My predictions for the trump impeachment

[Faun]

I dont think they will convict him. I think Trump will come up with some spun up narrative and they will stand behind that. Look how spineless they are on issues now. I hear them talking about gun legislation and nobody will do anything until Trump gives them their marching orders. It’s pathetic.

The Senate won't have to do anything because Articles of impeachment will not make through the House. Keep in mind neither Pelosi's claim of "formal impeachment inquiry" nor Nadler's August claim of "official impeachment proceedings" have any authority unless the House votes to approve them (which they haven't). You've been duped again.

Funny. Speaker Pelosi would not have launched an Official Impeachment Inquiry if she thought she didn't have the votes to impeach. She is famous for accurately counting her votes. I have no doubt that Trump will be impeached in the House. The Senate is a different matter.

It's not about having the votes to impeach you STUPID, STUPID child but rather about her having a House resolution to institute the "formal impeachment inquiry" - which she doesn't - she announced with great fanfare today. You also have been duped again because you are STUPID.

A House resolution is not needed.

Here, knock yourself out....

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

So you are saying Pelosi did not announce a "formal impeachment inquiry" (notice the quotation marks) but if she did she didn't need a House resolution to do so?

Yanno you are pretty much a STUPID post machine but even drunk I can't match your ineptitude.

By the way, your own source contradicts your silliness (in bold below). You do know what a House Resolution is, right?

Knock yourself out:

Introduction of a Simple Resolution A Member can initiate an impeachment process by drafting a simple resolution and placing it in the House hopper, the way all simple resolutions are submitted to the House. If the resolution directly calls for an impeachment, it will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it instead calls for an investigation of an official by a standing committee or proposes the creation of a special committee for that purpose, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorization of committee investigations. No special procedures restrict when such a resolution can be submitted, although historically they have been submitted relatively infrequently.

LOLOLOL

You moron, you posted the wrong section.

Here's the relevant section....

Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official. Second, the committee conducts its investigation, prepares articles of impeachment, and reports them to the House. Third, the full House considers the articles of impeachment and, if they are adopted, appoints managers from the committee to present the articles in the Senate. As discussed in detail below, the House relies upon many of its usual procedures to consider the resolution explicitly initiating an investigation, conduct the investigation, and consider the articles of impeachment.​

.... pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red. Read it a few times ... absorb it ... swirl it like a fine wine... then let me know if you get it or if you need me to explain the implication, "most often," bears on the requirement of of a resolution.

 

[Faun]

Senate aint going to convict if trump were to be impeached in the house. That would be the republican death knell and good riddance to those weak spineless rubes if they did.

So let's say, for arguments sake, Democrats prove conclusively that he used that military aid to coerce Zelensky to dig for dirt on Biden -- you still think Republicans won't convict him?

Wait a minute. If they find what Biden did applies to Trump? Is that what you mean?

Biden didn't do what trump allegedly did. Biden served the U.S.. Trump, if this story is true, served Trump.

Biden did worse you fucking retard. He demanded a foreign prosecutor be removed to protect his son.

This is what Faun and the left are in complete denial of.

They are in denial of the fact that the US government backed NAZIS to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine so the US could expand NATO right up to Russia's front door.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

Then why can you prove Hunter Biden was under investigation? Shit, you can't even prove Shokin had an active investigation in Burisma.

 

[westwall]

So let's say, for arguments sake, Democrats prove conclusively that he used that military aid to coerce Zelensky to dig for dirt on Biden -- you still think Republicans won't convict him?

Wait a minute. If they find what Biden did applies to Trump? Is that what you mean?

Biden didn't do what trump allegedly did. Biden served the U.S.. Trump, if this story is true, served Trump.

Biden did worse you fucking retard. He demanded a foreign prosecutor be removed to protect his son.

This is what Faun and the left are in complete denial of.

They are in denial of the fact that the US government backed NAZIS to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine so the US could expand NATO right up to Russia's front door.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

Then why can you prove Hunter Biden was under investigation? Shit, you can't even prove Shokin had an active investigation in Burisma.

Then why did biden senior demand he be removed? Your arguments are as retarded as derpy's

You two related?

 

[Faun]

Full transcript:

Trump did nothing wrong.

Read the Trump-Ukraine phone call readout

LOLOL

Yeah, other than asking a foreign leader to investigate trump's political rival.


How soon until you rubes start claiming trump was only joking ... and that he's not meant to be taken literally .... and that he was just trolling the left when he said that....

 

[SAYIT]

The Senate won't have to do anything because Articles of impeachment will not make through the House. Keep in mind neither Pelosi's claim of "formal impeachment inquiry" nor Nadler's August claim of "official impeachment proceedings" have any authority unless the House votes to approve them (which they haven't). You've been duped again.

Funny. Speaker Pelosi would not have launched an Official Impeachment Inquiry if she thought she didn't have the votes to impeach. She is famous for accurately counting her votes. I have no doubt that Trump will be impeached in the House. The Senate is a different matter.

It's not about having the votes to impeach you STUPID, STUPID child but rather about her having a House resolution to institute the "formal impeachment inquiry" - which she doesn't - she announced with great fanfare today. You also have been duped again because you are STUPID.

A House resolution is not needed.

Here, knock yourself out....

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

So you are saying Pelosi did not announce a "formal impeachment inquiry" (notice the quotation marks) but if she did she didn't need a House resolution to do so?

Yanno you are pretty much a STUPID post machine but even drunk I can't match your ineptitude.

By the way, your own source contradicts your silliness (in bold below). You do know what a House Resolution is, right?

Knock yourself out:

Introduction of a Simple Resolution A Member can initiate an impeachment process by drafting a simple resolution and placing it in the House hopper, the way all simple resolutions are submitted to the House. If the resolution directly calls for an impeachment, it will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it instead calls for an investigation of an official by a standing committee or proposes the creation of a special committee for that purpose, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorization of committee investigations. No special procedures restrict when such a resolution can be submitted, although historically they have been submitted relatively infrequently.

LOLOLOL

You moron, you posted the wrong section.

Here's the relevant section....

Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official. Second, the committee conducts its investigation, prepares articles of impeachment, and reports them to the House. Third, the full House considers the articles of impeachment and, if they are adopted, appoints managers from the committee to present the articles in the Senate. As discussed in detail below, the House relies upon many of its usual procedures to consider the resolution explicitly initiating an investigation, conduct the investigation, and consider the articles of impeachment.​

.... pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red. Read it a few times ... absorb it ... swirl it like a fine wine... then let me know if you get it or if you need me to explain the implication, "most often," bears on the requirement of of a resolution.

You fucking IDIOT. You just made my point. An actual formal impeachment inquiry is a function of a successful House resolution, not a press conference. Sheesh ... your slide into the morass continues.

BTW, the House voted on just such a res 2 months ago:

In lopsided vote, House kills effort to impeach Trump
The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.

The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment, an issue that has created a widening schism within the party.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don't think the Senate will impeach him under any circumstances.

He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and they still wouldn't impeach him.

Impeachment is not a Senate function but rather a House one and they don't need a valid reason to impeach … just a political excuse like "trump is a poopyhead."

BTW, Trump has shot no one on 5th Av.

View attachment 280950

I meant that there is no way that the Senate would convict him.

I didn't say that he shot anyone on 5th Ave. IF he did, the Senate still would not convict him.

 

[basquebromance]

ha! just stumbled on this 2014 article Carter Page wrote gushing over both Igor Sechin & Rex Tillerson

 

[Faun]

Wait a minute. If they find what Biden did applies to Trump? Is that what you mean?

Biden didn't do what trump allegedly did. Biden served the U.S.. Trump, if this story is true, served Trump.

Biden did worse you fucking retard. He demanded a foreign prosecutor be removed to protect his son.

This is what Faun and the left are in complete denial of.

They are in denial of the fact that the US government backed NAZIS to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine so the US could expand NATO right up to Russia's front door.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

Then why can you prove Hunter Biden was under investigation? Shit, you can't even prove Shokin had an active investigation in Burisma.

Then why did biden senior demand he be removed? Your arguments are as retarded as derpy's

You two related?

The U.S., not just Biden, wanted that office cleaned up for more than a year. So did Great Britain who had to shut down their own investigation into Burisma's owner because that same prosecutor's office wouldn't share any information. So did the Ukraine parliament, whose hands were tied because the president at that time wouldn't sack Shokin; and when he finally did after Biden threatened to pull the loan, their parliament voted overwhelmingly to kick Shokin to the curb.

Meanwhile at the time Biden got Shokin fired, Biden's son was not under investigation. The company he worked for was not being investigated. The owner of the company wasn't being investigated. Biden was doing nothing to protect his son or his son's job because neither were being threatened.

So when Biden demanded their corrupt prosecutor be removed -- Biden was serving the USA.

When Trump asked the Ukraine president to reopen the case into his political rival -- Trump was serving Trump.

And the America-hating right applauds trump.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

After this one fails, what will be the next impeachment wet dream?

 

[Faun]

Funny. Speaker Pelosi would not have launched an Official Impeachment Inquiry if she thought she didn't have the votes to impeach. She is famous for accurately counting her votes. I have no doubt that Trump will be impeached in the House. The Senate is a different matter.

It's not about having the votes to impeach you STUPID, STUPID child but rather about her having a House resolution to institute the "formal impeachment inquiry" - which she doesn't - she announced with great fanfare today. You also have been duped again because you are STUPID.

A House resolution is not needed.

Here, knock yourself out....

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

So you are saying Pelosi did not announce a "formal impeachment inquiry" (notice the quotation marks) but if she did she didn't need a House resolution to do so?

Yanno you are pretty much a STUPID post machine but even drunk I can't match your ineptitude.

By the way, your own source contradicts your silliness (in bold below). You do know what a House Resolution is, right?

Knock yourself out:

Introduction of a Simple Resolution A Member can initiate an impeachment process by drafting a simple resolution and placing it in the House hopper, the way all simple resolutions are submitted to the House. If the resolution directly calls for an impeachment, it will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it instead calls for an investigation of an official by a standing committee or proposes the creation of a special committee for that purpose, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorization of committee investigations. No special procedures restrict when such a resolution can be submitted, although historically they have been submitted relatively infrequently.

LOLOLOL

You moron, you posted the wrong section.

Here's the relevant section....

Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official. Second, the committee conducts its investigation, prepares articles of impeachment, and reports them to the House. Third, the full House considers the articles of impeachment and, if they are adopted, appoints managers from the committee to present the articles in the Senate. As discussed in detail below, the House relies upon many of its usual procedures to consider the resolution explicitly initiating an investigation, conduct the investigation, and consider the articles of impeachment.​

.... pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red. Read it a few times ... absorb it ... swirl it like a fine wine... then let me know if you get it or if you need me to explain the implication, "most often," bears on the requirement of of a resolution.

You fucking IDIOT. You just made my point. An actual formal impeachment inquiry is a function of a successful House resolution, not a press conference. Sheesh ... your slide into the morass continues.

BTW, the House voted on just such a res 2 months ago:

In lopsided vote, House kills effort to impeach Trump
The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.

The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment, an issue that has created a widening schism within the party.

LOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit!

I even gave you the biggest clue possible, but you're sooo rightarded, you still don't get it.

Dumbfuck .... it reads that impeachment inquiries are "most often accomplished" with a resolution....

.... "most often accomplished" ... as in not always ... as in .... not required. The House rules show a resolution is not required, meaning the ranking member of the U.S. House authorizing an impeachment inquiry makes it an impeachment inquiry.



Dayum, are you ever stooopid.

 

[Faun]

I don't think the Senate will impeach him under any circumstances.

He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and they still wouldn't impeach him.

Impeachment is not a Senate function but rather a House one and they don't need a valid reason to impeach … just a political excuse like "trump is a poopyhead."

BTW, Trump has shot no one on 5th Av.

View attachment 280950

I meant that there is no way that the Senate would convict him.

I didn't say that he shot anyone on 5th Ave. IF he did, the Senate still would not convict him.

You have to explain things to that one like you're talking to a pre-K'er ... because ... well, he has the intellect of a 4 year old.

Shit, I just showed him a resolution is NOT required to initiate an impeachment inquiry in the House -- and he still doesn't get it. Maybe some 3 year old in his pre-K group can explain it to him?

 

[Billiejeens]

In an election year?


The left is committing suicide, the silent majority of the midwest working men will fuck them up again

Possibly, but is the 2018 mid term an indicator or what may be possible in 2020? Especially if the population didnt turn out to help keep the house in 2018, will they be more energized in 2020?

Historically speaking the Democrats had a horrible midterm in 2018.

 

[Billiejeens]

I don't think the Senate will impeach him under any circumstances.

He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and they still wouldn't impeach him.

Impeachment is not a Senate function but rather a House one and they don't need a valid reason to impeach … just a political excuse like "trump is a poopyhead."

BTW, Trump has shot no one on 5th Av.

View attachment 280950

I meant that there is no way that the Senate would convict him.

I didn't say that he shot anyone on 5th Ave. IF he did, the Senate still would not convict him.

You have to explain things to that one like you're talking to a pre-K'er ... because ... well, he has the intellect of a 4 year old.

Shit, I just showed him a resolution is NOT required to initiate an impeachment inquiry in the House -- and he still doesn't get it. Maybe some 3 year old in his pre-K group can explain it to him?

Well you are wrong.

 

[Billiejeens]

This is just a thrown dart prediction, it doesnt mean anything but I do think it has some merit.

First, trumps presidency will not survive this. I've said for a long time that people are way too confident when it comes to trump winning in 2020. I think his odds are not as good as many would think.

Most people in the u.s. are not as politically "in tune" as those you see here. By that, I mean, most dont really follow politics. They are generally armchair pundits that follow it as much as the hour of news they watch each night. I would say they would be easily influenced by other opinions as, while they call themselves republicans, that is a term they use to associate themselves with a certain set of ideals attributed to a politician in their party. Very few have the wherewithal to actually argue politics.

The left wing media machine has done an excellent job of pushing a narrative. The left, if nothing else, are persistent, and unwavering. This persistence does have an effect on those republicans I described above. Mabey not all, but many.

The left has done a very good at associating things like misogyny, racism, greed, anti immigration, and womanizing with trump. This has spillover consequence. The left is pushing the narrative that if you support trump, and/or vote for him, you support all of those attributes and that means you are all of then as well, even though none of it is true, you may just be voting for the candidate on the platform, against democrats.

But what if that isnt the only consequence? What if it is found out that you voted for trump at your place if employment? It could cause problems. Sure, they cant fire you for voting for a president, but if they are successful in labeling you a racist/womanizer/mysoginist because of your support for him, that could cause issues, especially if people look back in your years at the job and if someone starts thinking: "hmm, 2 years ago I heard him make a comment about soandso, and knowing he is a trump supporter, it makes sense now".

Especially if you are at odds with someone at work, they could leverage this against you.

People are afraid of labels, and if they think they will be labeled, it could cause some people to abstain from voting altogether.

This is also why many Republican members of congress who are in an election year may start to jump ship if it looks like things are going bad for trump, because they are afraid of being labeled, and they will be afraid of losing their seat if they see the public majority are increasing animosity against trump (remember, there are generally more democrats than republicans).

There is no way the democrats are not going to bring articles of impeachment. This will go to trial in the senate. There will be a lot of pressure on republicans on the senate to impeach him.

This will probably go down in one of two ways:

1) trump loses in 2020 because of a successful media campaign against him that sways voters due to unwanted labeling or because they become convinced the left is right.

2) a brutal impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial may mean things start looking bad for trump. If trump feels he may end up being a candidate for removal, cuts a deal to end the investigation in return for his resignation. I'm sorry to say it, but I don't believe trump will let himself be the first president to be removed from office.

It doesnt even matter if he is guilty or not. Is it not possible that simply being an impeached president with the aura of corruption (whether true or not) hanging around you could spell problems for his business dealings? Is he willing to risk that for a presidency?

Again, this is just an opinion, but I feel there may be some merit to it. I feel it may be imperative to have another Republican candidate on deck. I am willing to admit I'm totally wrong here, as this is just some preliminary notions.

If trump gets impeached, the 2020 election will come down to how justified America perceives the impeachment is. If Democrats impeach him lacking compelling evidence, he'll run, wearing impeachment as a badge, and win easily. But on the other hand, if Democrats can find undeniable evidence that he pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden and used that military aid to obtain it; and Republicans refuse to convict him in the Senate, he would lose <hyperbole>if I ran against him</hyperbole>.

Trump has already admitted "that he pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden and used that military aid to obtain it" - PUBLICLY.

Care to link to your quote?

It's fake

 

[westwall]

It's not about having the votes to impeach you STUPID, STUPID child but rather about her having a House resolution to institute the "formal impeachment inquiry" - which she doesn't - she announced with great fanfare today. You also have been duped again because you are STUPID.

A House resolution is not needed.

Here, knock yourself out....

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

So you are saying Pelosi did not announce a "formal impeachment inquiry" (notice the quotation marks) but if she did she didn't need a House resolution to do so?

Yanno you are pretty much a STUPID post machine but even drunk I can't match your ineptitude.

By the way, your own source contradicts your silliness (in bold below). You do know what a House Resolution is, right?

Knock yourself out:

Introduction of a Simple Resolution A Member can initiate an impeachment process by drafting a simple resolution and placing it in the House hopper, the way all simple resolutions are submitted to the House. If the resolution directly calls for an impeachment, it will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it instead calls for an investigation of an official by a standing committee or proposes the creation of a special committee for that purpose, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorization of committee investigations. No special procedures restrict when such a resolution can be submitted, although historically they have been submitted relatively infrequently.

LOLOLOL

You moron, you posted the wrong section.

Here's the relevant section....

Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official. Second, the committee conducts its investigation, prepares articles of impeachment, and reports them to the House. Third, the full House considers the articles of impeachment and, if they are adopted, appoints managers from the committee to present the articles in the Senate. As discussed in detail below, the House relies upon many of its usual procedures to consider the resolution explicitly initiating an investigation, conduct the investigation, and consider the articles of impeachment.​

.... pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red. Read it a few times ... absorb it ... swirl it like a fine wine... then let me know if you get it or if you need me to explain the implication, "most often," bears on the requirement of of a resolution.

You fucking IDIOT. You just made my point. An actual formal impeachment inquiry is a function of a successful House resolution, not a press conference. Sheesh ... your slide into the morass continues.

BTW, the House voted on just such a res 2 months ago:

In lopsided vote, House kills effort to impeach Trump
The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.

The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment, an issue that has created a widening schism within the party.

LOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit!

I even gave you the biggest clue possible, but you're sooo rightarded, you still don't get it.

Dumbfuck .... it reads that impeachment inquiries are "most often accomplished" with a resolution....

.... "most often accomplished" ... as in not always ... as in .... not required. The House rules show a resolution is not required, meaning the ranking member of the U.S. House authorizing an impeachment inquiry makes it an impeachment inquiry.



Dayum, are you ever stooopid.

The only stupid person I see is the one who is sporting an avi of a failed political operative as if he is some sort of paragon of virtue and menace.

His report was a farce.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Where the OP got his predictive models:

Incorrect. It was just some stuff rattling around in my head. You see, I listen to both conservative and extreme liberal talk radio. They are coming out now and plainly stating anyone who supports or votes for trump is racist, misogynist, anti gay, anti immigration.

It is my opinion, that, in today's PC climate, those labels are what a lot of people want to avoid, especially politicians up for re election. I theorize that enough of them will cave to pressure from their constituents. If this happens, trump will see he cant win and will step down to avoid being labeled as the first president to be removed from office.

With all of the silencing of conservative voices, and the attempts at deplatforming, right wing opinions will be harder and harder to find. Look at what they are doing to steven crowder.

YouTube has found a way of silencing conservatives without deplatforming. They are simply altering the search algorithms so that certain people dont even show up in the searches. More and more media outlets will want to avoid controversy by simply just banning those whom have opinions that may make them look bad by hosting them. The left are going after advertisers. That kind of thing can make a lot of waves.

Listen, I'm simply saying that I've heard many people here talk about how they are sure trump will win, I'm not that confident. One of the sure fire ways to lose a battle is by underestimating the other side. Many dont realize the angst and hate coming from the left. They are not just frustrated, they are angry, and angry people are motivated.

This impeachment inquiry could be more harmful to trump than people realize.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In an election year?


The left is committing suicide, the silent majority of the midwest working men will fuck them up again

Possibly, but is the 2018 mid term an indicator or what may be possible in 2020? Especially if the population didnt turn out to help keep the house in 2018, will they be more energized in 2020?

Historically speaking the Democrats had a horrible midterm in 2018.

True, but then they really didnt need to win big, they needed to win just enough, and look what came of it. Aside from that, there will be 3 Republican senators and about 15 republican members of the house not seeking re election. Likely the senate wont flip, but the house will likely stay blue, which means even if trump were to win, it's going to be 4 more years of what we've seen so far.

 

[Faun]

I don't think the Senate will impeach him under any circumstances.

He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and they still wouldn't impeach him.

Impeachment is not a Senate function but rather a House one and they don't need a valid reason to impeach … just a political excuse like "trump is a poopyhead."

BTW, Trump has shot no one on 5th Av.

View attachment 280950

I meant that there is no way that the Senate would convict him.

I didn't say that he shot anyone on 5th Ave. IF he did, the Senate still would not convict him.

You have to explain things to that one like you're talking to a pre-K'er ... because ... well, he has the intellect of a 4 year old.

Shit, I just showed him a resolution is NOT required to initiate an impeachment inquiry in the House -- and he still doesn't get it. Maybe some 3 year old in his pre-K group can explain it to him?

Well you are wrong.

LOL

House rules say otherwise.

 

[Faun]

A House resolution is not needed.

Here, knock yourself out....

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

So you are saying Pelosi did not announce a "formal impeachment inquiry" (notice the quotation marks) but if she did she didn't need a House resolution to do so?

Yanno you are pretty much a STUPID post machine but even drunk I can't match your ineptitude.

By the way, your own source contradicts your silliness (in bold below). You do know what a House Resolution is, right?

Knock yourself out:

Introduction of a Simple Resolution A Member can initiate an impeachment process by drafting a simple resolution and placing it in the House hopper, the way all simple resolutions are submitted to the House. If the resolution directly calls for an impeachment, it will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it instead calls for an investigation of an official by a standing committee or proposes the creation of a special committee for that purpose, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorization of committee investigations. No special procedures restrict when such a resolution can be submitted, although historically they have been submitted relatively infrequently.

LOLOLOL

You moron, you posted the wrong section.

Here's the relevant section....

Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official. Second, the committee conducts its investigation, prepares articles of impeachment, and reports them to the House. Third, the full House considers the articles of impeachment and, if they are adopted, appoints managers from the committee to present the articles in the Senate. As discussed in detail below, the House relies upon many of its usual procedures to consider the resolution explicitly initiating an investigation, conduct the investigation, and consider the articles of impeachment.​

.... pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red. Read it a few times ... absorb it ... swirl it like a fine wine... then let me know if you get it or if you need me to explain the implication, "most often," bears on the requirement of of a resolution.

You fucking IDIOT. You just made my point. An actual formal impeachment inquiry is a function of a successful House resolution, not a press conference. Sheesh ... your slide into the morass continues.

BTW, the House voted on just such a res 2 months ago:

In lopsided vote, House kills effort to impeach Trump
The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.

The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment, an issue that has created a widening schism within the party.

LOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit!

I even gave you the biggest clue possible, but you're sooo rightarded, you still don't get it.

Dumbfuck .... it reads that impeachment inquiries are "most often accomplished" with a resolution....

.... "most often accomplished" ... as in not always ... as in .... not required. The House rules show a resolution is not required, meaning the ranking member of the U.S. House authorizing an impeachment inquiry makes it an impeachment inquiry.



Dayum, are you ever stooopid.

The only stupid person I see is the one who is sporting an avi of a failed political operative as if he is some sort of paragon of virtue and menace.

His report was a farce.

Aww, poor baby.

 

[Billiejeens]

In an election year?


The left is committing suicide, the silent majority of the midwest working men will fuck them up again

Possibly, but is the 2018 mid term an indicator or what may be possible in 2020? Especially if the population didnt turn out to help keep the house in 2018, will they be more energized in 2020?

Historically speaking the Democrats had a horrible midterm in 2018.

True, but then they really didnt need to win big, they needed to win just enough, and look what came of it. Aside from that, there will be 3 Republican senators and about 15 republican members of the house not seeking re election. Likely the senate wont flip, but the house will likely stay blue, which means even if trump were to win, it's going to be 4 more years of what we've seen so far.

4 more years of obstruction and the attempt to overturn a Presidential Election.
Why do I think that normal people are not going to really be behind that?