The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on September 22, 2019, 01:27:52 PM
-
Star Member StarfishSaver (4,690 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212485678
When you say "Impeachment should happen now," what do you actually mean?
This is a serious question. "Impeachment" seems to mean different things to different people. I'm trying to get a sense of what people hear mean when they say "The House should impeach now."
Do you mean the House should conduct an impeachment inquiry, that will likely lead to drafting and voting on Articles of Impeachment (the vote on the Articles being what actually impeaches him)?
Or do you mean the House should skip the inquiry and just draft and vote on Articles of Impeachment asap (for example, in the next week or two)?
:popcorn:
leftstreet (32,068 posts)
1. We don't write the rules. Just start with accusing the ****er n/t
leftstreet (32,068 posts)
4. Legislative branch has the power to impeach. I don't work there
I don't know or care about their procedures
If a prosecutor, cop, judge has evidence of a crime committed in my neighborhood, no one calls to ask what I think they should do next
Star Member StarfishSaver (4,690 posts)
7. If you don't know or care about their procedures, maybe you shouldn't be telling them what to do
You're right that they have the power to impeach, but that power is not unlimited. Among other things, they have to have enough votes and they don't have the votes right now.
Your argument is like saying you have the right to own a $10 million house. But if you don't have $10 million to purchase the house, you're not going to own that 10 million dollar house.
Star Member pnwmom (100,129 posts)
30. They have already told courts in multiple filings that they need access to documents
because they are pursuing investigations preliminary to an impeachment.
Why isn't that enough, in your view?
kentuck (93,360 posts)
3. If they can prove these latest charges..
They might feel that alone is enough evidence to impeach.
Star Member StarfishSaver (4,690 posts)
6. So, you think if there's there there, they should skip the inquiry and draft articles of impeachment
do you think they already have enough evidence in hand to forward or would they need more, e.g., the report, testimony from the whistleblower, or DNI, etc.
kentuck (93,360 posts)
8. I think that added to evidence already gathered would be enough to impeach. Yes.
Abuse of power, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations. Emoluments violations.. Yes, that is enough to file Articles of impeachment.
The problem at this time is in getting enough Democrats to vote for either option, full investigation or impeachment?
kentuck (93,360 posts)
38. They are operating from a position of weakness.
Trump will do whatever he can get away with so long as no one shows they have the power to stop him.
137 Reps in the Congress support impeachment or 24 Reps in a House Committee does not scare him at all. It is a joke.
But 218 votes for a full investigation would get his attention. Because 218 votes can also impeach him.
It's a matter of investigating from a position of strength.
Star Member SlogginThroughIt (237 posts)
5. Hell I think some people mean that the house should remove him
Hell I think some people mean that the house should remove him from office without even going through the senate!
Star Member StarfishSaver (4,690 posts)
23. There's no need to "vote on starting articles of impeachment".
I don't think you understand what Articles of Impeachment are. They're the written allegations of the specific impeachable offenses the president has committed
they are drafted ans recommended outbid committee at the END of the inquiry, not at the beginning.
Once the Articles are drafted, they don't just sit there. The Committee votes to recommend them to the floor. If they're favorably voted out, they're sent to the floor for debate and vote. If the full House votes to approve one or more of the Articles, the president is impeached as soon as the vote is finished, solely by operation of that vote.
They've already started the process for draftinf and voting on Articles of Impeachment. That's what the inquiry is for - they're gathering evidence to use to draft the Articles.
The American people aren't going to suddenly support impeachment because the House shows it's "serious" by passing a House resolution authorizing the opening of an inquiry that's already started. And getting such a resolution before the inquiry begins would not only delay the inquiry further, it could destroy it since there aren't enough votes for it and if the vote loses that could be seen as the equivalent of the House voting against an inquiry. And then what happens? if you think an impeachment inquiry without a full house vote in support makes the inquiry less credible, imagine the lack of credibility in inquiry would have after The House votes to reject the opening of such an inquiry.
Star Member Hermit-The-Prog (8,206 posts)
29. full House inquiry now
Naturally, there are not enough votes for that at present time. Therefore, the various committees need to do some more tv time to educate the electorate so they can push their reps. Committees should be clear that they are conducting investigations toward impeachment.
And PLEASE, dispense with the idiotic 5 minute round-robin campaigning. Most Representatives are not experienced trial lawyers, which is what is needed to make the questioning coherent and on target.
:whistling:
-
Have DUpipo successfully defined "Is"?
-
kentuck (93,360 posts)
8. I think that added to evidence already gathered would be enough to impeach. Yes.
Abuse of power, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations. Emoluments violations..
If it wasn't for the fact it would be political suicide, the Republicans could have impeached obozo for those very "crimes." Except they are not "crimes."
-
95% of DUers believe that impeachment means the president is automatically removed from office and imprisioned. All it takes is a few minutes of reading their site to know that's what they believe. They don't even have the basic concepts of how our gov't works. They just want their way, that's all they know and understand, and whatever it takes to do it is acceptable to them. It's one of the reasons that reading their site continues to be funny even after almost 20 years.
.
-
95% of DUers believe that impeachment means the president is automatically removed from office and imprisioned. All it takes is a few minutes of reading their site to know that's what they believe. They don't even have the basic concepts of how our gov't works. They just want their way, that's all they know and understand, and whatever it takes to do it is acceptable to them. It's one of the reasons that reading their site continues to be funny even after almost 20 years.
.
I would like to see that question put to them. "The house impeaches Trump, then what do you see happening?"
The resulting war of word would be very entertaining.
-
I would like to see that question put to them. "The house impeaches Trump, then what do you see happening?"
The resulting war of word would be very entertaining.
They think that VP Pence would also go, giving queen nancy the throne since she is Speaker and 3rd in line, who would then nominate hillary as her VP, then nancy would resign, making hillary POTUS who would then nominate nancy as her VP. This is not made up shit. I've seen it is their posts as recently as this weekend.
-
Why can't the House just vote to send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Pres. Trump? That would be so much quicker.
-
95% of DUers believe that impeachment means the president is automatically removed from office and imprisioned. All it takes is a few minutes of reading their site to know that's what they believe. They don't even have the basic concepts of how our gov't works. They just want their way, that's all they know and understand, and whatever it takes to do it is acceptable to them. It's one of the reasons that reading their site continues to be funny even after almost 20 years.
.
They think that VP Pence would also go, giving queen nancy the throne since she is Speaker and 3rd in line, who would then nominate hillary as her VP, then nancy would resign, making hillary POTUS who would then nominate nancy as her VP. This is not made up shit. I've seen it is their posts as recently as this weekend.
I imagine a good number of the dummies believe that hillary will be installed (somehow!) as soon as President Trump is frog marched to the Hague to be convicted of... well really bad crimes and sentenced to a prison cell with George W. Bush.
If President Trump gets reelected next year I suspect the dummies will seriously go off the deep end.
-
I imagine a good number of the dummies believe that hillary will be installed (somehow!) as soon as President Trump is frog marched to the Hague to be convicted of... well really bad crimes and sentenced to a prison cell with George W. Bush.
If President Trump gets reelected next year I suspect the dummies will seriously go off the deep end.
They've been off the deep end for awhile now. Is there a deepER end?