Impeachment

House Advances Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump

The vote passed 232–196.

|

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to formally advance impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump amid allegations that he improperly leveraged his position to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic frontrunners in the 2020 election.

The vote passed 232–196, with the tally mostly falling on party lines. Also voting in favor of the resolution was ex-Republican Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), the first and only congressperson affiliated with the GOP to publicly endorse impeachment. (The libertarian-leaning lawmaker left the Republican Party shortly afterward.) Only two Democrats—Reps. Jeff Van Drew (D–N.J.) and Collin Peterson (D–Minn.)—defected.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) spearheaded the vote after months of insisting that impeachment would be a strategically inept choice for Democrats. She made an about-face following revelations that Trump threatened to withhold congressionally authorized aid from Ukraine if President Volodymyr Zelensky failed to investigate Biden and his family.

The House vote is politically significant, as it sets the stage for public hearings, but it does not actually impeach Trump. That will likely come later.

"This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel," wrote Pelosi in a letter on Monday.

Fifteen witnesses this week have testified behind closed doors, much to the ire of conservative lawmakers. Their frustration culminated in a petulant display last Wednesday, when some of them stormed an impeachment inquiry testimony and delayed it for five hours.

"One of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence is due process—the right to confront your accuser, call witnesses on your behalf, and challenge the accusations against you," tweeted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.). "None of this is occurring in the House." Republican congresspeople echoed those grievances during the floor debate on Thursday morning, criticizing Democrats for what they say is an overtly opaque process. House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) tried to make it a free speech issue. "What do you think the definition of due process is? What do you think the First Amendment is?" he asked. "Do you have the right to have a voice, or only the words that you agree with?"

Although that position is politically expedient, it's also intellectually dishonest. Graham, for one, supported articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton based on closed-door interviews conducted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. And the remaining complainants would do well to remember that it was their own party who created the impeachment rules that sanction these initial closed-door hearings. In 2015, Republicans led by then-Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio) fashioned that guidance for the fact-gathering process, knowing full well that any impeached president would have his or her public day on trial.

"Senator Graham continues to mislead," tweeted Amash. "The Constitution divides impeachment and trial between the House and Senate. The House impeachment is an indictment. The process he's demanding happens in the Senate trial. No defendant participates in an indictment in the way he's suggesting."

NEXT: Tulsi Gabbard Overtakes Kamala Harris in New Poll as Layoffs Hit Cash-Strapped Harris Campaign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trumpbots to flood in in protest in 3 —- 2 —- 1

    1. Well, I see the reflexive Leftist beat them to it

      1. I really do enjoy the euphemisms.

        Inquiry
        Proceedings
        etc.

        It’s anything except, you know, an actual impeachment.

        1. That is exactly correct – it’s not an impeachment. It’s political theater, an inquiry into the possibility of looking into an examination of the possible basis for a theoretical impeachment. A trial-by-media where only one side of the story is being pushed and there are no rules of evidence, no “due process” bullshit.

          The GOP needs to quit taking its cues from Trump with the constant little bitch whining and complaining about how unfair the whole thing is – of course it’s unfair, that’s the whole point of doing a not-an-impeachment charade. Get some balls, get your own caucus together and start an investigatory procedure for having Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler shot for treason. What? No! We’re not accusing them of treason and we’re certainly not advocating for their execution by firing squad, we’re just asking questions!

          1. This would make me so happy.

          2. They’ve got conference rooms in the Capitol, don’t they? Why can’t a group of Republican legislators have a meeting in one of the conference rooms and invite speakers to address the room on the questions of whether or not Nancy Pelosi once worked in a Mexican whorehouse as part of a donkey act, whether or not Adam Schiff worked in the same place as a sideshow act sucking off goats for a quarter, and whether or not Jerry Nadler used the basement of the whorehouse for Satanic rituals involving human sacrifice? I’m sure for a few bucks you can find people who would be willing to expound upon such a narrative. It’s not any kind of committee hearing, it’s just an inquiry by a group of Congressmen!

            1. Meh it’s pretty much politics as usual. There have been demands for impeachment many times with at least a dozen getting to the preliminary stages.

              Politics has always been a dirty nasty business which is why we get the swamp rats. Swamp rats are perfectly suited for that environment. Nobody is ever going to drain the swamp. That is just a campaign slogan for suckers.

              1. A dozen times?
                I’m not aware of that.
                Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached. Nixon was going to be impeached but resigned.
                So that’s 3.
                Who else?

                1. James Buchanan

                  There were also attempts to impeach John Tyler, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.

                  1. LOL.

                    Holy shit that’s some weak sauce.

                    Even for you.

          3. Newsletter, subscribed.

          4. Having Democrats shot for treason would be a dream come true.

            1. The Trumpian bootlickers here seem to get more frantic every day.

              Of course there’s more evidence against Trump every day, so I guess that’s to be expected…….

              1. Ordinarily I’d worry about someone like you, but I also get the impression that you are already used to crushing disappointments.

          5. I’d love to see the Senate investigate “Nadless” Nadler, “Shitty” Schiff, “Punch-drunk” Pelosi and that dick-head Schumer. Take 2 years to do it. Spend $40 million. Charge, try, convict and sentence them for every crime you find. I’d be willing to be the average sentence in a just system would be upwards of 10 years in prison.

        2. What is with this idea that you just draft up articles of impeachment on a hunch, and spend no time investigating first to see if it’s warranted?

          1. Because nothing says investigation quite like declining to include exculpatory material in the ‘evidence.’

            1. If exculpatory evidence exists, there is ample opportunity for its presentation. Republicans can call witnesses, and counsel for the president can cross-examine.

              1. Not by the rules the Democrats just passed. So exactly where and when do you see this happening?

          2. The investigation into a call whose transcripts was released. Who had both sides say there was no pid pro quo. What investigation do you need?

            This is like USC Title IX going after the one guy whose gf said he didnt assault her because someone else said he did.

    2. let them impeach bring out in the open for all to see the theatrical stupidity of all our elected officials.

      1. I’m more interested in the blatant moral depravity of the federal bureaucracy.

        The good news is both will surely come to light.

        1. That moral depravity is now good. Because orange man bad.

          Who cares if we are witnessing the takeover by the unelected IC. Schumer warned Trump after all what would happen if he didnt kiss the ring of the IC.

          1. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

            We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

            See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
            “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

            He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

            All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

            Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

            Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

            1. Your insanity is a good example of THE modern DNC.

            2. Didnt realize i was on the street corner in a gentrified urban neighborhood…if you had a sign what would it say?

            3. People are holding their noses and voting for Trump because they don’t want to part of the crowd of morons that you are evidently part of.

      2. open for all to see the theatrical stupidity of all our elected officials

        Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends…

        1. Wasn’t it Barnum Bailly of circus fame who said there was a sucker born every day, well we are all suckers for voting for these clown shows

          1. Close – he said every minute.

      3. The Republicans do dumb things frequently.
        The DemonCRAPS don’t seem capable of doing ANYTHING that isn’t dumb.

    3. You do understand how stupid and intellectually incurious you look right?

    4. From Billy Bunion: Fifteen witnesses this week have testified behind closed doors, much to the ire of conservative lawmakers. Their frustration culminated in a petulant display

      LOL at Reason supporting Star Chamber trials.

      1. These are fact finding depositions and depositions are never conducted in public. They’re not public spectacles. You’ll get your Republican clown show later when the witnesses present their testimony in public.

        1. So much fact finding that the rules passed allow Schiff to edit depositions at whim. Normal people call that narrative building.

        2. These are fact finding depositions and depositions are never conducted in public.

          These are not fact finding depositions. By indiscriminately ruling all Republican questions out of order they reveal they are trying to ensure the record is not complete.

        3. Pod : “These are fact finding depositions and depositions are never conducted in public. They’re not public spectacles. You’ll get your Republican clown show later when the witnesses present their testimony in public”

          True, of course. And it raises a point hypocrites on the Right somehow just can’t grasp. You know those “fair” impeachment proceedings they harp on, Nixon and Clinton? Both were proceeded by multi-year investigations involving secret grand juries, where Tricky & William Jefferson had no rights whatsoever. The committees taking depositions on Trump have somewhere approaching 50% GOP, with every man-jack of them (or woman) a lickspittle toady who would have Trump’s back if he shot a dozen people on Fifth Avenue.

          Trump has a much better deal than the impeached before him. Given the growing evidence of his guilt, he’s gonna need it…..

    5. There is no quid pro quo; I was just helping everybody out by blackmailing a world leader to dig up dirt for my opponent for a $400 million dollar military grant! NO QUID PRO QUO! – t. rump.

      1. Old fool,
        Why is the US giving Ukraine $400m?
        Why is it so important?
        Please justify such expenditure

        1. Kickback to Raytheon

        2. Nardz : “Why is the US giving Ukraine $400m? Why is it so important?”

          Wow. Just when I think I have a handle on your own brand of flunkyhood, you muddy the waters by going RussianBot on us.

          Now I’m really confused !!!

          1. Riiiiiiiiiight.
            You have no answer, no ability to think for yourself, so you go with “muh Russia – reeeeeeeeeee!!!” talking point.

            Hivemind gonna hivemind I guess

      2. If the “opponent” was a corrupt official in the previous administration, an administration that blackmailed the foreign government into not investigating, then it is entirely legitimate for the current administration to tell the foreign government that they should investigate. If that involves a “quid pro quo”, all the better.

        1. You’re B.S. defense has at least three problems:

          (1) What Trump demanded from Ukrainian President Zelensky was a Potemkin “investigation” of fraudulent charges. Biden did not pressure Ukraine over his son. CloudStrike did not hide the DNC server in Ukraine. Both accusations are ludicrous after a five minute review of the facts. That would matter if this was about anything but Trump’s private gain – but it isn’t.

          (2) You need to explain why Trump cares only about Ukrainian corruption linked (however dishonestly) to Biden and the Democrats. Good luck with that

          (3) Here’s an even bigger problem: Can you one other single instance where DJT showed any interest in corruption? Trump shrugged when Khashoggi was chopped into bits, because the Saudis were buying a few million in arms. He told the Chinese no criticism over Hong Kong as long as trade talks continue. He practically drools over Kim Jung Un, the most grotesque despot on the planet. Ethical qualms or moral principles have never made a single appearance in his foreign policy before, so why here?

          Set aside the sleazy corruption in his business history and personal life, and look for even a hint of moral scruples with Trump on the domestic front. Just two days ago he returned to the issue of pardoning former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, currently mid-way thru a 14-year prison term for political corruption. At a GOP fundraiser, Trump says Blagojevich’s sentence was too harsh. “No, he should not at all give up hope, at all. We are looking at it.”, he said. “I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly. I’m thinking about commuting his sentence very strongly.”

          The last time Trump raised this all five of Illinois’ Republican congressmen wrote a letter in opposition, saying it was important to stand against pay-to-play politics. Rod Blagojevich was convicted for trying to sell an appointment to the U.S. Senate seat Barack Obama vacated to become president. “I’ve got this thing and it’s f—— golden,” he was recorded, “And I’m just not giving it up for f—— nothing.” He also tried to extort a Chicago children’s hospital for campaign cash, threatening to cancel an $8 million state pediatric-care reimbursement unless he was paid $25,000.

          For Trump? It’s only important Blagojevich was once on Celebrity Apprentice. No one will ever believe Trump strong-armed Ukraine over corruption. It was always about personal gain.

      3. Old Fool sez it’s bad when Trump allegedly does it, but there is nothing to see when Biden threatens to withhold a billion of other peoples’ money to fire an investigator.

        TDS much?

        1. Two Cases :

          Case One : Biden withheld money from Ukraine by order of the President, per State Department policy, per the request of the European Union, and in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund & World Bank. Everyone was united in pressing for Shokin’s ouster because the prosecutor was hopelessly corrupt. Reform groups inside Ukraine applauded both Biden’s pressure and its eventual success when Shokin was fired.

          Case Two : Trump pressures Ukraine for his own personal gain. He holds up military aid to a country fighting a Russian invasion. He colludes with a foreign leader to affect a U.S. election. His extortion demands were two “faux investigations” that were clearly lies targeting his political foes. We’re used to Trump’s lying to the American people, but this time he was demanding lies from a foreign leader.

          Any questions?

  2. Oh look, another of my predictions is coming true. Just like my #BlueWave prediction in 2018, and just like my guarantee of a Democratic victory in the 2020 Presidential election.

    #Impeach
    #TrumpUkraine
    #TrumpRussia

    1. The walls are closing in, Trumpian bot.

  3. If impeachment proceedings are akin to the process of drafting up an indictment, then there is no obligation on the part of the President (and, by extension, any subordinate executive officer) to participate. A defendant in a criminal matter has no obligation to supply evidence to be used against him.

    If Amash really mean what he says, then Trump should simply sit back, refuse to comply, and wait for a vote on articles of impeachment.

    Frankly, I still do not understand why any members of the State Department are participating and, I can only assume, they are doing so because they are being permitted to, with full knowledge on the part of the president that they have nothing of substance to contribute.

    1. “A defendant in a criminal matter has no obligation to supply evidence to be used against him.”

      You are right on this as it addressed in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. I assume that you are advising the President to plead the Fifth Amendment.

      1. How do you plead anything when you aren’t participating?

        1. If you read the rules for the impeachment investigation you will see the President can have representation at the hearings. He can choose not to participate which is the equivalent of the fifth.

          1. ” the President can have representation at the hearings. ”

            So Pelosi is trying to stage a pretend trial in the House rather than an actual impeachment in the Senate.

            And you think that anyone else is going to play along with her impotent LARPing?

      2. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against compelling an accused to testify against himself applies only in a “criminal case.” To answer your question, I am not advising the President to plead the Fifth Amendment because, in the context of impeachment, it is a legal nullity. It does not apply.

        The argument I am making is based upon the separation of powers. Congress, as a coordinate branch, does not have the authority or power to compel the executive branch to participate in the impeachment proceedings. Thus, the President should not cooperate.

        1. I am not advising the President to plead the Fifth Amendment because, in the context of impeachment, it is a legal nullity. It does not apply.

          Doesn’t apply? You sure about that? I’ve seen plenty of people take the 5th in Congressional hearings.

          1. “Plenty of people” that were the President, in the context of an impeachment proceeding?

            1. Within any context in front of Congress.

              1. //Within any context in front of Congress.//

                Don’t shift the goalposts. We are not talking about “any context.” We are talking about impeachment and we the President.

                1. Sets and subsets, how the fuck do they work?

                2. I’m not. In any context, including Trump testifying to congress, one can invoke the 5th.

                  1. In order to invoke the Fifth Amendment, one has to be in the position of being “compelled” to testify. Congress cannot compel Trump to testify (separation of powers), nor can Congress prosecute Trump for a crime. Again, since impeachment is not a criminal process, the Fifth Amendment is a nullity – the exact same way it is a nullity in civil cases.

                    1. Again, since impeachment is not a criminal process, the Fifth Amendment is a nullity – the exact same way it is a nullity in civil cases.

                      Congressional testimony is not a criminal process. You can, if appearing in front of congress, invoke the 5th Amendment.

                  2. //Congressional testimony is not a criminal process.//

                    If you are a regular person, an average citizen and, to be clear, NOT THE PRESIDENT, and you are testifying before Congress, it means you were serve with a subpoena (meaning: “under penalty”), and are being *compelled* (clue: Fifth Amendment) to give testimony in an investigative proceeding (for a legislative purpose) related to a law or regulatory scheme (hint: possible criminal liability). There a pitfalls present for a regular person, an average citizen, and NOT THE PRESIDENT, in connection with the giving of Congressional testimony (i.e. subsequent prosecution by the executive branch) that do not exist for the President.

                    I don’t know how much more clear I can be. Apparently, you cannot, or refuse, to see the difference between the President (imbued with immense executive powers) and a private individual (imbued with no powers save the rights guaranteed under the Constitution).

        2. The separation of powers does give the Congress oversite and the impeachment process the right to call witnesses from the Executive Branch. Not sending them to protect yourself is the equivalent of pleading the fifth.

          1. No its not. And even if it were, so what?

            1. There is no so what. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to plead the fifth amendment. Any citizen, including President Trump may do so.

              1. It’s largely academic, but here’s an explanation. If I sue you – for example, defamation – and a court with jurisdiction over the matter issues a subpoena for you to appear and testify about the false statements you have made, you cannot, as a matter of law, refuse to testify on grounds of the Fifth Amendment.

                Why? Because the Fifth Amendment has a particular application, in a particular set of circumstances. The testimony sought to be elicited must be incriminating, which means it is of such a character that it can be used as evidence against a person in a criminal prosecution. And the witness must be in a position such that they are being compelled to testify.

                Since Trump cannot be indicted or prosecuted for a crime, or – for that matter – compelled to testify (separation of powers), there is absolutely no need for him to invoke the Fifth Amendment. He can simply refuse to show up or sit there with a shitty grin on his face with absolutely no consequences.

                Trump invoking the Fifth Amendment in his capacity as President makes about as much sense invoking his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches when he walks into his own living room and fumbles around for his car keys. Trump is the executive; he doesn’t need to invoke Constitutional protections to protect himself, from himself.

                1. I agree with you that Congress can’t force the President or anyone else from the executive or judicial branches of the federal government to testify even under an impeachment (separation of powers – also the DOJ are the ones that Congress relies on to enforce their subpoenas). But just to clarify, there’s no statute or constitutional provision that prevents a sitting President from being indicted for a crime while in office. The DOJ disfavors prosecuting a sitting and as they work for the President are unlikely to prosecute him – at least while he’s in office – but that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t be charged after he leaves office (which is presumably why Ford pardoned Nixon). Also States can file their own charges. So even though I agree with you that the Fifth Amendment isn’t really applicable because Trump and the members of his administration can simply refuse to appear (not saying it’s a wise idea), if he did appear and testify there could be grounds for invoking the Fifth Amendment because Presidents generally aren’t immune from criminal prosecution.

                  1. Who is going to indict the President? The Constitution does not imbue anyone with that power, other than the President. There’s no constitutional prohibition against indicting a President because it doesn’t make sense. The President is not going to indict himself. Recognizing this, the drafters provided the process of impeachment. Constitutional protections are for the benefit of the People, the governed, not the President.

                2. Your example assumes all congressional subpoenas are legally valid. They are not.

                  1. Just the ones against Democrats……

          2. You can’t plead the 5th, it’s not a court, it’s an impeachment.

            1. Oh?
              When did they vote for impeachment, fool?

          3. Oversite and separation of powers are mutually exclusive you retard.

            If you have oversight then you have power.

            English language, how the fuck does it work.

          4. “”Not sending them to protect yourself is the equivalent of pleading the fifth.””

            Have you ever argued that if subpoenaed by Congress you are required to show up to plead the 5th? I can say you particularly, but I’ve seen people on H&R make the claim.

        3. Testimony is supposed to occur in the Senate, not in the House.

      3. He doesn’t have to plead anything you fucking moron. We arent at the trial portion.

        1. I agree it is not the trial phase and yet Republican are suggesting that the President be afforded all the rights he has at trial. It is as if they want two trials. One in the House and then another in Senate.

          1. Actually they are asking for the same process allowances afforded to previous impeachments. They are asking for a fair and just process. Democrats are saying no.

          2. It’s not an Anyang phase yet. No formal vote has taken place.

      4. “” I assume that you are advising the President to plead the Fifth Amendment.””

        Any lawyer will tell his client to keep his mouth shut. Dershowitz openly gave that advice to Bill Clinton.

        1. Donkey:
          You’re supposed to say “You have the right to remain silent!”. No one said I have the right to remain silent!

          Shrek:
          Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent. What you lack, is the capacity.

        2. And think how much better off President Trump might have been had he observed your advice. He talk and twitter drive the process as much as anything else.

          1. He would be in no different a situation. His enemies are lunatic retards like you.

          2. Little to none.

            The attempt to remove him from office started before he was sworn in.

          3. So, is posting on Twitter a high crime or a misdemeanor? I’m not sure which.

    2. “”If Amash really mean what he says, then Trump should simply sit back, refuse to comply, and wait for a vote on articles of impeachment. “‘

      And watch the people here that where saying it’s like a grand jury complain when Trump doesn’t cooperate.

      1. Those are the same people who think congressional oversight means congressional superiority.

      2. Amash’s argument doesn’t make any sense because the impeachment proceedings commenced today cannot move forward, in any meaningful sense, without the participation of the executive branch and state department officials. Trump can direct his subordinates not to testify and that would be the end of it — and, I would wager, Amash would be livid were that to happen because … well, we all know why.

        1. And the Courts are never getting involved in that. They would call it a political issue and stay out of it.

          1. As McCarthy at NRO pointed out, democrats are not going to go to court. They are going to ask for documents protected by both legal end executive, then add obstruction instead of going to courts where they’d probably lose.

            1. And that is not going to convince anyone. Also, Trump has nothing to hide and might turn those documents over. They didn’t think he would release the transcript of the call. That is how they figured they would get away with this. It surprised the hell out of them when he did. They keep assuming Trump is as crooked as they are. And it keeps biting them in the ass.

              1. John : “They keep assuming Trump is as crooked as they are. And it keeps biting them in the ass”

                Speaking of Trump being crooked, do you want an explanation of how he blundered into this criminal shakedown?

                Take a look back when he launched his charitable foundation. Of course it was a scam from day-one. It was never legally registered anywhere, had zero transparency or accountability, and it’s board was a handful of family members who “met” every decade or so. The one exception was Alan Weisselberg, who didn’t know he was listed on the Trump Foundation board for over ten years. No one ever told him, he testified.

                Needless to say, Trump used his “charity” as a petty cash till. It was used to pay legal settlements for his private business, purchase art for his golf clubs, and to make prohibited political donations. Most comically, it was used to pay Don Jr’s seven dollar Boy Scout enrollment fee.

                You see, Trump got himself a “charity” and ask himself : What kind of grift can I run with that? That’s the way a criminal’s mind works. The man inherits scores of millions from his rich Daddy and still scams $7. That’s how a crook rolls….

                So years later, he inherits a nation’s foreign policy. You know exactly what he asks : What kind of grift can I run with that? The resulting scam became an entirely independent foreign policy for Trump’s private gain alone. United States foreign policy objectives were irrelevant – shoved harshly aside when in the way. An ambassador was smeared, slandered and fired when she impeded the shakedown.

                Because, you see, that’s how a criminal’s mind operates….

            2. As a businessman Trump would like nothing more than to tie this up in the courts. Schiff is right here, ask once and put it down as obstruction if he doesn’t reply.

              1. It is not obstruction to exercise your legal rights. And shiff can put anything he wants down. No one gives a shit and Trump isn’t going to be removed from office.

                1. But will it be parody? We’ll have to wait and see.

                  1. It’s not already?

                    The House seems like a joke to me.

                    1. Well, yeah.

                      Perhaps more circus than parody. But I’m biased since I’ve though capitol hill has been a circus for a few decades.

                2. “”It is not obstruction to exercise your legal rights.””

                  Isn’t it funny, perhaps more sad really, that the party that wants judicial reform thinks you shouldn’t be able to exercise your rights.

                3. No it is very unlikely that Trump will be removed by an impeachment trial. The Republican control the Senate and Senator McConnell’s job is to present enough of a defense for the President to provide cover for 34 senators. That not a hard lift.

                  1. Articles of Impeachment, should they ever be forwarded to the US Senate should be laughed out of that Chamber of Congress.

                    1. Senator McConnell has the power to do just that.

              2. It’s not obstruction to invoke privilege dumbass.

          2. Looks like this court jumped right in …. and, wrongly, I think:

            https://www.nationalreview.com/news/judge-sets-accelerated-schedule-for-case-on-white-house-order-blocking-testimony-of-impeachment-witness/

            I think this is going to SCOTUS – it shouldn’t have to, but too many judges are convinced their gavel and robe give them superpowers.

            1. I’m curious on two points :

              (1) “it shouldn’t have to” Why?

              (2) Your SCOTUS prediction……

              1. The court should abstain and dismiss as it is not a justiciable controversy. However, if pressed, the answer, I think, is clear.

                My SCOTUS prediction: “Congress has no power to compel the executive, or his subordinates, to participate in a house investigation, be it for purposes of impeachment or otherwise. Congress has no enforcement mechanism to compel compliance, in any event, which power rests squarely within the province of the executive branch. To rule otherwise would be a fundamental breach of the doctrine of separation of powers and would subject the executive to the self-defeating process of prosecuting itself. If Congress believes that flouting a subpoena is improper, its remedy is impeachment.”

                1. And when SCOTUS ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon?

                  Or was that just a “bad old court”, who refused to have a Republican president’s back?

                  1. Read this:

                    https://apnews.com/3ea406469d344dd8b2527aed92da6365

                    Fortunately, Kavanaugh is also on the Supreme Court.

                    United States v. Nixon was wrongly decided.

                    Chances are, if the issue comes up before SCOTUS, U.S. v. Nixon will be overruled, and rightly so.

                    1. Four Things :

                      (1) For the record : The unanimous Supreme Court Ruling of United States vs Nixon was wrongly decided?

                      (2) For the record : You really think there are five votes to overturn the precedent of U.S. vs Nixon? I really doubt that, if for no other reason than Robert’s concern over the legitimacy of his Court.

                      (3) A quote from your own precious link:

                      “Kavanaugh allies pointed to a recent, more favorable assessment of the Nixon case. “Whether it was Marbury, or Youngstown, or Brown, or Nixon, some of the greatest moments in American judicial history have been when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law. That takes backbone, or what some call judicial engagement,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 2016 law review article in which he referred to several landmark Supreme Court cases”

                      (4) Of course you might still be right about Kavanaugh, since he’s a piece of garbage. I still can’t get over his loathsome record heading the “investigation” of Vince Foster’s suicide. People who complain about Mueller need to look back at Kavanaugh’s cartoon partisan farce. That was a three-plus-years clown show by someone with a total contempt for the law.

    3. That is an excellent point. They keep trying to make this into a criminal process. Okay, the defendant doesn’t have to participate in or cooperate with a grand jury.

      The whole thing is a farce. It is never going to get any traction with the public beyond the lunatic base. They are handing Trump an enormous gift here.

      1. A defendant does not have to cooperate with a grand jury. But to not cooperate he must plead the Fifth.

        1. No he doesn’t. You fucking moron. He has to be called in order to plead the fifth. A defendant is under no obligation to turn anything over to a grand jury voluntarily.

          If you were not so dishonest, your being so stupid would be less annoying.

        2. Wow you liberals are fucking ignorant of the legal process.

      2. John : “It is never going to get any traction with the public beyond the lunatic base”

        RCP Poll Average on “Impeachment and Removal From Office” : +2.8%

        Yep, there’s a lunatic base involved here, but it’s not the one John refers to……

    4. I agree = If Amash really mean what he says, then Trump should simply sit back, refuse to comply, and wait for a vote on articles of impeachment.

      My attitude is why bother with the theatrics? Speaker Pelosi has the votes to impeach….So call the vote. The longer this sorry saga gets drawn out, the greater the damage to our Republic. Team R in the Senate has already obliquely indicated that any trial will not result in removal from office, just based on how the House is choosing to conduct this.

      Get the vote over with so the American electorate can deal with the question next November.

      1. They don’t have the votes. A vote to impeach would be political suicide for the Dem Reps from districts Trump won. This vote is not to impeach but launch an inquiry. That allows the Dems in Trump districts to claim they just wanted to look into it not impeach. Hell, even with that, she still had to let two reps cast meaningless votes against it.

        They are just playing for time hoping they find something or the sheer volume of their and their media operatives’ screaming will change the public’s opinion.

        1. I think you hit the nail on the head, John.

          Unfortunately for the Dems, the more they and the journalists scream, the more people tune them out.

          I suspect a lot of people are reacting to all this stuff the same way my politically-unaware brother is: “Haha, what are they after for him for this time?”

        2. ” Hell, even with that, she still had to let two reps cast meaningless votes against it.”

          Making the opposition to impeachment bipartisan. But as typical for Reason, just like Antifa is ‘mostly peaceful’ this vote was “mostly falling on party lines.”

          Accurate, but fake.

        3. John : “They don’t have the votes. A vote to impeach would be political suicide for the Dem Reps….”

          Ya know, I swear I remember this very same John saying Pelosi would never hold any vote on impeachment whatsoever. It was all just a empty show. I’m beginning to wonder how many times he can be wrong on this issue, each time falling back to his new Wrong Line of Defense.

          PS, John : Your reference to “Sheer Volume” was apt enough, but substitute “evidence” for “operatives’ screaming”. After all, that’s how Pelosi already won “public opinion” to the tune of +6.4 (RCP Poll Average, Impeachment Inquiry, Support / Oppose)

      2. The entire point of the meaningless theatrics is to create a basis to prolong the meaningless theatrics. An ancillary point is to try to tack on a half-baked “obstruction” charge to the articles of impeachment if or when Trump directs his subordinates not to participate.

        At the end of the day, the Democrats have no power to bring to fruition any legislation in pursuit of their socialist-progressive agenda – therefore, impeachment is the default setting under which they are now operating since it is the *only* thing they *can* do to mollify their base and, as a result, they will draw the impeachment saga out as long as possible.

        Assuming the Democrats retain a majority in the House after 2020, and Republicans continue to control the Senate and the Presidency, this will continue. As long as there is a stasis and Trump is the president, the impeachment circus will *never* end. The Democrats will do this for another five years, if they have to.

        1. I think if Trump wins re-election, the Democrats will lose the House. If the country rejects Trump, then I could see them giving the House to the Democrats. But if they re-elect Trump, the Democrats from districts that went to Trump or were even close will be done. The country isn’t going to re-elect Trump and then put the Democrats in to act like lunatics for four years. Unless the country turns on Trump, they will be very tired of these antics by next November amusing they are not already, which they probably are.

          1. I tend to agree – however, many pivotal house seats that the Democrats flipped in 2018 came from districts in California, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Now, it is possible some the Pennsylvania and maybe Virginia seats can flip back, but I find it highly unlikely that we will see any substantial movement in California, New York, or Jersey. Even if Trump is re-elected, I think the Democrats will retain their majority in the house (albeit, by a smaller margin). If the Democrats lose all their gains in Michigan and Minnesota, it is possible that Republicans may edge them out, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

            Unless the Barr-Durham investigation really takes off and lands some indictments, I don’t see the stasis breaking anytime soon.

            1. Even a state like California has like 40% of the vote Republican and has Republican districts. The major movement was in suburban districts many of which went for Trump and all of which were competitive. The Democrats took the House by running people who promised to be moderate and reasonable only to take the House and spend four years losing their minds over impeachment. That isn’t going to go over well in anything but deep blue districts.

              1. eh, also by the ballot harvesting Cali’s got going on. I think its safe to say that there’s some shady stuff happening there, considering that the Democrats own the entire state government, and what we’ve seen them try to do the last few years.

                1. Ballot harvesting is illegal in Arizona. On monday I had two members who stated they were from a Democrat pac show up at my door to offer to help fill out and deliver my wife’s ballot. Me and the wife both vote by mail. Shes Hispanic, I am not. They only wanted hers. It is shady as fuck.

                  1. D vote fraud is going to be through the roof in 2020

              2. John, the flaw in your premise is Team R retaining the Senate. I would not be so sure. In fact, the numbers argue against it. There are 25 Team R Senators up for re-election, versus eight Team D Senators. It is a heavy lift to retain the Senate.

                1. Look at the state maps from 2016.

                2. That’s fine. Get granular. Which four net pickups are the Ds going to make?

                  Here’s the map.

            2. Census 2020 will finished off any Democrats who are hanging by a thread in swing states.

              Some in the Democrat leadership see what is coming for them.

              Plus after RBG is replaced by a Trump nominee, all the ridiculous court actions by Lefties will get swatted down super fast. These District Court immigration decisions are getting swatted down in under 1 year as it stands now.

          2. The Democrats are getting better, less gerrymandered congressional maps in 2020 and they generally show up in greater numbers for presidential elections.

            1. It doesn’t matter. The Democrats have controlled the House exactly six out of the last 26 years. The map is stacked against them and they only control the house by running moderates in swing districts.

            2. If they stopped gerrymandering the California districts they’d go from 46/53 democrats to something closer to 31/22. Actually ending gerrymandering would be suicide for the Dems.

              1. Gerrymandering is a problem throughout the country and both parties are guilty. If difficult to image what the country would look like if we had fairly drawn districts. Maybe some day we will get them.

                1. Yep, agreed.

              2. Maryland also gerrymandered out Republicans. They had a 4-4 split in 2000. They redistricted after 2000 to 6-2, and 7-1 after 2010. I don’t have party registration handy, but a proxy by Presidential vote totals from 2000-2016 gives a split of 5-3.

          3. >>>if Trump wins re-election

            dude it’s gonna be 1984 redux

          4. If Trump wins re-election I would be very surprised if the Republicans lost control of the Senate.

            Impeachment is either futile, or moot. Take your pick.

      3. The whole point of the fiasco is to damage the republic.
        It is meant to kill the republic while maintaining its trappings.
        This is what totalitarians do.

        1. And jokey hysteria is what Trump’s bootlickers do…..

          1. Whatever helps you get through the day, hivemind

    5. “because they are being permitted to, with full knowledge on the part of the president that they have nothing of substance to contribute”

      Could you be more delusional? Trump has no actual power to keep someone from providing testimony and responding to a subpoena. That’s why these people are mostly showing up and willingly giving testimony. Trump is pissed but can’t do anything about it because he has no real power to keep someone from responding to a subpoena. Sure Trump could exert testimonial objections to how that witness may answer questions based on executive privilege but Trump would have to make specific objections and file something in court and apparently there is a fraud/crime exception to executive privilege so Trump would lose in court and that likely accounts for why Trump hasn’t challenged this in court.

      1. The walls are closing in. you are going to get him this time.

        1. I think Trump will ultimately wind up in prison sooner or later. Hopefully it’s a state prison.

          1. And Jeff you were telling us yesterday that Democrats didn’t want to throw their opponents in jail. Yes, you are a leftist piece of shit who wants to imprison or kill anyone who disagrees with you. Sorry dumb ass, it doesn’t work that way in this country.

          2. And pod.here admits he admires banana republics as long as his side is in charge.

          3. He won’t / can’t end up in a state prison for anything to do with his presidential campaign or time as President. If there are crimes there, they are federal crimes.

            On the other hand, He’s been involved in a lot of shady business dealings in his private life.

      2. “” Trump has no actual power to keep someone from providing testimony and responding to a subpoena.”‘

        Executive privilege is a real thing. Whether or not a specific claim is valid is a different story.

      3. // Trump has no actual power to keep someone from providing testimony and responding to a subpoena.//

        Yes, he does. The President can direct any subordinate not to comply. As extensions of the President, they serve at the President’s pleasure. The President can terminate their positions, as well, for violating his directives. If a subordinate resigns, then Trump cannot do anything; but so long as the witnesses are employed, Trump has the power to restrain them.

        Assuming a witness or executive subordinate complies with Trump’s directive, and refuses to testify, there isn’t a damn thing congress or the courts can do about it other than issue meaningless contempt citations (see, Eric Holder) or VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT, like the Constitution provides.

        I’m not at all delusional. You, like most progressives, have no idea how separation of powers works.

      4. Pod admits he fucking doesnt understand executive or legal privilege.

    6. “Frankly, I still do not understand why any members of the State Department are participating and, I can only assume, they are doing so because they are being permitted to, with full knowledge on the part of the president that they have nothing of substance to contribute.”

      One would suspect that those participating come from the large beltway crowd that despise the president. One also suspects that no one has anything of substance to contribute, regardless of party preference.

  4. (musical notes emoji) popcorn …

  5. “The vote passed 232–196, with the tally mostly falling on party lines.”
    “The House vote is politically significant, as it sets the stage for public hearings, but it does not actually impeach Trump. That will likely come later.”

    lol. The evidence from the whistleblower is so damning the votes are completely partisan. You’ll get him any day now

    1. It is so damning that Schiff has called 22 witnesses to give their opinion of the call when we have the transcript of the call..

      1. Well, one did say that Trump MIGHT have left things out of the transcript. No EVIDENCE he did, but man, assumptions and theories are enough for me.

        1. The document is not presented as a transcript. It is a documentation of the call, created and agreed to in collaboration of those involved.
          (with a parody amendment by The Great Liar Schiff)

      2. Its amazing that they can interview a single witness for ten hours over a ten minute phone call. how does that work?

        1. Government work is slow work.

          1. Paid by the hour. Union rules. Still waiting on GrubHub delivery of Chipotle for lunch.

    2. If impeached, it will be interesting to see how the democrats act when the republicans don’t allow hearsay evidence in the trial.

      1. //If impeached, it will be interesting to see how the democrats act when the republicans don’t allow hearsay evidence in the trial.//

        “Sir, were you present for the July 25th phone call between President Trump and Zelensky?”

        “I was not; I have no firsthand knowledge of any ….”

        “Thank you, sir. That will be all. Would the next witness please approach the stand?”

        Rinse and repeat. Heads will explode.

        1. Exactly,

          I find the dems going after hearsay evidence stupid. It will not get them anything in the Senate trial. But it makes for sound bites in the court of public opinion.

          1. Is there any change in public opinion at this point? Battle lines have been drawn for 3+ years and teams chosen. Try that poll, CNN… “Would anything in the next 12 months possibly change which side you’re voting for?”

            1. I do know some people that are Trump supporters that have said they will support impeachment if they find something worthy of impeachment.

              Undecided voters are the target. Partisans are in their corners.

              I would like to see the outcome of that poll.

          2. Ds have tossed away the idea of gaining power legitimately.
            That’s why they don’t give a shit about setting precedents that could be turned around on them next time a D is president.
            They’ve gone full totalitarian, and they’re hoping the American people are stupid/apathetic enough to not put up much of a fight.

      2. Exactly. The Republicans will also allow the President’s lawyers to call their own witnesses and question them about anything they want. That means that everything that happened with regards to Ukraine will be fair game. It would be a disaster for the Democrats and there would be nothing they could do about it.

        For this and other reasons I still don’t think they will ever vote impeachment out of the House. This whole thing is a joke and boob bait for the boubiouse in the Democratic Party.

        1. For this and other reasons I still don’t think they will ever vote impeachment out of the House. This whole thing is a joke and boob bait for the boubiouse in the Democratic Party.

          No, on this I do not agree. I think Team D will absolutely wind up voting to impeach POTUS Trump; 100% no debate. They’ll want this done before the first primary next year, NH on February 3, 2020. They want this going to the Senate, if anything, so the trial screws up Team R in the Senate during the Democrat primary season. And do you think Team D will be doing this in a vacuum? Um…not a chance. The MSM will be co-operating with Team D all the way; they picked their side.

          No John, Team D is playing for big stakes. I think they pull the trigger, probably just after the new year, after we have endless public hearings and leaks to the press.

          1. The Republicans control the Senate. A trial won’t go well for them. But it will be over before the conventions no matter what and forgotten by all but the faithful long before the election.

            I think you are right that they are trying to satiate their base. But their base is insane and placating the base is going to turn everyone else off. So, I honestly don’t know what stakes they are playing for beyond turning themselves into a minority party for the next generation or more.

            1. John…I worry about this = impeachment on partisan grounds. And this is being done on partisan grounds. Objectively speaking, it was 99% of Team D voting to move forward, and 100% of Team R saying do not move forward. Could it possibly be worse?

              When I say that I worry about this, I mean what happens a few decades from now?

              1. What worries me is if these lunatics somehow manage to succeed. I don’t think they will but anything is possible. This country would explode if they did. They are so fucking stupid and arrogant they think the people who voted for Trump would just sit back and take it. I don’t think they would. I think there would be protests and potentially an insurrection that would make what is going on in France and Spain look like a Sunday picnicking. It would be a fucking nightmare. And once stuff like that gets going, it is very hard to stop.

                1. People will be protesting via the 2nd Amendment, which I don’t necessarily think is a bad thing. It would be a good idea to remind the country why the amendment is there. Personally, I’m more worried about what will happen once our interconnected trade and logistics start falling apart. Food not reaching big cities, Cali not getting water, fly-over country losing access to commodities from overseas or the coasts. Some of that could get very nasty, Even more so if NATO or China decides to meddle in any civil war.

              2. What happens from now on is that anytime there is a majority in the house from an opposing party, the President will be harassed and hamstrung with endless inquiries and investigations and threats of impeachment.

                Now that impeachment has been trivialized to the point of being a *purely* political process (as opposed to one constrained, in some measure, by the meaning of the words high crimes and misdemeanors), the American electorate will fracture into two large, irreconcilable parties that will never agree on anything and, eventually, we will get to a point where presidential candidates refuse to concede elections, stay in power so long as their party holds a sufficient number of seats in Congress to let them get away with it and, if necessary, deploy the military to quash any dissenting factions or individuals.

                In a nutshell, we are heading toward a complete fracture of the republic. One extreme measure will beget the next until we are left with no option but to shoot each other in the streets, Latin America style.

                1. That is a reasonable prediction. We have a mass media now that functions as a mouthpiece for disinformation from the Democratic party and a full on state run media when the Democrats are in power. In order for a Republic to function, people have to be willing to hold their own side to some level of accountability. The Democrats stopped doing that under Clinton. It is inevitable that the Republicans end up doing the same and we end up with the situation you describe.

                2. What happens from now on is that anytime there is a majority in the house from an opposing party, the President will be harassed and hamstrung with endless inquiries and investigations and threats of impeachment.

                  Precisely. And when we are confronted with a true national emergency like an attack, we will be paralyzed. What we are seeing is the deliberate transformation of the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive, for partisan political purposes.

                  The Republic will be forever changed.

                  1. The only hope I see is Trump being re-elected and the Republicans retaking the House. If this shit ends with the Democrats being totally out of power, there is some hope that they will learn something and not want to try it again. If they are rewarded with any success, however, it will just continue until there is no Republic.

                    1. I suspect the Democrats know the outcome you speak of is inevitable anyway.

                      There likely wont be any Democrat Presidents anymore, the Democrats wont regain the US Senate majority, Trump will be reelected, RBG will be replaced by a Trump nominee, and the Democrat Party wont be a powerful national party anymore.

                      Pelosi just has to try something before all their dominoes fall down.

                    2. ah yes, because they’ve been so good with pattern recognition so far. That would be the preferable outcome, but I doubt there’s gonna be enough sane Democrats left in their party for them to realize that as a group. The problem is that there’s a good chunk who view this as a moral, quasi-religious struggle (where the Greens are concerned anyway), and those sorts of folks don’t tend to care how many times things don’t go their way, because they KNOW they’re right and just.

              3. ” impeachment on partisan grounds.”

                Par for the course. In the entire history of the US.

                Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s successor) was impeached effectively over a dispute between Johnson and Congress along with holdovers from Lincoln’s cabinet on how to handle the former confederate states. Nominally it was over violations of the Tenure of Office Act which purported to prohibit the President from firing cabinet officials without Senate approval.

                Bill Clinton. Impeached over perjury in a civil suit against him.

        2. John : “Exactly. The Republicans will also allow the President’s lawyers to call their own witnesses and question them about anything they want. That means that everything that happened with regards to Ukraine will be fair game”

          Hilarious. Exactly what “with regards to Ukraine”…..

          (1) The bullshit fantasy nonsense that the “server is in Ukraine” ?

          (2) The bullshit fantasy nonsense that Biden pressured Ukraine over his son?

          (3) The bullshit fantasy nonsense about CloudStrike?

          (4) The bullshit fantasy nonsense Ukraine conspired w/ Obama against Trump?

          Yep, the Right has a lot of “fair game” over Ukraine. Unfortunately, it’s all bullshit, it’s all fantasy, it’s all nonsense, and it will never sell outside the cult. So there is one thing Democrats can do about it: Get a big tub of popcorn, sit back and watch the GOP put on a looney-toons freak-show……

          1. LOL

            Hivemind is quite desperate.
            Each post more unhinged, each post more and more evidence of psychosis.
            Must be a rough existence.

      3. Most fun: just call the vote and declare Trump not guilty.
        (I would love to see the Senate do this NOW, and then tell the house to get back to the people’s business)
        Second most fun: Rehear all the made up testimony and poke holes in it.

        1. You decided it’s made up testimony before you’ve even heard it.

          1. Is that any worse than deciding someone is guilty before you hear their defense?

            1. Devoid of any context it’s worse to presume guilt than to presume innocence but obviously if your beliefs are shaped by evidence then you might have a clear enough picture to pass judgment. Longtofeee said he didn’t need to confront the evidence that his mind was fixed and that’s what I was responding to.

              1. “”but obviously if your beliefs are shaped by evidence then you might have a clear enough picture to pass judgment.””

                Yes, but to be fair, you need to hear any exculpatory evidence prior to making a decision. I remember a lawyer talking on TV about some huge trial of the day saying, everyone looks guilty where you just hear the prosecutors side.

              2. In your case pod, you may want to start by learning how the legal system actually works.

            2. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

          2. We cant trust the testimony since the rules implemented today let Schiff not only choose which testimony is valid, but also allow him to edit the testimony without review.

            1. But the Republicans are getting more opportunities than a criminal defendant would get. The Justice Department should be investigating this but they are under the corrupt control of Trump and Barr so the House has conduct the investigation and we’re not going let these fucking Republican clowns get in the way of gathering the evidence. You’ll get your Kangeroo court in the Senate.

              1. Speaking of kangaroo courts, former NSC official Tim Morrison just shot Taylor’s and Vindman’s convoluted opinions about what they think happened right out of the water … just like Volker, Sondland, Zelensky, etc.

                https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/nsc-official-tim-morrison-to-schiff-i-was-not-concerned-that-anything-illegal-was-discussed-in-trump-ukraine-phone-call/#disqus_thread

                At least a grand jury can refuse to indict a prospective criminal defendant when the evidence sucks as hard as this. Color me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing that house democrats are doing anything other than plugging their ears when evidence surfaces, as it now has on multiple occasions, completely eviscerating their preferred narrative.

                1. Golly. Someone involved in the crime denies being a criminal ?!?

                  Will wonders ever cease……….

              2. // The Justice Department should be investigating this but they are under the corrupt control of Trump and Barr//

                Strange, because I seem to recall that the DOJ reviewed the situation and determined that there was nothing criminal about the call between Trump and Zelensky. The DOJ investigates crimes, not impeachment narratives.

                https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-doj-clears-president-violating-campaign-finance-law/story?id=65849857

                But, as well all know, that wasn’t enough for Democrats. So, please, let’s not pretend like you, or anyone else gunning for impeachment, cares one iota about anything the DOJ has to say on the subject. Unless, of course, you expect the DOJ to act as the House’s enforcement bureau (which, of course, would mean that you have no idea what the role of the DOJ is).

                1. What a fucking joke of an opinion if all the DOJ considered was an incomplete transcript. There’s way more to this. I can’t wait to see just how many crimes Barr helped Trump suppress.

                  1. “What a fucking joke of an opinion if all the DOJ considered was an incomplete transcript.”

                    You.
                    Are.
                    Full.
                    Of.
                    Shit.

                  2. First, you clearly didn’t read the article.

                    Second, it is also clear that you don’t care about a DOJ determination … unless, of course, the determination is that Trump is a criminal. So, why complain?

                    Third, if the DOJ is as corrupt as you suspect it is, why would a further investigation yield a different result?

                    I don’t think I have to explain why your position is internally inconsistent.

                    1. The DOJ claims Trump’s demand of Zelensky had no value to his campaign which is a fucking joke. The demand to investigate Biden was so valuable to Trump that he used his personal attorney and hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby and pressure the Ukrainians. This DOJ opinion is fucking garbage.

                    2. No court had ever held information as a thing of value dumbass.

                      You keep claiming trump is a criminal but keep using novel interpretations of the law to prove it.

                    3. By the way… this information has been public since 2016 you fucking dumbass.

                  3. The DoJ interviewed people with first person knowledge fucking dumbass. Not the 3rd 4th hand knowledge house Dems seem to prefer. So far every witness that the Democrats raise up as hurting trump were multiple layers away from Trump without direct orders or knowledge. Those close to trump have so far testified the lower people were full of shit.

              3. The republicans are not getting more than a criminal would you fucking retard. Defense counsel gets all exculpatory evidence under Brady. The vote today excluded an amendment for all exculpatory evidence.

                How fucking ignorant are you?

      4. Never going to happen. Worst thing for the Democrats would be for this shitshow to fall into the hands of the opposition. Who could then proceed to tear it appart, and maybe burn a few more of the participants for perjury or other offenses.

        Either Trump wins re-election (which pretty much means Republicans also keep the Senate) and the whole thing gets dropped. Or Trump loses the election and (regardless of Senate control) the whole thing becomes moot.

  6. What they are try impeaching him for is having the crudeness to deny Hilary her due honors.

    1. For attempting to coerce a foreign govt into “getting in front of a microphone and declare Ukraine was investigating Biden and the 2016 election”. For using foreign money from Russian mob connected people to finance a part of this conspiracy to subvert American foreign policy for Trump’s personal benefit.

      1. “”For attempting to coerce “‘

        To this day I have not seen any evidence of that. I have seen many people make inferences about statements made. But when two people talk, and both parties disagree that coercion was applied. Why should I take the word of people who are making assumptions ?

        1. Well you’re going hear all about it from people who witnessed various aspects of this sprawling conspiracy. There is even going to be a money trail from a Putin allied Ukrainian oligarch to Giuliani. Looks like mob money was financing part of the conspiracy to get rid of the American officials who were getting in the way of Trump’s conspiracy to elict a manufactured criminal investigation.

          1. look man, I know we Libertarians are all for drugs being legal, but when you’re no longer connected with reality, it’s time to stop. Get some help. There’s lots of people out there who’ll help you.

            1. “There’s lots of people out there who’ll help you.”

              Some, maybe.
              Others might have some principles.

          2. “”Well you’re going hear all about it from people who witnessed various aspects of this sprawling conspiracy. “”

            When??? So far all we have is the REO Speedwagon version.

      2. You keep talking about the Mueller investigation and the Ukraine involvement in 2016 and investigation into manafort… why?

        1. Manafort was passing polling data to a Kremlin agent and he was trying to use his political position in the Trump campaign to “get right” on a large debt to a Kremlin oligarch. Manafort should have been arrested years ago.

          1. What was Manafort convicted of again? That’s right, literally none of things you mentioned.

          2. Ukraine provided false records to Steele and the IC in order to help get manafort. This was done at the behest of the DNC and the IC. Chalupa was the go between ad reported by John Solomon. The whistleblower is also involved in this attempt per the RCI report yesterday. Everything you accuse of trump was actually done by the DNC in 2016 with actual evidence.

            1. Your brain has rotted away. What a load of bs. Manafort was convicted by his own financial records and his fraudulent tax returns. If Ukraine provided any evidence against Manafort to the FBI then good that’s how it’s supposed to work. The evidence would be reviewed and if it had merit then it could be used in a criminal investigation. The opposite of that is what Trump was up to. He wasn’t providing evidence. He was asking for criminal investigations. If Trump had any real evidence implicating Biden he could have given it to the FBI. Instead Trump wanted to create the appearance of wrongdoing by having a foreign govt announce they were investigating Biden and I guarantee would have lied and claimed he had no role in Ukraine’s investigation. Trump is a sleazebag. Dude is going to prison where he belongs.

              1. Pod : “If Ukraine provided any evidence against Manafort to the FBI then good that’s how it’s supposed to work”

                As opposed to :

                (1) Being asked to do a “reciprocal” favor….

                (2) To earn critical military support…..

                (3) By working with Trump’s private attorney….

                (4) To engineer the story most beneficial to DJT’s personal needs……

      3. “For attempting to coerce…”

        Pretty certain that pod has zero knowledge of the definition of “coerce”.
        Equally certain he finds Humpty Dumpty the authority here.

      4. “getting in front of a microphone and declare Ukraine was investigating Biden”

        How did you come to this accusation?

        1. It must have leaked. It’s from the testimony. Apparently the scheme involved having Zelensky publicly announce Ukraine was investigating Biden.

          1. Did this thing from your imagination ever happen? Yes or no? Did ukraine ever make an announcement?

            1. I’m not surprised this is news to you. Ukraine resisted Trump apparently. Zelensky later said that he had no power to announce investigations that investigations in Ukraine were based on evidence and decided by professional law enforcement officers and not decided by politicians trading on financial aid.

      5. 1) Irs targeting and delaying non-profit status apps by conservative groups leading up to 16′
        2) Clinton foundation assuming the DNCs debt and rigging debates for Hillary.
        3) Bill Clinton coercing the doj to alter their wording and handling of the Clinton server investigation.
        4) DNC hiring fusion GPS which used both Russian and British intelligence assets as well as people connected/married to Obama staffers to compile discredited dossier.
        5) using steales own leaks from discredited dossier in the nyt as “corroboration” of said dossier in fisa court application for carter Paige
        6) wasting millions in tax dollars on the Mueller probe which found no collusion and was built upon discredited dossier and faulty fisa records.
        7)shifting it all from “collusion” to “obstructing” after their bullshit was caught.
        8)Jeffrey Epsteins death with numerous suspicious characteristics, right before he was due to testify about multiple high ranking democrat movers and shakers, including bill Clinton who was on his “lolita express” flight manifests numerous times.

        Nope…no conspiracy there with the Clintons at the dead center. You keep looking “over there” little lefty.

  7. >>That will likely come later.

    dream big.

  8. I note that opposition to this is more bipartisan than support for it is.

  9. I believe this will backfire just like the Clinton impeachment backfired. The faithful on either side will not be swayed. But those in the middle will soon see the absurdity of the allegations. The blind hatred that the left has for the president will be put on full display, and it won’t be flattering. As a result Trump will win in a landslide, just like Slick Willie.

    1. The Left’s hatred is less about the individual, and more about those who vote(d) for him

      1. Open contempt for voters doesn’t win votes.

        1. Do you really think the Ds envision a future where actual votes matter?
          Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc didn’t need actual votes, they just needed the appearance of voting.
          And that’s the progressive plan

          1. “That’s the Chicago Way”

            1. And now its becoming the Cali way as well.

                1. Well, I suppose we can’t expect God to do all the work. Although he sure is trying right now XD

    2. I can’t see how it could work out any other way. If you want the public to care about something, you better have a compelling story, someone to tell it, and people in both parties need to believe it. Right now the Democrats have none of that and I don’t see how that ever changes. The middle of the country has already tuned this out I think.

      And then come November, what are the Democrats going to have to run on? That they tried to impeach Trump over shit no one cares about?

      1. And then come November, what are the Democrats going to have to run on?

        Free shit like… Free health care. Free college. Loan forgiveness. Guaranteed jobs. Subsidized this and that. All paid for by eating the rich. Same old song and dance.

        What is the expression? If you’re young and not a Democrat then you’re heartless, and if you’re old and not a Republican you’re stupid.

        Democrats appeal to the young and the stupid. And there are a lot of young people, and a lot of stupid people (when you think of IQ as a normal bell curve the implications are downright scary). Good thing is… most of them don’t bother to vote.

        1. They always have free shit to run on. That is a constant. But it is pretty hard to give away free shit when all you are doing is losing your mind over Trump, who would probably agree to give away the free shit if they would ever calm down enough to ask him.

        2. Free shit angle isnt working anymore. Even liberal podcasts are asking how they will pay.

          1. “Even liberal podcasts are asking how they will pay.”

            Yes, but it’s really just code for “don’t fuck with my ricebowl.”

          2. Yup. Hillary offered all sorts of free shit and she lost…badly.

        3. It was Winston Churchill lol. “if you aren’t liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. But if you aren’t conservative by the time you’re old, you have no brain”.

      2. The problem for the dems is they have tried to stretch little things into big things which has created a boy crying wolf appearance. It’s well know they wanted impeachment before Trump was sworn in. Resistance at every word, every tweet, every photo. It’s just tiresome. It’s easy to see how the public could lose interest.

        I’m not a Trump fan so I really don’t care either way. I’m old enough to know politics is a nasty us vs them business that has little use of fairness or honesty. I do like to watch people who think they are holier than thou crash and burn, be it dem or repub.

        Someone said elections have consequences. So do impeachments. Let the dems vote for impeachment and deal with the consequences that comes with it.

    3. Your thoughts don’t mean much because you aren’t even accounting for the facts. This isn’t about a blowjob. Individual 1 got his impeachment pass on that illegal porn star payoff. No, this impeachment is about fair elections and we can’t have one in 2020 if Trump is conspiring and cheating by trying to coerce a foreign government into manufacturing a criminal investigation of his political opponent.

      1. “Your thoughts don’t mean much because you aren’t even accounting for the facts. This isn’t about a blowjob.”

        Nor was Clinton’s. When your first “fact” is a lie, it doesn’t bode well for your post.

        “Individual 1 got his impeachment pass on that illegal porn star payoff.”

        NDA’s are ILLEGAL? That’s your “fact”?

        “No, this impeachment is about fair elections and we can’t have one in 2020 if Trump is conspiring and cheating by trying to coerce a foreign government into manufacturing a criminal investigation of his political opponent.”

        He did not, of course.

        Just checking, you do know what the word “fact” means, right?

        1. Individual 1 a member of an actual criminal conspiracy. Trump is free to make a defense but the authorities have already decided he was the leader of a criminal conspiracy.

          1. The authorities you cite aren’t the ones who actually get to make that determination.

            1. pod has really come into his own as a troll sock account.

              1. You have too much faith in humanity. There is someone out there who is willing to show the world that yes, they are in fact this incredibly stupid.

          2. Pod
            October.31.2019 at 2:35 pm
            “Individual 1 a member of an actual criminal conspiracy.”

            You.
            Are.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.

          3. “Individual 1 a member of an actual criminal conspiracy. Trump is free to make a defense but the authorities have already decided he was the leader of a criminal conspiracy.”

            The conviction is…where?

            i know, libertarians trust prosecutors above all else, but come on…

        2. Ignore him, Pod’s high as a kite on every drug known to man and a few known only to dolphins.

    4. I think you are probably right on the public sentiment side.

      Impeachment didn’t have anything to do with Slick Willie’s landslide though because…well, the space-time continuum. Unless there was a 3rd term election I missed.

    5. Trump is going to win anyway. The dems don’t have anyone who can beat him. The only way to capture the swing voters is a strong centrist with appeal and Biden ain’t it.

      1. I would laugh my ass off if Hillary jumps in at last moment before the primary and wins. Her privilege undercutting all the hard work done by the current candidates.

  10. Gosh I wonder if THIS will be one of those that end up with 300-400 comments? Ooh ooh ooh and WILL there be flaming involved? Can’t wait to find out…..

    1. That’s the Mayor Pete thread…

  11. I love clown world and look forward to four more years of societal insanity.

  12. The walls are closing in.

    The first formal floor vote in relation to the impeachment probe announced a month ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi followed a fierce debate in the chamber, where Republicans accused Democrats of launching a de facto “coup” against the president in a “pre-ordained” bid to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

    Ahahahahaha… yummy Trumpian douche tears are so delicious. Win elections,TrumpianS, then Dear Leader won’t have to suffer these manifest indignities.

  13. When Obama used the IRS to target political opponents, no one on the left batted an eyelash, but what Trump is allegedly doing is suddenly unprecedented… pretty silly if you ask me.

    It makes no difference because you need all of congress to impeach a sitting president which includes both the house and the senate- unless the Republicans decide to turn on Trump (which I don’t see happening) the impeachment proceedings will die in the Senate.

    1. Using the IRS to target political opponents? Well I never! It’s enough to make me pine for the golden Camelot days of JFK…DOH!

      1. There’s this thing called a tu quoque, and you should know about it.

    2. Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen who had never been charged let alone convicted of a crime. George W. Bush got us into a war based on intelligence many people believe was faked.

      Historians will spend a lot of time and effort trying to figure out how it was that in the early 21st Century it was Trump who was impeached not the Presidents who launched wars, spied on the entire country, and abused the IRS and FBI.

      1. Obama used the NSA to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of 300 million Americans.

        1. But Trump said something on a call about Joe Biden and must be impeached. Think about how insane that is?

          The public sees that. Luckily they are not as stupid or as crazy as the Democrats are and apparently think everyone else is.

          1. Obama sent a palate of taxpayer cash to the Iranians as part of an unconstitutional “treaty”.

            1. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane:

              “Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash, using non-U.S. currency, as Republican critics of the transaction continued to denounce the payments.
              Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement late Tuesday that the cash payments were necessary because of the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions,” which isolated Iran from the international finance system.

              The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.”

              https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html

              The proper term for that isn’t “international agreement”. The proper term for that is “ransom”.

        2. Obama also spied on Congress concerning israeli elections.

  14. If the people pushing this actually had a record of themselves not using their office for personal benefit, honesty and steadfast faith to the limits imposed on them by the Constitution it would be possible to take them seriously.

  15. I think it’s time for this….

    YAAAWWWLLLPPP!!! I AM SO ANGRY!!! THIS IS A COUP!!! ITS TIME TO BOMB A FEDERAL BUILDING!!!

    1. We need to find a better class of retarded sock puppet.

    2. If Preet was still on the job, I’d burn your ass, Hihn.

    3. “I think it’s time for this….
      YAAAWWWLLLPPP!!! I AM SO ANGRY!!! THIS IS A COUP!!! ITS TIME TO BOMB A FEDERAL BUILDING!!!”

      Is that a ransom note?

    4. anyone want to pass this on to the cops? Without any context it looks like a threat to me. #I’mjustsaying

      1. It’s so fun when libertarians call out the law. Fun!

        1. Liberarians arent anarchists dumbshit.

  16. Justin Amash voted for it. Rather disgusting to support a blatantly partisan investigation where one side decides what witnesses can be presented and what questions can be answered. His hatred for Trump has overcome any decency for due process.

    1. having expectations of Justin Amash is like seven wastes of time at once.

    2. Amash is a dumber version of Flake.

  17. The mission of Admission Advice is to enhance and simplify the whole procedure of finding a suitable college for the students, struggling to know what to pursue according to their rank and score card. So, here at Admission Advice we assess your interest as well as your capabilities and then consult you top government and private colleges on the basis of your NEET/ JEE/UPSEE or any other entrance exam. All these services emphasize a general focus on providing you best future educations with some effective career advice and guidance. MBA admission consultant in delhi

  18. I expected more gloating.

    1. Well, you have Pod, Jfree and the delusional LeaveTrumpAloneLibertsrians with their predictable the walls are closing in talking points. I’m sure one will change their sock to come in and post more rehashed talking points. Nancy had to do something to steal the headlines after Al Baghdadi’s raid. Trump’s approval numbers were going up according to RCP average of polls. This is all an electioneering tactic and most Americans realize it outside the bubble.

  19. ” . . . following revelations that Trump threatened to withhold . . . ”
    Should be
    ” . . .following allegations that Trump threatened to withhold . . . “

    1. Reason has a narrative to cosign

      1. When your credibility has been reduced to white ash what difference does it make?

  20. Trump asked for dirt on Biden – but didn’t get any. The financial aid to the Ukraine was delayed, but they still got the money. Those two simple points are why a lot of people don’t understand why Pelosi, Schiff, etc. are wasting so much time and energy on this impeachment inquiry.

    1. The Ukrainian government says there was no prid quo pro and they never felt pressured. As you point it, the money was sent. And no one would have known about the Biden boys looting the country had not the Democrats brought it to everyone’s attention.

      There is no way around those facts. And no way they are ever going to get anyone who is not already voting Democrat to care about this given those facts. They really have lost their minds. This is an act of true desperation. What puzzles me is what they are so desperate about that they decided that this was their best and perhaps only chance.

      1. Their prospects for totalitarian rule are slipping from their grasp.
        Same shit is going on the world over.
        Indictments are really going to make the corruption of the DNC, Obama administration, and IC much harder to cover up

    2. “Those two simple points are why a lot of people don’t understand why Pelosi, Schiff, etc. are wasting so much time and energy on this impeachment inquiry.”

      Alternatively, these two points are why a lot of people understand exactly why Pelosi and Schiff are doing this–they’re trying to disqualify President Trump in the court of public opinion ahead of the upcoming election.

      1. The three nouns Pelosi, Schiff, and court of public opinion, appearing in the same sentence should tell just about anyone how it is all going to turn out.

  21. “The House of Representatives voted Thursday to formally advance impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump”

    If the House of Representatives has NOT sent this to the Senate yet for a hearing, then what does “formally advance impeachment proceedings” mean?

    Looks like horseshit!

    Either the House voted to impeach the President or they didn’t, and if they didn’t voted to impeach, then whatever it was they “formally” did, impeaching the president isn’t it.

    To formally impeach the president, the House needs to have voted to impeach the president. Wearing a suit and calling it “formal” doesn’t make it so.

    1. Exactly that Ken. This means nothing. It just keeps the circus going a little longer.

      1. Why are people buying into this bluster?

        Little has changed.

        A witch hunt doesn’t stop being a witch hunt because 50% of the House says its a legitimate witch hunt.

        If they believe Trump should be removed from office over the information they have now, they should go on the record and vote on a bill of impeachment.

        If they’re too afraid to go on the record with their votes on impeachment, it’s because they don’t believe they have sufficient evidence to impeach. Anyone who says that there is already sufficient evidence to impeach President Trump is going against the Democratic Party. Again, if they believed there was sufficient evidence to impeach, they would impeach.

        1. It is not even about evidence Ken. It is about the public. If the public supported this, they would have had public hearings and voted to do it by now. They would be dying to cast a vote in support of something popular. They know the public isn’t buying it. So, they can’t vote to do it. They just keep the circus going on hoping that they find something that the public will believe. I wish them luck with that.

          1. The day before yesterday, I linked to a couple of lists.

            In 2020, there are three incumbent Republicans running for the House in districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

            in 2020, there are 27 (twenty-seven) incumbent Democrats running for the House in districts that voted for President Trump in 2016.

            That is the reason Pelosi doesn’t want to hold a vote on impeachment. There are even legitimate swing voters who think there should be an investigation but don’t think there’s enough evidence yet to overturn the 2016 election, and that’s why Pelosi is holding these nothingburger votes. It makes silly people like Binion spout off about formally “advancing impeachment proceedings” without House Democrats actually voting to impeach President Trump. No serious person should participate in their charade.

            When they vote to impeach, let us know. Until then, it ain’t an impeachment until there’s a vote to impeach.

            P.S. Just like the White House stopped participating by refusing to comply with non-impeachment “impeachment” proceedings, the Republicans in the House should seriously consider refusing to participate in the hearings. If the Democrats want a partisan show trial, why should the Republicans dignify it with their presence?

        2. Ken, John…I hear what the both of you are saying, but nobody is really talking about the longer term implications.

          What does a Congress do after impeaching, and failing to remove a POTUS? To me, the prospect of an unconstrained POTUS is a real concern. Exactly how do you think a POTUS will respond after having been unjustly impeached….particularly this one?

          The constitutional r’ship (and the checks and balances) between the Legislative and Executive is being changed for all time. Team D is doing this to POTUS Trump. One day, the wheel will turn, and a Team R House will absolutely go after a Team D POTUS. It won’t matter if it is justified or not – the score has to be evened. Those are Washington DC Rules. That guy de Toqueville was right about impeachment “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.”

          At a time where we as a country need to slow down, and talk this through, we hurdle headlong into the abyss. I worry about the long term implication. POTUS Trump will be out of office one day. What happens the day after he is gone?

          1. There is a decent chance Trump gets impeached again if he survives this one. He is apparently incapable of not committing crimes.

            1. And there is zero chance that goes anywhere either. What likely happens is the Democrats lose the House and Trump wins re-election. At that point, he will be the most powerful President in living memory and will roll over all before him. And you dumb asses will only have yourselves to blame. Life is really hard when you are crazy and retarded.

              1. More important matters. Is it Patriots or Ravens this Sunday? I want to place a bet but I am terrible at predictions.

                1. Me too. I don’t trust either team. The Patriots are the benficators of the easiest schedule I have ever seen. I still don’t buy the Lamar Jackson hype. So, part of me thinks the Patriots will end up being exposed by finally playing a decent team but part of me also thinks Jackson will be exposed by having to play Belichick. I would stay away from that game. But if I had to guess, I would take the Ravens and the points because while I think the Patriots will win, I think their record is deceiving and they are likely to get too much credit from the betting public.

                2. Ravens. Patriots run defense is the worst part if the defense.

                  1. True, but Mark Ingram, while a very good player, is no Nick Chubb.
                    I’m very interested in seeing how Harbaugh deploys Jackson and what Belichick comes up with to defend him.
                    That Pat’s D is amazing, but they really have played only trash this year. And I think Marquis Brown will play, which gives the Ravens a completely different dynamic with an aerial threat.
                    I think Belichick will mix it up between man-to-man across the board, with either 1 DB or 2 others spying Jackson, and some tricky zones (maybe by rushing the OLBs and dropping the DEs into the flats).
                    Should be a really fun game

                3. Ravens getting 3.5 at home?
                  Hmm
                  I’d have a very tough time betting against NE right now, even with that spread.
                  Everything is bouncing their way this year.
                  Some of these D turnovers and TDs have just been crazy lucky. Dudes juggling the ball into defender’s hands, teammates kicking it out of each other’s hands, etc.
                  Though the only decent team they’ve faced all year is Buffalo, and that was close

                4. Echospinner….In the words of ESPN’s Chris Berman, “Don’t bet against the Patriots” 🙂

            2. “There is a decent chance Trump gets impeached again if he survives this one. He is apparently incapable of not committing crimes.”

              If they impeach him and fail to remove him, not only will they be a laughing stock, they’ll probably lose control of the House. Why would swing voters who voted for Trump support candidates who tried to cancel their votes?

              If the Democrats lose control of the House, they won’t have the means to impeach him. Do you not know how impeachment works? Do you imagine that Democrats can impeach the president when they’re in the minority in the House?

              1. “ Why would swing voters who voted for Trump support candidates who tried to cancel their votes?”

                Because they didn’t vote for Trump they voted against Hillary. That does not mean they won’t vote for a Dem in their state. They are called swing voters for a reason.

                1. This is factually incorrect, especially when you’re talking about swing voters in the rust belt Midwest who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Trump in 2016.

                  They voted for Donald Trump, and they did it on purpose.

                  Meanwhile, he’s delivered on his promises, especially regarding the renegotiation of NAFTA and giving the Chinese hell.

                  Meanwhile, only three House Republicans are running in districts that broke for Hillary in 2016, and 27 House Democrats are running in districts that voted for Trump. The reason they haven’t voted to impeach Trump yet is because they fear losing control of the House if they do so.

                  1. Factually?

                    And here I was just offering an opinion. I just live there but don’t know how anyone can establish fact as to motives.

                    I don’t know many fellow rust beltians who give a crap about China or Mexico. PA, Youngstown, Detroit, Cleveland haven’t seen one promised dime from all that.

            3. “There is a decent chance Trump gets impeached again if he survives this one. He is apparently incapable of not committing crimes.”

              Pod seems to think there is a ‘tipping time zone’ rather than a tipping point. Keep trying; maybe one day you’ll convince people that returning a library book late is a felony.
              More likely, you will continue to convince people that you and the rest of the fucking lefty ignoramuses are both stoooopid and tiresome.

            4. “”He is apparently incapable of not committing crimes.””

              This is a great example of bias.

              If you could step back from your bias you might understand some of the things we have been saying.

              Naaaaaa, not gonna happen.

              1. If he was so consistent at committing crimes Democrats would not have to perverse lawbooks in an attempt to get him.

                1. In what way are Democrats perversing lawbooks?

            5. Pod sure is desperate to lock up people for being political opponents.

            6. If we do not stop him, he might do something really bad, like committing perjury to defeat a sexual harassment lawsuit…

          2. The House CAN’T do anything because the Senate blocks them.

            If Pelosi forwards Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Trump will not be impeached in the Senate and the Democrats will most likely lose the House.

            Either way, the GOP will control the Senate and wont let the House advance any bills.

        3. “Again, if they believed there was sufficient evidence to impeach, they would impeach.”

          They want more than sufficient evidence. In fact the more dirt they can dig up on Trump, the better it is for them. That’s why they continue to question Trump’s minions. That’s why the White House opposes the effort.

          1. “”They want more than sufficient evidence.””

            Being that they want to treat hearsay as gold. I disagree.

            1. The CIA terminates people on weaker evidence than hearsay. I advise Trump not to RSVP to any weddings in Afghanistan he’s invited to.

              1. “”The CIA terminates people on weaker evidence than hearsay.””

                That’s your response? lol.

                Well apparently they received some first hand account on the call, is that sufficient? Or dismissible since it didn’t go the dems’ way?

                1. “Well apparently they received some first hand account on the call, is that sufficient?”

                  It’s sufficient to let this thing drag out over time. Trump’s minions will continue to defect and Trump will probably incriminate himself eventually anyway.

    2. >>“formally advance impeachment proceedings”

      Billy’s Christmas list.

    3. “”If the House of Representatives has NOT sent this to the Senate yet for a hearing, then what does “formally advance impeachment proceedings” mean?

      Looks like horseshit!””

      I have a slightly different take. The republicans are doing a good job of making the process look unfair and partisan to the general public. This vote is showing that the dems are not winning in the court of public opinion with the way they have been handling it. This is an attempt to save face.

      1. “The republicans are doing a good job of making the process look unfair and partisan to the general public.”

        At this point, they should refuse to participate–especially in hearings that aren’t open to the public.

        “House Republican leaders, in a fiery news conference Tuesday, said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., prevented a witness in the latest impeachment hearing from answering certain questions from Republican members.

        Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters that Schiff shut down a Republican line of questioning during a hearing with Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the latest current or former Trump administration official to come before Congress in relation to the impeachment probe.

        “When we asked [Vindman] who he spoke to after important events in July — Adam Schiff says, ‘no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question,”‘ Jordan said.”

        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-reps-say-schiff-stopped-impeachment-witness-from-answering-certain-gop-questions

        If the Republicans can’t even ask the witnesses who appear before the committee questions, then why are the Republicans even participating in this charade?

        1. Vindman definitely should have been allowed to answer. Even if it was a non-answer. This looks like the dems are ok with obstructing witnesses. Which is something they have been complaining about. Of course they don’t see a problem when they do it.

          Sounds to me like the republicans once again are able to make the process appear unfair.

        2. I think most R’s should refrain from the hearings as you say. But they should have a couple people in them. Call it witness testimony to the proceedings so that they at least have knowledge of what is done and said. Then take any non-classified info public.

    4. “If the House of Representatives has NOT sent this to the Senate yet for a hearing, then what does “formally advance impeachment proceedings” mean?”

      It means Binion should probably be more circumspect when tossing around accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

  22. I’m trying to understand who could possibly care about this either way.

    1. You don’t understand why people care whether a legitimate election in 2016 election is overturned, a necessary step to pave the way to elect one of a number of Democrats–who have promised to implement both the Green New Deal and Medicare for All?

      That’s three reasons why someone might care. If you can’t see them, it’s because you don’t want to see them.

      1. but impeachment is not overturning an election. It’s basically a dressed up censure is it not?

        1. He’s the president because he won an election.

          They want to overturn the results of that election.

          A rose by any other name.

        2. Woodchipper, I would usually agree with this. However the liberals’ intentions to delegitimize the election have been clear from day one.

        3. There is a tiny bit of hope by Lefties that they can remove Trump or at least control him. In their fantasy land, Pence is removed also and Pelosi becomes President.

          They left out the part about Civil War 2.0 starting because clearly they have nothing good against Trump. The Lefties just don’t like him.

          1. If Trump is removed from office following impeachment, it will be because he lost the support of Republican senators.

            “Civil War 2.0” isn’t happening.

            1. Just like Civil War 1.0 never happened.

              When the soap box and ballot box are usurped, expect Americans to do something about it.

              The fact that Lefties deny it will happen is almost definitive evidence that it will happen. lefties are stupid delerious.

          2. They don’t like voters who don’t do what they’re told, and Trump is the symbol that they lack absolute power

      2. Let’s see…

        Even if an impeachment happens, that doesn’t overturn an election.
        Impeachment isn’t a necessary step to a Democrat winning in 2020
        And no, most people aren’t overly concerned about concept message legislation being adopted as-is, that stuff never survives the process (compare the ACA with what was promised in 2008).

        It’s possible to be a lot more chill about this.

        1. Nope. This impeachment attempt tied with a failed coup will likely be the last straw.

          I mean whats the point if this is how some Americans want to act. Lets just start over with the basic US constitution.

    2. Paddypower, the bookies who lost their butts betting The Don was gonna lose, are laying 4 to 1 odds the does NOT get impeached. This is an example of why spoiler clout votes are so effective at changing the game plan. People REMEMBER a 2×4 upside the head!

  23. Note how closely the Dem impeachment plan follows the Title IX Inquisition process implemented and managed by the far left.

    In both cases Dems set themselves up as sole investigators, prosecutors, and Judge. They then control the outcome by refusing to ask relevant questions which keeps exculpatory evidence from becoming part of the record. Then they advance whatever standard is necessary to secure a guilty vote regardless of whether the standard is legitimate.

    I wonder where the left learned to run show trials.

  24. I think the funny part is that the Democrats have repeated a mistake the Republicans made in the ’90s.
    From day one of the Clinton administration the GOP was constantly after Clinton. Smoking pot “but not inhaling”…draft dodging…Whitewater…Hillary and the cattle futures…Travelgate…Vince Foster…on and on. By the time impeachment came up, it just looked like another part of the vendetta.
    The Dems have done the same thing. I think a lot of people will see it the same way…part of the vendetta.

    1. The Republicans ran Bob Dole. Dole had no justification for being President other than he was Bob Dole. They kept screaming “where is the outrage” not understanding that no one outside the faithful cared. In the end, the country wasn’t going to overturn an election over Clinton banging an intern or Hillary being a crook wrapped up in the Savings and Loan scandal. And why should they?

      Both parties have this idea that the Presidency is some kind of sacred institution that should be inhabited by someone the country can root for and look up to. The public doesn’t buy that shit. They want someone who does the job and they are not going to fire an otherwise effective President without a really good reason.

      1. That’s another mistake the Democrats are making, the candidates they are offering for 2020. Most of them are open socialists, and Biden makes Grandpa Simpson sound like Einstein. Even people who think Trump might have done something wrong with this Ukraine business may think twice about replacing him with one of those plonkers.

        1. It is all the have. Obama destroyed the careers of all but the craziest Democrats.

        2. At this point, I’m not sure they care about state-run socialism or totalitarianism, as long as they are in control and get the pick of the crops. The (extremely wealthy) Govenor of CA is blaming capitalist greed for the fires, its all going sideways for wealthy democrats in NY, NJ, IL and CA..

          1. It is just a cult at this point. The lights are literally going out in California and those morons refuse to want to change anything. They are terrifying.

    2. At least with whitewater they convicted a dozen people for fraud and the Clinton’s were direct participants in whitewater.

      Liberals got manafort for things 10 years passed and trumps lawyer for taxi medallions trump had no part of.

  25. The House of Representatives voted Thursday to formally advance impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump amid allegations that he improperly leveraged his position to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic frontrunners in the 2020 election.

    This is false. They voted on what the rules would be for the open inquiry segment. Reasoners are so in the tank they can’t even get the basics right.

    1. And the open inquiry part still has the Dems able to veto all questions and witnesses from the Republicns.

  26. Pelosi stays in power even longer by doing this. She invigorates the right, probably giving Trump the election, and she discredits the people in her party that are challenging her.

    1. There is a school of thought that says Pelosi and the rest figure they can’t beat Trump anyway so they are indulging their retarded base so that they can then more easily control them going forward.

      1. Man, season 2 of Candidate Trump is going to be awesome!

  27. Buckle up buckaroos!

  28. …Trump threatened to withhold congressionally authorized aid from Ukraine if President Volodymyr Zelensky failed to investigate Biden and his family.

    This is specifically, objectively illegal, right? I’m not just getting some wishful thinking in the legal analysis here, am I?

  29. There is simply no way Pelosi ever hands this off to the Senate.

    1. Pelosi can make up as many stages as she wants before the House actually passes an Articles of Impeachment.

      She is definitely running out of runway.

      I think she was surprised at how many non-Lefties are actually daring her to advance Articles of Impeachment.

      1. “She is definitely running out of runway.”

        That about sums it up. Because this bird ain’t leaving the ground.

  30. Let’s do this!

    House votes for impeachment. Senate does not.

    Democrats lose House and GOP gains more seats in Senate. Trump gets reelected.

    Too bad a Democrat will never be President ever again. It would be fun to watch the GOP impeach every Democrat President for good reason.

  31. 2020 is going to be the greatest show on earth. We will see.
    Soros has endorsed Warren!

    1. “Soros has endorsed Warren!”

      Are you SERIOUS???

  32. A top National Security Council (NSC) official who listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky testified to Congress today that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation.

    “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today, according to a record of his remarks obtained by The Federalist.

    Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

    “I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up.

    Although Schiff claimed that neither he nor his staff ever spoke to the anti-Trump whistleblower, The New York Times reported that the complainant, whom RealClearInvestigations identified as Eric Ciaramella, coordinated with Schiff’s office before filing his complaint with the intelligence community inspector general on August 12. While Schiff initially demanded that the anti-Trump complainant be allowed to publicly testify, he quickly changed course following the reports that he and his staff had secretly colluded with the whistleblower and then lied about the interactions.

    Morrison also pointed out key factual inaccuracies in testimony provided by William Taylor, a State Department official who works in the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. Morrison said that, contrary to Taylor’s claims, Morrison never met with the Ukrainian National Security advisor in his private hotel room.

    Morrison also said Taylor falsely claimed that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma, a controversial Ukrainain energy company that paid Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars to sit on its board.

    “My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to [Ukrainian National Security Advisor Andriy] Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Morrison testified.

    Morrison testified that the transcript of the phone call that was declassified and released by Trump in late September “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,” and that he was concerned that the substance of the call would be leaked to the media.

    http://thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/nsc-official-tim-morrison-to-schiff-i-was-not-concerned-that-anything-illegal-was-discussed-in-trump-ukraine-phone-call/#disqus_thread

    So a guy who was on the call says nothing happened and the transcript reflects what was said accurately. He also says the Ukrainians were not even aware that the aid had been held up.

    So, WTF is left here? None of the the Democrats claim is true actually is. No one with any first hand knowledge has confirmed what the Democrats are claiming.

    It would be nice if reason would bother to notice that. But that is clearly expecting too much.

    1. “…So, WTF is left here?…”
      Trump is to be impeached for being Trump; the Ds refuse to accept that the hag lost to him.
      You’d think there was some ‘double jeopardy’ issue here, but they have tried to hang him on the Russkis, late book returns to the library, un-paid parking tickets, and what some guy who worked for him did ten years ago.
      And they got nothing.
      Prediction: They’ll get nothing here.

      1. They really do have nothing. I can’t believe this is the best they could come up with. It makes me think Barr is going to start indicting people and they went with this because they had to do something and this is all the had.

        The most appalling thing about this is that there is no way the writers at Reason or anyone else in the media is so fucking stupid they believe this is matters. They know it doesn’t and are just repeating the most absurd talking points imaginable. They literally will do or say anything they are ordered to do.

        1. “It makes me think Barr is going to start indicting people and they went with this because they had to do something and this is all the had. ”

          A deep stater like Barr (Ivy League, CIA, Bush) will do nothing of the sort. If Trump hasn’t learned by now not put his faith in swamp creatures rather than those loyal to him, he deserves whatever lies in store for him. I foresee an ignominious resignation due to ‘health reasons.’ A bone spur relapse, perhaps.

        2. “The most appalling thing about this is that there is no way the writers at Reason or anyone else in the media is so fucking stupid they believe this is matters.”

          Some of the Reason writers have a blind spot when it comes to immigration and judging by their coverage, they’re much more concerned over executive overreach than congressional witch hunt conducted by a liberal majority.

          They’re also fine with the notion of presidents of either side being impeached regularly over even perceived misconduct. “It’s a political process, not a trial” they say, in a passive manner.

          The smartest people sometimes believe in stupid, reckless things.

          1. The other side.

            Which other side? Since neither of them seem much interested in libertarian goals they are both the other side.

            I don’t really see bias in Reason. Some writers lean one way or the other but i don’t see anything wrong in that. Of course there are differing opinions. That is normal.

            Immigration policy is something not all libs agree on. So it is perfectly fine to present your views on it. It is not a blind spot. It is hotly debated.

        3. +1000000000

    2. What’s left is the “Trump asks for dirt on his political rival” angle, as if Trump ordered Zelensky to look for sex tapes or obtain financial or classified info so can use it against Biden. I think Schiff even said it doesn’t even matter if there was no quid pro quo in the traditional sense.

      But the whole Burisma inquiry was public knowledge and was started on their end. Trump also asked them to look into the DNC server hack.

      Trump never should have withheld the aid (without clear explanation at least), but that’s being used as connect the dots game to indicate some impeachable offense. The other side already admitted that they felt no pressure to do anything illegal.

      This is a soft coup attempt by the democrats, nothing more. The democrats didn’t vote to remove a president who lied under oath and was guilty of the same crime Katie Hill committed. Obama formed a treaty with a terrorist nation with no congressional approval. Nothing. They didn’t even impeach George Bush.

      But impeachment is political process, not a trial at court, reason says. So it’s ok for one side to play their own rules once they have power?

    3. Of even MORE importance…he’s one of Bolton’s guys. And the assumption now is that Bolton will likely testify as he did.

  33. Just impeach him already – lance the boil.

    Find out how many Republican Senators are total “thank you sir, may I have another” style cucks.

    (Cruz can vote guilty to stand up for his wife, but the rest of the Rs better hold the line against the Dem outrage machine)

  34. “The House of Representatives voted Thursday to formally advance impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump…”

    Is this like holding a meeting to decide to hold a meeting? What was ‘advanced’ here, other than political posturing?

  35. Well, this comment section is about what I expected from the article.

  36. What gets missed is many people do not understand independent voters who are the only important factor in elections these days.

    They don’t vote on party lines. They are very unlikely to not re-elect an incumbent unless there is a major issue. There is the likeability factor. They are more likely to vote for someone who seems trustworthy. The majority don’t particularly care for either party.

    The mad hatters tea party that is the current political theater has many people just numb to it. They are turning it off. How much it matters is pointless to try and predict.

    1. I think the Democrats know this, which actually explains why they are doubling down on the crazy.

      People are already immune to the crazy – so more crazy carries no real additional risk.

      Meanwhile there is always the slim chance that their lunacy might actually stumble across something of substance that would resonate with those swing voters.

      Like Rufus says, buckle up, because the insanity is only going to get worse.

      And Reason will become ever more obvious.

      1. Since he will not be removed from office the message might be that there has been one thing after another and do you want four more years of this. Perhaps that is the goal. They don’t have to swing very far.

        Pelosi is one tough ruthless opponent. She is obviously doubling down. I remember her daughter said “she will cut your head off and you won’t even know it”.

        1. “do you want four more years of this.”

          That’s not an argument the Democrats want to explicitly make.

          1. Her daughter was talking about what she does to people in her own party. All the more reason why she’s doubling down – it’s do or die for her.

  37. In the simplest terms — The DNC is trying to impeach the U.S. President for NOT sending YOUR income tax payments to Ukraine.

    Out of which seems to have come the Trump-Collusion story.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

  38. “but it does not actually impeach Trump.”
    I recall that British nit saying: “Do it!” (He and Paddypower expected The Don to lose to a bunch of communists and econazis). With the Dems gone, the LP can defend repeal of prohibition, tax cuts & choice for the ladies while the Go-Pee plunk for forced pee-pee testing, taxes, bombing children, shooting dogs, hippies and brown people. Either way we’ll still have electricity.

  39. I keep reading about how this will destroy the D party for decades. Maybe it will. But even if it does, this presidency has also destroyed any credibility whatsoever the supposed “party of family values” has ever had on any moral issue ever.

    Even if Trump is not impeached. Even if Trump wins re-election.

    None of that will ever change the sad fact that people like John (just one example) have publicly gone all-in and maintained that status vociferously in support of a man who is unquestionably, demonstrably, and unrelentingly the biggest POS slimeball ever to hold the office. An absolute moral disgrace of a man who provides daily, public examples of behavior that flies in the face of every single “value” the GOP has been parroting for decades. The “Christian nation” fools may indeed get their eight years of Trump, and another 1 or 2 SC justices out of the deal….but to ANY person with a brain, regardless of party affiliation, they have also proven that their “Christian morals” mean absolutely nothing whatsoever. Even IF Trump is “vindicated” by the senate and even if he wins re-election.

    1. Trump is one of those “don’t judge a book by its cover” cases. His actions have done so much good for this nation it baffles me. Finally a president that doesn’t push communism and that alone is a rare find no matter how rough the cover is.

  40. Have fun explaining to your kids that you think it’s okay to fuck porn stars while mommy is pregnant. Et cetera.

Please to post comments