Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Monday, February 3, 2020 01:19
VIEWED: 84495
PAGE 85 of 111
Pelosi Sets a High Bar for Impeachment Inquiry: ‘Ironclad’ Proof
The details in the rough White House account of Trump’s phone call with Zelenskiy gave a much clearer picture, she said.
“And of course, it changed everything in the public mind,” she said. The day she announced the House would be launching an impeachment inquiry — Sept. 24 — she said polls showed much of public was against impeachment.
“This morning’s poll has it 49 to 47 impeach — and remove,” she said, referring to an ABC/Washington Post survey released Friday.
Several polls in the past month have shown a swing toward public support for an inquiry, if not actual impeachment. But it is mostly driven by Democrats and independents. The overwhelming majority of Republicans continue to back Trump. Still, the ABC/Post poll showed broader backing for impeaching Trump than there was for impeaching then-President Bill Clinton in 1998.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-sets-a-high-bar-for-imp
eachment-inquiry-ironclad-proof/ar-AAJJe7z?ocid=spartandhp
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T
Day One Of The Public Phase Of President Donald Trump’s Impeachment
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
White House officials won't testify in Trump impeachment probe Monday
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-officials-wont-tes
tify-in-trump-impeachment-probe-monday/ar-AAJOair?ocid=spartandhp
Why, Trumps said it was a perfect phone call? Trump says he has nothing to hide. So why hide? The republicans are in the room. They always have been. If Trump cooperates his lawyers can cross exam the witnesses. Call their own even. So why does he hide?
On no Donnie, What's up?
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mulvaney allies to try to stonewall Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, officials say
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mulvaney-allies-to-try-to-ston
ewall-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-officials-say/ar-AAJMQ7V?ocid=spartandhp
Why, they all said it was a perfect phone call? Trump even wants to read it to the American people during a fireside chat. ADFAe, excuse me I just choked.
What motive could they possibly have for not cooperating?
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More headaches for Trump: Republicans who complained about impeachment got what they wanted when Pelosi called their bluff
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-im
peachment-latest-vote-pelosi-republicans-due-process-analysis-what-means-a9179996.html
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just spoke with a representative of a US Senator running for president. I suggested that if the republicans vote not to impeach Trump, it may have to go to the courts.
Why, because what Trump did is specifically mentioned in the constitution as being against the law. And if the evidence of Trumps guilt is overwhelming, then by virtue of their vote the Senate would be changing the constitution. For that you need a two thirds majority.
This would also apply to violations of the emolument's clause. Haven't thought about this long enough to see if it applies elsewhere but it may be the way forward.
tick tock donnie
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
I just spoke with a representative of a US Senator running for president. I suggested that if the republicans vote not to impeach Trump, it may have to go to the courts.
Why, because what Trump did is specifically mentioned in the constitution as being against the law. And if the evidence of Trumps guilt is overwhelming, then by virtue of their vote the Senate would be changing the constitution. For that you need a two thirds majority.
This would also apply to violations of the emolument's clause. Haven't thought about this long enough to see if it applies elsewhere but it may be the way forward.
tick tock donnie
Ok, I just called Adam Shiff and Pelosi. Enough, I just want this idea to be heard by one of them. May be gibberish but you never know.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This legal scheme won't work. If the Senate votes not guilty, then the House of Representatives appeals to the Supreme Court and it decides Trump is guilty, it will be the Senate, once again, that would vote to remove Trump. BUT THE SENATORS WON'T, even if given a second chance to change their minds. Nobody in the Senate will change their previous decision, except if the voters in their state make it clear by, perhaps, voting them out of office. If voters would get rid of a Senator because he won't remove Trump, it is more likely the voters in that state directly remove Trump in the 2020 election.
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
I just spoke with a representative of a US Senator running for president. I suggested that if the republicans vote not to impeach Trump, it may have to go to the courts.
Why, because what Trump did is specifically mentioned in the constitution as being against the law. And if the evidence of Trumps guilt is overwhelming, then by virtue of their vote the Senate would be changing the constitution. For that you need a two thirds majority.
This would also apply to violations of the emolument's clause. Haven't thought about this long enough to see if it applies elsewhere but it may be the way forward.
tick tock donnie
Ok, I just called Adam Shiff and Pelosi. Enough, I just want this idea to be heard by one of them. May be gibberish but you never know.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME