Trump faces two deadlines as U.S. Congress ramps up impeachment focus

[joecoolfrog 4,640]

13 minutes ago, UncleFesterNightmare said:

I have to say, that if the above is the quote I requested, it is sorely lacking.

Google is your friend.

[Silurian 3,730]

15 hours ago, webfact said:

If the House impeaches Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate would hold a trial to determine whether he should be removed from office. Senate Republicans have shown little appetite for removing Trump.

 

Of course the Republican Senate won't remove the Reality TV Con Man from office. They have no choice if they want to keep a Republican in the White House. Removing Donald now pretty much guarantees that a Democrat will be elected President. Pence has no chance of winning much less any other potential Republican candidate. 

 

The Republicans best shot is to hold steady, weather the impeachment storm and not vote for removal from office. This way, they stay in power and hope that Donald wins re-election.

 

Now, if Donald wins the 2020 election all bets are off. The Senate Republicans just might toss Donald under the bus since he can only serve two terms and then they will amazingly show a new found understanding of law and order. I wouldn't put it past them to remove Donald from office in his second term to try to salvage some of their reputation. 

 

[WalkingOrders 3,152]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

Correct and it is Trump being impeached , not Biden or anybody else.

A little bit of trivia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

[UncleFesterNightmare 47]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

Correct and it is Trump being impeached , not Biden or anybody else.

Anyone can be impeached.  

 

Can he be convicted?  Get out your crying towels now.

[Longcut 1,527]

4 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

Seems many people do not know how it works:  Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. federal government. (Various state constitutions include similar measures, allowing the state legislature to impeach the governor or other officials of the state government.) In contrast to the British system, in the United States impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction during the second stage requires "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present".

The House recommends impeachment (lays charges) - the Senate conducts the trial into guilt or innocence.

Clinton was charged with impeachment by the House (members of both Parties), but not enough Senators (both Parties) voted in favour after the Senate trial, and the charge of Impeachment was therefore dismissed.

No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. Richard Nixon  arguably came the closest, but he resigned midway through the impeachment process.

The only way for Congress to remove a sitting president is to find him or her guilty during a Senate trial. In that trial, which comes after the House votes to approve articles of impeachment, the Chief Justice of the United States presides and the 100 members of the Senate serve as the jury. A full two-thirds of the Senate jurors present needs to vote “guilty” for a president to be convicted.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Longcut

[UncleFesterNightmare 47]

2 minutes ago, Longcut said:

No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. Richard Nixon  arguably came the closest, but he resigned midway through the impeachment process.

The only way for Congress to remove a sitting president is to find him or her guilty during a Senate trial. In that trial, which comes after the House votes to approve articles of impeachment, the Chief Justice of the United States presides and the 100 members of the Senate serve as the jury. A full two-thirds of the Senate jurors present needs to vote “guilty” for a president to be convicted.

Yes, and with a proper jury and a trial, comes the most feared word of the left:

 

DISCOVERY

 

I'm looking forward to it.

[candide 10,103]

2 hours ago, muzley said:

Interview conducted by Time magazine with Ukranian president from 2 days ago.

 

During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

 

https://time.com/5742108/ukraine-zelensky-interview-trump-putin-europe/

It's not said under oath. If it's true, why is it that Trump doesn't send his minions Pompeo, Mulvaney and Giuliani to testify under oath and definitely confirm it?

[joecoolfrog 4,640]

3 hours ago, UncleFesterNightmare said:

Anyone can be impeached.  

 

Can he be convicted?  Get out your crying towels now.

I doubt that many here expect a conviction at the Senate , but you know that anyway.

Its the perception of swing voters that matters and their opinion is running just one way at the moment.

[BestB 12,592]

Just now, candide said:

Come on, let's be a bit serious. The cost of the impeachment procedure is peanuts compared to the increased budget deficit by Trump.

So in other words its ok to waste money when you already do not have any money? funny how you make it sound as if its Trump who ran up the insane debt, yet whining and complaining when Trump makes cuts to foreign aid, pulls out of syria and all other cuts to save money.

[OneMoreFarang 23,157]

10 hours ago, UncleFesterNightmare said:

And what was that?  What was illegal? Do try not to be vague.

Asking for that favor in return for getting the 400 million.

It was all over the news for the last couple of weeks. If you didn't listen to that or if you still think Trump is innocent after listening to the testimonies than I won't be able to convince you.

[OneMoreFarang 23,157]

10 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Can you tell me please who has made such a determination?

You should be able to figure out that is was illegal. Just listen to the testimonies what Trump did and compare it with the laws what he should have done.

It's like seeing someone walking out of a shop with candies without paying and then arguing if that was legal. It's not really so difficult.

[muzley 135]

I don't understand why when the president of Ukraine again states there was no QPQ it is discounted by the left!!

In a Time interview 2 days ago he states it again.

 

During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

[Sujo 13,305]

17 minutes ago, muzley said:

I don't understand why when the president of Ukraine again states there was no QPQ it is discounted by the left!!

In a Time interview 2 days ago he states it again.

 

During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

Because if he said he was pressured then no aid for you. He would then be at the mercy of vlad.

[BestB 12,592]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Because if he said he was pressured then no aid for you. He would then be at the mercy of vlad.

According to whom? your opinion or someone said something somewhere?

[WalkingOrders 3,152]

14 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

50 Senators,

correct to read 100 senators. It was late.