The release of Flynn's sentencing memo is tomorrow.

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #16
So you think Congress has the power to remove a sitting president?

You must have skipped civics apparently.

Impeachment involves both houses. And requires a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate.

Congress wont impeach, they know the optics of doing that leading up to a the 2020 election will be bad.

Given what little information could be gleaned from Mueller's report today, the optics could also make the Congressional Republicans appear to be shielding a known felon (aka, unindicted co-conspirator) which will most certainly not help them in 2020. I believe that, as happened with Nixon, there is a point at which the evidence against Trump will be so compelling that the Republican Congressional leaders who have a conscience will go to Trump and tell him that he has two choices--resign or be impeached and removed from office. There are Republicans with standards (just as there are Democrats I wouldn't trust to take out my garbage). (I do not include the chinless and spineless wonder, Mitch McConnell, in the "with standards" group.) And, remember that as the Democrats hold 48 of the Senate seats, and the Republicans hold 52 (the numbers keep changing thanks to cases of election malfeasance), they only need 12 Republicans to change their minds on the subject. Murkowski, and Collins come to mind as early possibilities. Even if they didn't get to 60 votes for, the political damage would be such that Trump would almost have to resign.

I do not think it will go as far as actual impeachment--neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want it to go that far. It's never gone that far in our history. Two Presidents have been indicted, but neither was convicted by the Senate. However, it will take a stern "talking to" to get Trump to put down his cheeseburger long enough to listen and understand.
 
Last edited:
Given what little information could be gleaned from Mueller's report today, the optics could also make the Congressional Republicans appear to be shielding a known felon (aka, unindicted co-conspirator) which will most certainly not help them in 2020. I believe that, as happened with Nixon, there is a point at which the evidence against Trump will be so compelling that the Republican Congressional leaders who have a conscience will go to Trump and tell him that he has two choices--resign or be impeached and removed from office. There are Republicans with standards (just as there are Democrats I wouldn't trust to take out my garbage). (I do not include the chinless and spineless wonder, Mitch McConnell, in the "with standards" group.) And, remember that as the Democrats hold 48 of the Senate seats, and the Republicans hold 52 (the numbers keep changing thanks to cases of election malfeasance), they only need 12 Republicans to change their minds on the subject. Murkowski, and Collins come to mind as early possibilities. Even if they didn't get to 60 votes for, the political damage would be such that Trump would almost have to resign.

I do not think it will go as far as actual impeachment--neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want it to go that far. It's never gone that far in our history. Two Presidents have been indicted, but neither was convicted by the Senate. However, it will take a stern "talking to" to get Trump to put down his cheeseburger long enough to listen and understand.

Ok Mika, you go with that fantasy of yours.
 
I remember that, that was how President Clinton stayed in office. I do think however, should President Trump be found guilty of a Treasonous offence (as opposed to a sexual encounter), then I believe that, that would cause Mr Trump much more of a problem in a reelection try in 2020. Again, with a Republican controlled Senate, i doubt he would be removed from office.

You and Jim make a cut couple. Just like Joe and Mika.
 
Trump is his own worse enemy.
Huge liar and just can't shut up.
He will face retribution through his own ignorant/arrogant tweets.
Too bad...So sad...:eek:

Retribution? You do know that he’s packing stadiums wherever he goes, so the angst you feel is limited to those on the left. As long as he has a solid base then he isn’t going anywhere. And the republicans who buck that will suffer.
 
Retribution? You do know that he’s packing stadiums wherever he goes, so the angst you feel is limited to those on the left. As long as he has a solid base then he isn’t going anywhere. And the republicans who buck that will suffer.
He only goes where he has a strong base.
Come here to KommieFornia and see what happens.
Did you pay attention to the midterms?
:)
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #24
He only goes where he has a strong base.
Come here to KommieFornia and see what happens.
Did you pay attention to the midterms?
:)
I was wondering the same thing. Evidently a packed stadium does not necessarily promise a lead at the polls. (Let's remember that approx. 50% of the candidates for whom the Donald campaigned LOST.) Though I notice on the news that during these rallies the camera never pans the room/stadium/used car garage wherever they are meeting with the Donald. I wonder if he insists that the camera stay on him in case there are empty spots in the audience--you know...like that largest crowd ever to witness an Inauguration with all that empty space on the grounds.
 
Last edited:
He only goes where he has a strong base.
Come here to KommieFornia and see what happens.
Did you pay attention to the midterms?
:)
What about the midterms? You stroking yourself over a supposed blue wave?

Pro tip: It wasn’t.

Lets look at the raw stats for presidents first midterms. Trump vs your liberal darlings.

Trump first Midterms 2018
House D+40
Senate R+2
(House Flipped to D)

Obama first Midterm 2010
House R+60
Senate R+10
(House Flipped to R)

Clinton First Midterm 1994
House R+54
Senate R+4
(Both Flipped to R)

So you can now see how Trump fared far better then both Obama and Clinton.

In fact Obama's loss was the biggest Midterm House Losses Since WWII:
Obama (-63), Truman (-55), Clinton (-54)
 
What about the midterms? You stroking yourself over a supposed blue wave?

Pro tip: It wasn’t.
Great, another pro.
LaughingPig.gif
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #29
Being named an unindicted co-conspirator is not exactly fake news. Some might say it constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors." Get your mother to explain that term to you since Faux news never mentions it.
 
Being named an unindicted co-conspirator is not exactly fake news. Some might say it constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors." Get your mother to explain that term to you since Faux news never mentions it.

Speaking of circle jerk and look who appears.

It’s morning Mika!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top