He technically can, but Barr won't allow it.
Republicans aren't going to have the first ever president in our country's history that is removed forcibly from office be part of the Republican party. We simply will never get that 66 vote threshold, dont dive into extreme fantasy.
Classic "I don't have a solution, so I'll just hope one shows up before I need it."
No, they would probably force him to resign first.
No, just literally following the process. You impeachment is [investigation -> vote]. If you had to whip votes in the senate before starting proceedings, you would never do anything
✔
@rebeccaballhaus
Sean Hannity to Trump in tonight's interview, on Michael Cohen and the hush-money payments: "I can tell you personally, he said to me at least a dozen times, that he made the decision on the payments and he didn't tell you."
1
21:12 - 28 Feb 2019
I think this got lost in the mountain of Cohen shit from yesterday, but it's yet another example of "left" guys like Tracey going on Tucker because *gasp* they ain't fucking left-wing in the slightest.
How do the democrats get 18 republicans to vote to convict trump?
No, there is no such "thing". Because there's fuck all in the books about whether or not a president can or cannot be charged with a crime.
People who unironically watch RT is gonna get you a big % of that group.
Ugh. I have to believe that's a tiny demographic.People who unironically watch RT is gonna get you a big % of that group.
No, they would probably force him to resign first.
No, just literally following the process. You impeachment is [investigation -> vote]. If you had to whip votes in the senate before starting proceedings, you would never do anything
Why is that the bar AT THIS POINT?How do the democrats get 18 republicans to vote to convict trump?
Just imagine these two morons getting together and brainstorming. And that is what they came up with.
How do the democrats get 18 republicans to vote to convict trump?
It's nonsense, obviously. It's not going to stop them going for it, but again, you can't have it both ways.CNN Just reported that White House sources tell them regulations protect Trump from negative information to come out if he's not charged with a crime.
Which of course they are saying that, but I'm giddy at wondering *why* they're saying that on background
Mike DeBonis ✔
@mikedebonis
Inside Thursday's tense House Dems meeting: an exasperated Pelosi demanding moderates stiffen their spines, AOC threatening to put them on "a list" and mods begging for forbearance.
GOP floor mischief paying off in spades...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d163fe-3b87-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html
Why is that the bar AT THIS POINT?
Literally you have evidence the president committed crimes while in office. The house has a constitutional duty to investigate in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. If every prosecutor had to decide whether a jury would convict before starting to gather proof, nobody would ever go to jail.
If proceedings start, then impeachment is a certainty. Removal from office is highly unlikely, at least with the information we currently have.
Why is that the bar AT THIS POINT?
Literally you have evidence the president committed crimes while in office. The house has a constitutional duty to investigate in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. If every prosecutor had to decide whether a jury would convict before starting to gather proof, nobody would ever go to jail.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but we're just going around in circles.BECAUSE NOTHING WILL HAPPEN IF THE SENATE DOESN'T VOTE TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but we're just going around in circles.
You're saying you can never go into this without being certain about the final outcome.
No, my certainty is that Trump is corrupt AF and it will either be impossible for Republicans to ignore, or will shock the conscience of enough Americans to vote him out.Your mistake is thinking of impeachment as a legal matter. It is a political one.
Yup. Way too many GOP senators (even those who would like to impeach) are scared as fuck of the hell they'll receive from their trump-supporting constituents. I'm pretty sure some of these trump-supporters are so fucking insane that they will resort to violence towards anyone who ousts trump.BECAUSE NOTHING WILL HAPPEN IF THE SENATE DOESN'T VOTE TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.
CNN Just reported that White House sources tell them regulations protect Trump from negative information to come out if he's not charged with a crime.
Which of course they are saying that, but I'm giddy at wondering *why* they're saying that on background
How do the democrats get 18 republicans to vote to convict trump?
Well, blackmail is certainly one way. I'm sure that finding serious dirt on 18 Republicans wouldn't be hard. If pork were still a thing, that would be another way.
There is nothing he could do or be exposed as being that would get enough votes in the Senate to convict.No, my certainty is that Trump is corrupt AF and it will either be impossible for Republicans to ignore, or will shock the conscience of enough Americans to vote him out.
Open in incognito mode. Nothing new in this article. The only difference I can even remember is maybe it talked about the timing of MTR and the other didn't. Maybe they both did but you're not missing anything if you skip this one.Anything more detailed in this article than the one that came down earlier today? I'm getting paywall'd.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but we're just going around in circles.
You're saying you can never go into this without being certain about the final outcome.
There is nothing he could do or be exposed as being that would get enough votes in the Senate to convict.
No, my certainty is that Trump is corrupt AF and it will either be impossible for Republicans to ignore, or will shock the conscience of enough Americans to vote him out.
I'm disagreeing about the hopelessness of not even beginning the procedures.Your disagreeing that there's a political process in congress about impeaching presidents, and that Trump has massive loyalty among congressmen and women there?
edit: It would be stupid to do this without counting the votes before hand. Failure is not an option.
Ken Dilanian @KenDilanianNBC
Chris Christie, Trump supporter, says he believes the Southern District is building a case to indict the president when he leaves office.
9:32 PM - Feb 28, 2019
There is nothing he could do or be exposed as being that would get enough votes in the Senate to convict.
I'm disagreeing about the hopelessness of not even beginning the procedures.
It Doesn't mean take a vote now.
It doesn't mean they should vote to impeachment
It means start investigating. There's enough probable cause to do it
I don't think that's necessarily true. The same could've been said for Nixon, and was true up until the tapes came out after the Supreme Court battle, and the tapes were just absolutely damning and he said some disgusting things. They did not have the votes until his voice was on tape. I think that's what it will take.
Literally the only example we have of this is Clinton, and the GOP was overreaching, and people knew it in real time.Impeachment is a political process because if you don't convict the public considers you in the wrong.
To be a fly on the wall. I wonder if it's Russia relatedLanny Davis on Maddow now: explosive revelations in the closed hearings today. That's why Cohen is coming back next week.