That Impeachment Thing....

Fun fact is that the Senate doesn't actually need them to proceed. They hold meeting and draft the documents for how their going to do the "trial" along with setting a start date for the prosecution to present it's case (that's the Democrats). When that date happens, if the prosecution can't present a case then the defense's motion to dismiss will be sustained and *poof* whole thing goes away.

Now it won't actually get to that point, the moment the Senate looks like it's about to start he Dem's will suddenly summit the articles they've been writing since Nov 2016. It's all just showmanship and political theater.

Trial isn't until next month.

And to clarify, there is no Constitutional requirement for the house to "transmit" and physically hand over anything to the Senate. It's been tradition that the House would physically hand over the results of what they voted and then the Senate Judiciary committee would make the rules and so forth. Basically everything the House did the Senate can do itself and there is nothing the Democrats can do about it.

Now the Republicans on the Senate are taking the high road here and just shaming the Democrats into "doing their job". Using the public's distaste for the whole thing to hurt the Democrats chances of reelection. It'll be interesting to see how long Peloski can hold on before being forced to move forward. Since there is no Constitutional time table here, in theory the Democrats could hold the articles up until after the 2020 election under the hope they would of got a majority in the Senate. Republicans won't let that happen though, they'll summarily dismiss before then.

yeah ~ meant to clarify about all those folks running for re-election cuz impeachment woes would be fresh on the minds of people if they hold the trial till October let alone the 30 odd something open seats for senate. and if for some reason it passes the senate then the house would be called back as a jury iirc

Yep

The power of impeachment lies with the House. And the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. You are presenting this like a settled question when it is not. Can the Senate simply assign managers to make the House's case?

The GOP blundered by showing their hand too early, saying publicly that they weren't impartial and that they'd simply acquit Trump without an actual trial. It gave Pelosi the opportunity to hold the impeachment for now. And who knows what the voters will think at this point by November? Removal isn't that popular in the last polling I saw but the House Dems can add more to the impeachment as evidence of new crimes comes to light. It's certainly a gamble. However, Trump does want to be acquitted. He's signaled as such, arguing today to go right to trial:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1207817078725578755

We are in uncharted waters here. It very well could be decided in the courts.

It's perfectly legitimate to be confused as *** why someone can be impeached for corruption then run for Presidency because no other country would have a system like this.

Would other countries consider wanting to investigate corruption, corruption?

The Democrats were mad they lost in 2016 because they were sure they would win, in their rage they said right from the start they would impeach him on anything. Before he even took office actually.

So since the Democrats control the house they forced through the impeachment in 6? weeks with barely any evidence of wrong doing at all. They could of impeached him for having blonde hair if they wanted and it would of passed just the same since they control the majority in the house and they hate him for making them losers. Impeachment is a total sham of angry people with a majority vote.

However now the senate (Republican controlled) has to vote on whether to take action on the impeachment or not and that will NEVER happen, so the impeachment thing means nothing at all, zero. Trump will not be removed, he will run again in 2020 and he will most likely win because his entire base has been rallied and angered by the impeachment.

The Democrats will most likely impeach him again after 2020 if they manage to get a majority in the house and this will repeat over and over.

Given how pointless this all was I have to wonder if this was less about impeaching and more about diverting attention away from Biden being corrupt and the spying that took place in 2016 against Trump.

And if you honestly ever, for one second, thought that he was going to get a fair shot in the house then you're insane. This was planned back before he even got sworn in they were just waiting for him to maybe do something they could run with. It should be the people that decide if he stays in office or not. Present the case and if people feel it compels them to vote a different way then so be it.

Part of this I think is because they know they can't beat him. Between the economy, border security and the dems having a absolute ***field, he's a shoe in for re-election and everyone knows it. People can say they vote based on a number of issues but the truth is most people vote with their wallet, just common nature. He is going to pick up some moderate dem votes, a bunch of independents and of course his base.

The house only passed impeachment because of a democrat majority (they could of passed it with any reason), and even some democrats voted against it. Trump will be gone in 5 years, the damage the democrats are doing to your nation will last generations.

The right were outraged when Obama won, they didn't sink to this level.

So new angle, if the House never officially notifies the Senate and "submits" the articles they voted on, then the President isn't impeached. Got Democrats losing their minds when that argument is presented.

Best analogy I can thing of is that if the police are finished with an investigation and submit their case to the District Attorney. The DA takes the case and puts all the paperwork together surrounding it, prepares their arguments, signs he incitement notice .... and never submits it to the court. They can hold all the press conferences they want, make all the loud claims, yet if the incitement never makes it to the court then the person is not under incitement. When asked about it, the DA responds that they aren't submitting it yet because they don't like the current Judge and want to try to change them out.

So yeah, that makes the Democrats look even worse then they already were. Peloksi is officially at Stalin level corruption.

Lol, what "damage" are you dreaming up now?

There may be some that fall into this category, but not everyone. Those of us that voted for him, and then regretted it after the first year, never wished for impeachment from the beginning. I think he has caused more division in this country than any other president which is why I'd prefer him out. Then we can keep Pence on a leash until 2020 when we can have proper candidates from both parties run for President. The biggest problem with Trump is he acts without thinking. He really should have an adviser that he listens to but his ego is too big for that. The idea that he would be good for the country because he was a businessman and not a politician was the worst fallacy. When you look at his business dealings, it is full of failures and bankruptcies. It was his father that built the family fortune, Trump inherited his money.

Yep he is full of failures somehow failed all his way to President.

Hell I'm failure also maybe I could be President too !

He turned his father's invesment into a multi billion dollar company. I'd say he was pretty successful.

If I gave one of you *** a million dollars I doubt you could turn it into billions.

As said about he has not been impeached until they send the articles to the Senate.

said above*

Yeah, the “Trump is a failed businessman” trope is beyond dumb. Fred Trump wasn’t a billionaire. There’s no doubt that Donald built on his father’s legacy, but he still had to grow the brand successfully, which he certainly did.

Also, I should point out that “but hurr durr bankruptcy” isn’t proof of failure in the business world. In many cases it’s a strategic tool. Obviously it’s not proof of success either, but when you own a crapload of properties it’s not unusual to have a handful with excessive debt that needs to get wiped out (especially during a recession). The key is whether or not your business as a whole is growing and thriving over time, which in Trump’s case it was.

To simplify this concept, let’s suppose you own ten casinos. Nine make a million dollars in profit, and one accrues a million dollars in debt. You file bankruptcy on the one, but you’re still way ahead overall. Does that make you a failure?

In almost every single other domain I'd say no because success/failure is depending on a lot of factors, but you can't bankrupt a casino unless you are specifically trying to sabotage your own business.

America isn't a Brand or a Company, and I wouldn't expect it to be handled as such. America doesn't need to grow in popularity, it needs to be respected as a leading government.

I'm not familiar with the term "hurr durr" bankruptcy. What specifically does this mean? Or is it being used in a comical sense, to reference a disabled person? Trump is a lot of things, but I wouldn't compare him to a disabled person. That's disrespectful to disabled people in general.