Trying to jmagine a scenario where the senate and house are dem, but DT gets reelected. But if that ever happened, i think the way the impeachment process is laid out, those with sworn alliegance to the constitution, would remove him.

Good point tho, about what a solid vote of "no confidence" in our Pres, while he continues to represent us internationally, would do.

@MarkiusMahamius Our answer from Amercian politics today is - Federal Police. Interesting trying to get my head into American legalise language. Now I know what the 14th ammendment is!

@Sofabeast age is the universal factor here. That might "wtap things up" before politics does.

Which would make sense, as fas as inquiries go. And even as far as grandsetanding goes, this is far better some recent investigations.

The NYT article parses out the difference and the conflict

Some politicos are saying this isn't a real inquiry since it's not supported by a buttletprrof majority in the house- that it's just grandstanding by the judiciary committee. If the investigation has no weight, then calling it impeachment isn't really a "fact"

@MarkiusMahamius so a bill offered to the house even without a clear majority to win isn't really a bill, either, by that reasoning. i don't THINK so. and by the way, even if someone does something proper and good knowing it won't succeed, that doesn't automatically make that good and proper thing grandstanding.

g

@genessa a bill isn't the same things as impeachment, you can't compare daily business to impeachment. Its a formal process, if you launch it with no expectation of completing it, can you call it anything but a sham? Even if its a "right and morally correct" sham?

@MarkiusMahamius yes. you can. you can make a statement and that is not necessarily a sham. it is only a sham if you do not believe the statement. i believe the statement.

g

@genessa hmmm... so its how it feels, not if it works?

@MarkiusMahamius that depends on what you mean by "works." the purpose of an impeachment hearing is not to impeach. the purpose of an impeachment hearing is to get the facts, and then to figure out whether the facts justify impeachment. just getting the facts, and getting them to the american public, has its own value, and that "works" too. and let's imagine (this is hard work but try) that the president is innocent as the driven snow and the facts lead to congress' deciding not to impeach. does that mean it didn't "work"? is a trial a real trial (yes i know an impeachment isn't a trial, and an impeachment hearing isn't even an impeachment, but see the analogy here, please) only if the verdict is guilty? if a mistrial is declared, or if the defendant or a witness or the plaintiff happens to die, does that mean the trial was a sham? it's not about how it FEELS and i don't define "works" the same way i think you might.

g

And what will the Senate do..? And who would step into the presidency? The Democrats will ratchet this up as the scandals increase … all in advance of next year's elections.. They’ve become a party of women, so your pussy comment may be correct.. but they’re not stupid ~

@Varn They are hardly stupid, I'll give you that. Their issue is that nobody has a message anyone wants to get behind. Even Republicans all hear the call to be dishonest and galvanize behind that. They all sin... But it's okay because God forgives them.

Democrats worry too much about building a consensus and trying to please everyone. Someone with a little bully in them needs to jump out front and lead. Instead of looking better these days... They are starting to look weaker!

@RiverRick ...I’m sorry to say.. it feels like a woman’s thing, to me. A longtime player in the party, I’ve watched it shift, with the fears and hesitation you’ve described now in control. They rely on rules & protocol .. because that’s what keeps them safe in life. The R’s lie, cheat & brawl ..cuz that’s what keeps them in charge.. Operating from a position of weakness is no fun, but I don’t see a breakout leader in sight.

@Varn Not sure I would call it a "woman's thing" though I see where you are going with that. But you described the parties to a "T"...

if the dems are that suplicant to Trump (won't stand up to the white house) doenst that essentially make the investigation a sham? if it doesnt have the backing of the house, its just posturing anyhow.

As much as I hate to agree with that, you may be right. I for one despise treason and any so called leader that would break our own laws for personal gain. What floors me is that we have so many imbeciles that seem perfectly okay with those things.

@MarkiusMahamius If an impeachment indictment doesn't come out of the House, it'll be a sham.

‘Cowardly?’ They’re operating from a position of weakness ..due in part to a race of ‘their voters’ having sat the last election out… I suggest you give them a president, senate & supreme court they can work with - then watch what gets done!

@Varn Weakness? They have the majority in the House and can impeach the President and by the constitution, controls the purse strings of the nation. They won't use their power they are cowards.

@redbai "If an impeachment indictment doesn't come out of the House, it'll be a sham." well yeah, thats the way its looking. The actions of the judiciary committee will be symbolic, but the house won't hold a vote.

@redbai “The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official is removal from office.”

The House leadership is smarter than you, and ‘brave enough’ to have run - and won office. They are not ‘cowards,’ but obviously, they govern some idiots...

With the election over a year away, and no way to get impeachment through the Senate … they’ll investigate. More will be found, and instead of dealing with a ‘president pence,’ trump will go down in flames.

Too many ‘American’s’ fucked up in ‘16 … the cost is unfortunately not yet paid ~

@Varn That cowardly logic assumes that the point of impeaching him is only to remove him from office. Impeachment is also to put it on historical record that his actions are beyond the pale and unworthy of a POTUS. If he's not impeached he will spend the next year telling the electorate that the Dems couldn't find a reason to impeach him so he obviously did nothing wrong. He will walk into the WH with another four years because the Dems will have, out of their fear, allowed him to characterize the disgusting new norms he's created into the new norm.

Impeaching him will also force republicans to answer questions as to why a demonstrable criminal should be running the country. Condoning the Dems cowardice and okaying them twiddling their thumbs hoping that the voters will save them from doing their constitutional duty is one of the problems with America today; the acceptance of mediocre leadership.

@redbai Apparently they’ve a different strategy, I will defer to it. trump’s not going to walk into the WH uncontested or unchallenged; he’s going to be outed, then prosecuted. A year is a long, long time in trump world, he’s going down

what would you think if the house impeaches him, but the senate either refuses to hear the case, or doesnt convict?

@MarkiusMahamius Either of those scenarios is likely but should no effort be made to reign in Trump's corruption because it won't pass the Senate? I think every effort should be made regardless. Fighting the good fight is a show of character and integrity even if you lose.

@MarkiusMahamius As an independent for the last 40 years, I would think that at least one party cares about the rule of law and they would garner some respect from me that they don't have now.

@mongo1977 democrats think they're above the law? on what do you base this untrue and outrageous statement?

g

@mongo1977 i can only say you are mistaken. which democrat did you see that was above the law WHO WAS SUPPORTED IN THIS DELUSION BY THE PARTY? individuals from any group might be bad, but the republicans DEFEND lawlessness and the democrats oust those of their own who even remotely appear to be lawless. so please name a democrat who considered him/herself above the law, tell me which law s/he broke, and make sure this is someone who was defended in his/her lawlessness by the democratic party.

g

@mongo1977 so you cannot answer my question, which was a legitimate one, and thus must resort to insults, which means i have no further use for you. i type this only for those reading, to point out what i just said (no facts, therefore insults). i do not need heavy medication. i need to use the block feature and off i go to do just that.

g

@mongo1977 "democrats oust those of their own who even remotely appear to be lawless"
You need some psychological counseling and heavy medication.

i wouldn't say its anything more than the same old story about political infighting and the dems attacking each other