CDZ Impeach or Censure

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

 

[OldLady]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Why, yes.

 

[OldLady]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Why, yes.

That is not what you claimed, as I put what you said in red bold text above. Do you not see the difference in that and what you posted from Wiki?

 

[OldLady]

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

Must be why I hadn't heard of it.

 

[task0778]

We are straying a little off topic here. We are talking about what's going on today with impeachment vs censure, not what happened in ancient Greece. Which to my mind has nothing to do with Schiff or anyone else.

So - it seems all but certain the House Judiciary Committee will draw-up the Articles of Impeachment, and probably fairly quickly too. If the House hold a vote to impeach, will it pass? I dunno, there's more than a few Dems from red or purple states (Trump country) who might feel the squeeze between their own party base and the voters in their districts. It ain't like there's an open and shut case here. [Want to discuss that? Start a thread on it, I'll show up.] Or maybe we can wait until those Articles are written.

Or will they chicken out and vote for a Censure, knowing that the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office? No doubt a Censure will not appease the far left, so each politician is going to have to determine the cost/benefit for whatever they decide to do. It may be that more than a few Dem Reps will want to delay any vote until after the holidays so they can get an accurate read on their constituents. Some place might be for impeachment but some against. They might get a few Repubs to vote for a Censure in the house, but none of them will vote for impeachment IMHO, so there's that.

 

[White 6]

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

I don't remember anything in The Constitution about censuring a President. I am not sure it is a recognized punishment. Anybody got a reference?

 

[task0778]

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

Actually it has. From my post #34:

In 1834, the US Senate censured President Andrew Jackson, for withholding documents relating to his actions in de-funding the Bank of the United States. During the waning months of Jackson's term, his Democratic allies succeeded in expunging the censure.

FYI, from Wiki:

In 1860, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution admonishing both President James Buchanan and Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey for allegedly rewarding contracts on the basis of "party relations." The House may have intended this resolution as a lesser reprimand than a formal censure.

In two other cases, the Senate adopted a resolution that was originally introduced to censure the president, but that, in its final form, did not overtly censure the president. In 1864, during the American Civil War, Senator Garrett Davis introduced a resolution to censure President Abraham Lincoln for allowing two individuals to resume their service as generals after winning election to Congress. The final resolution adopted by the Senate required generals to be "re-appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution," but did not overtly censure Lincoln. In 1912, Senator Joseph Weldon Bailey introduced a resolution censuring President William Howard Taft for allegedly interfering with a disputed Senate election. The final Senate resolution did not specifically refer to Taft, but stated that presidential interference in a disputed Senate race would warrant censure.

Several other presidents have been subject to censure attempts in which no formal resolution was adopted by either the House or the Senate. In 1800, Representative Edward Livingston of New York introduced a censure motion against President John Adams. In 1842, Whigs attempted to impeach President John Tyler following a long period of hostility with the president. When that action could not get through Congress, a select Senate committee dominated by Whigs censured Tyler instead. In 1848, Congressman George Ashmun led an effort to censure President James K. Polk, on the grounds that the Mexican–American War had been "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President." The House of Representatives voted to add Ashmun's censure as an amendment to a resolution under consideration by the House, but the resolution itself was never adopted by the House. In 1871, Senator Charles Sumner introduced an unsuccessful resolution to censure President Ulysses S. Grant for deploying ships to the Dominican Republic without the approval of Congress. In 1952, Congressman Burr Powell Harrison introduced a resolution censuring President Harry S. Truman for seizing control of steel mills during the 1952 steel strike. The resolution ultimately did not receive a vote.

President Richard M. Nixon was the subject of several censure resolutions introduced in the House of Representatives; most of the resolutions were related to the Watergate scandal. In 1972, a resolution censuring Nixon for his handling of the Vietnam War was introduced. A separate series of censure resolutions were introduced after the "Saturday Night Massacre" in October 1973. Another series of resolutions were introduced in July 1974. None of the resolutions were adopted, but Nixon resigned from office in August 1974.

In 1998, resolutions to censure President Bill Clinton for his role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal were introduced and failed. The activist group MoveOn.org originated in 1998, after the group's founders began a petition urging the Republican-controlled Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on"—i.e., to drop impeachment proceedings, pass a censure of Clinton, and focus on other matters. From 2005 to 2007, members of Congress introduced several resolutions to censure President George W. Bush and other members of the Bush administration. Most of the resolutions focused on Bush's handling of the Iraq War, but one resolution concerned the administration's "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans" and two others alleged that Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had violated?/broken? "statutes, treaties, and the Constitution." From 2013 to 2016, members of Congress introduced several resolutions to censure President Barack Obama. These resolutions charged that Obama had usurped the "legislative power of Congress” or had acted unlawfully. None of the resolutions to censure Bush or Obama were adopted.

On August 18, 2017, a resolution was introduced in the House to censure President Donald Trump for his comments "that 'both sides' were to blame for the violence in" the Unite the Right rally. On January 18, 2018 another motion to censure Trump was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D), who at the time was the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for Trump's remark, alleged by people in the room, stating "Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?" According to people in the room at the time, Trump was referring to people from Haiti and African nations coming to the United States of America. The censure motion failed to reach any legislative action. This comment was alleged to have been made on January 11, 2018 in an Oval Office meeting with lawmakers regarding immigration.

Censure in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[task0778]

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

I don't remember anything in The Constitution about censuring a President. I am not sure it is a recognized punishment. Anybody got a reference?

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, which does not mean that either Congress can't do it. Since Censure isn't in the Constitution, that resolution has no legal consequences, it's mostly public shaming and political grandstanding.

 

[OldLady]

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

I don't remember anything in The Constitution about censuring a President. I am not sure it is a recognized punishment. Anybody got a reference?

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, which does not mean that either Congress can't do it. Since Censure isn't in the Constitution, that resolution has no legal consequences, it's mostly public shaming and political grandstanding.

And according to what you posted, it is even harder to do than impeachment. How odd that political grandstanding is even harder to pass in the Congress than the call to remove him.

 

[task0778]

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

I don't remember anything in The Constitution about censuring a President. I am not sure it is a recognized punishment. Anybody got a reference?

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, which does not mean that either Congress can't do it. Since Censure isn't in the Constitution, that resolution has no legal consequences, it's mostly public shaming and political grandstanding.

And according to what you posted, it is even harder to do than impeachment. How odd that political grandstanding is even harder to pass in the Congress than the call to remove him.

Procedurally, it's not harder. In the House, for an impeachment they normally do investigations and conduct hearings and do the committee vote to send it to the floor and then hold the impeachment vote. For a Censure, they can do whatever they want, avoid all the other stuff and send it to the floor, cuz it's really nothing more than a resolution without any power of law behind it. Of course, they won't and don't do that cuz the pols want the chance to look good on TV denouncing the President for everything and anything they can think of whether he's actually guilty or not. Screw worrying about proof, we don't need no stinking proof, but it all comes down to what is politically smarter. As I noted, a Censure has no real ramifications and no real consequences and so if the Dems go that route then there's gonna be a bunch of pissed off far Left Dems to deal with in next year's primaries. THAT's why it's harder to do a Censure. But if they vote for impeachment then they're going to risk losing the House next November cuz all those Dems that got elected in 2018 from Trump districts are going to have to face the voters with nothing to show for the last 2 years. It's quite a conundrum - which course of action hurts them more, in one case they lose their seats in the primaries and in the other they lose their seats in the general election. Gotta be an individual choice based on the individual and his/her district.

 

[OldLady]

Why, look--it's even in Wiki:
when dealing with politicians held to be acting against the interests of the people, Athenian juries could inflict very severe penalties such as death, unpayably large fines, confiscation of property, permanent exile and loss of citizens' rights through atimia
Ostracism - Wikipedia

That's for breaking the law. Can you read?

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

Must be why I hadn't heard of it.

I am sorry your education was lacking.

Reported. My patience has limits.

 

[OldLady]

Btw, when was the last time a President was censured?

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

I don't remember anything in The Constitution about censuring a President. I am not sure it is a recognized punishment. Anybody got a reference?

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, which does not mean that either Congress can't do it. Since Censure isn't in the Constitution, that resolution has no legal consequences, it's mostly public shaming and political grandstanding.

And according to what you posted, it is even harder to do than impeachment. How odd that political grandstanding is even harder to pass in the Congress than the call to remove him.

Procedurally, it's not harder. In the House, for an impeachment they normally do investigations and conduct hearings and do the committee vote to send it to the floor and then hold the impeachment vote. For a Censure, they can do whatever they want, avoid all the other stuff and send it to the floor, cuz it's really nothing more than a resolution without any power of law behind it. Of course, they won't and don't do that cuz the pols want the chance to look good on TV denouncing the President for everything and anything they can think of whether he's actually guilty or not. Screw worrying about proof, we don't need no stinking proof, but it all comes down to what is politically smarter. As I noted, a Censure has no real ramifications and no real consequences and so if the Dems go that route then there's gonna be a bunch of pissed off far Left Dems to deal with in next year's primaries. THAT's why it's harder to do a Censure. But if they vote for impeachment then they're going to risk losing the House next November cuz all those Dems that got elected in 2018 from Trump districts are going to have to face the voters with nothing to show for the last 2 years.

I think the "stinkin proof" this go-round is pretty clear, but be that as it may, I still don't understand why it's harder, though, to get a vote, based on what you explained. It would seem to me that there would be censures up the wazoo, but there was only one, later rescinded, back in the 1830's.

 

[OldLady]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.

So you are sure of criminal activities on his part? Based on what? All I've so far is hearsay, supposition, innuendo, and personal guesses. And I don't Schiff it takes much guts to do what Schiff is doing, considering his re-election is not in doubt.

#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.

So you think Trump deserves impeachment? Look, the guy is a rat bastard, his personality and character sucks, but those things are not impeachable offenses. And if you believe the Dems haven't been trying to get Trump removed from office for any reason whatsoever then I don't know what to tell you. Everything they've done since Nov 2016 has been to show his election was based on illegalities or at least unacceptable actions. To me, that is the definition of invalidation.

#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

Maybe. An impeachment trial in the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to go down well for the Dems. And BTW I do not trust the polls one bit to reflect what the country is feeling or thinking about all this folderol. I think there are a significant number of voters who voted for the Dems in 2016 and 2018 that will not do so in 2020. They might not vote for Trump, although I do hear that his numbers are rising among black voters. A lot of folks expected things to get done but the Dems are instead focused too much on Trump. And it ain't working out for them IMHO.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Not getting the reference here. Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump without any actual evidence? There's a difference between suggesting legislation and trying to impeach a president.

Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump
Yes. And they have provided evidence, told the story, made it clear what Trump was up to and who was involved. He can't use government funds for his own personal purposes, and besides that, the last time I looked, bribery was illegal. If he is allowed to get away with this because politicians will be politicians--you know how they are--I will be even further disgusted with the Republicans. They let this country down by allowing Trump to represent their party. They were too anxious for power to think about what they were potentially setting loose in this country. And now they are closing their eyes and pretending that everything is fine.
WELL IT IS NOT FINE.

I think your evidence is spurious at best. Where is the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? Where's the evidence that he used gov't funds for his own personal purposes? Where does he tell the Ukrainians to investigate Biden or you don't get the aid? Biden was pretty clear about it: it's on tape where he said it himself; I told them to fire the prosecutor within 6 hours or you ain't getting the $6 billion in aid or whatever it was. I have yet to hear anyone testify that Trump told them to tell the Ukrainians that they ain't getting the money of they don't investigate Biden. Can you prove that Trump withheld the aid money specifically to bribe the Ukrainians? Coulda been other reasons, true? Where's your proof on that?

Hey, you can believe what you want, we all have that right but I don't think we should impeach a President based on a personal guess. That's what Ambassador Sondland said, right? Did ANYBODY say I heard Trump say what you allege? Again, where's the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? All I've heard so far from the Dems is a bunch of personal guesses, assumptions, suppositions, and a few outright lies. Like when Schiff actually made up his own transcript of the phone call before Trump released the real transcript.

So you're disgusted with the Repubs, huh? Well I'm way past disgusted with the Dems. I know that Trump's personality and character are deplorable, I admitted it in the OP. But you don't impeach a President cuz he's a rat bastard. For that you should have proof; solid evidence that you ain't got.

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.

So you are sure of criminal activities on his part? Based on what? All I've so far is hearsay, supposition, innuendo, and personal guesses. And I don't Schiff it takes much guts to do what Schiff is doing, considering his re-election is not in doubt.

#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.

So you think Trump deserves impeachment? Look, the guy is a rat bastard, his personality and character sucks, but those things are not impeachable offenses. And if you believe the Dems haven't been trying to get Trump removed from office for any reason whatsoever then I don't know what to tell you. Everything they've done since Nov 2016 has been to show his election was based on illegalities or at least unacceptable actions. To me, that is the definition of invalidation.

#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

Maybe. An impeachment trial in the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to go down well for the Dems. And BTW I do not trust the polls one bit to reflect what the country is feeling or thinking about all this folderol. I think there are a significant number of voters who voted for the Dems in 2016 and 2018 that will not do so in 2020. They might not vote for Trump, although I do hear that his numbers are rising among black voters. A lot of folks expected things to get done but the Dems are instead focused too much on Trump. And it ain't working out for them IMHO.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Not getting the reference here. Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump without any actual evidence? There's a difference between suggesting legislation and trying to impeach a president.

Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump
Yes. And they have provided evidence, told the story, made it clear what Trump was up to and who was involved. He can't use government funds for his own personal purposes, and besides that, the last time I looked, bribery was illegal. If he is allowed to get away with this because politicians will be politicians--you know how they are--I will be even further disgusted with the Republicans. They let this country down by allowing Trump to represent their party. They were too anxious for power to think about what they were potentially setting loose in this country. And now they are closing their eyes and pretending that everything is fine.
WELL IT IS NOT FINE.

I think your evidence is spurious at best. Where is the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? Where's the evidence that he used gov't funds for his own personal purposes? Where does he tell the Ukrainians to investigate Biden or you don't get the aid? Biden was pretty clear about it: it's on tape where he said it himself; I told them to fire the prosecutor within 6 hours or you ain't getting the $6 billion in aid or whatever it was. I have yet to hear anyone testify that Trump told them to tell the Ukrainians that they ain't getting the money of they don't investigate Biden. Can you prove that Trump withheld the aid money specifically to bribe the Ukrainians? Coulda been other reasons, true? Where's your proof on that?

Hey, you can believe what you want, we all have that right but I don't think we should impeach a President based on a personal guess. That's what Ambassador Sondland said, right? Did ANYBODY say I heard Trump say what you allege? Again, where's the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? All I've heard so far from the Dems is a bunch of personal guesses, assumptions, suppositions, and a few outright lies. Like when Schiff actually made up his own transcript of the phone call before Trump released the real transcript.

So you're disgusted with the Repubs, huh? Well I'm way past disgusted with the Dems. I know that Trump's personality and character are deplorable, I admitted it in the OP. But you don't impeach a President cuz he's a rat bastard. For that you should have proof; solid evidence that you ain't got.

Actually, you don't ELECT a President cuz he's a rat bastard. I watched the entire public hearings and heard straight from the people who were there what was happening. There is no doubt in my mind what Trump was up to, and it is so obvious that I really don't believe someone as smart as you doesn't know it too.
SMH

 

[task0778]

It hasn't happened. The libtards in Congress was not as stupid in the past as they are now.

I don't remember anything in The Constitution about censuring a President. I am not sure it is a recognized punishment. Anybody got a reference?

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, which does not mean that either Congress can't do it. Since Censure isn't in the Constitution, that resolution has no legal consequences, it's mostly public shaming and political grandstanding.

And according to what you posted, it is even harder to do than impeachment. How odd that political grandstanding is even harder to pass in the Congress than the call to remove him.

Procedurally, it's not harder. In the House, for an impeachment they normally do investigations and conduct hearings and do the committee vote to send it to the floor and then hold the impeachment vote. For a Censure, they can do whatever they want, avoid all the other stuff and send it to the floor, cuz it's really nothing more than a resolution without any power of law behind it. Of course, they won't and don't do that cuz the pols want the chance to look good on TV denouncing the President for everything and anything they can think of whether he's actually guilty or not. Screw worrying about proof, we don't need no stinking proof, but it all comes down to what is politically smarter. As I noted, a Censure has no real ramifications and no real consequences and so if the Dems go that route then there's gonna be a bunch of pissed off far Left Dems to deal with in next year's primaries. THAT's why it's harder to do a Censure. But if they vote for impeachment then they're going to risk losing the House next November cuz all those Dems that got elected in 2018 from Trump districts are going to have to face the voters with nothing to show for the last 2 years.

I think the "stinkin proof" this go-round is pretty clear, but be that as it may, I still don't understand why it's harder, though, to get a vote, based on what you explained. It would seem to me that there would be censures up the wazoo, but there was only one, later rescinded, back in the 1830's.

Maybe somebody more knowledgeable in US political history can shed more light on this than I can, but my guess is that since a Censure carries no real consequences, if you can't get bi-partisan support for it then it just wasn't worth it politically in the past. My personal opinion is that the moderates in the Dem Party would rather do the Censure and move on, as some of them did in 1998 when Clinton was facing an impeachment vote. But the Repubs were out for blood and refused the Censure idea and so it didn't happen.

Note: As a matter of fact there was a black Congresswoman from Detroit who said on TV she thought a Censure vote was a good idea and the Dems could move on. But she got shut down pretty quick on that, I guess the Dem Party leadership made her walk that back. So, it appears an impeachment vote will take place in the House. There are some Repubs would might vote for a Censure, but I highly doubt any of them will vote for impeachment. It'll be interesting to see how many Dems jump ship and vote no, to save themselves in the next general election. But also how many of them will get bushwhacked by the far Left in their own party in their primaries.
Why the Democrats Can’t Settle for Censure | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

Finally: I am just not seeing any proof of wrong-doing on Trump's part. You say it's pretty clear, but all I see is personal interpretations and guesses. Yes, the aid to Ukraine was held up, but there's no proof for why. Coulda been Trump's doing to coerce them Ukrainians to investigate Biden, or it coulda been something else. Like wanting the EU countries to pony up some of that aid, or making sure the aid wasn't going to the wrong people in Ukraine. What's odd to me is the lack of any hard evidence to support your position; no emails,no memos, no documents, no transcripts of a phone call where he bribes anybody or tells somebody to hold up the aid until he gets his investigation.

That's my problem. It's not that I think Trump is innocent, he very well could've done what he's accused of. BUT - you don't impeach a President without hard evidence, and your side doesn't have any. Not that I've seen or heard of anyway. Further, I suspect that Biden is guilty of the same thing yet he isn't been hounded like Trump is and that ain't right. And I also think that Obama and every other president has probably done exactly the same thing, but no one knew about it or it was ignored. Until now.

 

[task0778]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.

So you are sure of criminal activities on his part? Based on what? All I've so far is hearsay, supposition, innuendo, and personal guesses. And I don't Schiff it takes much guts to do what Schiff is doing, considering his re-election is not in doubt.

#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.

So you think Trump deserves impeachment? Look, the guy is a rat bastard, his personality and character sucks, but those things are not impeachable offenses. And if you believe the Dems haven't been trying to get Trump removed from office for any reason whatsoever then I don't know what to tell you. Everything they've done since Nov 2016 has been to show his election was based on illegalities or at least unacceptable actions. To me, that is the definition of invalidation.

#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

Maybe. An impeachment trial in the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to go down well for the Dems. And BTW I do not trust the polls one bit to reflect what the country is feeling or thinking about all this folderol. I think there are a significant number of voters who voted for the Dems in 2016 and 2018 that will not do so in 2020. They might not vote for Trump, although I do hear that his numbers are rising among black voters. A lot of folks expected things to get done but the Dems are instead focused too much on Trump. And it ain't working out for them IMHO.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Not getting the reference here. Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump without any actual evidence? There's a difference between suggesting legislation and trying to impeach a president.

Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump
Yes. And they have provided evidence, told the story, made it clear what Trump was up to and who was involved. He can't use government funds for his own personal purposes, and besides that, the last time I looked, bribery was illegal. If he is allowed to get away with this because politicians will be politicians--you know how they are--I will be even further disgusted with the Republicans. They let this country down by allowing Trump to represent their party. They were too anxious for power to think about what they were potentially setting loose in this country. And now they are closing their eyes and pretending that everything is fine.
WELL IT IS NOT FINE.

I think your evidence is spurious at best. Where is the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? Where's the evidence that he used gov't funds for his own personal purposes? Where does he tell the Ukrainians to investigate Biden or you don't get the aid? Biden was pretty clear about it: it's on tape where he said it himself; I told them to fire the prosecutor within 6 hours or you ain't getting the $6 billion in aid or whatever it was. I have yet to hear anyone testify that Trump told them to tell the Ukrainians that they ain't getting the money of they don't investigate Biden. Can you prove that Trump withheld the aid money specifically to bribe the Ukrainians? Coulda been other reasons, true? Where's your proof on that?

Hey, you can believe what you want, we all have that right but I don't think we should impeach a President based on a personal guess. That's what Ambassador Sondland said, right? Did ANYBODY say I heard Trump say what you allege? Again, where's the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? All I've heard so far from the Dems is a bunch of personal guesses, assumptions, suppositions, and a few outright lies. Like when Schiff actually made up his own transcript of the phone call before Trump released the real transcript.

So you're disgusted with the Repubs, huh? Well I'm way past disgusted with the Dems. I know that Trump's personality and character are deplorable, I admitted it in the OP. But you don't impeach a President cuz he's a rat bastard. For that you should have proof; solid evidence that you ain't got.

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump? Seems risky if they do, assuming enough Dems in red or purple states vote 'YES'. For in doing so, they open themselves up for criticism from the GOP for trying to invalidate the 2016 election with no actual evidence. AND, then the issue goes to the GOP-controlled Senate, who can and will subpoena their own witnesses, including the Bidens and others that will make the Dems look very bad indeed. Not to mention others, such as Schiff and the whistleblower himself.

In an election year next year, would the Dems want their Senators running for re-election or for president stuck in the Senate chambers attending the trial? Would they instead not attend, opening themselves up for criticism from their own hard left? What are all the moderates and independents going to think about the Dems who promised to work on other issues that were important to the voters, but instead wasted their time trying to impeach Trump knowing full well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove him from office?

It's hard to see that happening IMHO. I think instead we'll see the House Dems vote to censure Trump for trying to use the foreign aid to the Ukraine as leverage to get them to provide dirt on Joe Biden. Never mind that they really don't have a solid case, or the fact the Biden himself is guilty of essentially the same damn thing, or that 3 Dem Senators are also guilty of the same thing too. Are they (Dems) that stupid, to hold an impeachment vote? Maybe it boils down to how much control (fear) the Democrats have for their far left.
Primaries aren't that far away.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.
#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.
#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

#1) I hear the first person they plan to subpoena in the Judiciary Committee hearings is Adam Schiff. For having the guts to bring the President's criminality to light.

So you are sure of criminal activities on his part? Based on what? All I've so far is hearsay, supposition, innuendo, and personal guesses. And I don't Schiff it takes much guts to do what Schiff is doing, considering his re-election is not in doubt.

#2) The Dems are not trying to invalidate the 2016 election. Trump has earned his just desserts all on his own.

So you think Trump deserves impeachment? Look, the guy is a rat bastard, his personality and character sucks, but those things are not impeachable offenses. And if you believe the Dems haven't been trying to get Trump removed from office for any reason whatsoever then I don't know what to tell you. Everything they've done since Nov 2016 has been to show his election was based on illegalities or at least unacceptable actions. To me, that is the definition of invalidation.

#3) The impeachment trial won't make any big changes in the polls; you are dreaming to think that a large part of this country's voters will switch in retaliation or disgust.

Maybe. An impeachment trial in the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to go down well for the Dems. And BTW I do not trust the polls one bit to reflect what the country is feeling or thinking about all this folderol. I think there are a significant number of voters who voted for the Dems in 2016 and 2018 that will not do so in 2020. They might not vote for Trump, although I do hear that his numbers are rising among black voters. A lot of folks expected things to get done but the Dems are instead focused too much on Trump. And it ain't working out for them IMHO.

In Ancient Greece one of the rules of their democracy was that any voter was able to offer up a suggested law. If it was voted down, however, he could be hanged. It seems to me that is what is happening here.

Not getting the reference here. Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump without any actual evidence? There's a difference between suggesting legislation and trying to impeach a president.

Are you referring to Adam Schiff and the string of accusations he and others have leveled against Trump
Yes. And they have provided evidence, told the story, made it clear what Trump was up to and who was involved. He can't use government funds for his own personal purposes, and besides that, the last time I looked, bribery was illegal. If he is allowed to get away with this because politicians will be politicians--you know how they are--I will be even further disgusted with the Republicans. They let this country down by allowing Trump to represent their party. They were too anxious for power to think about what they were potentially setting loose in this country. And now they are closing their eyes and pretending that everything is fine.
WELL IT IS NOT FINE.

I think your evidence is spurious at best. Where is the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? Where's the evidence that he used gov't funds for his own personal purposes? Where does he tell the Ukrainians to investigate Biden or you don't get the aid? Biden was pretty clear about it: it's on tape where he said it himself; I told them to fire the prosecutor within 6 hours or you ain't getting the $6 billion in aid or whatever it was. I have yet to hear anyone testify that Trump told them to tell the Ukrainians that they ain't getting the money of they don't investigate Biden. Can you prove that Trump withheld the aid money specifically to bribe the Ukrainians? Coulda been other reasons, true? Where's your proof on that?

Hey, you can believe what you want, we all have that right but I don't think we should impeach a President based on a personal guess. That's what Ambassador Sondland said, right? Did ANYBODY say I heard Trump say what you allege? Again, where's the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly shows bribery or illegal activity? All I've heard so far from the Dems is a bunch of personal guesses, assumptions, suppositions, and a few outright lies. Like when Schiff actually made up his own transcript of the phone call before Trump released the real transcript.

So you're disgusted with the Repubs, huh? Well I'm way past disgusted with the Dems. I know that Trump's personality and character are deplorable, I admitted it in the OP. But you don't impeach a President cuz he's a rat bastard. For that you should have proof; solid evidence that you ain't got.

Actually, you don't ELECT a President cuz he's a rat bastard. I watched the entire public hearings and heard straight from the people who were there what was happening. There is no doubt in my mind what Trump was up to, and it is so obvious that I really don't believe someone as smart as you doesn't know it too.
SMH

Actually, you don't ELECT a President cuz he's a rat bastard.

Nobody votes for or elects somebody cuz he's a rat bastard. You vote for somebody because you think that person will do a better job as president than the other person, according to whatever your criteria are. It was my opinion that Trump would do a better job as president than Hillary would do. And BTW, Hillary was no less a corrupt, lying bitch than he was a rat bastard. JMO.

Full disclosure: I didn't watch the entire hearings, just pieces here and there, but I did read several accounts of each day's proceedings. At no time did I hear or read where anybody testified that Trump told him or her that aid to Ukraine would be denied if they didn't investigate Biden. The Ukrainians themselves didn't get that message, why did you? What I did read and hear was a number of presumptions and personal guesses. One more time: where's the memo, email, document, or transcript that clearly says not to send aid to Ukraine until they investigate Biden.

Now - it very well may be that what you claim did indeed occur. Maybe. Likely even. But proof? NO. And that's why Trump should not be impeached. Suspicions are one thing, but solid evidence is another, and I cannot support impeaching a duly elected president when all you have is suspicions, presumptions, and personal guesses. If you're disgusted with me for that, so be it.

 

[sartre play]

Why should Trump be any different, if you have the money, lawyers, and clout, usually you can get away with almost anything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, which does not mean that either Congress can't do it. Since Censure isn't in the Constitution, that resolution has no legal consequences, it's mostly public shaming and political grandstanding.

If they do, I strongly urge the President to issue an "Executive Reprimand" of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler. It has just as much legal basis, which is to say none at all, and a hell of a lot more actual basis.

 

[CowboyTed]

Will the House Democrats vote to impeach Trump

Yes, they will, they must. If they follow the law and the Constitution their hands are tied.

The republicans in the senate may go for the censure option in an attempt to save face.

It will fail, they have no face left to save. It's all buried deep in tRump's ass.

These lads are too far gone, they have a regular diet of Fox and hyper right wing sites....

The thing about the Senate trial is the discovery part... All the Emails and Text Messages are going to be revealed...

On top of that the likes of Rudy, Mulvaney, Barr, Pompeo are going to testify and that is not going to go well for the GOP. These guys have a simple way not to impeach themselves, tell the truth, that is going to be very tricky.

They have some wild idea that Hunter Biden on the stand is going to reveal anything. Hunter said he got offered a job and he took it, what corruption questions can he answer?

I might not be even called to testify. Roberts is not going to let them go off fishing for nothing, he is a real judge. A real question is what does Biden offer to Trump's defence, what is he's connection to the case that hasn't been dismissed as wild conspiracy theories...