Will we impeach him this time?

The majority will never tolerate so-called Libertarians promoting the use of the electoral college to suppress the will of the majority. Libertarians are dead in the water, without the republican party for them to whip up into a frenzy. There is no fucking way either the democrats or even Fox News will tolerate anymore nonsense. Not after Donald Duck, they will scream and yell for blood just as they are doing right now.

 

The electoral college is often used to suppress the will of the majority, and they do little more than grumble. Why should it be different now? As for the Libertarians, they may be dead in the water, but the Republican Party has little or nothing to do with it. The major Libertarian think tanks, the Cato Institute and the Mises Institute, are critics of the Donald's policies on immigration, trade, government spending, and the national debt. Trump's Road to Socialism | Tho Bishop Trump's "Salute to America" Is a Salute to Government Employees | Ryan McMaken Donald Trump, the Profligate President Bloomberg https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

 

The republican party is already divided, while Donald Duck is being impeached for attempting to throw our elections. How easy it would be bribe the electoral college remains to be seen, but that's all it takes at this point, and Libertarians have already proven to be corrupt and will be the target of Homeland Security for years to come. Either we have a two party system or we don't and, if we don't, it means civil fucking war and Libertarians will get their just rewards in Libertarian Paradise.

 

Corret, Mueller & Co did not make a determination about obstruction, although if they had confidence it did not occur, they would have said so. My recollection is they considered such a determination beyond their mandate. I also vaguely recall testimony that Trump had told people to do things that, had they been done, might have constituted obstruction of justice. That, I think, is nowhere close to "clear obstruction", which is what I objected to in Meliai's comment- I think she mis-represented the matter. People like her (quite reasonably) hold Trump to a standard of fair play that he often fails to meet, and then go their own merry way ignoring that standard.

I submit that the US government has far more important matters to attend to than impeaching President Trump. I consider it political theater for the Democrats, Pelosi doesn't seem anxious to go through with it .... she just wants to keep the kettle simmering. I think that is a lousy way to wield power.

 

What will it take? It’s painfully obvious that DT does not care about this nations best interests. Nancy Pelosi was right on when she told DT all roads lead to Putin. Does anyone need more evidence that DT doesn’t give a shit about our military people after the debacle in Syria?

 

The idea of bribing the electoral college is obviously beyond the pale. In a majority of the states electors are pledged to one party or another, and which ones from a given state participate in electing the President is essentially decided by the national election. So-called "faithless electors" can, and have, defected from the candidate whose party carried their state, but they usually have voted for some third party candidate or a write-in, not the candidate for the other party. None of the defections has ever made a difference in the outcome of the election. The first faithless elector, a Pennsylvania Federalist, voted in 1796 for Jefferson rather than for Adams. Since then, faithless electors voted for John Quincy Adams instead of Monroe, Strom Thurmond. instead of Truman, a local judge instead of Stevenson, and Harry Byrd and George Wallace instead of Nixon. Money or other material incentives have never been offered, to anybody's knowledge. If defection of electors did change the outcome and money seemed to be involved, we'd obviously have a major constitutional crisis on our hands.

 

"The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove"

Doesn't sound like you guys are impeaching anybody. But hey, maybe they'll give you a participation award.

 

Looks like the impeachment will have to put on a hold for a day while we mourn the loss of Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings,
The Chair of House Oversight and Reform Committee, who has died at the age of 68 – RIP Brother

You were also a great advocate for civil-rights

 

I very much question your claim, but I'm not enough of a legal expert to pass judgment. However, you analogy is a rather tortured one- state law regarding murder as opposed to "high crimes and misdemeanors"? You seem to overlook the fact that in Manson's case, actual murders did occur. In Trump's situation, the things he wanted done, didn't happen. Slight difference, I would say.

 

Oh
My
God

Still with the you dont have to commit a crime to be impeached argument

Still beating that tired old dead horse

 

So its been 4 weeks of blah blah blah

Looking more likely its not going to happen

 

No one is going to tolerate removing a President unless a serious crime is committed. No one gives a shit if its technically true

 

If he is impeached as a symbolic measure in the House, I wonder what that does to his ability to be re-elected. He'd probably still get votes, but I don't know if he can then legally go on to continue his presidency.

 

Of course he'll get votes--from the same people that voted for him before. Once people have committed heart and soul to a cult, whatever the cult stands for---it's not in the cards for them to reverse their heartfelt conviction regardless of transgressions. Down the line, it will be almost impossible to find anyone that will admit to having voted for this shameless prick.

 

Withholding aid appropriated by Congress for the defense of an ally under attack by an enemy nation unless said ally provides dirt on political opponents is a serious crime. Only a morally obtuse gorilla would think otherwise. It's extortion and an election law violation. Compare that to Bill Clinton's lie about Monica's blowjob, or Hillary's alleged offenses with her email server, for which the Republican war chant was "Lock her up!" Apparently , lots of Republicans were willing to tolerate that. A bunch of rotten hypocrites! Or compare it to charges against Andrew Johnson, the first President to be impeached. One article charged him with making speeches "with intent to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States". Another with "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions". Trump's actions toward the end of last week should support both of those charges. Obstruction of Justice was the first Article of Impeachment against Nixon. Trump's actions in falsely claiming executive privilege to block co-operation of present and past executive branch officials from testifying should make that a slam dunk, especially in light of documentation by the Mueller report. Not to mention the emoluments clause violations. And it shouldn't take a Harvard Law graduate to realize that people can be, and are regularly, convicted of inchoate crimes like attempt and conspiracy, not to mention acts carried out by agents.

Meagain is right that there's no settled law about what qualifies as a "misdemeanor" under the Constitution. Ford said it was anything a majority of the House says it it, Nixon said it had to be an indictable crime. Whatever. Trump is guilty either way. Unless more comes out, the Senate will not convict, but that has mostly to do with politics, cowardice and moral depravity, not law.

 

The House is set to vote on the impeachment inquiry.

House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures after weeks of GOP attacks