Would you vote to impeach? Would you to remove?

There is zero evidence of a reason to impeach regardless of the mountain of evidence there is a conspiracy to undo a legitimate election.

 

Politically, and impeachment is a political process not a legal process, it ain't gonna happen.

Waaay too much prosperity already for that to happen.

 

Even politically there needs to be a reason. Otherwise it would be political suicide for the party behind it.

 

Actually in this case 13 people on Mueller's team are registered dems and/or donated to Hillary's campaign (total like $60,000), Mueller is the only registered republican, by all appearance a never-Trumper, and the amount of donations to Trump campaign is $0.00. And Mueller just added one more 14th prosecutor, also a democrat.

 

The OPer believes the USA is still a colony of the UK - and then claims that the majority in control of Congress should impeach any president (and by extension anyone else) they disagree with under British practices. However, the OPer says he would be somewhat reserved in doing so.

The answer is no, of course not. There was far more grounds to impeach Obama - including engaging in war without Congressional approval (which makes the act of war an act of murder on a grand scale in the attacked country), the sending massive amounts of cash to Iran constituted essentially treason, and knowingly lying over 1/6th of the US economy in ObamaCare constituted grotesque misconduct, plus the IRS being weaponized etc.

The push to get Trump is easy to understand. Every member of Congress - Republican and Democrat - plus most governors - believed that the Presidency was reserved to them, to professional politicians. The inside powers-that-be - whether it be the super rich and international corporations - and the press and media they know own, to the military and intel agencies know they have virtual total control of such professional politicians as well. The election of President Trump as a complete outsider and with limited control of him is completely intolerable in that he does not obtain permission before speaking or acting.

The "impeach Trump" movement is about lose of power to those who have it - for which they have used the press and media they literally OWN to inflame the ignorant masses into a mob mentality. Thus, the impeach Trump movement is based upon generating hatred - with rationalizations provided, with truth generally irrelevant.

The miscalculation is that not everyone on the inside of government is purely corrupt and instead actually supports the construction of our government and concept of a constitutional government - meaning the recognize President Trump is the president and with that comes the powers of the office of the president, like it or not. The question of impeachment should have nothing to do with whether you agree with or hate what Trump says and does. But that is how much lay people - ie the mob - sees it.

This is a major change. When Truman fired McCarthy the disapproval rating of Truman was 80%. Numerous other presidents had moments of far lower approval than Trump has ever had. But that was not seen as basis for impeachment and removal.

 

Interesting that you 100% assert that a person is instantly guilty if a charge is made against the person. You outright say that if Mueller makes a charge, then automatically the House should vote to impeach under that presumption of guilt.

MANY times federal courts ruled that what Obama did was illegal. Shouldn't he then have been impeached by the House with a trial before the Senate? Or do see findings of a Court as INFERIOR to charges brought by the DA/prosecutor? Basically, you also declare Mueller is a higher authority than the House of Representatives, asserting they should summarily all agree with anything Mueller says. I can not find any reference to "special investigator" in the U.S. Constitution, though you claim he has total authority over the House of Representatives which therefore are only in clerical roles to carry out Mueller's wishes.

 

Yeah, but Obama lied to the American people over 1,000,000,000 times.

 

From a legal standpoint, the decision to impeach is a political one. Given that the House of Representatives is dominated by Republicans who are afraid of being "primaried" by the radical right, a decision to impeach is improbably no matter what evidence is brought to light.

From a practical point of view, although Trump has undoubtedly done damage to our country and the country's reputation abroad, that damage has been limited to some extent by Trump's inexperience and bumbling attempts to override the other two branches of government. However, has anyone favoring impeachment thought about the next two people in line to replace Trump should he be removed from office before the next election. First in line, of course, is Vice President Mike Pence, who is from the radical right wing and has just enough political smarts to do real damage. After him comes Speaker Paul Ryan, the guy who wants to get rid of Medicare and who favors government programs that benefit the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans.

I think Mike Pence and Paul Ryan both have the potential to do much more harm to the United States that Trump has been able to do with his inept attacks on the Constitution. Therefore I think we should ride out the Trump presidency and hope he is a one-term president.

 

If the House impeaches a president, there is no automatic assumption of guilt. The matter then moves to the Senate where a two-thirds vote is required to convict. In other words, impeachment is an accusation, and that accusation is then tried before the Senate with an overwhelming majority vote required to convict.

You may remember that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to federal investigators but not convicted and continued his presidency. Many Trump supporters might argue that lying is not an impeachable offense, but in Clinton's case, it was. Of course, there seem to be lower standards for Trump.

I am not writing in favor of any president, past or present. I am merely trying to point out that impeachment is an accusation. It is not a conviction. As a practical matter, the House can impeach a president or other high government official for any reason that the House itself deems sufficient. Your opinion and my opinion do not matter.

 

Mueller wanted to be the head of the FBI after Comey. So did Rosenstein. Both were rebuked and have hurt feelings.

 

Congress has no right to see DOJ documents during an ongoing investigation.

 

Why would anyone believe what Trump says ? He has no credibility.

Like this Rudy issue Trump will keep changing his tune until the majority of Americans accept his version.......... Just a Liar ....

 

Harry Truman fired Joe McCarthy? Who knew!

 

A typo/mental glitch - I meant General McArthur who wanted to drop atom bombs on China.

 

Of course it does UNLESS the PRESIDENT fights it as Executive Privilege - and even that might not fly before the SCOTUS.

 

More conservative hysterics; what solid proof can you provide here or is this just another one of your campaigns as an apologist for Trump to deflect the topic at hand???

 

The topic at hand is the basis to impeach presidents, though certainly most Democrats would claim that the basis to impeach a President should only apply to President Trump. The hysteria is from the left when pointing out the extreme hypocrisy by Democrats when pointing out any accusation against Trump is for things Democrats does 100 times more.

 

If Trump is impeached, the next Democrat in the White House will be impeached.

This is a civil war.

 

Other than the " keep your doctor " mistake Please cite some examples of Billion of your claims ? Even Trump couldn't Lie that much .....

 

Speaking of fools, what continues to amaze me is that Trump supporters continue to think that all the criticism of Trump comes from the left. They just can't bring themselves to believe that a great deal of criticism comes from conservatives and Republicans.

Conservatives and Republicans long for a stable government. The Trump administration is anything else but.

On the other hand, you have the rabble-rousing left. Is that what they are called? Don't they yell for revolution and chaos until they get what they want? For much of his political life Trump was a New York Democrat. Trump's election in 2016 reshuffled the political map with white, working-class Democrats backing him.

Trump wants liberal protectionist tariffs to protect the working-class Democrats who voted for him. His liberal tariffs are the brainchild of his Democratic economics advisor, Peter Navarro.

Are Trump fans Democrats in sheep's clothing? Hmmm!

Maybe there is a reason why conservatives and Republicans detest the Trump administration.

Mac Thornberry is the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committees. He appeared on Fox News, the Chris Wallace segment.

He toned down Trump and the White House and their self-congratulatory remarks and expectations concerning the summit with Kim.

He tore apart Trump's tariffs.

He feels strongly that Trump should not tear up the Iran nuclear deal.

Regarding the Daniels/Cohen/payment thing, Mac seemed slightly embarrassed and said Trump should just tell the truth. Wallace didn't press him on Giuliani's comments.

It was hard to find matters the Republican and Trump agreed on. I don't think there was any.

Various Fox commentators on the Trump Network have been critical of Trump. I watch Fox a lot.

 

That has always been what Trump's base wanted. I'm glad to hear you admit it.

 

You just cannot expect right wingers with their rigid and limited thinking faculties to ever reflect objectively over any issue or to employ common sense ideas to social matters.

 

If Trump is impeached for no reason, there will be revenge. The chickens will have come home to roost.

This is a war. Dems drew first blood.

 

Why don't you make it serious by listing what high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump has committed.

 

I suppose you have a list of high crimes and misdemeanors? The right has no dissolution that there are a lot of Republicans that want to see Trump fail. This is the first guy in my memory who is doing all he can to fulfill what he promised on the campaign trail. Trump is a party onto himself. When you refer to social matters that Trump rubs you the wrong way what would that incur?