Senate Impeachemt Vote

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Ha! Lindsay Graham. They owned his ass....
Once upon a time in America.

www.youtube.com...

He played both sides for decades.
Those days are over.
He will have to come down off the fence
on to which side he will be on.

Otherwise he will be gone.

I baptize you with water of repentance.
After me will come One more powerful than I,
whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.
His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor
and to gather his wheat into the barn,
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Ma 3:12

a reply to: LSU2018

95-100 million voters chose not to even vote in 2016. My husband was one of them. He assumed Hillary had it in the bag. He would have voted for her. He never believed a dufus like Trump would be elected.

Since 2016, my husband has been horrified at the Dems behavior and extreme moves so far left. They have become deranged in hysteria it is embarrassing for him.

He is thankful he didn't vote Dem ticket like normal. Yet, he still dislikes Trump, he has found himself so amazed that with all of the investigations and constant BS Trump has been under that there is nothing...absolutely nothing criminal to be found and he finds that to be admirable.

If he votes in 2020, it will not be the Dem ticket. Either way, the Dems will not have his vote. Wonder how many others out there are now in the same position of politics as my hubby?

Seeing that votes did matter in 2016, will more vote? Or will they still think that the urban democrats will snuff their voice in their state? If anything, I will hope they do get out and vote...at least, to be heard. So tired of this popularity contest, when nearly 100 million haven't even been heard.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I haven't "been told" what the Mueller Report says, I've read it myself. Multiple times. I can recommend that to folks who have not and are going on the recommendations of their preferred corporate media.

Volume II consists of 182 pages of prosecutorial evidence and legal and Constitutional justifications for obstruction of justice on the basis of the Presidents actions.

I have included a series of citations with my own emphasis that outline my justification for my statement that Mueller handed the House an impeachment case on a silver platter. Taken together these constitute a long quote, but I hope for indulgence in this case to make a serious factual point.

… we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Volume II, Page 1

Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. Volume II Page 1

… if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Page 2

At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence. Page 7

Taking into account that information and our analysis of applicable statutory and constitutional principles (discussed below in Volume II, Section III, infra), we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the President. Page 12

170 pages of detailed evidence and prosecutorial argument follows …

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Page 182.

Early on in Volume II, Mueller spells out that among several reasons for not making a traditional prosecutorial judgement was the fact that such a judgement might "preempt Constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." Mueller is specifically referring to the impeachment power of the House.

The report repeats the phrasing that the investigation did not exonerate nor find the President worthy of prosecution for obsruction of justice.

That is left up to the House of Representatives.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Apparently, nothing is going to make Mr. Trump look worse to his ardent supporters. However, every objective measure points to the fact that the majority of Americans are not and have not been ardent Trump supporters.

However, your argument is that impeachment is intended to make the President look bad, and if that were true, it would be an abominable misscarriage of Constittuional balance-of-powers.

why didnt mueller say as much?
he had the oppurtunity, did he not?

he didn't recommend squat.

while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime

damn it
the whole treason(crime)bribery(crime)high crimes(crime)and misdemeanors(crime) thing gets thrown out then.......if the special council did not conclude the president commuted a crime......right?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: carsforkids

I'm tired of having a hateful President! The most hateful President since the Calvin KKK Coolidge era.

Criticism is a good thing but you Trump lovers call any criticism, no matter how much it is deserved hate against the President.

Some of us just like to shut down the idiots who are lying, or are just too damn stupid to understand what they are saying. It has nothing to do with loving Trump. I think he's an arrogant asshole, but he's the president of the United States. I thought Obama was a tool bag racist, and still do. But I didn't make thread after thread looking for others to agree with me.

Now, on to Trump's crimes that must exist for him to have "abused the power of Presidency". As requested, in order of severity.

a reply to: network dude
how about just finding an actual crime?
the entire special councils office could not find one.....
just an actual crime
is that so hard?
as corrupt as he is made out to be I would think that would be pretty easy?
not some debatable bs, but a real honest to goodness crime....

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: jrod
This should not be a partisan issue. It should be an ethic and moral issue.

Trump has abused the power of Presidency. He does not represent the people, he represents his ego and his wealth. If he had nothing to hide then he would make his tax returns transparent.

We have someone who is so egotistical that he refuses to admit he is wrong, ever. Look at the Central Park 5 case and how he refuses to apologize to the boys that he paid for newspaper's ads to call for their execution, even after they were exonerated. Not only did he refuse to apologize, he criticized New York for settling with them.

This is a man with no moral backbone. He is an egotistical and narcissistic maniac who refuses to take no for an answer. Not only does he believes he has presidential immunity, he believes that immunity extends to investigating him in anyway. That is not how the President of the United States behaves, that is the behaviour of a tyrant.

Your right it shouldn't be political.

Only a super leftist partisan can actually believe there is a good reason to try and impeach Trump. There is no high crime or even a misdemeanor.

It shouldn't be political, but the lefists' beliefs are just wrong ... wow.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Exactly my point!

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

It's not an impeachment vote, it's a vote to justify their uni party secret soviet style court with new rules adopted from the commies thus overriding past precedents of due process and a fair hearing.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: LSU2018

What about the comment about the economy??

Everyone acknowledges that a presidents policies take years to take effect, unless someone they hardcore support is in office of course.


So none of the present economy is because of trump.. well or really the effects of his policies are just now starting to take effect. So the economy for the next few years will be to trumps credit or blame..

I believe it was 2. 2 years for the previous administration to run it's course, then the incumbent is left holding the bag. (Unless things go well for the guy you don't like, then you can change the rules all you like)

originally posted by: LSU2018
It's the actions of the DNC pushing them away and forcing them to team up with the other side.

Who cares? It's still voting from sentiment, or 'feelz' as you said, as opposed to issue-based voting.

Voting for someone because you think people are being mean to them is the epitome of voting your feelz.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Your "issues" hurt my "feels"
You are simply mean

a reply to: CynConcepts

I like these anecdotal repots, especially because there is no refuting them.


I personally have yet to meet a Trump voter in person who has intimated that they are either happy with Trump or are going to vote for him a second time.

This includes my best friend (was the best man at my wedding), who gleefully voted for Trump in 2016 and was extremely active in Republican politics now assuming a much more subdued opinion on politics and is undecided if he's voting at all or voting against Trump.

Several other conservatives I've spoken to at my workplace around the water-cooler expressed similar misgivings over Trump and their reticence to support him any further.


Potatoe-Potawto

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the problem summed up right there, bunch of effing marys on both sides voting with their emotions instead of looking at the big picture which is neither party gives a rat's ass about you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the problem summed up right there, bunch of effing marys on both sides voting with their emotions instead of looking at the big picture which is neither party gives a rat's ass about you.

/thread

a reply to: Wayfarer
or perhaps they are no longer comfortable expressing support that will cause them grief?
perhaps he is afraid his support will damage said friendship?

similar to how polls are skewed ?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the problem summed up right there, bunch of effing marys on both sides voting with their emotions instead of looking at the big picture which is neither party gives a rat's ass about you.

oh
the parties dont care about issues?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
oh
the parties dont care about issues?

It's lip service and pandering. Call me when the Democrats give a crap about a reduced Federal government or when the Republicans learn not to spend like drunken slobs.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
or perhaps they are no longer comfortable expressing support that will cause them grief?
perhaps he is afraid his support will damage said friendship?

similar to how polls are skewed ?

Sure, its possible. I'd like to think my best friend at least is more open with me than that, but I can't rule out the possibility however unlikely.

For what its worth I'm not proselytizing against Trump when I speak with my Conservative Trump supporting friends/coworkers, nor am I denigrating them for their choices (even if I disagree with them), so at face value I'm endeavoring to engender an environment they feel safe chatting about their true feelings (which is all I'm really curious about to begin with).