Not sure, but I think you have TWO threads now where this is happening - good for you!
Hurrah! At least someone gets it!
It is one thing for the majority party in the House to bring up Articles of Impeachment against a president of the opposing party, but it seems highly unlikely they would tank their own party member with anything less than at least one charge that would be comparable to a criminal act.
Impeachment is, after all, a political process. Takes a lot to get elected members of Congress to turn against a member of their own party.
I’m starting to think that politically (not what’s best for the country, just from each party’s selfish perspective), that it’s the Republicans who would be better off impeaching ASAP, and the Democrats should wait for another year.
If Trump were to be impeached tomorrow, they’d have a year and a half to try to restore a semblance of normalcy before the 2018 elections, and maybe they could keep the House.
On the other hand, the longer the Trump shitshow drags on, the more it helps the Democrats in 2018.
That’s IF he doesn’t get us into a nuclear war first.
Yes, exactly. Praise the Lord.
You’re right - I had the Daffy Duck “pronoun trouble” realization a little after the post you replied to.
Depends on how much the Democrats can force the impeachment process to stretch out. Similar to the Supreme Court appointment process, there’s no deadline for action built into the Constitution.
Potentially, they could stretch out the investigation and proceeding for the next 18 months, so that it’s a constant, daily headache for the whole duration, then move to vote the day after the new House is seated.
There are three ways you can legally remove a President from office.
The first is via election and voting him out. On that one, people can remove a President from office on whatever grounds they like.
The second is via impeachment. On that one, you have to show that the President committed a crime.
The third is via the 25th Amendment. On that one, you have to show that the President is unable to carry out the duties of the office.
Bricker or somebody else can straighten me out on this one if I’m wrong but I don’t think there’s a set standard of proof that’s needed for an impeachment. I believe you can impeach a President for a crime you couldn’t convict him of in a court of law. So clear and convincing maybe?
I am amazed at Pelosi’s weird adherence to reality in this.
“In other words, again, if you are talking about impeachment, you are talking about what are the facts. Not that I don’t like him and I don’t like his hair and — what are the facts?” Pelosi said.
“What are the facts that you would make a case on? What are the rules that he may have violated? If you don’t have that case, you are just participating in more hearsay.”
Posturing, a political ploy. By these gestures, however empty, she presents herself as unbiased and skeptical, an advantageous position regardless of personal conviction.
Also, she may be maneuvering to a larger end. I think the Dems have to be pondering the advantages of a long, drawn-out impeachment struggle. It offers oodles of political goodies. Keeps it in the news, limits the impact of “Look! Shiny squirrel!” distractions. Throws a monkey retch into The Agenda, as Congressgits nervously examine the calendar.
What a loverly situation! Pubbies will put up defenses and slow-walk everything they can. Dems can protest such stalling, but accede to Pubbie demands in the interest of total transparency and fairness. When your political enemy is digging his own grave, buy him a spare shovel. Those things break, you know, what with that cheap Chinese steel!
Absolutely.
And even the statement that a crime is needed is my observation about political reality, not a legal bar. There is no legal barrier to the House passing a single article of impeachment that says: “Resolved that Donald Trump is unprepared to competently execute the office of President and is hereby impeached.”
That’s legal, and it triggers the need for the Senate to try the case. And if two-thirds of the Senators vote to convict, then Trump is removed from office. That’s all the legal standard requires.
The Senate adopts its own burden of proof.
Grin! Like Clinton and her email server!
(I’d prefer to think our side is better than that…)
Yes. The original poster said nothing about reasonable inferences. He said, in effect, that his position was too difficult to prove and therefore it was up to Bricker to disprove it.
No, he didn’t… He put forward evidence (sketchy and anecdotal, if you wish, but evidence.) He admitted that the evidence did not suffice to prove his point, but it was sufficient to justify it.
Then he invited disproof. But he didn’t base his claim on the lack of someone else’s disproof. He based it on what he had actually seen.
It will be interesting to see, if scandals continue to dog Trump and articles like this one keep getting published, would Trump turn on Pence?
Who’s to say he already isn’t? In fact, I suspect he’s already screamed at Pence and called him names already, on more than one occasion. But that’s about all he can do. Pence is the Vice President, stuck in that office whether he or Trump likes it or not. He doesn’t really do anything independent of Trump and he cannot be fired or removed except by impeachment.
Here’s what he said:
What is the evidence you see there?
No, right now the 25th Amendment business is being pushed by conservatives. And it would have to be initiated by Pence and half of Trump’s cabinet anyway.
If conservatives are sincere about this, that’s their ballgame, but they should have to wait their turn because right now the players on the field are the ones investigating Trump Administration and Trump campaign wrongdoing.
If conservatives want to piss off the public after a failed impeachment attempt, that’s their choice.
You’ve literally omitted all the portions of that post containing the evidence.
He hasn’t taken aim at him publicly.
He quoted the entire post. If you’re talking about the earlier one, there was no evidence (that anyone died).
For what possible reason would you consider the posts separately?
The earlier post detailed his reasons for thinking that people stuck in those countries may be harmed.
You’re free to disagree with the inferences being drawn. But it just isn’t a logical fallacy. Since this is a stupid little rabbit hole, I’ll leave it here.