What would constitute a high crime? Certainly conspiring with a foreign state to hack the election would. But what about if his son stupidly went to a meeting hoping to get accurate dirt on Hillary but didn't get any would that suffice?
I want the Muller investigation to finish and for him to present the results. Then I can answer this poll question
Well because they can I guess. I am not calling for it rather just seeing if the left here actually want it to happen. To the credit of many of them they say no although the poll is close at 21 yes / 22 no at the moment. TBH, Although I voted no, I hope they do try it. It would be politcal suicide.
Wanting solid information is reasonable. You can't do things based on hunches and speculation. You need things like the Mueller report to rap up and move legally. Also let's not pretend that some other candidate wouldn't be corrupt. Look back at every single person to sit in the oval office. The only difference is Trump is a loud mouth without tact. You could argue Russia but that seems to be a weak point considering the lack of hard evidence.
I mean I get your point. You could also posit an impeachment on emoluments or his attempt to obstruct justice by firing James Comey. The House has its own investigative powers, so it doesn't have to have Mueller's work to take meaningful and legitimate action. And it may come to that. But right now, you do have this special prosecutor that probably knows a lot more than the House could ever hope to discover on its own. So it only makes too much sense to look first at his report. Also, if the House were to act separately from Mueller on this, they first need to launch an investigation and collect some facts before anyone starts thinking about whether impeachment is warranted or not. If that's the route we're going, we're months-to-years away. Maybe Schiff has some of this stuff in his back pocket after a couple of years of Nunes' sham investigation, but I suspect it's pretty incomplete.
Too, unless I'm mis-remembering, the House can appoint a special investigator of their own to pursue such matters.
They should wait for Mueller - I am sure if the new guy attempts to cut funding he has enough to proceed now. DD
There's a helluva lot more difference than that. Quite commonly, people declare their conviction as if they've done any amount of actual research rather than just having taken in some popular news and thinking they have the picture. There is actually quite of lot of solid investigative journalism that has been published, books thoroughly researched, documented/annotated, documentary films, video and audio recordings of political figures and law enforcement agents, actual hardcore, down-to-earth evidence. It's available to any and all of us if you just reach out for it. I'm not talking about propaganda spewed with hyped-up emotion. I mean straight-forward fact and testimony, filed intelligence reports and the like. Whatever is your field or experience, you have undoubtably had occasion when someone has spoken with conviction, stating a case that you know firsthand is absolutely wrong. Well, people who have made the thorough effort to read, view, and hear information gathered with integrity through traditional investigative process have the same reaction to those who so blithely say uninformed things like Trump is no different than any others, or that to initiate impeachment proceedings is political suicide.
Pelosi Says Impeaching Trump is Off the Table https://focuswashington.com/2018/11/08/pelosi-says-impeaching-trump-off-table/ Let it go … Its not happening unless Mueller comes back with some damning evidence.
You're looking only at the surface. Consider the context. The forced Sessions resignation, the interrim AG, the consequences for the Mueller investigation. Pelosi made that claim to buffer Mueller.
As it stands now, impeaching Trump would be a foolish endeavor that he would 100% use to fire up his base. That said, impeachment is definitely on the table. It all entirely depends on how 1. The Mueller report reads 2. How this saga plays out with Trump continuing to obstruct justice. The 2 might be tied together.This Whitaker move is not a pretty one, and quite frankly looks like the act of a desperate man. If you accept the premise that he's swinging his dick so brazenly like this because Mueller has something HUGE/and or Donny Jr is about to get indicted, then you should expect him to go to great lengths to continue his obstruction. Kavanaugh is a tiebreaking justice now, and Trump knows it. The most appropriately named Trump card, if you will.
She doesn’t have the votes in the senate to remove him so doing so wouid be a disservice to the party going into 2020. He’s going to have to become so toxic his approval rating makes Senators from red states abandon him. When pushed though and Trump is clearly acting above the law, and an open authoritarian criminal, I think Pelosi will be forced to do it and hope the majority of Americans have common sense to know what they are seeing is a threat to the country. FYI- I don’t think we get to Pelosi actually taking over for the impeachment issue to be potentially necessary.... for Paul Ryan. Reports are out there (although not being heavily reported) that a big name is about to be indicted and Trump will do whatever he can to obstruct this one. Paul Ryan is still speaker of the house for nearly two months. He might be the one with a sh$t burger put on his desk on the way out. An under reported story is how Paul Ryan will face a constitutional crisis during his lame duck session.
Pelosi knows the Russia narrative was a balloon of methane from democratic farts. Otherwise why not pursue it. Please by all means try to impeach him. I would love to see the investigations actually end and give a report with the findings. The dems don't want that.
She probably doesn't want to be imprisoned and hung when he takes over More likely - she's smart enough to know impeaching him is exactly what he wants. Trump could use that impeachment to attack the House and given his increasingly authoritarian control over the gov't, dissolve the House.
Even if we minus the Russia investigation, there's quite few things he's done that could get him in criminal/legal trouble at both federal/state-wise. Possible tax evasion (personal/family), fraud (especially with non-profit organization), emolument clauses , the questionable security clearances, illegal campaign practices, whatever is going on with EPA, and yes, him being stupid, reckless, and egotistical can be lead to or already has lead him to possible charges, since he does not seem to know or respect the law. And, he cannot pardon, himself or anyone else (or have a possible replacement), if he is convicted by a state court.
