• House Democrats warn leaders that a Trump impeachment inquiry is now inevitable
    23 replies, posted
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-impeachment-trump-inquiry-inevitable-1431787 House Democrats increasingly supported opening an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump amid the continued stonewalling of congressional investigations by the White use. The growing number of calls had come despite pushback from the House leadership that the party would be playing into the president’s hands by initiating a divisive, partisan proceeding. Don McGahn’s absence at a Tuesday morning House Judiciary Committee hearing was the straw that broke the camel’s back for several members—both on the committee and in the rank and file—who pointed to Trump's directing former White House counsel Don McGahn not to testify as continued obstruction and proof of a “cover-up.” "I think the sheer disregard for the provisions of the Constitution and checks and balances is enough reason to begin a formal inquiry,” said Representative John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat and chairman of the Budget Committee. “I think there is a growing understanding that an impeachment process is going to be inevitable. It’s just a question of when, not if.” House Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan came out in favor of opening an impeachment inquiry Tuesday, joining his co-chair,  Representative Pramila Jayapal, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee. Representative Dan Kildee, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, which is currently deciding its next step in the wake of the Treasury Department and the IRS' refusal to comply with a subpoena for Trump's taxes, said he could not take an impeachment inquiry "off the table at all." Representatives Ted Lieu, David Cicilline and Joe Neguse, all on the Judiciary Committee, joined the impeachment inquiry ranks Monday evening, uniting with Representatives Jamie Raskin, Steve Cohen and Val Demings. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s vice chair, Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, came out Tuesday in support of the inquiry.
Smart.. Agent Orange will read this headline and hopefully go into a panick and give them even more ammunition to use against him. It's about damn time.
expect many covfefe incidents while furiously typing
I'll believe it when I see it, at this point.
On one hand, having him in office during the election is pretty much a guaranteed victory for democrats no matter who they put up there. On the other hand, letting everything that's happened go without repercussions is the worse alternative. I'd rather a republican win the next election than let all these clear crimes and unconstitutional actions go unchecked and unpunished
I'd be really careful with statements like this, heh...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444874-whip-list-dems-who-support-an-impeachment-inquiry-against-president-trump 25 Democrats and Justin Amash
That's what they said about Clinton and I'm pretty sure we all know how that turned out.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/mounting-pressure-pelosi-hold-emergency-impeachment-meeting-wednesday/story?id=63178175&__twitter_impression=true
Why closed doors?
Can't be seen trying to convince them to not do it.
So she can threaten to strip committee spots from every Democrat who wants impeachment and hide it Being partially serious, her grip on the caucus rivals Mitch's, apparently Trump respects her in a way for it
He can face repercussions once he's out of office. If anything he'll have less power to fight back at that point.
There is more to it than that. Trump is mostly through his term, unlike Nixon who was at the beginning of his second. Nixon also won his election by a landslide, effectively meaning that he would have had another 4 years in office. Holding out for the election is meant to do two things, the first being purely political in that the democrats hope the discord and discontent he has caused will allow them to win the next election. If they were to proceed with articles of impeachment now that would mean that it would more than likely conclude after the election, giving trump the potential to win the next election and use the impeachment proceedings to fuel his follower base. If he were to win and did get impeached, tried, and convicted that would mean Pence taking office, which means Trump gets pardoned and we now have a competent asshole as president. The second is that it would be significantly easier to prosecute Trump once he is out of office. You no longer need an act of congress to begin articles of impeachment, then proceed to pressing charges. Once he's out of office he's fair game to whatever DA wants to take on the case. With that as well, if the democrats were to take the presidency and Trump were to be charged and convicted there would be pretty much no chance of him receiving an immediate pardon unlike Nixon. With all that one thing a lot of folks need to remember is that articles of impeachment do not remove the president from office. Impeachment is a way of saying congress is determining if the president did something wrong, and if so what steps need to be taken. If impeachment proceedings were to take place and they did find that he committed crimes against the state they would still need to bring the case to the courts, to which he would be able to hold office all the while until convicted.
Doing this will only cement the fact that, as president, anyone can virtually commit any crime and be immune while in office.
Clinton was impeached in December 1998 and was acquitted in February 1999, though that scandal/probe went on longer than Trump's
Yeah but nobody likes Clinton, though
Good god it is Nixon all over again.
Nobody will like whoever else the Democrats put up after an average Republican smear campaign. They're rather good at drumming up hate against people if you didn't notice.
Except for the majority of the populace that voted for her. Seriously though she was quite popular before the GOP started dragging her name through the mud 24/7.
I don't think the majority of them liked her, either. It's just a lesser of two evils/my side > their side sort of thing
Plurality* of the voting* populace.
Everyone I know voted for her. No one I know likes her. In fact, most of them actively thought she was a terrible candidate. It's just everyone else was worse.
I've known a fair few who thought she was a good choice. Most people who didn't still voted for her too of course since Trump was obviously worse though. (Except for the few who couldn't be bothered doing any research and fell for Trump's blatant bullshit like idiots. Some of whom have freely admitted to me that they choose to be ignorant on politics because they can't be bothered spending time informing themselves yet still vote...) She was a fairly popular politician though before the GOP started dragging her name through the mud constantly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.