Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Teallaura]

You would think liberal voters would be furious at the Democrat party for so badly botching this whole affair and all but guaranteeing that Trump won't be leaving office until January 2025.

They will be when they realize.

[Teallaura]

How she votes is NOT her opinion and hers alone. She is a REPRESENTATIVE of the people and should do her job. Being pressured to vote a certain way is what she was elected to do.

Okay I fully agree that this is a ridiculous dodge for an elected representative but the fact is that it's both. We elect expecting the representative to try to keep their platform and promises. But we also expect them to use their own judgment on the multitude of issues that make little or no noise in the press.

It's none of your business is never the right answer to a constituent asking about an issue that the representative is going to be voting on.

[JimL]

There was no way the Democrats were not going to impeach. That's exactly what I've been saying all along --- this whole sham is entirely political.

That's not true, Nancy Pelosi argued against impeachment right up until the Ukraine extortion scheme became known. Only then did she realize she no longer had a choice. What you've been saying all along has been wrong, and no it is not entirely political. The only reason you say it's entirely political is because you have a biased (red team) perspective that you can't overcome regardless of the facts.

[JimL]

Jim, everything that Schiff and Nadler did was coordinated with Moscow Nancy --- and this all started 2 years BEFORE the impeachment hearings.

And you can't figure out what the difference is?

It was all rigged ahead of time - no chance that there would NOT be an impeachment - it was a sham from start to finish. The ONLY thing bipartisan about it was two democrats joining the Republicans in recognizing this for the kangaroo court it was.

CP, you're just parroting the talking points. How was it rigged, in what sense was it a sham? And the court/trial hasn't yet begun. The sham is going to be that trial according to Moscow Mitch himself, who intends to ignore the constitution, ignore the oath to it, and to his responsibility as a juror, and try to rig the process to insure the subject who he is supposed to be impartialy judging is aquitted.

[JimL]

What are you talking about? They have the transcripts from the secret hearings (or at least the portions Shifty Schiff has seen fit to release), they know what was testified to publicly, they've read the articles of impeachment. It's not like the Senate is going into this blind. The entire Democrat case is a matter of public record, and the Senate knows as well as you and I that there is no substance to it. An immediate vote to acquit is the only just thing to do.

The republicans felt the same way after articles were filed, prior to the Senate trial against Nixon. How'd that turn out?

[Teallaura]

The republicans felt the same way after articles were filed, prior to the Senate trial against Nixon. How'd that turn out?

You're getting your history mixed up. There was no floor vote on the articles of impeachment against Nixon - hence, no impeachment. Since there was no impeachment, there was no Senate trial.

The impeachment inquiry was bipartisan - and Nixon was incredibly popular before the scandal broke.

Nixon resigned after the release of evidence that conclusively proved his guilt. FYI: Nixon released the evidence himself under court order.

[JimL]

You're getting your history mixed up. There was no floor vote on the articles of impeachment against Nixon - hence, no impeachment. Since there was no impeachment, there was no Senate trial.

Okay nit picker. The judiciary voted to send articles to the House for a vote.

The impeachment inquiry was bipartisan - and Nixon was incredibly popular before the scandal broke.

This bipartisan argument is nonsense. Just because you get a couple of reps to crossover is literally meaningless.

Nixon resigned after the release of evidence that conclusively proved his guilt. FYI: Nixon released the evidence himself under court order.

I know. And that evidence came out after articles were voted on in the judiciary and sent to the House. That's where we are now and republicans were just as confident of acquittal at this point in the Nixon impeachment as republicans are now, until all of a sudden......

[Tassman]

You're getting your history mixed up. There was no floor vote on the articles of impeachment against Nixon - hence, no impeachment. Since there was no impeachment, there was no Senate trial.

The impeachment inquiry was bipartisan - and Nixon was incredibly popular before the scandal broke.

Nixon resigned after the release of evidence that conclusively proved his guilt. FYI: Nixon released the evidence himself under court order.

Not quite. Nixon resigned when he lost the support of his most loyal defenders in Congress. Republican Congressional leaders met with and told Nixon that both his impeachment and his conviction were certainties.

[Cow Poke]

That's not true, Nancy Pelosi argued against impeachment right up until the Ukraine extortion scheme became known.

You need to get new talking points, Jim. The Democrats were in "let's impeach Trump" mode from Day 1 of Trump's presidency, and Pelosi has been all over the map on this.

Only then did she realize she no longer had a choice. What you've been saying all along has been wrong, and no it is not entirely political. The only reason you say it's entirely political is because you have a biased (red team) perspective that you can't overcome regardless of the facts.

I said "the Democrats" - you are hiding behind Nancy Pelosi's skirt. And, yes, it's entirely political - look at the FACTS....

• It is ONLY the Democrats on these House committees voting FOR impeachment.
• The ONLY bi-partisanship is two DEMOCRATS crossing the isle to vote with REPUBLICANS.
• The Democrats are constantly looking at POLLING and checking with FOCUS GROUPS to see how to sell this steaming pile of horsie poo.
• The DEMOCRAT controlled House will vote to impeach, but they'll probably lose another couple Democrats - possibly up to 10 - who will side with Republicans.
• Again - the ONLY bipartisanship is Democrats not going along with the entirely political sham impeachment circus.
• The REPUBLICAN controlled Senate will NEVER remove Trump, particularly with newer polling showing that Americans are NOT supporting this sham impeachment circus.
• Your colleagues were all excited about a poll that showed that 50% of Americans supported impeachment and removal, but you have to totally ignore the fact that that support has collapsed, and is trending DOWN, and you still claim that 46.5% is "half".
• The 31 Democrats "at risk" in their home districts are having a hard time deciding how to vote because of their POLITICAL risk.
• There is NOTHING about this impeachment that is NOT political.
• Schiff had to OUTRIGHT LIE about the transcript to get the ball rolling
• Nadler had strongly opposed Clinton's impeachment because it HAD to be WIDELY bipartisan both in the political realm and in the House and Senate - and there had to be OVERWHELMING evidence of actual crimes
• Pelosi had made similar speeches
• The Democrats have to keep lying about there being "overwhelming evidence" in order to try not to look like the lying hypocrites they are
• Schiff has been claiming he has a "mountain of evidence" that he's holding back - why can't the shifty little liar produce it?

I could go on and on. Which of the above facts are in error?

It's POLITICAL, Jim, regardless of the talking points in your bubble pretending it's not.

[Cow Poke]

And you can't figure out what the difference is?

I can. You can't.

CP, you're just parroting the talking points.

You're just parroting me.

[rogue06]

You need to get new talking points, Jim. The Democrats were in "let's impeach Trump" mode from Day 1 of Trump's presidency, and Pelosi has been all over the map on this.

Some actually started the day after he was elected and wouldn't be sworn in for nearly two months.

[Teallaura]

Okay nit picker. The judiciary voted to send articles to the House for a vote.

Not a nit pick - you said he had a Senate trial.

This bipartisan argument is nonsense. Just because you get a couple of reps to crossover is literally meaningless.

Not a couple - as popular as Nixon was having any is a good indicator that everyone had concerns about the evidence they had at that point.

I know. And that evidence came out after articles were voted on in the judiciary and sent to the House. That's where we are now and republicans were just as confident of acquittal at this point in the Nixon impeachment as republicans are now, until all of a sudden......

That evidence had been tied up in a court battle that Nixon lost. Nothing comparable exists this time - that the leaky Schiff retained something condemning is wildly implausible.

[Cow Poke]

Some actually started the day after he was elected and wouldn't be sworn in for nearly two months.

EGGzackly --- it was an impeachment looking for an excuse to move forward.

[Cow Poke]

Not quite. Nixon resigned when he lost the support of his most loyal defenders in Congress. Republican Congressional leaders met with and told Nixon that both his impeachment and his conviction were certainties.

Because there was an actual undeniable verifiable inexcusable documented crime.

[Mountain Man]

Because there was an actual undeniable verifiable inexcusable documented crime.

That is, of course, the significant flaw in attempts to compare Trump to Nixon. Democrats never did figure out what crime Trump is supposed to have committed, so they settled on the vague catch-all term "abuse of power". Then there's "obstruction of Congress" which isn't even a crime!

As I've said before, for all the legal weight the articles of impeachment have, they may as well have charged the President with "abuse of Congress" and "obstruction of power".