The Shampeachement Follies

[yossarian22c]

Does it make sense to you that Trump refuses to let ANY member of his Administration obey a subpoena from Congress?  Trump's favorite tactic when "attacked" by opponents in legal situations is to run up the costs for the other side and run out the clock until the issue is moot.  There's little doubt that he would have continued to stonewall up to a Supreme Court decision ruling against him, and frankly, not much doubt that he would ignore such a ruling.  What are they going to do, impeach him?

YES! That is exactly what they should have done. And if he looses the election while we're waiting on the SC then so be it, and if he won the election while waiting on the SC then he can be impeached at the start of he second term - win, win in my book.

[Kasandra]

With no more success than this time.

[yossarian22c]

With no more success than this time.

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

[yossarian22c]

If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

[TheDeamon]

I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

Does it make sense to you that Trump refuses to let ANY member of his Administration obey a subpoena from Congress?  Trump's favorite tactic when "attacked" by opponents in legal situations is to run up the costs for the other side and run out the clock until the issue is moot.  There's little doubt that he would have continued to stonewall up to a Supreme Court decision ruling against him, and frankly, not much doubt that he would ignore such a ruling.  What are they going to do, impeach him?

In that case, why didn't they wait for SCotUS to rule, so they could impeach him for ignoring SCotUS? Rather than making the SCotUS decision moot(because proceedings will likely be over before that ruling happens).

The Democrat's behavior only makes sense in a "doing this for political reasons, and on a timetable" where they check off the "impeach Trump" agenda item off their list before the Primaries to play well to their political base, but also give them enough time for other to try to forget they did that before the November election happens.

[TheDrake]

If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

You are basing this on the assumption that it is all a sham. If they actually think trump abused his power to influence an election, you really don't want to give him a shot at that election.

[TheDeamon]

If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

You are basing this on the assumption that it is all a sham. If they actually think trump abused his power to influence an election, you really don't want to give him a shot at that election.

Inability to run for elected office again is a penalty that is decided at the time of "conviction" which a certain former Judge and now Democrat Representative in the House can attest to, considering he was Impeached and removed from the bench, but they didn't render that decision against him, or he wouldn't be serving in the House today.

[yossarian22c]

If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected. I get "normal" politicians wouldn't try this but Trump isn't normal. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats are rushing this now, play the slow game, get the SC on their side, and time the impeachment to abbreviate his potential second term.

I really don't understand the Democratic house leaderships political calculus on rushing the impeachment.

You are basing this on the assumption that it is all a sham. If they actually think trump abused his power to influence an election, you really don't want to give him a shot at that election.

I do think Trump abused his power. I do want to see the courts put stricter limits on "executive privilege." I don't think rushing the impeachment and having Trump be acquitted in the senate does anything to curb his future abuses of power.

Can some of our more constitutionally astute members answer my question on if impeaching Trump at this point does anything from him potentially being re-elected in November?

[Kasandra]

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

If that were true, wouldn't they already be speaking up?  Can partisan loyalty be so strong that they would have to be forced to use their conscience to do the right thing?  And if that push is required, is it really conscience?

If the senate goes absolutely crazy and convicts Trump from my understanding of the constitution there isn't actually anything standing in the way of him continuing to run and potentially being reelected.

I think that's not true.  From the current Senate rules on impeachment:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

[TheDrake]

You also have to wonder if enough Senate Republicans would vote to acquit even if the principal witnesses or documents revealed a smoking gun of Trump clearly directing funds to be withheld from Ukraine for the explicit purpose of defeating Joe Biden. That evidence would be unlikely ever to be met, but even if it were... I just don't think there's a level at which they'd say enough is enough.

[TheDeamon]

With no more success than this time.

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

Missed this earlier today. Trump has NOT defied SCotUS at this point in time, SCotUS has passed no rulings in regards to what the Democrats are impeaching him for. The Democrats decided they didn't need to wait on the third branch of government.

[TheDeamon]

I think that's not true.  From the current Senate rules on impeachment:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

Reading is hard. "shall not extend further than" = Maximum penalty. The verbiage quoted states nothing about the minimum, although from my understanding the minimum is removal from office, everything else is optional.

As witnessed by the Democratic Representative from Florida who was impeached as a Judge, removed from office, then ran for a House seat, where he has now voted on Clinton's Impeachment(against), and Trump's Impeachment(for). Making him the first person to be impeached to have voted for the impeachment of a president, as well as the first person to be impeached to vote against the impeachment of a President. He also gets the "double feature" award because he's now the first to have voted both for the impeachment of a president and against impeaching a president(who was impeached regardless), after having previously been impeached and removed from office himself.

[Kasandra]

Reading is hard. "shall not extend further than" = Maximum penalty. The verbiage quoted states nothing about the minimum, although from my understanding the minimum is removal from office, everything else is optional.

I think you're right, but since no President has been impeached and convicted, it's all theory at this point.

It makes for an interesting scenario possibility.  If a sitting President can't be indicted, then once a President leaves office s/he can be.  So if Trump is convicted in the Senate there will be a window in which he won't be President, even if he decides to run again in the next election.  In the current process he hasn't been impeached for commission of a crime, but for high crimes and misdemeanors.  OTOH, Mueller found multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice for which he could be indicted.  Further, the two articles of impeachment could be reinterpreted as crimes once he leaves office.

None of this will happen, but if it does it would have to be done with maximum expeditiosity.

[TheDeamon]

No President has been impeached, but plenty of other people have been. So the punishment aspect of an Impeachment conviction is already known.

As I said, the Senate decides if they'll revoke the ability to run for, or hold, high office after they vote to convict the person in question. There is no reason the believe the President would be handled differently in that case than a Federal Judge, or member of Congress would be.

The only thing that the constitution explicitly makes different with regards to the PotUS when it comes to Impeachment is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the proceedings of the Impeachment Trial.

[Crunch]

With no more success than this time.

But instead of Republicans out there arguing the process wasn't fair, blah, blah, blah, they have to be out justifying why its okay for Trump to defy congress and the SC. I like to think there are enough Republicans in congress with a conscience to make the impeachment bipartisan at that point.

Who’s out there complaining about fairness today? Who’s refusing to follow the process as outlined in the constitution now?  LMAO. Karma is coming back quick.

[Crunch]

Reading is hard. "shall not extend further than" = Maximum penalty. The verbiage quoted states nothing about the minimum, although from my understanding the minimum is removal from office, everything else is optional.

I think you're right, but since no President has been impeached and convicted, it's all theory at this point.

It makes for an interesting scenario possibility.  If a sitting President can't be indicted, then once a President leaves office s/he can be.  So if Trump is convicted in the Senate there will be a window in which he won't be President, even if he decides to run again in the next election.  In the current process he hasn't been impeached for commission of a crime, but for high crimes and misdemeanors.  OTOH, Mueller found multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice for which he could be indicted.  Further, the two articles of impeachment could be reinterpreted as crimes once he leaves office.

None of this will happen, but if it does it would have to be done with maximum expeditiosity.

History tells us exactly what will happen. If a president commits a crime, even a felony - multiple ones even, that nothing will happen to him. Clinton showed us that. But, he’s a Democrat so, you know, feee pass.

Back when these things actually mattered, during the Nixon impeachment, the incoming president issued immediate pardons for Nixon.

So no matter how much you guys wish, Trump will never be indicted or sent to jail. It’s just fantasy. Besides, you can’t indict a sitting president so you won’t see anything until 2024 at the earliest.

[Crunch]

It looks like they are seriously considerOmg holding the articles of impeachment and not sending them to the senate. What a bunch of morons. This is even dumber than I thought it would be.

What’s the point of it all if you just sit on it?

McConnell must be laughing constantly.

 

[TheDeamon]

They really, really want to go on that fishing expedition if they could maybe get the Senate to compel those Trump Admin officials to testify in the Senate Trial, rather than be called by the defense to give testimony only relevant to Ukraine and the temporary withholding of funds.

I guess the "meta" is if they get the Senate to do what the House did, Trump would likewise be stuck in a catch-22 on being able to call those witnesses for his defense. Either he keeps them away until SCotUS rules on it(too late to matter), and the Republicans vote to dismiss and give the Dems political cover. Or Trump brings them in anyway, and provides the Dems with their license to start fishing. (At least until Justice Roberts shuts them down)

[ScottF]

Nancy explains it all very clearly here:

https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1207699372055711744

[Kasandra]

No President has been impeached, but plenty of other people have been. So the punishment aspect of an Impeachment conviction is already known.

Fewer than 20 at the federal level and for such different reasons that it's hard to draw many conclusions.  We'll have to see what we see...

History tells us exactly what will happen. If a president commits a crime, even a felony - multiple ones even, that nothing will happen to him. Clinton showed us that. But, he’s a Democrat so, you know, feee pass.

I'm only aware of one crime (perjury in a civil trial), and that's not what he was impeached for, anyway.  Care to explain what the "multiple ones, even" were? Are you thinking of Vince Foster or the NY Pizza Parlor???

It looks like they are seriously considerOmg holding the articles of impeachment and not sending them to the senate. What a bunch of morons. This is even dumber than I thought it would be.

What’s the point of it all if you just sit on it?

Yes, I understand that you can't get your mind around it.  Be careful who you call a moron and "dumber than [you] thought.  Bless your heart and keep trying, there are several possible reasons.

They really, really want to go on that fishing expedition if they could maybe get the Senate to compel those Trump Admin officials to testify in the Senate Trial, rather than be called by the defense to give testimony only relevant to Ukraine and the temporary withholding of funds.

You, too?  If you've ever been on an archeological dig, you'd know that there's always more below the current level that you've excavated, especially when bad weather and hostile locals impede your progress.  Trump is a walking pismire of the pestilent perversion persuasion.  There's no telling how deep that hole can go.

[TheDeamon]

They really, really want to go on that fishing expedition if they could maybe get the Senate to compel those Trump Admin officials to testify in the Senate Trial, rather than be called by the defense to give testimony only relevant to Ukraine and the temporary withholding of funds.

You, too?  If you've ever been on an archeological dig, you'd know that there's always more below the current level that you've excavated, especially when bad weather and hostile locals impede your progress.  Trump is a walking pismire of the pestilent perversion persuasion.  There's no telling how deep that hole can go.

4th Amendment is in play as well. Unless they have better evidence than "everybody knows" they have no business sticking their nose into that business through this specific lever. I can appreciate the zeal and desire to root out corruption(or more specifically--Trump himself) in Trump's administration. But we are a nation of laws and precedents, and violating the 4th Amendment is not anywhere I care to tread.

[Kasandra]

4th Amendment is in play as well. Unless they have better evidence than "everybody knows" they have no business sticking their nose into that business through this specific lever. I can appreciate the zeal and desire to root out corruption(or more specifically--Trump himself) in Trump's administration. But we are a nation of laws and precedents, and violating the 4th Amendment is not anywhere I care to tread.

It is out of bounds for fishing expeditions, but not when the House finds something comparable to probable cause.  The Congress isn't a court or criminal system, so they can only pursue criteria based on possible (suspected) violations of the Constitution or the Presidential oath of office.  I think they have grounds to investigate potential violations of the nobility (aka foreign emoluments) and domestic emoluments clauses.  State prosecutors are free to investigate any crimes for which they think there is criminal probable cause.  It wouldn't be out of line for Trump to be investigated for the rest of his life for the host of possible crimes that have already been suggested.

[Pete at Home]

You also have to wonder if enough Senate Republicans would vote to acquit even if the principal witnesses or documents revealed a smoking gun of Trump clearly directing funds to be withheld from Ukraine for the explicit purpose of defeating Joe Biden. That evidence would be unlikely ever to be met, but even if it were... I just don't think there's a level at which they'd say enough is enough.

Conviction in the impeachment context is more than saying Defendant (D) did what Defendant is accused of doing. There are some crimes not even worth rebuking a sitting president.

[cherrypoptart]

Let's say that Trump is completely guilty. He told Ukraine to investigate Biden and find real provable dirt and corruption and if they didn't at least investigate and announce the investigation then they don't get the funds.

You know I'm still not seeing how that is illegal for the President. The Bidens look dirty with their Ukraine operation. A real and thorough and public investigation is called for.


What would be illegal then?

Well, if he told them to frame Biden with a corrupt investigation that made up dirt where there was none. That would be illegal and abuse of power and impeachable, no question. But that's not what happened.

When you think about it, that's exactly what the Democrats did to Trump with the Russian dossier which was used as the basis for the FISA warrant to spy on his campaign and release to the media false information about the President to influence the election.

If Trump is looking for real dirt on Joe Biden and his son, real corruption, real influence peddling and abuse of power, then that is a totally legitimate thing for the President to do.

Conducting a psyops agitprop operation like Obama and Hillary did against Trump during the 2016 election would be a totally different story.

[Crunch]

Yes, I understand that you can't get your mind around it.  Be careful who you call a moron and "dumber than [you] thought.  Bless your heart and keep trying, there are several possible reasons.

Let’s look at the stupidity of this. Don’t worry, I will walk you through it despite the simplicity of it.

You see, they held the vote. The Democrats made their people commit to it. It’s on record now and will be playing in heavy rotation during the election season. With me so far?

Now, a good chunk of the these Democrats are in districts that Trump carried and/or red districts. With Trump on the ballot this time, and given all the things going for him, there’s an extremely good chance he will carry this districts again. Every poll and nearly every pundit as well as history tells us this. Following?

Democrats have completely alienated most moderates and independents with this sham. Now, they also alienate their own voters by exposing the sham (“and holding the reticle from the senate. Are you just so happy to vote in the same people that betrayed you? Is this the kind of thing that engages voters and gets them to the polls? We all know the answer. Keep up with me, we’re nearly there!

Now, because of all this, there’s an excellent chance that the Democrats have forfeited control of the house. They’ve virtually assured Trump’s re-election and given him the support he needs to essentially do whatever he wants - including a total remake of the judiciary. That was insanely stupid. It’s stupidity on a epic scale. It’s moronic. I love it.

I hope you followed along, but keep trying to come up with smart reasons. 

[TheDeamon]

The Dems/Liberals on my FB feed that are talking about are dead-set convinced that Trump's guilty. I'd halfway suspect that if Trump Admin officials did come forth and given testimony that exonerates Trump, they'll be screaming about perjury. I guess we'll see if the Trump admin does that, should the Democrats ever turn the case over to the Senate.

[Kasandra]

Yes, I understand that you can't get your mind around it.  Be careful who you call a moron and "dumber than [you] thought.  Bless your heart and keep trying, there are several possible reasons.

Let’s look at the stupidity of this. Don’t worry, I will walk you through it despite the simplicity of it.

Thanks!

You see, they held the vote. The Democrats made their people commit to it. It’s on record now and will be playing in heavy rotation during the election season. With me so far?

Righto!  The Republicans were equally in lock step, probably because of sincere matters of principle and conscience.  Good for them!

Now, a good chunk of the these Democrats are in districts that Trump carried and/or red districts. With Trump on the ballot this time, and given all the things going for him, there’s an extremely good chance he will carry this districts again. Every poll and nearly every pundit as well as history tells us this. Following?

Hmmm, now you're beginning to lose me.  You're saying that they support him because they think they will get reelected if they do and won't get reelected if they don't.  So it's not for principle or conscience, after all.  Ah, that clears it up!

Democrats have completely alienated most moderates and independents with this sham. Now, they also alienate their own voters by exposing the sham (“and holding the reticle from the senate. Are you just so happy to vote in the same people that betrayed you? Is this the kind of thing that engages voters and gets them to the polls? We all know the answer. Keep up with me, we’re nearly there!

No, you're falling back into your FOX brain box.  Actually, support for and against impeachment has remained remarkably steady for the last 2 months.  Over 80% of Democrats support impeaching and convicting Trump, including about 44% of Independents.  They're not losing anybody.  Likewise, not that many who opposed impeaching Trump 2 months ago have changed their minds.  You should talk to someone who doesn't bob their head in unison with you to find out where you're going wrong.

Now, because of all this, there’s an excellent chance that the Democrats have forfeited control of the house. They’ve virtually assured Trump’s re-election and given him the support he needs to essentially do whatever he wants - including a total remake of the judiciary. That was insanely stupid. It’s stupidity on a epic scale. It’s moronic. I love it.

What you call an "excellent chance" is based on...your acumen as a statistical engineer?  Or is it that your friends all agree with you when you say stuff.

I hope you followed along, but keep trying to come up with smart reasons. 

I was able to follow along, but unfortunately I don't think you're making a lot of sense.  BTW, one clue that you're making it all up is that you didn't cite a single source for any of your "thinking".  I make a point of doing that before I let people know what I think.  Try it!

[Kasandra]

The Dems/Liberals on my FB feed that are talking about are dead-set convinced that Trump's guilty. I'd halfway suspect that if Trump Admin officials did come forth and given testimony that exonerates Trump, they'll be screaming about perjury. I guess we'll see if the Trump admin does that, should the Democrats ever turn the case over to the Senate.

Doesn't that sound to you a lot like how the Republicans kept investigating Hillary over Benghazi and her emails - a total of 7 times - without ever finding anything?  And each time when they came up empty they would actually say that the deep state is even deeper than they imagined, so keep digging!  And when they had exhausted all of their avenues to harass her, Trump came along to get his minions to shout "Lock Her Up!"

Likewise how Trump and Barr will never stop investigating the FBI for the Mueller investigation.  Coming up empty is just another name for We Need A Bigger Shovel.  How many reputations are they going to destroy before they finally give up and throw Rudy under the bus?

[Pete at Home]

"Doesn't that sound to you a lot like how the Republicans kept investigating Hillary over Benghazi and her emails - a total of 7 times - without ever finding anything? "

Not at all.;  Benghazi involved dead servicemen.  That's a huge balance in the damage threshold.  People want answers to a tragedy, and Americans particularly like to see someone crucified in response to bloody tragedy.  Benghazi was a case of finding "who's to Blame" for a terrible tragedy while Ukrainegate is an example of finding something to blame Trump for.

Surely you admit that the putative harm done to us in Ukraine cannot compare to special forces giving their lives to protect our embassador and then being left to die.

[ScottF]

It's going to be interesting to see how long Pelosi keeps her finger on the pause (stop?) button. I think she's probably been more hostage than participant from the beginning. We've gone from repeated statements of Trump presenting a clear and present threat to our democracy, to be impeached with all due haste, to "hold up, let's just slow our roll here, no need to rush things".

I believe the definition of impeachment has been permanently changed as a result of the democrats, um, approach. Impeachment now appears to mean "a strongly worded letter". Weird times.

[Kasandra]

Not at all.;  Benghazi involved dead servicemen.  That's a huge balance in the damage threshold.  People want answers to a tragedy, and Americans particularly like to see someone crucified in response to bloody tragedy.  Benghazi was a case of finding "who's to Blame" for a terrible tragedy while Ukrainegate is an example of finding something to blame Trump for.

Surely you admit that the putative harm done to us in Ukraine cannot compare to special forces giving their lives to protect our embassador and then being left to die.

I'm surprised and disappointed that you said that.  Except for the most ardent Hillary haters, all analyses of the day's events agree that there was no chance to get to the Benghazi Consulate in time to save those lives.  OTOH, every day that Trump delayed the military support to Ukraine may well have cost lives.  They just weren't the lives of American soldiers.

[TheDeamon]

It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

[Kasandra]

It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

That blithely ignores Trump's almost superhuman ability to break rules, if not laws.  He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

[ScottF]

He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

Perfectly encapsulated, and honest.

[Pete at Home]

It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

That blithely ignores Trump's almost superhuman ability to break rules, if not laws.  He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

No, it doesn’t! If y’all had waited until he broke a law (or even just until he took office) to announce y’all were going to impeach him, we’d all be taking this a lot more seriously.

[Kasandra]

It should be noted there is a difference between investigating someone intensively as has been done to Hillary... And declaring "AHA! We have something to investigate you on! We're impeaching you immediately."

That blithely ignores Trump's almost superhuman ability to break rules, if not laws.  He is a sociopath, so nobody had to wait for him to do something objectionable or illegal.

No, it doesn’t! If y’all had waited until he broke a law (or even just until he took office) to announce y’all were going to impeach him, we’d all be taking this a lot more seriously.

You don't wait for a mob boss to personally do a hit job.  There are campaign finance law violations, continual violations of the emoluments clauses, misuse of funds allocated by Congress, obstruction of justice as described by Mueller, illegal immigration orders, yada, yada, yada.  You're a lawyer, you know all this.

[TheDeamon]

Next you're going to tell us that in your day Firemen put out fires rather than burned books. 

[Pete at Home]

Kasandra, it’s a very strained case of “bribery”— it would be easier to convict a typical prosecutor of extortion for the standard way they get guilty pleas.

[Pete at Home]

Next time prosecute Mob bosses *before* they get voted into high office. Seriously.  Even the Colombians understood that. Remember Pablo Escobar?

[Kasandra]

Next you're going to tell us that in your day Firemen put out fires rather than burned books. 

In my day firemen weren't capitalized and stood ready at all times to deal with conflagrations that they knew were inevitable.  With Trump you need a bucket brigade of Investigators to deal with his inevitable arson.  I read about that in the Book of Constitution before Trump tried to burn it.

[Kasandra]

Next time prosecute Mob bosses *before* they get voted into high office. Seriously.  Even the Colombians understood that. Remember Pablo Escobar?

So what do you do about a mob boss after he's in office?  Seriously.

[DonaldD]

Fox News / Christianity Today calls for Trump removal

the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral 

Significant or not?  It looks like at least some evangelicals no longer think that the policy upsides of Trump outweigh their moral principles.

[Kasandra]

Fox News / Christianity Today calls for Trump removal

the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral 

Significant or not?  It looks like at least some evangelicals no longer think that the policy upsides of Trump outweigh their moral principles.

They've already gotten everything from him that they want.  When you play with a transactional devil, you have to be transactional, too.

[Crunch]

It’s official, the House adjourned before voting to send the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate for a trial. They’re doing all this for nothing. LMAO. .

You know, this means Trump has actually not been impeached.

[Crunch]

Next you're going to tell us that in your day Firemen put out fires rather than burned books. 

In my day firemen weren't capitalized and stood ready at all times to deal with conflagrations that they knew were inevitable.  With Trump you need a bucket brigade of Investigators to deal with his inevitable arson.  I read about that in the Book of Constitution before Trump tried to burn it.

You read about arson in the constitution?

BTW, one clue that you're making it all up is that you didn't cite a single source for any of your "thinking".  I make a point of doing that before I let people know what I think.  Try it!

I’m looking for that link ...nope. So, you made it all up!  LOL. That aged well for you.  smh

[Ouija Nightmare]

Fox News / Christianity Today calls for Trump removal

the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral 

Significant or not?  It looks like at least some evangelicals no longer think that the policy upsides of Trump outweigh their moral principles.

Does the dog wag the tail or the tail tail wag the dog?

The evangelical community isn’t a homogenous entity. There are some there because they do indeed have good hearts and are sincere. There’s also some there because it provides them with power.

My guess is this will create churn and cause splits and fissures in the community.

Just like it has in the rest of the country.

Very few people talk about it but Trump doesn’t need to be sworn to Putin to serve him. He’s doing a damn good job of destroying the country just being himself.

Let’s see if the “awakening” becomes a trend or the few voices that speak up suddenly need to spend more time in reflection with their families.

[Kasandra]

Guess what? You're right about that.  I did my own reading before posting, but didn't cite the references.  I'll go back and see what I can reconstruct later today. Feel free to do the same if you think there were any facts hidden among your opinions.

[Kasandra]

Crunch,

In that last thread I commented that support for impeachment has been stable for several months.  Here are some places I have read that support that: September, October, November, December.  I'd like to see a reference supporting your claim that support is falling.  And no, your dad, brother, cousin or pool buddies don't count as references.

[TheDrake]

Impeachment polls

Independents have hovered around 40% since October.

Now, you can cherry-pick some polls, like Brietbart does singling out a CNN poll.

This is terrible p-hacking. If they picked a two month window, they'd be reporting an increase of several percent.

[Kasandra]

What I like (i.e., somewhat trust) about 538 is that they are a poll aggregator.  Most of the polls that are skewed pull to the right, and even though 538 includes them their impact is mitigated.  I don't completely trust them either, though, because of their seeming to lead the herd in predicting Hillary was a virtual shoo-in.  Statistics are still statistics, no matter how much you've got.