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

ConROT... Conservative Rool of the Opposite Thang.

Okay. Now the process wasn't completed. So using your example the indictment and in this case the impeachment means nothing. No action was or will be taken. Meaning the indictment and the impeachment was a complete waste of time. Especially if neither the prosecutor, the DA or Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have no intention of utilizing the indictment or impeachment. They basically mean nothing.


Until the indictment is served or the articles are sent to the senate, what real meaning do either have? An indictment of a mafia boss, not served or used let's the mafia boss off the hook. Passing the articles of impeachment, not sent or used, let's Trump off the hook. Both the Grand Jury and the House did their job, but for what? Personal satisfaction only.

Or perhaps, being the cynic that I am, maybe not transmitting the articles to the senate has more to do with the upcoming election. I'm sure Pelosi and company have seen independents move from one point margin against impeachment and removal to a 6 point margin against impeachment and removal. Maybe she's afraid a trial in the senate might actually help Trump's chances for reelection? Trump can't win unless he wins the independent vote, the GOP is still the smaller of the two major parties. This is how the mind of a cynic works.

Impeach means to charge, or indict someone for improper behavior.

Trump has been impeached by the House. That's the end of the impeachment process.

Trying to make it seem like he hasn't been impeached because of an imaginary process issue is just another political play, perhaps just like McConnell saying there won't be a proper trial, according to the rules of the Senate, or Pelosi not handing the articles of impeachment to the Senate, because they have already stated that they won't follow the Senate rules.

Of course there are many other political games that can be played, but hasn't everyone agreed that impeachment is a political process? The only legal rules are the ones that have been imposed by the House and Senate upon themselves for their own conduct of the process.

So far I know of no House rule that Pelosi has violated. So far McConnell has stated that he will violate the oath that Senators must take before the trial.

The score is:
Pelosi - followed the rules
McConnell - corrupting the rules

Would you like to make a case that McConnell is not corrupting the rules of the Senate for a trial on the articles of impeachment of Trump?

Have it your way. It still means nothing. Well, it makes Democrats and anti Trumpers feel good. But feel good is the end of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Bottom line, the indictment and the articles of impeachment as long as they sit unused, meaningless.

One shouldn't have even bothered to go to all the trouble.

Gee assumptions and illogical conclusions.

After a grand jury (the House is the equivalent) hears testimony and reviews evidence, they either indict or give a no true bill. That is all. Either a person of interest is either indicted or no billed. End of story ... it requires no further elaboration.

Your speculation about the status is irrelevant to the actual impeachment. Did you not see Rep Pelosi bang her gavel on the sound block? Case closed. Impeached.

All the extraneous words you have included as being somehow meaningful are not.

Sooooo ... why are you speculating about sound and fury?

How about a different speculation ... one that has some relevance to the whole context of the process. I suspect Rep Pelosi upon hearing Sen's McConnell and Graham have made a farce of the Senate trial decided to temporize. Remember the ICIG said the complaint was urgent, but that was Sept 26. A few more weeks does not significantly delay a trial, but may help develop enough support to get Bolton and/or Mulvaney to testify. I think Bolton is the person to testify. I want to know about "drug deals" coming out of the WH, led by Mr Trump. Sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me.

I suspect this has moved past political considerations. The putative political strategy was to ignore impeachment, purely from that perspective. Once the whistleblower complaint become known, it was clear Mr Trump violated his oath of office, which changed the political landscape. While the politics of it weighed heavy in their minds, they had no choice but to invoke their Constitutional prerogative to hold the president accountable for his actions.

Doesn't matter what the political impact will be. Had they not done this I would be calling for the wholesale replacement of the House. 2nd hand hearsay .... my God .... that is equivalent to the Nazi defense. Who the hell else orders people in the highest echelons of government, people with direct contact to the president, to do what they did?

I think that adding "impeached" to Trump's record might have a teensy bit of political use. Come election time, the large number of easily manipulated voters will have a choice between thinking of Trump as impeached, or having to keep the convoluted and disingenuous string of Trump excuses in mind. The polls, as I'm sure you are noticing, are already beginning to swing back to a significant majority supporting his removal. A quick and dishonest exoneration trial would be much to McConnell and Trump's benefit by reversing the burden of argument, whereas the stink of impeachment now is center stage.

It may be that McConnell will continue to do the political math and decide to give somewhat on the unreasonable constraints he is putting on a Senate trial.

Given a bit more time, the important witnesses that Trump has blocked from testifying (one of the Articles) may come to testify.

And it's clear that Trump is extremely uncomfortable as an impeached president. The psychological pressure may well produce some politically important effects from His Holiness.

So I respectfully disagree with your claim of, "the indictment and the articles of impeachment as long as they sit unused, meaningless."

52% are for removing Trump, 42% against. (Morning Consult Dec. 19-20)

While the arguments were raging, Trump was closing the gap. Immediately after the gavel banged the gap widened back to where it was, maybe wider.

I think if Pelosi wants to wait for the Supreme Court to get around to making Trump follow the constitution before tossing the Impeachment into the Senate dumpster, that is fine. It's a perfectly good Impeachment and it really has no "expiration date" until at least 2021. Who knows? With more witnesses and more documentation, there could be more articles of Impeachment. I'm thinking money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud. Why not keep this in the news? There is no shortages of actual crimes Trump has committed and covered up.

Fox News Poll: 51% want Fatass Trump Impeach AND Removed

Trump froze Ukraine aid 90 minutes after speaking to Zelensky on July 25, 2019 — and budget office told Pentagon to keep quiet.


Axios.com


Oopsie. Sounds like #TrumpCorruption worthy of Impeachment AND Removal.