Will Trump's Impeachment "blow the market away"

That's the hope but only about half of the Republicans were for impeaching Nixon. Republicans in those days were much better people

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

than Republican politicians of today. I just don't see it happening today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, the Republicans of the 70s were much better people. They had a moral backbone. They put country before party. Unfortunately, you just don't see that from Republicans today. We haven't seen it for a long time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You speak truth kemosabe... There was a day when a Republican could be voted for in good conscience. Sadly, those days are long behind us...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that's a strawman, and our phony wars are indeed phony. Replete with phony made-up gunboat attacks, phony nuclear enrichments, and phony WMD.

Anyway, Trump will do what all POTUS do, start schilling for the MIC. Maybe they'll let him play with the drones? He might even get to murder a 16-year-old kid between winning peace prizes and giving 400,000 speeches to GoldmanSux, like the last schill.

 

Are you really that stupid Michael? You above all others need a crash course in logic. But my guess is it will do you little good as I don't think you could ever pass logic 101 no matter who taught the class. I just don't think you have it in you.

 

Actually, only the House of Representatives can impeach a POTUS. Only the Senate can try an impeached POTUS. Both houses of congress have a role in the impeachment of a POTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

As was previously noted in this thread, getting a Republican congress to impeach a Republican POTUS is a very high hurdle. But one would like to think, it's not an impossible hurdle. Trump's job approval ratings are very low and are moving lower. There comes a point when Trump loses the support of his base. If and when that happens remains to be seen. Trump still enjoys the support of the right wing entertainment industry. If and when that support wains, Trump will become vulnerable to impeachment by a Republicans congress.

And then there is the 25th Amendment which offers an alternative way to remove a sitting president. It's a sticky wicket now matter how you look at it.

 

"obstruction of justice for starters": OPINION, Not in evidence

"extent of Trump's crimes": OPINION, No crimes are in evidence

"we do know Trump has actively tried to suppress an active investigation": OPINION, Not in evidence

"impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. So you and others of your ilk who equate it to a criminal proceeding and attempt to apply the same rules are flat our wrong": WRONG, 'impeachable, for high crimes and misdemenors' (Re: Constitution); You say Trump has commited crimes

"comrade": ?? - You are using a term here that historically has been associated with communism and socialism . . . . Ergo, can your political leanings be inferred?

 

He fired Comey, that's evidence.

 

I have NO argument against an investigation - actually, there are at least two congressional investigations ongoing at present and a special prosecutorial investigation has been authorized by the DOJ. I predict (IMO) that EITHER evidence will be produced from these (investigations) OR . . . evidence will not be produced from them. IMO, YOUR defensiveness only shows that you are scared about what may NOT come up.

"The truth will out . . ."

 

NO . . . . its NOT, That is a biased OPINION (IMO) - other reasons for Comey's firing have been stated by POTUS and others.

 

No, Karen there is evidence for an obstruction of justice charge, just because you don’t like it, it doesn’t make that evidence go away. That’s not opinion, that’s fact.


When have I or those of my ilk equated impeachment to a criminal proceeding Karen? I think you need to go back and read my previous post, this time more slowly. The impeachment proceeding isn’t a criminal process. It’s a political process. That’s why it is held in the Senate rather than in a courtroom. All impeachment can do is remove someone from office. It doesn’t put them in a jail cell. After impeachment an impeached person can be criminally prosecuted for any crime he or she may have committed.


I say Trump has committed crimes. That has been fairly well documented throughout his lifetime. He has discriminated against people based on race. He has defrauded people. He has suppressed evidence. He has used his charitable foundation as a personal slush fund. Telling his intelligence officials to deny evidence is just the latest evidence of his attempts to obstruct justice. And I suspect it won’t be the last. I think once this investigation gets going much more will be discovered. I wouldn’t be surprised to find Trump involved in Russian money laundering and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I don’t expect Trump’s legal problems to end with obstruction of justice, and I think that’s one reason why Trump is so concerned about this investigation.


PS:

I used the word comrade in deference to your preference for the Russian candidate.

 

Trump undermined that lie himself when:
Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

 

It would appear from your posts that you are of the opinion that 'obstruction of justice' constitutes an impeachable "crime". Please clarify your position if that is NOT the case. BTW: All of your accusations are no more than that - accusations . . . and heavily biased, opinionated accusations at that! You can offer no PROOF (that's EVIDENCE, for all of you 'comrades') for your (and others of your ilk) accusations.

Also, what EVIDENTIARY PROOF can you muster to defend your contention that POTUS (yes, your's and mine!) is indeed the Russian candidate (no longer a candidate, BTW, but POTUS!)

 

For someone who is always (of late, at least) extolling the virtues of syllogistic logic, you seem to have a lot of difficulty refraining from highly emotive language.

And as for the "phony": the phoniness lies in the rationalizations and pretenses--as per your second sentence. The wars themselves are hardly "phony," unless you've moved on from misreading Aristotle to misreading Baudrillard?


Edit: Weird. Yeah, I meant "justifications and pretexts." I got bit by a mouse this morning, or I'm seizing--take your pick.

 

Actually, it appears I'm of the opinion that obstruction of justice is a legitimate cause for impeachment. Moreover, there is precedent. When Congress prepared to impeach Nixon, they found 3 legal grounds for impeachment, "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

The truth isn't biased comrade, it's just the truth. Just because you don't like the truth, it doesn't make the truth biased. Several proofs have been offered. Just because you refuse to see or acknowledge them it doesn't follow the proofs have not been offered comrade. Just where is it you see any ambiguity comrade? Unfortunately for you and those of your ilk there is none. That's why your man, Comrade Trump, is the subject of an FBI investigation. That's why one of his closest advisers who just a few months ago declared that taking the 5th was proof of guilt has now taken the 5th.

Every US intelligence and several foreign intelligence agencies have concluded Trump was Russia's candidate of choice. That's why Russia spent so much time and effort to get Trump elected. That's why Russians celebrated Trump's election. Did you miss all of that or are you still just denying all evidence? Before you go calling others biased comrade you had best take a long and very serious look at yourself.

EVIDENTIARY PROOF: apparently you don't understand the words you use comrade.

 

Doesn't matter. Do cops require proof of who did a murder before they investigate a murder? No. They investigate, then if they find evidence, they prosecute.

 

" That's why one of his closest advisers who just a few months ago declared that taking the 5th was proof of guilt has now taken the 5th." Oh . . . . and would that be Lois Lerner . . . . OH, SORRY . . . .she worked at th IRS for Barry.

BTW: You DID NOT answer my question . . .

BTW #2: You fail to comprehend that "YES", the truth is biased when the question is biased. . . .

BTW#3: Trumps was Russia's candidate of choice? . . . . so what? IMO, your's was likely HC (a real criminal, IMO) or BS . . . . also, please note that you can vote in US elections . . . the Russians cannot!

 

It is in evidence, including statements from Trump himself - Trump himself said he fired Comey to get rid of the pressure of Comey's investigation of Trump's Russian connections. Comey was a Justice Department official, his investigations are the proceedings of both Justice and justice, and firing the head of an investigation does obstruct the investigation (legally).

In addition to those mentioned above, we have Trump's acceptance of emoluments from foreign governments - for rent and fees at Trump Towers and Mar - A - Lago, which are documented and for which Congress has apparently not given official consent, for example, and apparently from Trump's many business interests associated with foreign governments elsewhere.

Those are already known. An investigation, which is long overdue, may or may not uncover more, but those are public now.

 

I respectfully disagree . . . but I don't have the time right now to 'slice and dice' your post.