will trump really be impeached? (1 Viewer)

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
I was in a bar today and on every local channel the trump pre-trial was on. They had it on every one of their 10 tv's in there. I seriously doubt he will be taken out. Bill Clinton was different....sex in the white house is a serious no-no. The stuff that trump is accused of doing might not be considered as serious as infidelity in the white house, but it might be close!
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,465
The question of whether he will be impeached is meaningless. The question is, will he be convicted on the articles brought forth?

On that, I think the answer is NO. Remember, the House has a Democratic majority but the Senate, which would convict or not, has a Republican majority.
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,306
As a non US citizen, I'd say that the issues in this case have far greater significance than Bill Clinton's abuse of power by sexual misdemeanours
 

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
Remember, the House has a Democratic majority but the Senate, which would convict or not, has a Republican majority.
i don't follow politics enough to know this type of stuff. All I know is that in the entire history of the US presidency, rarely has their been an occasion such that there have been 2 presidents hold the office, back to back, that have been from the same party. Usually it goes Elephant, Donkey, Elephant, Donkey, and on and on...
 

Micron

AWF VIP
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
1,713
Bill Clinton was different....sex in the white house is a serious no-no.
OK, so where do Mr and Mrs President do "it"? OK kidding aside, different how? Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, not because of what he did with ML. I'm not even a Yank yet I knew that just from watching TV.
 

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, not because of what he did with ML.
how did they find out about that? I didn't follow that coverage very much. Did someone come forward with evidence that he was lying, or was it just implied through many accusations?
 

Micron

AWF VIP
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
1,713
There was a harassment charge by some woman against BC. Perhaps she worked in the WH, I don't recall. At any rate one thing led to another and BC was questioned under oath about Monica. Remember "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman."? Then what would you call what ML did for you, Bill? I seem to recall the vote on obstruction was 50-50 and the vote on lying was slightly more in his favour, so he got off on both charges. I don't recall anything about the investigation itself, but then again, given that none of it applied to me that shouldn't come as a surprise. What does surprise me is how little of what goes on in US government and the rest of the world is known or understood by my American relatives. They're not alone either (not referring to you) because I've done a few cruises, sat at tables of 8 or 10 at dinner and it's mostly the Americans who are out of touch with events, geography and the like. That's just sad. I respond with comments about crappy cold Canadian northern weather with things like "Do you realize that most of eastern Canada snow storms come from the south eastern US?" Or "Do you realize that there are at least 13 states that are entirely or at least partly north of where I live?" They think of Canada and imagine igloos and polar bears, I guess.
 

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
Remember "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman."? Then what would you call what ML did for you, Bill?
Of course, that's infamous.

I seem to recall the vote on obstruction was 50-50 and the vote on lying was slightly more in his favour, so he got off on both charges.
Isn't a part of the impeachment process such that a president doesn't necessarily lose his job if he's impeached? I thought BC *was* actually impeached but still kept his job until he handed it to Bush?

it's mostly the Americans who are out of touch with events, geography and the like.
do you know how texans view the usa? maybe your relatives are texans?
 

Attachments

Micron

AWF VIP
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
1,713
Yes he was, and I never meant to imply that he wasn't. However, when Congress votes to impeach, the Senate has to ratify it (vote on it). That's why DT has nothing to worry about but don't get me started on that. Pardon my question, but isn't this stuff that you should know?
Then I saw the pic and that explains it. Funny!!
 

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
Pardon my question, but isn't this stuff that you should know?
Well I spose, but I don't follow politics too much. I keep up with the news only cuz there are rare occasions when something might affect my life that i'll be interested in. But to me, politics is just like organized religion...the world would be better off without it.

I'm a pro business and free market guy and I love living in a free country where the place pretty much runs itself, so you could call me a republican, but my image is that of a centrist cuz I'm always the person that compromises the two sides that are arguing.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,465
Adam, your position is exactly what is wrong with this country. (Let me explain so you know it isn't a dig against you.)

You and I are willing to compromise, to sit in the middle and come to a centrist position. However, the extreme polarization that has hit this country has left us here in the middle, WILLING to compromise, with no viable candidates. A LOT of people would be in the middle - but there are no candidates there. The two-party system we have developed is useless when compromise is on the line. And the Democrats have stonewalled so much on so many issues that, though some things HAVE been done, the Dems have wasted a ton of time and effort trying to get DJT out.

That polarization was what was wrong with the Hillary/Donald showdown. DJT was no bouquet of roses, but HRC was so extremely bad because of her past political statements and actions that she was totally untenable to me. She was in the pocket of "Big Pharma" because her health care would have literally POURED government money into prescriptions. She screwed the pooch with the way she handled Benghazi as Secretary of State, and that private e-mail server violated not less than two major laws and might have violated a third one, or a second provision of one of the two major laws. (Not sure on the fine points.)

I had to vote by holding my nose with one hand while I pressed the selection buttons with the other. I truly voted for what I thought at the time (and still do, for that matter) was the lesser of two evils.

Anyway, here's clarification for anyone reading this who didn't know it. In Congress, the House defines "Articles of Impeachment" (essentially, charges such as a grand jury might file). The Senate then acts as the jury by reviewing the evidence and voting to either convict or acquit the President on each article. If POTUS is convicted on even one of the articles, he's out. Otherwise, he remains in office.

Now, about WJC (the former prez) not having sex with Monica? Well, one thing that came out is that he wasted some really good cigars in an activity that I think would have made them unsmokeable. But I guess Bill just made the evidence go up in smoke.
 

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
Adam, your position is exactly what is wrong with this country.
I didn't read anything in your words as evidence that my position is wrong. Point me in the right direction here sir, cuz I'm lost. R u saying the fact that i don't pay much attention is a common problem among voters?

the extreme polarization that has hit this country has left us here in the middle, WILLING to compromise, with no viable candidates. A LOT of people would be in the middle - but there are no candidates there.
polarization has always been a problem Richard. It may not have been as extreme in the past as it is today, but do you seriously doubt what I'm saying here?

I truly voted for what I thought at the time (and still do, for that matter) was the lesser of two evils.
It's ALWAYS the lesser of 2 evils! Every politician has some undesirable qualities about them.

one thing that came out is that he wasted some really good cigars in an activity that I think would have made them unsmokeable. But I guess Bill just made the evidence go up in smoke.
that's pretty good! I'll have to remember it. :p
 
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
1,386
Re: will trump really be impeached? It depends on the newly elected democrat's in swing states, and how the independents feel about the house evidence.

Will hearsay testimony be enough to sway those folks? Some Democrat's are vulnerable to losing their seats. It will be interesting to watch.
 

NauticalGent

Pristine Curmudgeon
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
2,377
Yes he was, and I never meant to imply that he wasn't. However, when Congress votes to impeach, the Senate has to ratify it (vote on it). That's why DT has nothing to worry about but don't get me started on that. Pardon my question, but isn't this stuff that you should know?
Then I saw the pic and that explains it. Funny!!
It is a shame a Canuck knows more about the process than the average US citizen...
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,465
Adam, my thrust was that here we are, reasonable people (more or less), hoping that Congress can get over itself and get down work on substantive issues, but there is nobody in Congress who seems to represent our position. That's wrong with your position in the middle. It is reasonable, and the current political morass doesn't support it. Here we are, voices crying out in the wilderness, and nobody in power is listening.

I'm all for a radical change. Time for congressional term limits.
 

vba_php

Banned
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,974
Time for congressional term limits.
there aren't any? I guess I remember many senators serving for a long time, but I always thot there was some sort of limits on them whatever it may be.

Coincidentally, I have a good friend who lives in Tambov Russia, and she tells me that Putin has been in power for 20 years. No presidential term limits over there either apparently. It's time for that idiot to step down and let some new blood in with a new prospective. Perhaps one that is less "Stalin" like!
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,788
The impeachment circus is a case of mass hysteria by the Democrats. The Democrats control the US House of Representatives, consequently they have the votes to impeach. No question. (Note - that an impeachment vote in the US House of Representatives does not remove the President from office.)

We also need to consider that this impeachment effort is the THIRD attempt that the Democrats have cooked-up as an impeachment narrative. If fact, the Democratic impeachment narrative took form around the time that Trump was inaugurated. See the Jan. 20, 2017 citation below.
The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun

Even the lawyers for the so-called whistle blower were on the impeachment hysteria band wagon in 2017. Which adds credibility that the impeachment effort has been orchestrated from the beginning. That means that the Democrats are attempting to impeach for crimes that have not yet occurred!!!
'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment

In closing. The Democrats assert that they want to protect the US Democratic process. If true, they would be calling for the removal of Trump through the voting process in the 2020 election. Not through impeachment.

Note the remarks by Rep. Al Green, a Democratic member of Congress.
The Constitutional crisis is the attempt by Congress to oust the duly elected President. The people elected Trump, if the people do not want Trump they should elect someone else to be President. Congress does not have the right to overturn the will-of-the-people as demonstrated by their election of Trump.

PS: The Democrats are implementing the quote by Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” . This is the third attempt by Democrats to somehow desperately manufacture a crime.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,788
The President of the US Determines US Foreign Policy

The first impeachment hearing featured William Taylor and George Kent. Both US diplomats. Much of the news media, reporting on their testimony, made claims that their respective testimonies documented that Trump was undermining long-standing US foreign policy.

Additionally, claims were made that: "Diplomats said Giuliani-led effort interfered with U.S. policy".

The media making these claims is generating pro-Democratic party propaganda. This furthers the belief that the impeachment hearings are nothing more than a "kangaroo court".

  1. The President of the US determines US foreign policy. It is the job of the diplomats to carry-out the foreign policy established by the President. The President is free to change US policy, whether it is long standing or not. Obama negotiated with Iran and Cuba. If the diplomats do not agree with the President's foreign policy, they should resign, not obstruct.
  2. Many Presidents have used private citizens, like Giuliani, to carry-out back-channel operations. "Giuliani-Style 'Shadow' Diplomacy: Par for the Course for U.S. Presidents".
  3. Then there is the concept of Executive Privilege. Much of what the Democrats have been demanding under the deceitful assertion of "oversight" , such as a phone transcript between Trump and Zelensky should really be considered "protected" and not subject to Congressional review. Trump turned-over that transcript. Now, what leaders would be willing to discuss sensitive issues with the US President if they can be whimsically made public?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom