House to vote on impeachment

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is not undoing an election.

What would the result be if the election was "undone"?

What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment is not undoing an election.

What would the result be if the election was "undone"?

What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?

"Impeachment is not undoing an election"

It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.

"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.

"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"

Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Impeachment is not undoing an election"

It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.

"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.

There is nothing in the Constitution about how an election is undone, so what are you talking about?

"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"

Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

You have forgotten the last President and the efforts to impeach him.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that the clear majority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, while a majority of Republicans were in favor; for example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported these efforts while about two thirds of adult Americans in general disagreed with them.


he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is for Presidents who are "such an idiot", incompetent or otherwise unfit.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment is for Presidents who are "such an idiot", incompetent or otherwise unfit.

please describe the gop efforts to impeach obama, compared to the energy devoted to impeaching trump? you’re going to suggest it was comparable? trying to talk to you like an adult, you don’t make it easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

please describe the gop efforts to impeach obama, compared to the energy devoted to impeaching trump? you’re going to suggest it was comparable? trying to talk to you like an adult, you don’t make it easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not nearly as much ammunition in Obama’s administration
You spent years screaming like a girl about Obama, didn’t you?
Trump spent years pushing the birther theory
Google is easy
But you deflect so to get back on task
The U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key witness in the impeachment inquiry, acknowledged delivering a quid pro quo message to Ukraine in a major revision to his impeachment testimony.
Or have you already moved from no quid pro quo to everyone does that.

Putin’s very proud of your boy and his disinformation campaign.
They’re even going to resume joint cyber security cooperation according to TASS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device