Jump to content

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

In the news, it seems the current counter argument to an impeachment is "this is a coup". I think it takes a simple majority to impeach in the House of Representatives. As easy as that is, since its fairly common to see the opposite party with the majority in the House of Representatives, impeachment articles in earnest has "only" happened twice in the last 50 years, 3 times historically. 

With the vitriol against Obama and I recall countless articles on here by Cav about impeachment articles being drawn at any time, nothing happened. As much as we hear 'war crimes', lying, etc, by Bush, Dems never drew articles of impeachment. Why? It's a political process as much as an executive branch illegal action issue and the crime and misdemeanor would have to satisfy both, even within the party. 

So, impeachment is one thing. But int his day and age, its virtually impossible for a President to be convicted of impeachment without the other party. Why? The opposition party would need 67 Senators to guarantee it and that doesn't happen much and we must take into account the articles. 

What makes the present issue particularly dangerous to Trump is that he is not popular within his own party. He would not have a unanimous vote within his own party (and to be on balance, its possible SenatorJones (D) of Alabama would vote no as well). So, whatever you think of the allegations, Trump is very vulnerable. More things, more damaging may come out and with each act, the likelihood of another Republican senator breaking ranks. Especially with the '20 election coming up. The timing couldn't be worse for Republican senators in purple states or at least a tough challenger who would assuredly use any 'no' vote against him or her. Senator Collins of Colorado for example. She is particularly vulnerable and lost some support for voting for Kavanaugh's election to the Supreme Court. 

So, the term 'coup' and applying it solely to Dems is not accurate. Yes, the Dems can get impeachment but conviction is really the possibility. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The links are all well and good but after all is said and done, the allegations if nothing else deserve investigation, especially with Trump himself basically incriminating himself. Nothing may come of it. But I think it would be hard to argue that the allegations don't deserve serious investigation.

We have to remember, the whistleblower is from the administration, the people that viewed it that eventually reported it to the point the Dems got a hold of it in Congress were ALL part of the administration, presumably Republican/conservative. No one who was listening on the call would be a Democrat. They were all chosen by this administration. So, if something has gotten various administration peoples to the point where they have used word like 'alarmed', etc, its unethical not to investigate further. This would be for any president.

To suggest as in one of the links that this present issue started with the Dems is flat out lying. It's so blatantly untrue that its' troubling its being repeated, frankly. 

So, lets have the investigation because it deserves further inspection. The allegations are serious enough to warrant a fairly wide berth to investigate. If nothing comes of it, as I said, so be it. To dismiss it out of hand as Trump's biggest supporters are advocating, is putting party/person above everything and is about as un-American as you can get. 

When the U.S. Ambassador got killed, I was fully in support of it being investigated fully. I knew the Republicans would politicize it (and I assume the reverse would be true if roles were reversed) but it an Ambassador being killed MUST be investigated fully, despite the political sideshow that resulted. 

The same for this. It MUST be investigated. 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

CS, new idea for you....RINO

Repub In Name Only

Many biased liars in the US gov today! Dept of Justice (DOJ), a sad joke that has been diluted over decades and politicized and weaponized.

How can the DOJ investigate anything in an unbiased and non-politized manner?

Answer: they cannot

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...