All about Trump's 'impeachment'

[ExomatrixTV]

House Democrat Who Opposed Impeachment Plans To Switch To The Republican Party


Democrats Are DEFECTING And Joining Republican Party, The Most SHOCKING Impeachment Backfire:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=H4ZOOVqNo4Y

Impeachment FINALLY Flips In Trump's Favor, New Poll Shows Even DEMOCRATS Voters Starting To Oppose:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2urygr8TVq4

Impeachment FINALLY Flips In Trump's Favor, New Poll Shows Even DEMOCRATS Voters Starting To Oppose. In the latest poll from Quinnipac we see that impeachment now has majority is opposition to impeaching the president. In the past months we had seen moderate voters flip but now the dam has broken and we are starting to see even some democratic voters moving toward opposition. What has the response from Democrats been? Several Democrats vow to impeach Trump AGAIN even if they lose. They say they can impeach him several times and even impeach him again in 2020. Following the start of impeachment Trump slowly began gaining in match up polls between various Democrats showing that not only do people oppose impeachment but that they would rather vote for Trump after the fact in what may be a massive backfire on the Democrats. Democrats respond by doubling down in what may be the clearest sign of insanity.

[onawah]

If it's all just designed to be a distraction, then the Democrat puppetmasters probably don't give a rat's ass what goes down, just as long as it continues to distract from the real problems.

[ExomatrixTV]

Impeachment Continues to Lose Favor:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IrEOFAWthls

[pyrangello]

Who knows now where this entire ordeal will morph into. I've always said when attornies get involved if they throw enough stuff in the air they can resurrerect someone from the dead and make an entire legal case from a person that no longer exists. This dog and pony show went from quid pro quo to bribery to lying to Congress. The crazy dems at the top have changed the accusations so many times I have lost track and interest. This whole charade is nothing more than a smear campaign and that's all it is. Get ready for 8 years of investigations of Trump. These people in charge are nuts.

[pyrangello]

I didn't even time travel and someone sent this to me over the weekend, the insane asylum is in high gear!

December 12th, 2019
Democrats: If Trump Wins In 2020, We’ll Just Impeach Him A Second Time

By Emily Zanotti

DailyWire.com
On Thursday, Democrats began drafting articles of impeachment in the House, but despite their best efforts, it’s still unclear as to whether the full House will vote to impeach President Donald Trump, and the Senate already seems poised to resist removing Trump from office, though they have pledged to hold a trial.

Some Democrats say, though, that they aren’t worried about the outcome of the impeachment process. If the Senate doesn’t manage to remove Trump from office and, beyond that, if the American people send him back to the White House in 2020, they’ll just impeach him again. And again. And again.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) first suggested the possibility of a repeat impeachment process earlier this week, telling Buzzfeed news that he plans on pressing the issue.

“My prayer is that the Senate will take the articles seriously, that the President will be found guilty, and he’ll be removed from office, but if he isn’t, the constitution allows for additional articles of impeachment to be filed,” he said. “If the president commits impeachable offenses, the president can be impeached more than once…so if the Senate doesn’t do its job and the President commits impeachable acts, he can still be impeached, and he can be impeached for impeachable acts that he’s already perpetrated that were not a part of this impeachment.”

Green was among the first Democrats to suggest impeachment, and began his crusade almost as soon as President Donald Trump won the 2016 election, concentrating, at the time, on allegations that Trump’s campaign collaborated with Russian officials to influence the outcome of that contest. When those allegations were disproven, Green and his colleagues moved on to claims that Trump obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and to claims that Trump inked an illegal quid-pro-quo agreement with Ukrainian officials to trade foreign aid for the promise of an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Democrats, unable to compile evidence on either of those claims, have now charged the President with “abuse of power” and contempt of Congress.

But not to worry, says Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), if those charges don’t stick — or worse, if the American people return Trump to the White House in 2020 — Democrats are prepared to litigate impeachment as many times as necessary.

“There’s no such thing, really, as double jeopardy in an impeachment trial because it’s political,” TMZ’s Harvey Levin asked Bass in an interview. “Suppose he gets reelected… and you win back the Senate in a big way. If you did that, would you be inclined to take a second bite at the apple and reintroduce the exact same impeachment articles and then send it through again a second if you have a Democratic Senate on your side?”

[ExomatrixTV]

Varney on impeachment: The tide is turning and Trump is winning:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yjB-7kmU_JQ

[ExomatrixTV]

All Signs Are Pointing To Civil War—Rand Paul Warning—Proof Included!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L1ElivNx5xE

Imagine if 33 million "deplorables" of the 66 million who voted for Trump are saying enough is enough and are totally fed up!


Cold Civil War can change in to Hot Civil War if Trump was to be removed through 1 partisan means!

[mountain_jim]

Very powerful letter from Trump to Pelosi about the impeachment farce.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...rump-final.pdf

[Gracy]

Although I'm sure the letter addresses Trump's basic concerns, I don't believe he wrote it any more than I would believe any given president writes their own state of the union address.

Some parts I wholly agree with, while some other parts I see as typical politician spin and flim flam, but not for one second did I ever think that he possesses the patience, attention span, or the vocabulary and education level needed to draft such a document.

[edina]

The letter is written the way Trump talks. He probably had some lawyers and advisors go over it.

But, it SOUNDS like Trump.

I respectfully disagree with your character assessment, he does have the patience, attention span, vocabulary and education level needed to write just such a letter. And more.

People do not accomplish what he has accomplished without those qualities in place.

But, I imagine this will be one of those points in which we can agree to disagree.

Thanks again mj for sharing the Trump letter pdf.

It's history in the making.

And as I said elsewhere, matters are moving fast now.

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)
The letter is written the way Trump talks. He probably had some lawyers and advisors go over it.

But, it SOUNDS like Trump.

Ha! Not surprisingly Edina, I got the exact opposite impression, that he was advised it would be a good PR move (aimed mostly at his base) to have his lawyers and advisors draft such a dissenting letter, have it convey his basic sentiments, and loosely composed to give the general impression it was penned by him with the help of spell check.

Posted by edina (here)
I respectfully disagree with your character assessment, he does have the patience, attention span, vocabulary and education level needed to write just such a letter. And more.

Well, that wasn't a character assessment, that was simply comparing this letter to the history of his daily twitter feed. If there are other examples of the president's penmanship then I welcome them, or even one. I would gladly stand corrected if such example came from before he had easy access to professional speech writers.

This is what I don't understand though. Why is it so widely accepted that presidents have speech writers, but it's almost considered outlandish that a president might have a letter writer, especially during such a pivotal point in U.S. history.

Posted by edina (here)
People do not accomplish what he has accomplished without those qualities in place.

Now this is where my character assessment may come more into play. It would be a real stretch to say that Trump never had the assistance of organized crime for his endeavors in the NYC area.

Actually, I'm not even sure how much character really had to do with things if one wanted to be a Mr. Big Man in building casinos and such, more just a way that this is what needs to be done, the connections needed to do business at that level.

Posted by edina (here)
But, I imagine this will be one of those points in which we can agree to disagree.

Sure, but you know what Edina? Our bits of conversation here and there have always been mutually respectful, regardless of the mutual disagreements, and I also like your style!

[edina]

Too funny Gracy...

Your opinion is well entrenched.

I have no desire to change it.

I'm comfortable with my own opinion.

Just curious, have you watched the Doug Wead interview regarding his biography about Trump?

[T Smith]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Although I'm sure the letter addresses Trump's basic concerns, I don't believe he wrote it any more than I would believe any given president writes their own state of the union address.

Some parts I wholly agree with, while some other parts I see as typical politician spin and flim flam, but not for one second did I ever think that he possesses the patience, attention span, or the vocabulary and education level needed to draft such a document.

I thought the language actually sounded like his vernacular. Of course a good writer could weave Trumpisms and common vernacular into the letter, so that point hardly proves anything.

But on the point of having the vocabulary and education needed to draft the document, it was hardly a literary tour de force... In my view there was nothing erudite or spectacular about the verbiage. My guess is he did write the letter and it was heavily polished and edited by a staffer.

[James]

This impeachment trial has become an ALL CAPS LOCK!!!!! sort of event, from both sides, sadly. It's sort of the culmination of two burly dogs that have spent a whole year barking at each other from behind their respective fences, only now, to have the fence between them break.

The dogs are running toward each other - spitting, barking, and growling like they're the most rightest dog to ever walk the boulevard. And that may be the pity, because under any other circumstance, the dogs would have gotten along charmingly. They have so much more in common than they do differently. If they weren't on opposing sides of the fence, they'd have had a different relationship together.

As with most things, the truth lives somewhere in the middle... Global warming, activism, economics, and of course, political theory.

Both sides have made some major missteps and shortcomings the past couple years. Some being blatant, others being more subversive, but these issues have been largely masked or put on podiums depending on the side of the fence they fell on. An impeachment will not change these or prevent further incidents from occurring.

And such a shame it is, because not only will this impeachment trial be a messy affair for both dominant U.S. parties, it will ultimately end up ineffective, and only lead to further divisiveness between all involved individuals. I admire both Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi for different reasons, and even though I may politically agree slightly more with one than the other, I still find the other to be a charitable human being. If both these folks, like the dogs, were able to start over in a field with no fences, I would have no doubt they'd see more unity than difference.

Sometimes we get caught up in the partisanship because it's designed to appeal to our beliefs, the strongest force known to man. A key step back is needed to see who is funding the partisanship, where the rhetoric is coming from, and why support is needed for ideals that should be stable on their own accord.

[edina]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Although I'm sure the letter addresses Trump's basic concerns, I don't believe he wrote it any more than I would believe any given president writes their own state of the union address.

Some parts I wholly agree with, while some other parts I see as typical politician spin and flim flam, but not for one second did I ever think that he possesses the patience, attention span, or the vocabulary and education level needed to draft such a document.

I thought the language actually sounded like his vernacular. Of course a good writer could weave Trumpisms and common vernacular into the letter, so that point hardly proves anything.

But on the point of having the vocabulary and education needed to draft the document, it was hardly a literary tour de force... In my view there was nothing erudite or spectacular about the verbiage. My guess is he did write the letter and it was heavily polished and edited by a staffer.

I agree with this, Trump talks in "plain speak".

The language of the average person on the street.

I figured he dictated it and then it went through the typical staff reviews and such.

The points raised in the letter are important though.

The way the present Impeachment is being handled is unconstitutional, and puts any future President at risk.

People seem to think it's okay because it's Trump and some people think he deserves it, or whatever.

However, the way this whole process is being handled in the House assaults not just Trump in the present, but the Office of the Presidency in the future.

Neil Gorsuch raised some interesting, and related points, in this interview with Ainsley.

Justice Neil Gorsuch in 'Fox & Friends' interview: Pay attention to 'separation of powers'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=poAT2EERAW4

[T Smith]

Posted by James (here)
This impeachment trial has become an ALL CAPS LOCK!!!!! sort of event, from both sides, sadly. It's sort of the culmination of two burly dogs that have spent a whole year barking at each other from behind their respective fences, only now, to have the fence between them break.

Poignent analogy. The question is, who put up the fence in the first place and who has been running a stick along its backside, poking at and exacerbating the anger of the dogs while they only focus is on the opposing side?

Divide and conquer has been the objective of the fence game since the beginning of time.

[Gracy]

Posted by James (here)
And such a shame it is, because not only will this impeachment trial be a messy affair for both dominant U.S. parties, it will ultimately end up ineffective, and only lead to further divisiveness between all involved individuals.

I think James, that a bit of a smoke and mirrors game is being performed for us (some might call it a spell) in magnificent fashion, designed for us to see this as left v right issue, rather than establishment v populism.

Trump drew many dissatisfied Obama voters, which the media is loathe to report, yet when examined without filters he has yet to deliver on his populist campaign message same as Obama.

The handwriting is on the wall, the movement of our times now is populism v entrenched establishment, yet neither party actually represents this movement when things come down to brass tacks.

They love to give lots of lip service to populist ideas, but we need only observe their actions as opposed to their rhetoric, and the results of such, to see more clearly whats really going on here.

[edina]

An interesting and evolving development...

Posted by edina (here)
I think there is a pattern evolving here.
Considering the letter from Trump to Pelosi, Judge Neil Gorsuch's book, and interview with Ainsley, (separation of powers) and then this:

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, when it votes to approve the articles, as the chamber is expected to do so Wednesday.

President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.

It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.

House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment.

The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution.

[Gracy]

I really don't get the haste, and apparent sloppiness, of these democrats. So far as I know anyway, the only precedent to this would be United States v. Richard Nixon, and the high court sided with congress in making him turn over the tapes. They claim going through the courts would take too long, but ffs, that's bypassing due process is it not?

Not that the witnesses who HAVE come forward anyway made much of an impact, no "bombshells" as is widely reported, but still, far as I know congress just flat out does not have the authority to make a sitting president turn over ANYTHING to them, that's what that pesky 3rd branch of government is for.

Why would they do this, am I missing something?


I see the other article of impeachment as a big fat nothing burger as well. Saying Trump was SOLELY using the power of his office trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent is disingenuous at best imo, a lot more moving parts to the Ukraine story than just Joe and Hunter Biden, but even if that WERE the case, from the tale of the transcript Trump has plausible deniability til the cows come home.


I can see why the democrats wouldn't go after the president on anything of substance like illegal wars, or enriching himself and his family through the power of his office, because they love war, power, and money too.

But then why go after him on the flimsiest of charges? The republicans should be looking toward the senate trial with slavering jaws as their chance to expose this clown show for what it is, in their turn for counter ambush, it could be a dream come true for them, but will they pull the trigger?

I'm seeing Graham and McConnell signaling they're going to squash the whole thing in fast order and be done with it. Why would they pass the opportunity of a lifetime? Headfakes? And they really ARE going to step on their necks? Or...

Or, would they smother it quickly because of their OWN skeletons in the closet that might be exposed as well?

Time will tell, but regardless of what happens, "the swamp" still looks like the swamp to this ole country gal.

[Ratszinger]

I think you hit it pretty close to the nail on the head about their own dirt potentially being scrutinized. God knows they all have some dirty laundry to hide and some of it would be career ending. So yes, haste would then be in their benefit so this whole thing is tucked under the rug and sewn down good after so as to protect their own assets.