Interesting idea from John Dean (and if you don't know who that is, you don't know the history of impeachments). 
 

Impeach in the house.

Then do not send to the senate. 

Because the senate trial is being fixed with direct cooperation from the white house.

So sending it to the senate would be a gift to 45 in which he can claim he was exonerated. 

 

THEN

Continue to investigate.

Hopefully eventually be able for FORCE Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.

 

Also keep in mind, there is nothing to stop the democrats from impeaching again (and again) when new evidence is uncovered.

 

ALSO doing it this way, if 45 is reelected and the democrats take the senate, then they can send it and at least run a FAIR TRIAL instead of a republican banana republic show trial. 

26 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

" Members of the Trump cult have concluded their glorious leader can do no wrong and will accept no evidence that conflicts with that conclusion, but will believe outlandish nonsense that supports it."...…    if the day ever comes when honest to goodness "proof" is offered by the Dems related to an honest to goodness "crime" being committed then yes, a number of us will be interested in hearing it. So far nothing had been offered in that regard.  

There are two problems, the incompetence of Nadler, and lack of integrity of Schiff. Much like the elections, Hillary in 2016, and this Democrat clown crew running in 2020, we don't really have an option.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting idea from John Dean (and if you don't know who that is, you don't know the history of impeachments). 

John Dean Retweeted Will Bunch  ????

Hope @SpeakerPelosi will not play into Mitch’s hands, and allow the GOP Senate to exonerate Trump for his crimes. This is how to stop it. Impeach, don’t send to the Senate and continue to investigate! Make it a campaign issue. Senate is rigged. Stop the crowning of King Donald!

Jo

 

 

Impeach in the house.

Then do not send to the senate. 

Because the senate trial is being fixed with direct cooperation from the white house.

So sending it to the senate would be a gift to 45 in which he can claim he was exonerated. 

 

THEN

Continue to investigate.

Hopefully eventually be able for FORCE Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.

 

Also keep in mind, there is nothing to stop the democrats from impeaching again (and again) when new evidence is uncovered.

You are right, I expect it to go on through 2024.

47 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Funny how some people can follow convoluted conspiracy theories based on discredited evidence to find "proof" of a crime, but can't see what's in front of them.

 

A Vice President's son takes a job foreign job that does not affect the US but for which he has no obvious qualifications:  Proof of corruption.

 

The President's son-in-law is given a variety of jobs--solving Mid-East problems, ending the opioid crisis, fixing VA Health Care, re-inventing government, etc.--for which he has no qualifications but which give him private meetings with useful contacts to help his floundering real estate business:  Nothing to see here.

 

All US intelligence agencies, congressional investigations, and the Mueller investigation conclude Russia interfered in the 2016 election:  Not proof of anything.

 

An outlandish conspiracy theory based on false information about the DNC server somehow ending up in Ukraine:  Sounds believable.

 

The Vice President implements US and international policy by insisting an ineffective, corrupt prosecutor be removed before international aid is released to Ukraine:  Obviously the VP is corrupt.

 

The US President replies to a request for military aid with "I want you to do us a favor though" and the President's people work behind the scenes to ensure pointless investigations that will help the President's re-election campaign are publicly announced:  Nothing wrong with that.

 

It's obvious what's going on:  Members of the Trump cult have concluded their glorious leader can do no wrong and will accept no evidence that conflicts with that conclusion, but will believe outlandish nonsense that supports it.

Exactly. Testimonies by US officials with a proven track record are worthless, but any conspiracy theory supported by a crooked procurator, a pro-Russia politician, a discredited journalist, a serial liar, etc... must be trusted

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting idea from John Dean (and if you don't know who that is, you don't know the history of impeachments). 
 

Impeach in the house.

Then do not send to the senate. 

Because the senate trial is being fixed with direct cooperation from the white house.

So sending it to the senate would be a gift to 45 in which he can claim he was exonerated. 

 

THEN

Continue to investigate.

Hopefully eventually be able for FORCE Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.

 

Also keep in mind, there is nothing to stop the democrats from impeaching again (and again) when new evidence is uncovered.

 

ALSO doing it this way, if 45 is reelected and the democrats take the senate, then they can send it and at least run a FAIR TRIAL instead of a republican banana republic show trial. 

If it is possible, that would be fair and smart. No witnesses, no trial

1 hour ago, beechguy said:

There are two problems, the incompetence of Nadler, and lack of integrity of Schiff. Much like the elections, Hillary in 2016, and this Democrat clown crew running in 2020, we don't really have an option.

Oh there are MANY more problems than the ones you mentioned. For instance, Pelosi stating that Trump was guilty of bribery yet it isn't part of the articles of impeachment. Why not Ms. Pelosi? Because it's "your opinion" and nothing more. Your committee chairs and lawyers said it didn't happen even tho you say it did. Interesting.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-takes-nasty-dig-at-pelosi-in-latest-slam-of-house-dems/ar-AAK9uUY?ocid=spartandhp

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Funny how some people can follow convoluted conspiracy theories based on discredited evidence to find "proof" of a crime, but can't see what's in front of them.

 

A Vice President's son takes a job foreign job that does not affect the US but for which he has no obvious qualifications:  Proof of corruption.

 

The President's son-in-law is given a variety of jobs--solving Mid-East problems, ending the opioid crisis, fixing VA Health Care, re-inventing government, etc.--for which he has no qualifications but which give him private meetings with useful contacts to help his floundering real estate business:  Nothing to see here.

 

All US intelligence agencies, congressional investigations, and the Mueller investigation conclude Russia interfered in the 2016 election:  Not proof of anything.

 

An outlandish conspiracy theory based on false information about the DNC server somehow ending up in Ukraine:  Sounds believable.

 

The Vice President implements US and international policy by insisting an ineffective, corrupt prosecutor be removed before international aid is released to Ukraine:  Obviously the VP is corrupt.

 

The US President replies to a request for military aid with "I want you to do us a favor though" and the President's people work behind the scenes to ensure pointless investigations that will help the President's re-election campaign are publicly announced:  Nothing wrong with that.

 

It's obvious what's going on:  Members of the Trump cult have concluded their glorious leader can do no wrong and will accept no evidence that conflicts with that conclusion, but will believe outlandish nonsense that supports it.

You can repeat the same old song- Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad till the cows come home and it still doesn't make what the Dems have rise to a high crime or misdemeanour ( whatever they are ) if the senate doesn't think they do. That's the sticking point, isn't it? This not being a criminal trial, but a political one makes "proof" irrelevant, unless it's so horrendeous that it just isn't possible to overlook it and Trump asking for dirt on a potential opponent just doesn't reach that level IMO.

If Clinton can look the US public in the eye and lie, and get away with it, the current nothingburger certainly can too IMO.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting idea from John Dean (and if you don't know who that is, you don't know the history of impeachments). 
 

Impeach in the house.

Then do not send to the senate. 

Because the senate trial is being fixed with direct cooperation from the white house.

So sending it to the senate would be a gift to 45 in which he can claim he was exonerated. 

 

THEN

Continue to investigate.

Hopefully eventually be able for FORCE Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.

 

Also keep in mind, there is nothing to stop the democrats from impeaching again (and again) when new evidence is uncovered.

 

ALSO doing it this way, if 45 is reelected and the democrats take the senate, then they can send it and at least run a FAIR TRIAL instead of a republican banana republic show trial. 

Who is to say that the Dems will even keep the house? If they keep this charade up they have a good chance of being booted, as the US public might be so sick of it by election time they elect GOP just to get some relief from the craziness.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who is to say that the Dems will even keep the house? If they keep this charade up they have a good chance of being booted, as the US public might be so sick of it by election time they elect GOP just to get some relief from the craziness.

"Who is to say that the Dems will even keep the house"...…

 

well the Dems are saying they will but then again they are wrong on so many topics these days that......

A variety of ways the democrats (and SOME republicans) can push for a fairer trial in the senate.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/how-far-can-house-go-stop-sham-trial/

Quote

 

How far can the House go to stop a sham trial?

 

I am hardly alone in noticing that between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “total coordination” with the White House and Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham’s expression of open contempt for impeachment (I will NOT be fair!), impeachment is heading for a sham trial in the Senate — or rather, no trial at all. A trial involves the presentation of evidence to a jury that swears to consider evidence impartially and apply the law (in this case, the Constitution). We risk not getting the evidence nor anything approximating an impartial jury if McConnell (R-Ky.) gets his way.

 

 

Before I mentioned the congress can impeach more than once. Indeed they can. But I think it would probably need to be with NEW articles other than the two that will be approved by congress this week. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

A variety of ways the democrats (and SOME republicans) can push for a fairer trial in the senate.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/how-far-can-house-go-stop-sham-trial/

How far can the House go to stop a sham trial?

 

I am hardly alone in noticing that between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “total coordination” with the White House and Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham’s expression of open contempt for impeachment (I will NOT be fair!), impeachment is heading for a sham trial in the Senate — or rather, no trial at all. A trial involves the presentation of evidence to a jury that swears to consider evidence impartially and apply the law (in this case, the Constitution). We risk not getting the evidence nor anything approximating an impartial jury if McConnell (R-Ky.) gets his way.

 

Before I mentioned the congress can impeach more than once. Indeed they can. But I think it would probably need to be with NEW articles other than the two that will be approved by congress this week. 

 

 

"Before I mentioned the congress can impeach more than once. Indeed they can. But I think it would probably need to be with NEW articles other than the two that will be approved by congress this week."...…. if they are silly enough to try something like that the entire House will be 100% filled with Republicans in short order. The Dems will have proven they have no interest in, or new ideas on how to, lead the country forward. Only to try to lead a bogus impeachment probe into a large black hole.  

I've been looking at the furore and wondering why the Dems don't realise what harm they are doing to themselves and their party by such obvious partisan politics. Only explanation I can come up with is that they have been inside the Washington bubble so long they don't even know what it is like in the real world anymore.

That's the reason Trump was elected- to destroy the bubble. He obviously isn't going to succeed, but he's given it a pretty good try.

2020 to 2024. 

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've been looking at the furore and wondering why the Dems don't realise what harm they are doing to themselves and their party by such obvious partisan politics. Only explanation I can come up with is that they have been inside the Washington bubble so long they don't even know what it is like in the real world anymore.

That's the reason Trump was elected- to destroy the bubble. He obviously isn't going to succeed, but he's given it a pretty good try.

2020 to 2024. 

Who lives inside a bubble....

53% disapprove Trump's job performance (45% approve)

50% want Trump impeached and removed (41% not impeached)

53% think Trump abused his power (against 38%)

Etc...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-job-approval-ticks-up-views-on-impeachment-steady

1 minute ago, candide said:

Who lives inside a bubble....

53% disapprove Trump's job performance (45% approve)

50% want Trump impeached and removed (41% not impeached)

53% think Trump abused his power (against 38%)

Etc...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-job-approval-ticks-up-views-on-impeachment-steady

LOL. Another that believes polls.

4 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

" Members of the Trump cult have concluded their glorious leader can do no wrong and will accept no evidence that conflicts with that conclusion, but will believe outlandish nonsense that supports it."...…    if the day ever comes when honest to goodness "proof" is offered by the Dems related to an honest to goodness "crime" being committed then yes, a number of us will be interested in hearing it. So far nothing had been offered in that regard.  

Really?  That's the only part of the post you want to contest?

 

How about waiting for honest to god proof that the Bidens committed a crime?  Or honest to god proof that there is any evidence to support Trump's conspiracy theories?  Or honest to god proof that Jared has any legitimate role in government?

2 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

Oh there are MANY more problems than the ones you mentioned. For instance, Pelosi stating that Trump was guilty of bribery yet it isn't part of the articles of impeachment. Why not Ms. Pelosi? Because it's "your opinion" and nothing more. Your committee chairs and lawyers said it didn't happen even tho you say it did. Interesting.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-takes-nasty-dig-at-pelosi-in-latest-slam-of-house-dems/ar-AAK9uUY?ocid=spartandhp

One of the articles of impeachment is abuse of power.  This is based on the bribery charge.  You didn't know that?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can repeat the same old song- Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad till the cows come home and it still doesn't make what the Dems have rise to a high crime or misdemeanour ( whatever they are ) if the senate doesn't think they do. That's the sticking point, isn't it? This not being a criminal trial, but a political one makes "proof" irrelevant, unless it's so horrendeous that it just isn't possible to overlook it and Trump asking for dirt on a potential opponent just doesn't reach that level IMO.

If Clinton can look the US public in the eye and lie, and get away with it, the current nothingburger certainly can too IMO.

It seems in your opinion, and the opinion of a number of Republican Senators who made it clear they will not be unbiased jurors, the guilt or innocence of Trump is irrelevant, as is the evidence against him.  That supports my earlier post.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who is to say that the Dems will even keep the house? If they keep this charade up they have a good chance of being booted, as the US public might be so sick of it by election time they elect GOP just to get some relief from the craziness.

 

2 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

"Who is to say that the Dems will even keep the house"...…

 

well the Dems are saying they will but then again they are wrong on so many topics these days that......

 

2 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

"Before I mentioned the congress can impeach more than once. Indeed they can. But I think it would probably need to be with NEW articles other than the two that will be approved by congress this week."...…. if they are silly enough to try something like that the entire House will be 100% filled with Republicans in short order. The Dems will have proven they have no interest in, or new ideas on how to, lead the country forward. Only to try to lead a bogus impeachment probe into a large black hole.  

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've been looking at the furore and wondering why the Dems don't realise what harm they are doing to themselves and their party by such obvious partisan politics. Only explanation I can come up with is that they have been inside the Washington bubble so long they don't even know what it is like in the real world anymore.

That's the reason Trump was elected- to destroy the bubble. He obviously isn't going to succeed, but he's given it a pretty good try.

2020 to 2024. 

So much confidence about the harm the impeachment will do to the Democrats.  It seems to fly in the face of polls showing how much of the public support impeaching Trump.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Another that believes polls.

LOL.  Another one that doesn't understand how accurate polls have been.

40 minutes ago, heybruce said:

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Another that believes polls.

LOL.  Another one that doesn't understand how accurate polls have been

LOL. Three of us without a clue, and only one that doesn't realize it. msming?

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting idea from John Dean (and if you don't know who that is, you don't know the history of impeachments). 
 

Impeach in the house.

Then do not send to the senate. 

Because the senate trial is being fixed with direct cooperation from the white house.

So sending it to the senate would be a gift to 45 in which he can claim he was exonerated. 

 

THEN

Continue to investigate.

Hopefully eventually be able for FORCE Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.

 

Also keep in mind, there is nothing to stop the democrats from impeaching again (and again) when new evidence is uncovered.

 

ALSO doing it this way, if 45 is reelected and the democrats take the senate, then they can send it and at least run a FAIR TRIAL instead of a republican banana republic show trial. 

My God, what world do you live in?

 

You are publicly advocating for the overthrow of a duly elected President because you don't like him.  Liberals have been attempting this from day 1, so don't argue that there's justification for it.

31 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

My God, what world do you live in?

 

You are publicly advocating for the overthrow of a duly elected President because you don't like him.  Liberals have been attempting this from day 1, so don't argue that there's justification for it.

You seem not to live in the world were there are numerous ongoing court cases for Congress to gain access to/Trump to deny access to multiple items of evidence and multiple witnesses relating to allegations against Trump.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who is to say that the Dems will even keep the house? If they keep this charade up they have a good chance of being booted, as the US public might be so sick of it by election time they elect GOP just to get some relief from the craziness.

"US public might be so sick of it"

 

as am I and i am a democrat . (classical liberal) objective non partisan, non biased critical thinking/analysis)

 

not that trump is so great or a cult but many are sick of the status quo.

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

My God, what world do you live in?

 

You are publicly advocating for the overthrow of a duly elected President because you don't like him.  Liberals have been attempting this from day 1, so don't argue that there's justification for it.

You seem not to live in the world were there are numerous ongoing court cases for Congress to gain access to/Trump to deny access to multiple items of evidence and multiple witnesses relating to allegations against Trump.

The left (including the Republican never-Trumpers) has wanted to oust Trump from day 1.  Why?  He hadn't done anything "wrong" yet.  Proof that since then they've only tried to manufacture credible reasons to oust him solely because they don't like him.  And have failed.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  Are you guys impervious to pain?

 

Actually, the real reason for attempting to oust Trump is because he can't be bought and has campaigned on draining the swamp.  Those in the swamp are trying to prevent this from happening for obvious reasons.  That's what all of this is about in truth.  Of course this applies to those in the swamp and their political followers are simply fed a narrative which, being not so bright to figure out the truth for themselves, they go all in on.

 

I hope I haven't lost you in the complexity.

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The left (including the Republican never-Trumpers) has wanted to oust Trump from day 1.  Why?  He hadn't done anything "wrong" yet.  Proof that since then they've only tried to manufacture credible reasons to oust him solely because they don't like him.  And have failed.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  Are you guys impervious to pain?

 

Actually, the real reason for attempting to oust Trump is because he can't be bought and has campaigned on draining the swamp.  Those in the swamp are trying to prevent this from happening for obvious reasons.  That's what all of this is about in truth.  Of course this applies to those in the swamp and their political followers are simply fed a narrative which, being not so bright to figure out the truth for themselves, they go all in on.

 

I hope I haven't lost you in the complexity.

 

Arguably the most distant from reality post I’ve read this year.

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

My God, what world do you live in?

 

You are publicly advocating for the overthrow of a duly elected President because you don't like him.  Liberals have been attempting this from day 1, so don't argue that there's justification for it.

You seem not to live in the world were there are numerous ongoing court cases for Congress to gain access to/Trump to deny access to multiple items of evidence and multiple witnesses relating to allegations against Trump.

The left has wanted to oust Trump from day 1.  Why?  He hadn't done anything "wrong" yet.  Proof that since then they've only tried to manufacture credible reasons to oust him solely because they don't like him.  And have failed.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  Are you guys impervious to pain?

 

Actually, the real reason for attempting to oust Trump is because he can't be bought and has campaigned on draining the swamp.  Those in the swamp are trying to prevent this from happening for obvious reasons.  That's what all of this is about in truth.  Of course this applies to those in the swamp and their political followers are simply fed a narrative which, being not so bright to figure out the truth for themselves, they go all in on.

 

I hope I haven't lost you in the complexity.

 

reasonable.

 

complexity; lol

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The left (including the Republican never-Trumpers) has wanted to oust Trump from day 1.  Why?  He hadn't done anything "wrong" yet.  Proof that since then they've only tried to manufacture credible reasons to oust him solely because they don't like him.  And have failed.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  Are you guys impervious to pain?

 

Actually, the real reason for attempting to oust Trump is because he can't be bought and has campaigned on draining the swamp.  Those in the swamp are trying to prevent this from happening for obvious reasons.  That's what all of this is about in truth.  Of course this applies to those in the swamp and their political followers are simply fed a narrative which, being not so bright to figure out the truth for themselves, they go all in on.

 

I hope I haven't lost you in the complexity.

 

Arguably the most distant from reality post I’ve read this year.

 

yes it does differ from "the world according to cnn" aka "kgb tv"

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Arguably the most distant from reality post I’ve read this year.

Yes and another great example of how it's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with members of the 45 cult of personality bubble. How the USA gets past having 35 to 40 percent of it's people living in that alternative facts bubble is beyond me. 

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Arguably the most distant from reality post I’ve read this year.

Coming from you, Chomper, I take that as a compliment.

 

It's really not hard to figure out what's going on beneath the surface.  Don't be so distracted.

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes and another great example of how it's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with members of the 45 cult of personality bubble. How the USA gets past having 35 to 40 percent of it's people living in that alternative facts bubble is beyond me. 

Projecting again, Jingthing?  55555555555

 

Listen, I had at one time linked to actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption.  I can't remember who the particular poster was but he had replied that it was all BS.  I thought his response to be incredulous as it was bona fide documentation that most definitely exists in the real world so I replied back asking him if he had thought that the documentation was created by the publisher of it.  He replied back, "Yes."  I asked again if he thought his claim to be true (no evidence provided, of course).  And he actually, unbelievably, doubled down on stupid!

 

Now, Jingthing, I ask you in utmost seriousness, what do you make of that in the context of your statement?

 

And please, don't be afraid to respond directly to me.  I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots.