Insiders Predict Pelosi May Not Go Through With Impeachment After Hearings

That's how our system works, did you not know that? He'll probably get a majority of the vote this time, which would help to shut up whining Democrats.

If he gets re-elected will that be a fluke too?

Polls say he's in good shape, and he's got a lot more campaign cash on hand than the Dems. Who do you think will knock Trump off? It's very hard to beat an incumbent, let alone one who has produced the best economy in 50 years, and who survived a Deep State coup attempt. Next year should only be better.

 

The Intelligence Committee just did the investigation. They passed the findings on to the Judiciary Committee that wrote and voted on articles of impeachment, which were then passed to the entire House for a vote. Whatever happens between McConnell and Schumer, Pelosi will inform the Senate, at the appropriate time, of the House's decision, and the issue will proceed to trial. If Schumer is able to block the rules from being adopted by a Republican majority, then the Chief Justice would have the power, as the presiding judge, to decide on the rules. His decision could then, in turn, be challenged by McConnell and overturned by a simple majority...BUT Roberts' decision would carry great influence, particularly among moderate Republicans in the Senate, and there is zero assurance McConnell could come up with 51 votes necessary to overturn Roberts' decision. Of course, if Roberts' ruled in favor of McConnell, the trial would simply proceed with McConnell's rules.

 

Yes...if Mitch is still there and if he still may determine sufficient votes. I doubt he'll be reelected. It was close with Clinton and he's done nothing to expand his base. On the "crime." Impeachment doesn't require the violation of our criminal code or statute law. It is a House indictment of a political crime against the people and the state which represents them. Both the abuse of power and Congressional obstruction are political crimes, under the Constitutional provision of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
But, there will be much, much more before it's over.We still have the Roger Stone sentencing and the Giuliani Show with Associates ahead. Should provide more entertainment through the rest of his tenure in 2020, convicted or not on impeachment.

 

Wrong, that is exactly the kind of political abuse of power the Founders warned against, using impeachment for political means. It's what third world nations do.

That's your big issue? The guy who supposedly lied to Congress, just like Brennan did?

Wow, you ignore the Durham findings that will be released, IMHO with Deep State convictions. Durham and Barr are serious about finding the truth on this. If true, that will be the biggest political scandal in US history. The IG report verified that the FISA court was lied to and exculpatory evidence was altered. When it comes out how corrupt the origins of the Russia hoax was, all these process crime convictions should be thrown out, it Trump doesn't pardon them.

 

True...but electoral college victories, without a majority of the population, have been relatively rare, and have never repeated. By most accounts, even Trump and his campaign didn't expect to win...and it was close, even in the electoral college, relative to electoral college victories. If he does get reelected, so be it. But I seriously doubt t the majority of the electorate is going to be willing to put up with minority Presidents for very long and the electoral college will go the way of slavery, which was an important reason it got into the Constitution in the first place.

 

The EC is working exactly as it was intended to, and there's no way 38 small states are going to surrender power to 20 liberal, large counties.

 

I'll consider the "Durham finding" when and if they're released...and not before. Stone lied to Congress, was prosecuted, and convicted. But, he also provides a possible linkage between the Russians, Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign. Facing a jail sentence, he may have more to say. And, Rudy? Well, he's already explaining his personal investigation in Ukraine to Glenn Beck, so I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to tell either Congress or a jury the same story...which again apparently traces back to the Pro-Putin Ukrainian ethnic Russians.
The Constitution IS a conservative document, which details a conservative political system, compatible with the electorate of 1789, more than the electorate of 2020. But Trump and his supporters are not true conservatives, who abhor the centralization of power at any focal point, but most certainly in the Presidency. Most of the genuine conservatives such as Bill Kristol, George Will, et all have already left the Republican Party of today, which has b been taken over largely by "entertainers," from Talk Radio, Fox News, or the President himself.

 

We agree, but the idea that there was gross, probably intentional and biased wrong doing took a huge leap forward with the IG report findings. Before that the LW dismissed all this as just RW conspiracy theories, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Susan Rice all insisted this was done by the book. We now know those were lies. IF there was conspiracy to throw an election to a political opponent and hinder his administration, would you agree that would be the biggest political scandal in US history? Do you really want to compare Roger Stone to a scandal of this magnitude? The IG was at a loss as to why the Russia investigation wasn't stopped when it was known there was nothing to is and the dossier that is relied on was garbage in early 2017.

So did John Brennan, does he get different treatment? He said under oath the dossier played no part in the FISA applications, when the IG verified than it was central to those applications. If it comes out that AFTER they knew it was bunk, they then swore under oath to was truthful and verified to the FISA court in order to harm a political opponent, the Deep State has big problems. Our intel agencies aren't supposed to have political opponents.

What's wrong with Rudy having a personal investigation? He's certainly qualified. Perhaps if we had honest journalists he wouldn't have to.

 

RINO never Trumpers, they represent the GOP about as much as Tulsi Gabbard does yours. They have all the qualities of a leader except followers. The GOP has never been more unified as it is today behind Trump.

 

BS. The electoral college was established to enable four of our first five Presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) - all from the slave state of Virginia, to become President, based on the same three-fifths compromise used to determine House representation. The "small states" are represented, equally with the "large states" in the Senate.

 

So how is that not desirable now? Large states already get much more representation in the House. The 2016 campaign was run on current EC rules, if it was run on the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned in CA, NY and IL and gotten a lot more votes from those places.

Again, if you want to dump the EC, there is a method to do so, have at it.

 

I haven't read the IG report yet. However, I believe one of his conclusions was that the errors were due to sloppiness and not to "political bias." Has an un-redacted copy of the FISA applications for the surveillance warrants on Page been released yet? If so, I haven't seen it. My understanding is that PART of the Steele Dossier was used to confirm other U.S. intelligence knowledge, along in the application, regarding Page's movements and meetings in Moscow, during the time he was listed as a foreign policy expert for the campaign. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed ALL of the dossier was true OR false. I consider both Page and the dossier to be Republican red herrings that give them an opportunity to trace the "witch hunt" back to a Clinton funded opponents research project.
But, yes, if you provide corroborated evidence of a conspiracy against Trump, of course, I would consider it in any final determination on his behavior as President. However, I would personally vote to have him removed from office on the strength of his parking his golf cart on the greens. Such a violation of the norms is, to me, evidence of his disregard and disrespect for "rules," from golf to law. And, although we agree on Durham, my impression of the IG report's conclusions is totally different from yours. In fact, Mueller hardly mentioned the Steele dossier and devoted a few inconclusive pages to Carter Page, whom was never indicted.
Finally, IF the IG, as you claim, had determined that the intelligence services use of the Steele Dossier was based on political bias, he would have said so...instead of the opposite.

 

He did NOT say that, he said it would be a tough sell to say all those 'errors', just happening to be against Trump, were random, and that he could not rule out bias but found no documentary evidence, which is a bit irrelevant, what did he expect, DOJ letterhead saying "Let's get Trump"? He is doing an audit of the DOJ and said if no other similar behavior is found then the question needs to be asked, why just in this Trump matter? He also asked why was no defensive briefing given to Trump as is customary if the FBI really thought there was a threat to his campaign? Barr and Durham both took the unusual step of saying they disagree with the IG saying there was justification to begin the probe, and even though the IG said it was adequately started he wondered why it wasn't ended in early 2017 when it was known the dossier it was based on was garbage. If it proved that after the bad actors knew is was unauthorized they then swore under oath to the FISA court that it was reliable and verified, they have a big problem. IMHO Carter Page was just the excuse to get their nose under the Trump tent. The reason he was talking to Russia was that he was a CIA asset, the FBI altered an email from the CIA saying that to make it read he was not a CIA asset. That guy for sure will be going to jail.

Clinton DID help fund the dossier, that was not disclosed to the FISA court.

Why would he? He was part of the effort to get Trump. IMHO Page will be in line for huge monetary damages for this fraud that was perpetrated against him.

Addressed above, he is very open to that possibility, and I expect Durham to conclude that. Bias is very difficult to prove, we have to go by actions. The IG said he got no satisfactory explanations for the 17 'mistakes', which I call gross misconduct. The LW seems to take the IG report as the end of this matter, I can assure you, it is just the beginning. Remember Horowitz operated under the constraints of his position of only interviewing current DOJ personnel, and he himself is a DOJ employee, so I'm not sure the DOJ can investigate itself. Durham will be much more thorough, has no limitations on who he can talk to, can convene a Grand Jury, issue subpoenas, and indict. My presumption is that his work was upgraded to criminal investigation states because he uncovered criminal activity.

 

I doubt it. Democrats erred in failing to realize they'd done essentially nothing for "Reagan Democrats" in the Rust Belt and paid the price. That a half dozen other reasons ranging from the lack of African-American turnout in Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia, to poor campaigning and illness on Clinton's part, to the Russian hacking of DNC and Clinton campaign e-mails that revealed a DNC bias for Clinton and against Sanders. No way Trump would have won in CA or NY. Illinois more problematic. But an Illinois loss could have been off-set by Clinton wins in the "Blue Wall" States.

Political theory in the 18th century was evolving from the sovereignty of monarchs to the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty of the people was via a republic in which the focus was on representative democracy. The sovereignty of the people, in our case, was dual. Part of the people's sovereignty was transferred to the State in which they lived and the governance thereof. Part was transferred to the federal government through the People's House, the Congressional districts of the House. There was, nor is there today, "sovereignty" transferred to the President. The Presidency is a functionary who represents, not the people (because they don't elect him directly), but the nation in its dealings with other countries, and in time of war or national emergency. The intent of the founders was that "electors" would select "honorable men" to elect an "honorable man" to represent the country in the way the Queen of the UK or the President's represent countries that use a parliamentary system of government. The power of the Presidency grew with experience and with the growth in factional fights between States and/or the importance of foreign relations.
IOW...the Unitary Presidency is a fraud and I am surprised that more Libertarians and true Conservatives (although I claim to be neither) don't see through its fraud and a means to give the Presidency MORE centralized power than less.

 

I think your conclusions are based on a bias toward an unproven conspiracy. Prove them and we can debate further. The Steele Dossier was acknowledged, in a footnote to the FISA Application, that part of the application depended upon information obtained by research for a political opponent. Since Page is acknowledged in the application to be a member of the Trump campaign, I'm going to assume the FISA judge was smart enough to conclude that was either Clinton or the DNC. The actual "opponent research" apparently began before Trump received the nomination and originated with a Republican, supporting another potential nominee, but by the time they went to Steele, it was pretty much all Democratic.

 

Trump wouldn't have won any of those states, but by campaigning there he would have run up his vote total. Especially in CA, take away CA and Trump won the popular vote in the rest of the US.

 

Intent is difficult to prove, although Durham will make his conclusions. The chances of all 17 'errors' going against Trump is almost impossible. For a coin to come up heads 17 throws in a row, the chances are literally .000763%. Remember also we had one of the DOJ who ran the investigation openly talk about the 'resistance', Bruce Ohr's wife being an employee of Fusion and a big Clinton supporter, etc. Steele himself was extremely biased against Trump. Even the LW Rolling Stone in a post IG report article said the it validated Devin Nunes and debunked Adam Schiff in this matter. The IG said of the Steele report:

“The Supervisory Intel Analyst explained that the CIA believed that the Steele election reporting was not completely vetted and did not merit inclusion in the body of the report. The Intel Section Chief stated that the CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor,'” the report states.

He also said the dossier was central to getting the FISA warrants, IMHO they knew that but wanted to stop Trump at any cost. Remember everyone thought Hillary would win and this corruption would never see the light of day.

 

If one looks at a million tosses of the coin, 17 out of a million is not exceptional. So...I don 't know what you mean by "17 throws in a row?" I admit that I haven't read the IG report, so I'll reserve judgment until I do. Have no idea what you mean by "the Steele election reporting?" There was some un-verified reporting by Mother Jones a couple of weeks before the election on the Steele Dossier, but little else until the BuzzFeed publication of the Dossier AFTER the election. If it was all a big Clinton plot, it obviously failed miserably. Also, not sure what you mean by "in the body of the report." I've read the whole thing. There were some 13 different segments and various topics, reported over months. There was no single "Steele dossier" in report form. And, my understanding on the FISA warrant application is that the initial application was rejected by the FISA Court. The Steele Dossier was "central" insomuch as it cooberated other intelligence already obtained on the Page Moscow visits and that some of that information remains classified. [Everyone has conveniently forgotten the report of three Russian cyber warfare experts being arrested on charges of treason, for passing classified Russian information to western intelligence agencies. The arrest took place roughly two weeks following the BuzzFeed publication of the Steele Dossier.]
And, on Clinton and Orr's support...I was an "Anybody But Trump" voter, who reluctantly supported Clinton in the election to avoid the worse choice. And, that judgement wasn't based on any deep state or deep-seated hatred of him...just felt he was totally inappropriate as President, based on his connections with various mobs, his vile and vulgar behavior, lack of any political experience, lack of any empathy toward others, and narcissistic personality. Add to that his policies...and absurd promises (I'll eliminate the national debt in eight years, the Wall, the closeness to dictators, etc.). So...I wouldn't believe that anyone who didn't support him had to be a member of the Deep State, no more than some Democrats believe all Trump supporters are losers.
But, you beg the question: If all of this corruption was to win the election for Hillary, how would it help do that if it weren't general knowledge BEFORE the election?

 

He was impeached for lying under oath...........

perjury (noun)

the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

He lied after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It wasn't about oral sex. So spare me the linguistical gymnastics. Had he not lied under oath the whole impeachment would never have happened.

 

So now there were a million FISA applications regarding Trump? You are being absurd.

 

No...Horowitz found 17 mistakes on the Page FISA warrants...but that was over the numerous individual items he checked, which may have amounted to a million factors that were looked at (misspellings, incorrect dates, bad punctuation, improper routing). Apparently, he found none of the 17 errors found showed intentional political bias.

 

And you believe all those 'mistakes' just happened to go against Trump, while all the 'mistakes' he found in the Hillary email investigation just happened to go in her favor? He very much left open the possibility there was bias, just that he didn't find documentary evidence, what that would be I don't even know. He said it would be a hard sell to say all those 'errors' were random. He's currently doing an audit to see if those 'mistakes' have occurred other times, and if not he said it would be a legitimate question why it happened to Trump, at that point in time only.

He's open to the possibility, and we aren't talking about spelling errors, but fraudulent evidence submitted to the FISA court and exculpatory evidence altered, according to the IG. He also said he got NO satisfactory answers as to why the mistakes happened. I call them gross misconduct and possibly treason. IMHO by the time Durham is done the 'mistake' list will be a whole lot higher than 17.

 

I respect your vote reasoning, and I'm certainly not saying anyone opposing Trump is part of the Deep State. IMHO it was about a dozen bad actors hand picked by Comey, usually an investigation like this would be run lower down. There's a reason Sen. Schumer said the intel agencies have seven ways from Sunday to get back to you. I also think Gen. Flynn was framed because he intended to audit the intel agencies.

It could be the 'Plan B insurance policy' Peter Strozek talked about in case Trump won. Trump was saddled with this hoax as soon as he was inaugurated, according to the IG at about that time it was known the dossier was garbage and there was nothing to the collusion theory. One of his questions was with what was known why wasn't it stopped at that time? The IG report also confirmed that Brennan lied to Congress when he said the dossier had nothing to do with getting the FISA warrants, the IG said that document was 'central'.

I'd encourage you to read this brief summary by Rolling Stone of the IG Report, it basically says is validates what Nunes has been saying along and debunks Schiff:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...t-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

 

Altering the content of an eMail and deliberately excluding exculpatory evidence?????

IG Michael Horowitz undermines media 'no bias' claims on Russia probe, can't say errors weren't caused by political bias

 

Legally, that is obstruction of justice.