seems to turn up any crimes committed by Trump. Without the whistleblower they'd still be grasping at straws(and waiting for the courts).

So if this damages Trump I'm cool with it, if it screws up 2020 for Democrats I'm against it. If we are watching the birth of a new Hitleresque dictator then we should be thankful to be alive during such interesting times. Like the Jews...before the holocaust.

ABC News reported Sunday afternoon that the Intelligence Committee has tapes of Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas. This week, Parnas revealed he has extensive evidence of President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani involved in the Ukraine scandal.

The only reason why Lev Parnas turned on Trump is because Parnas was "very upset" that Trump pretended he did not know Parnas.

Parnas to Trump: "Don't dis me bro."

Actually, the most important impeachable offense is Trump's refusal to cooperate or let any Executive Branch employees cooperate with the impeachment proceedings. This flies in the face of our system or checks and balances, separation of powers, and the Constitution. The American Republic is broken irretrievably if nothing happens because of this. It replaces our Presidency with a dictatorship.

This is the real constitutional crisis, unless the Supreme Court tells Trump he has to cooperate, and everybody honors that decision.

You stated, "The crimes are not high enough and the misdemeanors too minor in the eyes of Republicans." Perhaps independents are coming to this same conclusion. On 13 Nov you had 38% of independents for impeachment and removal, 39% against. 24 Nov shows 41% of independents for impeachment and removal, 47% against impeachment and removal.

For me, I'm not going to keep track of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to impeachment. Their opinion and wants on this matter are set in stone. I'm more interested to see how independents are reacting, probably quite a lot of them in neither the pro or anti Trump camps.

I don't think this impeachment process will have much affect on the 2020 presidential election one way or the other. Unless some earth shattering additional evidence shows up. But I do feel if this comes to a AYE and NAY vote in the senate, their vote could decide whether or not the Democrats regain the senate.

These are the two questions I would ask any Republican, please define bribery, please tell me what crimes ARE impeachable?

Many times when trying to proof a conjecture or claim all the standard approaches do not yield results. This may be predicated on an ambiguous understanding of the items in question. So a good analyst will start at the beginning, start with the definitions.

I believe if the Democrats use a dumbed down approach starting with the definitions the general public will at least understand what the issues are. As an example, many crimes can be either a high crime or an ordinary crime. An example would be Mr trump shooting someone on 5th Ave. If he does that as a citizen, it would not be a high crime, but if he did it in the line of duty, it would be a high crime.

Bribery is an example of something so misunderstood it needs a lot of PSA's. Here is one succinct example


I agree

Don't think that will matter as I don't believe the electorate understands what is important.

Nor do I. That election is pretty much written in stone at this point.

I agree. I really don't see how Trump can win unless the Democrats nominate a dunce of a candidate. A candidate disliked more than Trump by independents, ALA Hillary Clinton. Landslide or close race, that I think is all up to the Democrats and who they nominate.

My usual caveat, We'll see.

Some have wondered what it will mean for the Democratic primary. When it gets thrown into the Senate, won't the three leading democratic candidates be required to attend? Would that be a schedule conflict with New Hampshire and Iowa?

I don't know if they're required to attend or not. But if they're out on the campaign trail instead of in the senate when the trial is taking place, it certainly would look like they aren't doing their job.

New Hampshire isn't until 11 FEB. I don't think I'd be too worried about NH, it's Super Tuesday, 3 March that's the big ones. There is a chance the nomination could be decided on Super Tuesday or at least have a presumptive nominee.

I heard a rumor that Mitch McConnell is gonna ram it through as soon as it hits his desk. It could be done by Christmas.