You might wish to bookmark the link that follows. It explains the impeachment process in great detail.
I will lose all faith in this country and accept the disconnect with this morally bankrupt society is real, permanent, and requires selfish adjustments to stomach. It will truly be the most shameful moment in U.S. history in my lifetime. I opposed Obama greatly, more so in 2012, but his victory was just another "chalk it up as a loss" and place hope in the future moment. After a corrupt gov and high illegality on many fronts is exposed and people still vote to continue the madness...incompatible with my values system.
This would only be true if the Republicans had nominated a decent alternative. Instead they nominated a charlatan who cannot stop embarrassing himself and the Republican party. There are plenty of Republicans who will not be voting for Trump. Had they nominated pretty much anyone else in the primaries, this election would have been over weeks ago. One of the most monumentally stupid moves in the history of American politics!
That's not really here nor there. I did not make the argument that Trump would lose and therefore I did not vote for him. He is a charlatan and an embarrassment to the Republican party which is why I did not vote for him.
The question America potentially will face should Clinton win has nothing to do about Trump's competency. It's a question as to whether or not the rule of law applies to government anymore, whether elected officials answer to the public, whether the Constitutional process still exists, and if not, what happens when that becomes apparent to everyone?
Is that really even a question anymore? Of course, the law does not apply to certain high ranking government officials. In retrospect, the outrage of liberals at Watergate is hilarious given that they nominated the most corrupt candidate since Nixon.
The Rep party is the embarrassment to the Rep party. That's why Trump won the nomination in the first place. Any Rep who abandoned the party and helped increase the odds of a truly evil, crime family stealing control of the massively Lib corrupted gov is a much bigger disgrace to the party than Trump ever could be. Congrats, you just guaranteed losing future elections to the Dems by paving the way for multi millions of new citizens to add to their guaranteed vote total. You just stacked the SC with social justice warriors with zero regard for the constitution for the next several decades. You won't have only helped shun Trump, but also destroyed the Reps only mechanism to stop illegal executive orders actions taken be Queen Hillary (SC), and shot the party in the head in future vote counts. This election was so much bigger than a charlatan vs. a career criminal. IMHO, NeverTrump Reps are pathetic... Supposedly so principled they couldn't stomach voting for Trump, even though the shun absolutely helps elect the least principled, proven multiple felony committing candidate in U.S. history.
You can thank the idiots who nominated Trump for this. Next time don't nominate a Democrat pretending to be a Republican.
BTW I am strongly of the opinion that we are f'd either way. The national debt will swallow this country whole and Trump has shown no inclination to change the course we are on.
Amen. And I do NOT believe the oft stated 'any other candidate' could have defeated her bologna. That greatly underestimates her (and the Dem Party's) power and control today. I would even go farther and say the Don may have present the best opportunity due to the enormous outside the party support he gained and maintained throughout this grueling, often repugnant, campaign. It is hard for me to imagine that Rubio and Cruz could have taken Hillary down in the deabates when they couldn't take down Trump. Just do not buy it. Like most I did not want Trump, my candidate went out early, but I would never, ever, vote for the queen of dispicable.
Since Nixon? You should have just stopped with what is in bold. Nixon never profited with money in pocket like Hillary did in the $100 million rage.
This is the problem with the "if we don't elect Trump, the republic is dead" mindset. I didn't vote for Hillary over Trump, but we offered them a freak show as an alternative. I'm not going to lose all hope in the country if people who aren't overt partisans are willing to take her over him. If we had nominated somebody respectable, and the public still chose Hillary, then I'd lose hope.
At its core, impeachment is a political issue. We can haggle over the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but at the end of the day, they are what the public wants them to be at any given moment. That means the election outcome will determine how likely impeachment is. The GOP will almost surely hold the House, so they may impeach Hillary on a straight party-line vote (or damn close to it). The problem is going to be in the Senate. Trump will likely cost the GOP control of the Senate. If that happens, the Senate won't take the impeachment seriously at all. They won't hear evidence, and they'll summarily dismiss the impeachment articles. If the Senate stays in GOP hands, they'll at least put on a trial. However, unless the polls are extremely lopsided in favor of removal (enough that even blue state Democrats are in danger), the vote to convict will break down along party lines (or close to it), and she'll remain in office. In other words, it'll be a repeat of 1998.
Deez, the scenario you painted is pretty much what the author is calling a constitutional crises. When the Senate fails to do its job, this time the public won't accept it and sit passively by until the next election. At best we see civil unrest. At worse, some states push for secession.
The implication is that the Senate is only "doing its job" if they convict on any article with a 2/3rds majority. Let's say that the impeachment hearings make it all the way to the Senate floor, and the new Senate (which will probably look like 50-50, but it doesn't matter either way) doesn't convict. James Autio's major arguments for why a non-conviction wouldn't hold is "look at this guy from Grant's term" and "several states have already talked about secession."
I wouldn't necessarily call a non-conviction a failure to do its job. Nobody is accusing her of treason or bribery, which are objectively-defined offenses that are grounds for removal. They're accusing her of "high crimes and misdemeanors." What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is a question of law, but it's a question that's answered by the Senate, not by the judiciary. Accordingly, political realities are going to drive that definition. If the public decides that HRC actions don't meet that definition, then the Senate isn't required to oust her. And let's just be realistic. We're extremely polarized. The blue states are extremely blue. The red states are extremely red. The primary elections are the real elections in most states. Accordingly to get a Democratic senator vote to remove, he or she would have to be convinced that doing so would not only be politically viable in the general election but among Democratic primary voters. That's not going to happen nearly enough to reach 67 votes. I could see Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, and perhaps Heidi Heitkamp going along, but that would leave us well short of the 67 votes even with the current Senate. I don't think we'll see significant civil unrest or serious calls for secession. That'll still be the domain of crackpots like it is now.
You make it sound like some big cigars in a back room selected him. The GOP primary VOTERS selected him. That is the way our republic works. If he's such a train wreck, why couldn't the other candidates who you think so highly of compete with him?
The voters are human beings and frequently make stupid choices. Nominating Trump is a bit of a recordbreaker in American politics.
You are absolutely correct. Trump won the nomination fair and square. I never suggested otherwise. Anger makes people make bad decisions. Voting for Trump over reliable conservatives such as Kasich, Rubio, even Cruz was a bad decision. We are talking about a guy that identified as a pro-choice Democrat not that long ago (nearly 60 at the time not in his youth). We are talking about a guy that accused President Bush of lying about Saddam Hussein having WMDs to start a war. We are talking about a guy that is not committed to NATO. We are talking about a guy that attacks his opponents wife and generally acts like a complete fool. You want me to vote to allow that type of man to be the face of the Republican party for 4 years? No chance.
So instead you would rather see a lying corrupt witch who sold our country out for her personal gain? Who had such contempt for her job as SOS she let her maid handle our country's classified material? She had such contempt for our country she took bribes from foreign governments after she promised not to? She has proven her contempt over and over. Do you think she will change? She is who you want running our country?
The real question is how does she govern given more than 50% of Americans believe she is untrustworthy and/or corrupt? Also, at least during her early days, she will remain under federal investigation.
Hillary is everything you say she is. But the choice is between 4 years of a weak Hillary Clinton presidency or voting to destroy the Republican party. Can you image what 4 more years of Trump will do to the Republican party? Perhaps some of you are OK with destroying the Republican party but I am just not there. We just need to take our lumps for 4 years and regroup. Hopefully the GOP voters will have learned a valuable lesson for the 2020 election.
The federal investigation will go absolutely nowhere as both the DOJ and the FBI work for the President. If there is resistance from the FBI, she will make the necessary changes (see current purges by Erdgodon in Turkey). There will be public pressure by the public on Congress to push for impeachment and that should gain traction, but outside of Wikileaks and brave whistle blowers, the governmental apparatus isn't going to do a damn thing.
