Impeachment

[Dos Equis]

Don't they need a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove him from office?

Correct.  Will never happen.

[Dos Equis]

Trump campaign raises $5 million on day of impeachment
By Emily JacobsDecember 19, 2019

President Trump’s reelection campaign raked in $5 million in donations Wednesday — the same day the House of Representatives voted to impeach him, his campaign manager said.

“Incredible fundraising numbers!” the manager, Brad Parscale, tweeted.

“[Trump] has raised over [$5 million] (still growing) today as Americans use their wallet to show support against Pelosi’s impeachment hoax!” he added.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) also brought in record fundraising numbers, raising $20.6 million in the month of November, according to Federal Election Commission data obtained by Fox News.

Party officials told the network that it has the most cash on hand that it’s had since 2012.

The House voted on Wednesday almost entirely along party lines to impeach President Trump following a day of heated debate.

The vote made him just the third president in US history to be impeached.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/trump-campaign-raises-5-million-on-day-of-impeachment/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

[OzmO]

Correct.  Will never happen.

Yep, this is just a shit show.  

[Grape Ape]

Yep, this is just a shit show.  

For the "obstruction" charge, this is within Trumps right to do.

However, the process calls for it to be taken to the courts to decide.

The Democrats didn't do that, claiming imperative timing.

Now that they have their vote, they might not send to the Senate?

What happened to the urgent timing?

History will show this President was impeached for nothing, in a partisan vote, exactly what impeachment was not supposed to be.

I went into this inquiry fully prepared for the possibility that direct evidence would show, without a doubt, that he tried to meddle in the 2020 election.

But it wasn't even close to being proven.  In fact, it showed the Democrats actually DID have a hand in meddling with 2016 and, as a side effect, the 2018 mid terms.

Hatred of this President legit has caused people to lose their minds.

[polychronopolous]

Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'

The only Democrat or Republican to vote "present" to impeach President Donald Trump in the House on Tuesday on both articles of impeachment was Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

In a statement after her vote, Gabbard, who is also running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, released a statement, claiming that after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard said.

Earlier Wednesday, she introduced a resolution to instead censure Trump, which expresses strong disapproval of conduct, whereas impeachment could result in removal from office.

Gabbard said she worked for the best interests of the country whether in the military or in Congress.

'He gave us no choice': Nancy Pelosi's glare and more top impeachment moments from a historic day

Hawaiian State Sen. Kai Kahele, who is running mostly uncontested to replace Gabbard in the U.S. House, slammed her “present” votes.

“Clearly her vote is unacceptable. It’s disappointing,” he told USA TODAY on a call. “The two most consequential votes a member of Congress will ever take are to send our troops into harm’s way...and a vote to impeach the president of the United States”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-tulsi-gabbard-vote-present-house/2695437001/

[Grape Ape]

Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'

The only Democrat or Republican to vote "present" to impeach President Donald Trump in the House on Tuesday on both articles of impeachment was Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

In a statement after her vote, Gabbard, who is also running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, released a statement, claiming that after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard said.

Earlier Wednesday, she introduced a resolution to instead censure Trump, which expresses strong disapproval of conduct, whereas impeachment could result in removal from office.

Gabbard said she worked for the best interests of the country whether in the military or in Congress.

'He gave us no choice': Nancy Pelosi's glare and more top impeachment moments from a historic day

Hawaiian State Sen. Kai Kahele, who is running mostly uncontested to replace Gabbard in the U.S. House, slammed her “present” votes.

“Clearly her vote is unacceptable. It’s disappointing,” he told USA TODAY on a call. “The two most consequential votes a member of Congress will ever take are to send our troops into harm’s way...and a vote to impeach the president of the United States”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-tulsi-gabbard-vote-present-house/2695437001/

Stupid Cortez criticized her publicly for this.

Have a debate, and watch Tulsi mop the floor with her.

[SOMEPARTS]

Obama made a career of voting present but Tulsi is a Russian ASSet after all....

Dems don't want to send this to the Senate for fear of more Biden exposure to Ukraine...which is also their own exposure.

[loco]

Pelosi throws impeachment into confusion

"Minutes after the House impeached President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw the process into confusion by refusing to say when or whether she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial."

McConnell calls out Democrats, says they're 'afraid' to send 'shoddy' impeachment articles to Senate

“Looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet,” McConnell said.

"They said impeachment was so urgent that it could not even wait for due process but now they’re content to sit on their hands. It is comical," McConnell said.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/democrats-getting-cold-feet-mcconnell-says-afraid-send-150833693.html

[polychronopolous]

Stupid Cortez criticized her publicly for this.

Have a debate, and watch Tulsi mop the floor with her.

Pelosi. AOC. The rest of 'The Squad'.

I realize Tulsi is pretty far to the left on some issues herself but there has to be times when she sitting there, looking around and saying, "Why the hell am I even associated with these people??"

[Grape Ape]

Rep Gabbard made a decision based on her values and political judgements.
But, it's tough to say someone "mopped the floor " with a rival when their proposal gets few followers.

Read it again slowly, Howard.

Have a debate, and watch Tulsi mop the floor with her.

[loco]

Ok, I see what you wrote. I thought you were referring to Gabbards defending her "present" vote on impeachment
It's a hypothetical debate. Interesting question, but still hypothetical.

AOC is very popular within the dem progressive wing and does well debating/defending those issues.

LOL...sure she does, in the "three chambers of congress"

[Grape Ape]

Ok, I see what you wrote. I thought you were referring to Gabbards defending her "present" vote on impeachment
It's a hypothetical debate. Interesting question, but still hypothetical.

AOC is very popular within the dem progressive wing and does well debating/defending those issues.

LOL.

No, she doesn't.  She does "well" on twitter.

IRL, she's an absolute train wreck when she has to go off script and is challenged.

This is why 99% of the time she's in a controlled environment to avoid this.

Below is one of many examples.

[Grape Ape]

AOC is very popular with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
She's young and far from perfect, but some voters overlook and few hicups along the way.
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.
I know it all sounds crazy, but that's politics.

The context was how she defends her positions.  The above is different.

Far from perfect is putting it lightly.

The parallel to Trump makes no sense either.  People wanted an outsider, liked his business experience etc.   Not really the same as a bartender who auditioned for a role with a group that identified districts where Democratic incumbents could be primaried and easily defeated.

[loco]

AOC is very popular with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
She's young and far from perfect, but some voters overlook and few hicups along the way.
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.
I know it all sounds crazy, but that's politics.

[loco]

The context was how she defends her positions.  The above is different.

Far from perfect is putting it lightly.

The parallel to Trump makes no sense either.  People wanted an outsider, liked his business experience etc.   Not really the same as a bartender who auditioned for a role with a group that identified districts where Democratic incumbents could be primaried and easily defeated.

Typical libtard.  Can't face the facts, so he changes the subject and goes back to the dem's main political issue...Trump bad.

[Thin Lizzy]

AOC is very popular with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
She's young and far from perfect, but some voters overlook and few hicups along the way.
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.
I know it all sounds crazy, but that's politics.

You left out the billionaire with a supermodel wife part.

[polychronopolous]

Putin says impeachment case against Trump is 'fabricated'


By Vladimir Soldatkin and Andrew Osborn

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that U.S. Democrats had impeached President Donald Trump for "fabricated" reasons in order to reverse his 2016 election victory.

Putin, speaking at his annual year-end news conference, said he expected Trump to survive the proceedings and stay in office.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to impeach Trump, but Putin, like most observers, said he expected the Republican Senate to acquit him.

"It's unlikely they will want to remove from power a representative of their party based on what are, in my opinion, completely fabricated reasons," said Putin.

"This is simply a continuation of the (U.S.) intra-political battle where one party that lost an election, the Democratic Party, is trying to achieve results using other methods and means.

"They first accused Trump of a conspiracy with Russia. Then it turned out there wasn't a conspiracy and that it couldn't be the basis for impeachment. Now they have dreamt up (the idea) of some kind of pressure being exerted on Ukraine."

https://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-impeachment-case-against-113211628.html

[Montague]

Ok, I see what you wrote. I thought

Therein lays your problem.

[JustPlaneJane]

Tulsi Gabbard has bigger balls than any 10 Democrat men

[Montague]

Tulsi Gabbard has bigger balls than any 10 Democrat men

She didn't blindly follow her "establishment" (which IS fantastic, and I do respect her for that), but I don't feel her explanation contains as much "conviction" as some supporters from the other side are giving her.

Gabbard released a statement, claiming that, after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

658 "pages" wasn't enough to make a "concrete" decision?
I'd have much more respect had she come out and flatly disagreed with the accusations. IMO, she did disagree, but far less directly.

[Montague]

In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.

And, in 2008, millions supported a Muslim with limp 6" wrists, kinky hair, and no GOV experience for President.

Thank you very little, asshole...
Fortunately, the country is starting to recover.

[JustPlaneJane]

She didn't blindly follow her "establishment" (which IS fantastic, and I do respect her for that), but I don't feel her explanation contains as much "conviction" as some supporters from the other side are giving her.

658 "pages" wasn't enough to make a "concrete" decision?
I'd have much more respect had she come out and flatly disagreed with the accusations. IMO, she did disagree, but far less directly.

658 pages of bullshit is still bullshit.

[Montague]

True.

BTW - I didn't know if you caught this in another pathetic thread:

I, for one, hope he never chills. The longer he continues to be a loose cannon, the more likely it is at least a few of his loyal flock with even an ounce of intelligence will see him for the sham that he is and push him over the cliff and not follow him to a certain death.

Another example of the peaceful left: wishing death by murder upon the POTUS from his supporters.

Merry Christmas to you, too, "prime."

[loco]

Noah Feldman, a legal scholar who also served as a Democratic impeachment witness, argued in a Bloomberg op-ed that the Constitution did not allow for an indefinite hold.

“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all,” Feldman wrote. “That’s because ‘impeachment’ under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-happens-to-the-articles-of-impeachment-now-223422540.html

[JustPlaneJane]

Ok, my feeble minded enemy, I'm about to post something you might agree with:

Granted we don't agree on the articles used to impeach Trump. BUT, at this point, Pelosi and the dems need to send it over to the senate
 and try for the fairest trial possible.
  I agree with the dems, that Trump is guilty, but also know, politics isn't about legal points or being fair.
 
This impeachment has come down to raw, naken POLITICS. The dems had the majority of votes to impeach him and the senate as the GOP votes to find him NOT guilty.  Playing more games, is getting old.

It's politics deciding a political issue. On to 2020 and see who wins.

It’s hypocritical of you to even mention the word “fair” after the bullshit that Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, and fuckwad Schiff just pulled.

Democrats have become the party of hypocrisy and stupidity