IMPEACHMENT WATCH 2019-2020 - flow of data

So.. After Trump is impeached... Then what?
Clinton was impeached on two articles, yet people still wanted him back in the white house, (granted as the Mrs, but still...)

 

Of course there is no issue with the firing of Comey since it is a plenary power of the President, that is, unless you want to fight against constitutional authority.

 

Your grand total will be a grand fizzle tomorrow.

 

That puts the House at 70% of the votes needed for a vote for impeachment.

Perhaps we need to start looking at where the various GOP Senators stand on impeachment because ultimately it will be their call to make. There would need to be at least 20 of them willing to cast a guilty vote for it to happen. Just how realistic is that number out of the current 53 GOP senators?

 

Why don't you ask that question of your local spiritualist who has a crystal ball because it really doesn't matter which order the articles of impeachment are written.

 

Latest news is that Pelosi now supports an "official" impeachment inquiry.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/impeachment-house-pelosi-lawmakers_n_5d8a98b3e4b01c02ca605574

Looks like the OP was prescient in starting this thread. Perhaps it should be moved to Current Events. [jk ]

The reaction on Twitter is entertaining.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/impeach-the-mf-trump-twitter-trending_n_5d8a971de4b08f48f4ac3b1b

 

While I was sleeping, the total Ds in support of impeachment rose from circa 190 to 221 and among those are some of the most Conservative Dems left in the caucus, ie, the ones that people were wondering if they would commit to impeachment or not.

This means that 220 DEMS now support impeachment, more than the 218 required to successfully impeach. With Justin Amash, that's 221.

Here the remaining 15 Ds who have not declared:




Officially, only 3 of them have come out firmly against impeachment. Strangely enough, Frederica Wilson (FL-24) and Al Lawson (FL-05) have not officially announced for impeachment, but they are huge detractors of Trump and I cannot imagine that they are going to come out against impeachment.
Conor Lamb (PA-17) is not really against - he wants to see the hearings on Thursday first and then he will make an announcement.

I expected to see the bottom four names on this list.

 

I'm asking you who is looking into their own crystal ball and making a statement of fact.

What will be the top article of impeachment and be specific. When the proceedings against Clinton began the 8 charges were specific and to the law.

 

Now you just making up crap and no, I am not interested in playing asinine games either.

 

What's made up or just looking for an excuse to back out?

I'm asking you who is looking into their own crystal ball and making a statement of fact.

What will be the top article of impeachment and be specific. When the proceedings against Clinton began the 8 charges were specific and to the law.

 

The D's in support of this fiasco are going to pay for their stupidity at the polls in 2020. This is the 2nd time the D's have tried to impeach without grounds, and they are now clearly wrong again. This is not a mistake, it is deliberate attempts at overthrowing a legitimate government. This is the act of traitors and will not be tolerated.

 

Leave the democrats alone, encourage them to keep stamping their feet, raging, ranting and lying and making stuff up and demanding wild insanely impossible to pay for handouts. Let them keep campagining on the slogan.

VOTE FOR ME and ILL GIVE IT TO YOU FOR FREE

 

I do not think that President Trump will be impeached--let alone removed from office.

Here are my thoughts in that regard:

(1) Although the Democrats control the House (which impeaches), many are centrists who won in 2018; and they won in districts carried by Donald Trump in 2016. All in all, they would probably rather displease Nancy Pelosi than to displease their constituents.

(2) If President Trump were to (somehow) be impeached by the House, there is no possible way that the Democrats--who hold only 47 Senate seats--could muster the 67 votes necessary to convict.

(3) Both the Democrats' and the Republicans' bases would be very much energized in 2020, by impeachment. But the tie-breaker would be the independents.

Most independents would probably see this as an overreach--as a crude, political ploy--and would therefore be more inclined to vote Republican in 2020.

There is even a chance--albeit a slight one, in my opinion--that the Democrats would lose control of the House, as a result of this.

 

Making predictions one way or another disregards whatever truths the inquiry process may reveal.

There is no rational reason to believe that what is or is not exposed will not determine the outcome.

From a political perspective, this is not a sensible move for Democrats, since Trump has been consistently and relentlessly unpopular, his scandals already mounting, and likely opponents polling well against him.

Why disrupt an auspicious trend?

For Congress to allow political considerations to deter it from its constitutional oversight responsibilities would not accrue to its credit.

 

WRONG!

The traitor is the one who asked Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.

 

https://theweek.com/speedreads/867423/senate-votes-1000-release-trump-whistleblower-complaint

Now that is SIGNIFICANT!

The ENTIRE Senate, without any partisan exceptions, demanded to see what it probably the most incriminating of all evidence of all when it comes to IMPEACHMENT!

The BLOTUS asked the Ukrainian president EIGHT TIMES to interfere in the 2020 election.

If those charges are included in the impeachment that the House sends to the Senate then it could be enough to remove the BLOTUS from the Oval office.

 

Thank you for accurately writing that Trump ASKED for an investigation into Biden blackmail. That is not a crime. Especially when the other person is free to say yes, or no, without consequence--unlike Joe Biden.

Joe bragged about threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid to the Ukrainians if they didn't fire their prosecutor (who was looking at Burismo Oil and his son) in six hours--a quid pro quo and a stupid thing to do on camera. But what can you say about someone who misspeaks all the time and likes to fondle women on camera.

Yeah, I know you're going to claim Hunter was not under investigation at that time, BUT

(Get ready--)

The Hill has documents from Hunter Biden's own legal team that shows they knew he was under investigation and they knew Hunter was going to be interviewed by prosecutors.

 

Legally investigating crimes is not interfering with an election. The people know that and it is why the RNC received 5 million dollars in contributions within 24 hrs. of Pelosi announcing her impeachment investigations. The Democrats have failed in another witch-hunt, and have only energized the Republicans to take action to make sure the Democrats are sorely defeated in 2020.
The sheer stupidity of the Democratic party has to be seen to be believed. Perhaps the legalization of Marijuana is taking its toll on them........LOL

 

Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016

 

Running for president does not immunize someone from investigation/prosecution for blackmail. Sean Hannity has John Solomon on his show tonight with documents that will show Hunter Biden's legal team knew Hunter was under investigation for his role at Burisma Oil and that prosecutors were about to interview him when his dad stepped in.

 

If your BLOTUS did NOT commit any crime then WHY is the Whitehouse acting as if it is a crime and trying to CONCEAL it and COVER it up?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/26/...istleblower-complaint-donald-trump/index.html

For those that remember Nixon it was the COVER UP that established his GUILT as far as We the People were concerned.

 

As of Friday morning, 27.09.2019, 226 House Democrats have come out publicly for impeachment proceedings, and implicitly, for an impeachment vote. With Justin Amash (former R, now I, MI-03). That makes for 227 in favor of impeachment proceedings. Conor Lamb (PA-17) is the latest Democrat to come out for impeachment.

Of the remaining 9 Democrats, only 3 have come out expressly against impeachment proceedings. The devil is in the details:



Tulsi Gabbard, D-presidential-candidate-wannabee who is at 1% or less in polling, is against impeachment. She has become Fox News' favorite Democrat. LOL. Max Rose tweeted and spoke unequivocally against impeachment on August 18th. However, I would not at all be surprised if he comes out as a YES for impeachment itself when it comes to a vote once the hearings are over with. Collin Peterson is one of the more Conservative Dems (also one of the least well-known) out there. 6 of those 9 on the list represent D-pickups from 2018 (or 14% of all D pickups from the midterms) and unsurprisingly, from CDs where the winning margins were narrow.

So, the stats at current:

FOR impeachment proceedings: 226 Ds (96.17% of the D-HOR-Caucus)
Undecided about impeachment proceedings: 6 Ds (2.56% of the D-HOR-Caucus)
AGAINST impeachment proceedings: 3 Ds (1.27% of the D-HOR-Caucus)
Margin, D yes to D no = D yes +94.90%

For a caucus that is historically known for it's divisions and sometimes, indecisiveness, this is an amazingly unified caucus, and the numbers here prove it.

Nancy Pelosi needs 218 votes (assuming that all Reps are on the floor on the day of the vote) for an absolute majority to impeach the President of the United States, regardless whether the vote takes place before or after the WI-07 special election. You need 218 for majority regardless whether there are officially 235 or 234 seats filled. At 227 (including Justin Amash, who is guaranteed to vote yes on impeachment), she is 9 votes over her goal and has built some padding. And some more padding may yet come. I bet it will.

Of the 6 undecided Ds, it's just a matter of time before Ron Kind, Xochitl Torres-Small and Jeff Van Drew come on board, possibly also Joe Cunningham. So, I see the YES votes rising to 230, maybe 231, but probably not higher.

What will be interesting to see will be how many R-Reps defect during the process. There are 17 (maybe 1 R retirements: those are people who now have nothing to lose in voting their conscience on their way out the door in 2020. And you can rest assured that the Ds will make individual attack ads, per battleground CD, about those Republicans who vote against impeachment, especially as more and more and more and more damning evidence mounts.

It is also very, very possible that a number of Rs may be suddenly indisposed or "sick" on the day of the vote, or vote "present". Guaranteed, the HOR-R-caucus is not going to be nearly as uniform as the Ds are.

This is going to be quite an event to watch.

-Stat

 

Update: Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) has changed her mind and is now for impeachment. Also, Ron Kind (WI-03) announced to a local newspaper in his district that he is for an impeachment inquiry, but on social media, he has been very quiet. So, the list of D undecideds/nos shrinks from 9 to 7, which means 228 Ds plus 1 I are for impeachment (229 total).

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many people do not actually know what "impeachment" means. All it means is an indictment (single, or multiple), written in a document known as the "articles of impeachment". If passed in the House, the indictment (impeachment) goes to the Senate, where a sort of trial is mandated by law, with the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS sitting as chairman, not the majority leader. A 2/3 vote (67 out of 100 Senators) is required to find the impeachee guilty and also to remove said person from elective office. What is NOT explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is HOW the "trial" in the Senate will be conducted and here, the Majority Leader of the Senate gets to decide on the breadth and depth of such proceedings. So, Mitch McConnell could try to ram an impeachment conviction vote through in just a few short days and nothing can stop him from doing this, just as nothing can stop Speaker of the HOR Nancy Pelosi from conducting as many investigations as she deems necessary.

Again, as always, the devil lies in the details.

 

Now that is an interesting development. I wonder how much of the support that Gabbard has from the rightwingers will evaporate now that she has come out in favor of impeaching their BLOTUS.