-85

Trump will be the first president to be removed from office, amirite?

The evidence against Trump is so overwhelming that even the GOP senate won't be able to protect him. At least not if they want to keep their jobs. Trump's abuse of power and obstruction will show Trump for the criminal he is. When Giuliani rolls over on him, and he will when Trump throws him under the bus, there will be nowhere to hide. Trump has already denied that Giuliani was working for him setting the stage for Giuliani's demise.
Republicans will continue to whine about the process and try to degrade witnesses because they can't attack the evidence which is piling up like a stack of pancakes.
That's why republican's story keeps changing and they grasp at every conspiracy theory no matter how ridiculous.
Recent polls show that more than half the country not only favors impeachment but removal from office so republicans may have little choice but to give up the ghost and cross the line.

18%Yeah You Are82%No Way
urwutuiss avatar Politics
Share
1 49

No, unfortunately, he will not be removed from office.

@dru18 No, unfortunately, he will not be removed from office.

Not only will they fail to remove him, there's an even chance that the ham-handed Dems will get Trump re-elected. Their best hope is a recession.

Image in content

@Thinkerbell Not only will they fail to remove him, there's an even chance that the ham-handed Dems will get Trump re-elected...

Actually their best hope is Bernie Sanders but he scares corporate dems as much as he scares pubs so they'll rig the primaries again.

@urwutuis Actually their best hope is Bernie Sanders but he scares corporate dems as much as he scares pubs so they'll rig...

Bernie would have done even worse against Trump than Hillary did in 2016, for precisely the reason you give: sensible Democratic voters would have wanted no part of him.

A Marxist believer named Bernie
Set out on a socialist journey,
Scaring Dems of good sense,
So they dropped their pretense
In their clumsy political tourney.

@Thinkerbell Bernie would have done even worse against Trump than Hillary did in 2016, for precisely the reason you give:...

Cute. You do understand that those political terms are not interchangeable right/
That communism is a completely different idea /
Funny that when you look at his policies an overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor.

You're drowning in socialism now. You just don't know it. You're too busy being afraid of the term.
Bernie would destroy Trump
Don't you get it/
You're being played.

@urwutuis Cute. You do understand that those political terms are not interchangeable right/ That communism is a completely...

Of course there's a difference between social democracy and communism, but Bernie's long-standing love affair with the Soviet Union and Cuba makes me doubt he is merely a social democrat. And of course he isn't going to publicly announce that he is a Marxist. That would be too much even for Burlington, VT. (didn't stop him from becoming a millionaire, however; typical Nomenklatura type) biggrin smilie

  
Image in content

  
Yep, we are already drowning in socialism, with the federal, state and local governments spending about 40% of the nation's GDP. Marvelous job they're doing with it too, say in Detroit or Baltimore. biggrin smilie

To get to where Norway or Denmark is in social democracy, we would have to put 50% of GDP in the hands of govt, and transfer military spending to social programs. Oh, wait... that's exactly what Norway did, while depending on the US for defense. And how did the Norwegians get so rich? They used to be poor. Oh, yeah... all that evil, climate-changing North Sea oil. State capitalism at its finest.  biggrin smilie biggrin smilie biggrin smilie

@urwutuis Actually their best hope is Bernie Sanders but he scares corporate dems as much as he scares pubs so they'll rig...

bernie sanders would turn america looking like Venezuella, but hey at least their are no more corporations in USA right? so its ok that every one is unemployed and at the bread line

@Anonymousmouse bernie sanders would turn america looking like Venezuella, but hey at least their are no more corporations in USA...

Here we go again,Venezuela. You should get a clue instead of parroting rw propaganda.
Did you ever think that maybe just maybe the us might be responsible for some of the issues in V

That the reason the Saudis have been over producing for the past 3 decades is to crush oil prices and the crippling sanctions might contribute just a bit/

You don't think it has anything to do with the Koch oil refinery that can only process oil from Venezuela or Canada would be trying to get somebody else into office do you/

How about more like Denmark, Finland et al.
Nope, we don't want to wake up.
we want to keep the same people in power because it's working so well.

You guys will never catch on

@dru18 No, I don't think that if he does get re-elected, it will be because of the Democrats.

Those sanctimonious hypocrites completely botched the Mueller hearings (after they and their complicit MSM fellow travelers promised for years that Mueller would get the goods on Trump), and they very likely will botch it in the Senate trial, when the thinness of their case will once again be revealed for all to see.

@Thinkerbell Those sanctimonious hypocrites completely botched the Mueller hearings (after they and their complicit MSM fellow...

Trump has been accused of obstruction in the Mueller investigation no less than ten times. A football stadium could be filled with indictments of those closest to Trump. He is by no means innocence or vindicated.

Do I think the Democrats could have handled the aftermath of the Muller investigation better?- yes. But I also know that no matter the evidence the Republicans in the Senate will do nothing to Trump- but maybe the voters in 2020 will.

@dru18 Trump has been accused of obstruction in the Mueller investigation no less than ten times. A football stadium...

"Trump has been accused of obstruction in the Mueller investigation no less than ten times."
 
An accusation isn't proof, as even the doofuses on Nadler's committee seem to understand. Otherwise, why did they not include obstruction of Mueller's investigation in their articles of impeachment? Or maybe they didn't want to do anything to remind the voting public of Mueller's bumbling performance in his 6-hour fiasco on national TV. biggrin smilie
 
"But I also know that no matter the evidence the Republicans in the Senate will do nothing to Trump-"
 
The reason they won't is that the evidence has been so weak and unconvincing that there is no political price to pay for them. Contrast that to 1974, when the special prosecutor really did  come up with the goods against Nixon. The Senate Republicans at the time said they would not support him in an impeachment trial, and so he had to resign.
 
"but maybe the voters in 2020 will."
 
Maybe, but if they don't, the Democrats will have no one to blame except themselves, because they will have muffed it again, just as they did in 2016 to give us Trump in the first place. Oh, wait... the bungling Democrats of course won't blame themselves. They'll blame Putin, the KGB and the Russians in general, just as they did then. biggrin smilie hehe smilie biggrin smilie

@Thinkerbell "Trump has been accused of obstruction in the Mueller investigation no less than ten times."   An accusation...

They will not include obstruction from the Mueller report in the effort to keep this simple. I am afraid most Americans these days are not that good in reading long and involve reports.

The evidence is there and has been all along- in the transcript, from Trump's own big mouth, the many who testified, and from that idiot Mulvaney. Do you honestly think the Democrats were going to just let that one slide?

Fifty percent of this country want him not only impeached but removed from office- that is more than Nixon had at this stage.

No matter the consequences, Trump's name will always have an * next to it.

@dru18 They will not include obstruction from the Mueller report in the effort to keep this simple. I am afraid most...

"Fifty percent of this country want him not only impeached but removed from office- that is more than Nixon had at this stage. "
 
Nonsense. The House committee recommended articles of impeachment against Nixon on July 30, 1974. A Gallup poll taken Aug 2-4 showed 58% of US adults wanted him removed, including 31% of Republicans, i.e., the bipartisanship that Nancy has been so quiet about lately. biggrin smilie
 
Image in content
 
https://news.gallup.com/poll/26...ted-nixon.aspx
 
It's only among Democrats that a higher percentage want Trump removed than wanted Nixon out.
 
As for Mueller, if he had the goods on obstruction, he could have made a recommendation to Congress, as other special counsels have done, but he didn't, obviously because his evidence was so weak.

@Thinkerbell "Fifty percent of this country want him not only impeached but removed from office- that is more than Nixon had at...

That was much later and you know it.

Can't answer for the Republicans- they seem desperate these days.

We all knew how Muller felt from the beginning, meaning that Indicting a President while he is still in office was never an option that Mueller could even contemplate.

@dru18 That was much later and you know it. Can't answer for the Republicans- they seem desperate these days. We all...

He didn't have to indict, but HE COULD have recommended what you conclude...

He did not.
Enough said.

Anonymous 0Reply
@He didn't have to indict, but HE COULD have recommended what you conclude... He did not. Enough said.

By including Trump's ten counts of obstruction and not clearing the president of any wrong doing- he basically was recommending it.

@dru18 By including Trump's ten counts of obstruction and not clearing the president of any wrong doing- he basically was...

He did NOT recommend it.
"Basically" recommending is what the media did.
But, Mueller did not.
Mueller could easily, and should have necessarily EXPLICITLY recommended it as the result of a two year investigation.

Anonymous 0Reply
@He did NOT recommend it. "Basically" recommending is what the media did. But, Mueller did not. Mueller could...

Mueller made it clear from the beginning that he would only report the facts- not make recommendations. And frankly, the facts don't bode well for Trump.

@dru18 That was much later and you know it. Can't answer for the Republicans- they seem desperate these days. We all...

"That was much later and you know it. "

That's what I love about liberals... when they make up their minds about something, they don't let plain facts get in their way. biggrin smilie hehe smilie biggrin smilie

"On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and reported those articles to the House of Representatives for a vote."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._Richard_Nixon
 
in other words, exactly where we are now with Trump.
 
The Gallup poll that I posted above was taken Aug 2-4, 1974, a few days after the committee approved articles of impeachment, NOT "much later."
 
"Indicting a President while he is still in office was never an option that Mueller could even contemplate. "
 
That's the old red herring that liberals love to offer as an excuse for the Mueller fiasco. OF COURSE Mueller wasn't going to criminally indict a sitting President; no other special counsel did either. But he COULD and SHOULD have made a recommendation to Congress for impeachment purposes if he really had the goods. That's what the others did in the Nixon and Clinton cases. The difference is that they really had the goods, whereas Mueller didn't.

@Thinkerbell "That was much later and you know it. " That's what I love about liberals... when they make up their minds about...

Sorry but the investigation on Nixon began much sooner- Hogan was the first to abandon Nixon and two weeks later Nixon resigned. Up to that point the Republicans were not abandoning Nixon.

No, it's not exactly where we are with Trump- not even close. Pelosi didn't mention a formal Impeachment Inquiry until September 24th. The Watergate investigation began in March of 73- so please stop with the comparison already.

You don't think including 10 counts of obstruction and not being able to clear the president of any wrong doings was NOT sending a message to Congress?

@dru18 Sorry but the investigation on Nixon began much sooner- Hogan was the first to abandon Nixon and two weeks later...

"Sorry but the investigation on Nixon began much sooner-"
 
Yet more nonsense on your part. The special counsel, Archibald Cox, was appointed in May of '73, articles of impeachment were drafted by the House committee in July of '74, and Nixon resigned in August of '74, a little over a year after Cox was appointed, and a little over 2 years since the Watergate breakin itself in '72.
 
In Trump's case, Mueller was appointed in May of '17, the House committee drew up articles of impeachment in Dec of '19, over TWO YEARS later, and over THREE YEARS since the putative "collusion" in Nov of '16, so the Trump investigation has been in the public eye MUCH LONGER than the Nixon investigation ever was.
 
"Hogan was the first to abandon Nixon and two weeks later Nixon resigned. Up to that point the Republicans were not abandoning Nixon. "
 
Now you're trying to bait and switch... the discussion was about how many voters in the GENERAL PUBLIC favor/favored removal. As the table I posted above shows, the percentage for removal when impeachment articles were drawn up was considerably higher in Nixon's case than in Trump's, including a LOT more republicans.
 
"You don't think including 10 counts of obstruction and not being able to clear the president of any wrong doings was NOT sending a message to Congress?"
 
Now you're tripping over your double negatives. hehe smilie Yes, I DO think Mueller was NOT sending a message to Congress; his case was too weak, so he punted, and made a total fool of himself in his public testimony on TV, much to CNN's consternation. biggrin smilie biggrin smilie biggrin smilie

@Thinkerbell "Sorry but the investigation on Nixon began much sooner-"   Yet more nonsense on your part. The special counsel...

"The special counsel, Archibald Cox, was appointed in May of '73, articles of impeachment were drafted by the House committee in July of '74, and Nixon resigned in August of '74, a little over a year after Cox was appointed, and a little over 2 years since the Watergate breakin itself in '72."

Yeah, I basically said that, now what's your point?

Let me ask you- how long did Watergate go on as opposed to what is going on with Trump now? And the numbers for impeachment for both presidents are about the same- with Trump's coming in much earlier in the game than Nixon's. Understand?

I think Mueller was definitely sending a message to Congress when he failed to clear Trump. Glad we got that straighten out.

@dru18 "The special counsel, Archibald Cox, was appointed in May of '73, articles of impeachment were drafted by the House...

"Yeah, I basically said that, now what's your point?"
 
Since you missed (or pretended to have missed) the point, I'll repeat what I wrote above:
 
In Trump's case, Mueller was appointed in May of '17, the House committee drew up articles of impeachment in Dec of '19, over TWO YEARS later, and over THREE YEARS since the putative "collusion" in Nov of '16, so the Trump investigation has been in the public eye MUCH LONGER than the Nixon investigation ever was.
 
Now I know you are not good with numbers, but make an effort — think HARD — Three years is longer than two years, and two years is longer than one year, so the Trump investigation has been in the public eye MUCH longer than the Nixon investigation ever was, and yet the polling numbers show significantly FEWER people want Trump removed than wanted Nixon removed, contrary to the nonsense you posted several comments back.  
 
"I think Mueller was definitely sending a message to Congress when he failed to clear Trump."
 
Unfortunately for your thought, even Nadler's kangaroo committee couldn't bring itself to cite obstruction of the Mueller investigation as an article of impeachment. And collusion/conspiracy? Never even came up; hasn't been mentioned since the Mueller TV fiasco. So the "message" you think Mueller sent to Congress made an impression of... zilch. biggrin smilie biggrin smilie biggrin smilie

@Thinkerbell "Yeah, I basically said that, now what's your point?"   Since you missed (or pretended to have missed) the...

Okay, now you are trying to combine things out of sheer desperation. I know it's hard to keep up with every illegal and creepy act that is committed by Trump- but please try.

For example, Pelosi and Schiff both refrained from saying anything about impeachment until Trump got caught blackmailing the head of Ukraine, so I have no idea why you are bringing Mueller into any of this.

LOL! The Impeachment has nothing to do with the Mueller Report- so keep quoting two years all you want.

@dru18 Okay, now you are trying to combine things out of sheer desperation. I know it's hard to keep up with every illegal...

"For example, Pelosi and Schiff both refrained from saying anything about impeachment until Trump got caught blackmailing the head of Ukraine, so I have no idea why you are bringing Mueller into any of this. "
 
Of course they refrained from saying it publicly. Mueller gave them ZILCH  to impeach on, much to their (and CNN's) bitter disappointment, especially since Schiff and the MSM had been very publicly assuring us for years that Mueller would deliver the goods they needed. biggrin smilie
 
"LOL! The Impeachment has nothing to do with the Mueller Report- so keep quoting two years all you want. "
 
Of course it has nothing to do with the Mueller report... the Mueller report fell on its face, despite the "message" you imagine Mueller sent to Congress. biggrin smilie
And BTW, explain to Nancy that the move for impeachment hasn't been going on for years. She seems not to have gotten your memo. biggrin smilie hehe smilie biggrin smilie
 
YouTube video thumbnail

@dru18 Okay, now you are trying to combine things out of sheer desperation. I know it's hard to keep up with every illegal...

"LOL! The Impeachment has nothing to do with the Mueller Report- so keep quoting two years all you want.

Better let Schiff know that...hehe smilie.

Anonymous 0Reply

There are many backward, ignorant, gun totin' 'muricans who will get some angered if their golden haired boy is forced out. Be careful what ya wish fer

Anonymous +2Reply

I disagree but not because I love Trump, quite the opposite unfortunately.

Anonymous +1Reply

No....Get over it, because he is going to be re-elected even if impeached.

Anonymous +1Reply

After that happens you can spend your time getting mike pence impeached

living in a dreamworld are we? hows life focusing on trump like he actually affects you personally? time to put on some big boy pants i think

@you sure don't whine much do you? bah hah hah hah. #magasnowflake.

i didn;t cry on the streets because trump won. #democratsnowlfake who has no idea #howtousethetermsnoflake lol

im not crying or whinning, im not getting my pants all tied in a bunch because trump wins or looses, i won;t either in 2020 if he looses, not gonna cry.

can;t wait to see you liberals cry and become more violent though, will need much more popcorn

@Thinkerbell

you ever get tired watching yourself scream? 2020 hasn't even happened yet but get ready.

Anonymous 0Reply
@you ever get tired watching yourself scream? 2020 hasn't even happened yet but get ready.

There's at least a 50-50 chance she'll scream again in 2020.
 
The bumbling Democrats are doing their best to make it happen. biggrin smilie

Anonymous