Exactly. The reaction here is weird. One of the biggest reasons we wanted to win the House is because it allows us to mitigate the firing Mueller, which, if it’s going to happen, would happen no matter what.
The firing of Sessions was not remotely unexpected. Yet people are completely forgetting about our win last night and acting like we’re all doomed.
It makes no sense to suddenly be all fatalistic now, when this was exactly what was expected.
That narcissistic fuckstick couldn’t let us have a day or two to just breathe. Had to change and dominate the news cycle instead of dragging his fat ass around a golf club or bang some porn stars.
Ugh.
The only chance at impeachment as I see it is if in the next couple months it becomes abundantly clear that both Trump and Pence are not going to make it to 2020. That they are so implicated in something so badly that even those two soulless trolls would resign. The GOP Congress is most concerned with themselves and the party, not Trump’s legacy or the good of the country. If the writing was so clear on the wall that the Trumpiest Trumper Senator saw it, they might impeach and remove them both just so Ryan ascends the Presidency instead of Pelosi. I give that about a 2% chance. Not because I don’t think Trump and Pence are obviously guilty of very bad things, but I don’t think enough Republican Congress members are going to be able to publicly admit it in the next 8-10 weeks or so.
Please explain what the country was all upset about when President Clinton was impeached? :rolleyes:
IF Democrats don’t impeach the President, it will solely be because someone with some common sense realizes that impeachment will probably do nothing but fire up Trump’s supporters in 2020. Removal by the Senate is never going to happen, period.
In the director’s cut, he was singing the opening bars of “I’ve Got You…Under My Skin” but it was edited out.
Ha!
The problem here is Democrats don’t take charge of the House until January. Sessions firing isn’t unexpected but the neutering of Rosenstein wasn’t a given. The fact Whitaker is now in charge is definitely of concern. If firing Mueller is going to happen I expect that by Monday. But, I think it more likely Whitaker simply cuts Mueller’s budget to a point where he can’t do anything. And those subpoenas that are rumored to be already filed? Pretty sure Whitaker has to sign off on them being served.
My point is, by putting this toady in charge, Trump can basically bring everything concerning the Russia investigation to a screeching halt, at least until January.
If Trump has Whitaker fire Mueller and shut the entire investigation down, can the Democratic controlled House hire Mueller to head up their investigation(s) and would any of the evidence his team has gathered be available to them or would they have to start over? That, to me at least, is the more important question. Because I have no doubt these yahoos will try to shut Mueller down and fast.
Which republican senators do you think would vote to impeach Trump under any circumstances? Because we’d need at least 20. The consistent party line has shifted from “the Russia investigation is important” to “the Russia investigation is a witch hunt”, despite the huge number of people indicted for interfering with the election on behalf of the Russians. That’s insanity.
One thing to remember here is that it’s not just about Trump. He may be effectively unimpeachable but he can still be hurt; there are a lot of other people around him who could still be in the frame, most notably Don Jr and Jared. And if there’s evidence against Ivanka, Donald’s current level of incoherent ranting will get dialled up to 11.
It’s going to be a bumpy ride…
This is based on the lengthy history of impeachments of American Presidents, right? That long, extensive record of impeachments of Presidents of the United States.
All both of them. Plus the resignation of Richard M. Nixon.
To recap, there have been a grand total of two impeachments of sitting Presidents in the entire history of the Republic:
Andrew Johnson in 1868; Johnson was a real racist asshole, and did his best to undermine Reconstruction and betray the new U.S. citizens; that said, the Tenure of Office Act was almost certainly unconstitutional. This entire process was in the context of a recently concluded bloody civil war.
Bill Clinton in 1998; this is widely considered to have been a stupid overreach on the part of the Republicans. The effects of the impeachment on the candidacy of Al Gore, and the extent to which Gore lost because of the sense of “scandal” attaching to Clinton as a result of the impeachment vs. the extent to which Gore lost because Gore tried to distance himself too much from a President whose administration was still pretty popular, is debatable.
Then we have the resignation of Richard Nixon, which is likely the “impeachment” (that is, the Presidential impeachment process which didn’t actually result in a Presidential impeachment, because the President in question resigned before it could get that far) that’s most relevant to where we are right now. That process didn’t happen because the country was in a “bad mood”. On the one hand, the country had been in a “bad mood” many times before; that might result in someone losing a re-election campaign, but as noted there is very little historical precedent in the United States for Presidents being impeached, whether the country is in a “bad mood” or a “good mood”. And Nixon was forced from office not because the country was in a “bad mood”–after all, Nixon had been re-elected in a landslide, and had solid approval ratings until early 1973. Nixon’s approval ratings collapsed, and he was then forced from office, because there was growing and well-founded belief that he was in fact a crook–that is, that he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Guys - relax. You’re approaching this wrong.
There’s not going to be an impeachment in the sense that the House will put Donald on trial and the Senate will vote to can him. We know this because:
Therefore, it is contra the facts to expect Donald to be impeached formally. It is irrational to focus on that as if that’s our only play. But it’s not, because of point #1.
The only way Donald loses is if he’s done something so unarguably heinous that Mitch McConnell starts to worry about losing his own office. Therefore, our best play is to spend the next two years finding that something and talking loudly about it on National Television. Thankfully, with the House, we have the tools we need to do this.
Forget impeachment, for now. (Besides that just results in President Pence). Focus on digging up the dirt that we can take into the next election - not just on Donald, but on his whole stinking family and the corrupt Republicans who are protecting him.
The good news is that even if Donald isn’t impeached - we can still hold public hearings as if the impeachment was happening, thanks to winning the House. What we have to do is drag all of Donald’s shit into camera range and then say, “The Voters should decide on these charges.”
It took us years to get here. It’s going to take years to fix it. Anyone trying to spin this as a loss because we can’t wrap it up with a single throw of the dice is not being realistic.
Anyone know if Sessions is eligible to collect Unemployment Compensation and if so how much he will get?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sessions signs a book deal. He’s got one heck of a story to tell. He’s got to be the first AG that’s been threatened with firing since day 1.
Or it might have been right before he regenerated into Christopher Eccleston. 
already talk he may run for his old Senate seat in 2020. I guess he figures nobody has accused him of chasing teenage girls at malls so he has a good shot at winning.
I’m starting a GoFundMe for the Mueller investigation if Whitaker starves it of funds.
There isn’t going to be an impeachment in the sense that the House will put Donald on trial because an impeachment trial happens in the Senate, not the House. The verdict of the Senate trial is to kick him out or not. 
YES! I was just thinking the same thing!
Chris Christie is rumored to be on the list to be new AG. I guess he’s been forgiven for locking up Jared’s father.
No, progressives did not “swallow every bit of propaganda”. Or if they did, it did not matter and they voted for Clinton anyway (those who switched sides were not progressive or democrat to begin with). Progressives may not have liked Clinton but they are rational about it all and knew full well that Trump was, by far, a worse choice.
This just shows the Clinton side swallowing every bit of propaganda about progressives.
That is what judge Napolitano is suggesting. Is there anything to this?