The 100th Impeachment Poll

[ocean515]

Ordinary Americans elect representatives, electors elect presidents. Vast regions of the country already dont matter as every candidate doesnt bother campaigning in any state but certain battleground states. You have not demonstrated any knowledge.

So you have no idea why the electoral college method for selecting the President of the United States was created.

Why then are you entering into a discussion involving it?

 

[Perotista]

Okay, today is April 25th and the redacted Mueller report has been out for a while now, digested by just about everyone. Knowing what we know today, do you honestly believe that Trump will be impeached by the House (let's not worry about the Senate in this poll)?

Impeachment is in the hands of the Democratic controlled House. It'll be all up to Speaker Pelosi. The house can impeach Trump any time it so desires. The problem is basically only Democrats, anti-Trumpers want him impeached. A new ABC polls shows 62% of Democrats want Trump impeached, 36% of independents and 10% of Republicans. Nationwide it is 37% in favor of impeachment, 56% against. Almost identical to a CNN poll of a month ago showing 36% in favor, 57% against.

31% believe Trump is exonerated after Mueller report, 56% oppose impeachment: Poll - ABC News

The problem with impeachment now, it would look like a single party's political vendetta against Trump which could backfire against the Democrats. Without a majority of independents aboard, forget Democrats and Republicans, it could look like political revenge for losing an election.

I think Pelosi is smart enough to recognize this and hence, no impeachment for the time being. But she'll probably have a hard time keeping hot headed Democrats in line on this. If impeachment become warranted, everyone will know it, not just hot headed anti-Trump democrats.

Remember, impeachment is a purely political process and as such has political ramifications, either good or bad.

 

[LouC]

Okay, today is April 25th and the redacted Mueller report has been out for a while now, digested by just about everyone. Knowing what we know today, do you honestly believe that Trump will be impeached by the House (let's not worry about the Senate in this poll)?

I voted "Other". Speaker Pelosi is wise. She will let the House investigations run their course. Perchance should they reveal what she feels it would take to secure a conviction in the Senate then she would move articles of impeachment through the House.

As it stands right now I don't think she is even remotely ready to go that route.

Thank goodness!

 

[Chomsky]

Can you cite any basis for impeachment. At some point your going to have to explain in detail all the points that would be a basis for impeachment, that would convince both parties and the public Trump needs to be impeached. Your going to have to produce facts, not all the crap you pumped out for over 2 yrs that Trump colluded with the Russians with all your lies and false claims.

Judge Napolitano has a few brief examples, if you're interested:





Here's the above video in larger context:

 

[Born Free]

The no coordination narrative certainly was not helped by Trump’s big mouth but the basis of the investigation has been verified.

The basis of the investigation was two things, Trump colluding with the Russian, found not guilty. And the Russian interference of our election and Mueller indicted some Russians but they are in Russia, so no help there. And really I don't see any specifics from Mueller that is exactly what the Russians did and what effect it had on the election. As for obstruction, Mueller left that decision for the AG and he and Rosenstein came to the conclusion there was no obstruction. Congress does not have the authority to indict anyone, but they can impeach a president if the votes are there to impeach. In this case what crime was Trump obstructing?

 

[Born Free]

Judge Napolitano has a few brief examples, if you're interested:





Here's the above video in larger context:

Problem is Barr and Rosenstein came to the same conclusion there was no obstruction based on the Mueller's report.

Napolitano has been dead wrong in the past, leaving him way behind as the most intelligent judge in the world. Now if you want to read about Napolitano being wrong, here you go

6 Times When Fox’s Judge Napolitano Got Things Very, Very Wrong

Since the recent faux-news debacle, in which Fox Chief Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano announced that according to his “inside sources,” a British intelligence agency wiretapped the Trump campaign, “The Judge” has found himself benched. Apparently, there are limits to Fox’s tolerance for propaganda, even in its workshop of sometimes fact-averse conspiracy theories and partisan hackery. While last week’s incidents seems to have pushed Fox over the edge, it sure wasn’t the first time Napolitano purveyed drivel disguised as “judicial analysis.” Here is a reminder of a few times Nap got it very wrong:

6 Times When Fox's Judge Napolitano Got Things Very, Very Wrong | Law & Crime

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano slams Trump for 'criminal,' 'immoral' obstruction

After reading the Mueller report, Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano came to the conclusion that the behavior of President Donald Trump was “immoral, criminal, defenseless, and condemnable.”

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano slams Trump for 'criminal' obstruction

Do you think Napolitano may be just a little bias, which is why he is dead wrong on many of his conclusion.

 

[Mr Mo]

The basis of the investigation was two things, Trump colluding with the Russian, found not guilty. And the Russian interference of our election and Mueller indicted some Russians but they are in Russia, so no help there. And really I don't see any specifics from Mueller that is exactly what the Russians did and what effect it had on the election. As for obstruction, Mueller left that decision for the AG and he and Rosenstein came to the conclusion there was no obstruction. Congress does not have the authority to indict anyone, but they can impeach a president if the votes are there to impeach. In this case what crime was Trump obstructing?

There doesn't actually need to have been a crime committed for an obstruction of justice charge to stick. Interfering in an investigation is enough, even if the charge being investigated is dropped or dismissed. However, it appears that Trump might not have actually obstructed justice but merely attempted to do so, and attempted obstruction isn't a strong enough accusation for these Democrats to pursue impeachment. Which is probably wise of them.

 

[Born Free]

There doesn't actually need to have been a crime committed for an obstruction of justice charge to stick. Interfering in an investigation is enough, even if the charge being investigated is dropped or dismissed.

If you take that path, then where are the damages, there is none.

However, it appears that Trump might not have actually obstructed justice but merely attempted to do so, and attempted obstruction isn't a strong enough accusation for these Democrats to pursue impeachment. Which is probably wise of them.

I agree, but impeachment of Trump, the Dems will have to go way beyond to get the votes to impeach.

If you are charged with obstruction, the first question I would ask is what crime did I obstruct? In Trump's case there is none. So Trump did not cover up a crime nor was there any crime. Now they go around and around on you, stating you were trying to fire Mueller. So, but I did not fire Mueller, yeah but you said this and that. So where is the obstruction, are you basing obstruction on what I said openly. etc etc

My take is Mueller did not make a decision, one way or the other, he put that in the hands of the AG, who along with Rosenstein after reviewing Mueller's report can to a conclusion there was no obstruction. And that was made public. How the House is going to convince the people that Barr and Rosenstein's conclusion was a lie to the American People. Good luck with that. But that won't slow the Libs down, they've been lying about the Trump Russian collusion for over 2 yr wit constant lies and totally false links there was collusion between Trump and Russia. So now that finally gave that up and are sinking their teeth into obstruction that Barr and Rosenstein said there was no obstruction. And they are so determined to destroy Trump they are now asking for 5 yrs of tax returns and all his business records and bank records and that includes his children and their families.

 

[chuckiechan]

Okay, today is April 25th and the redacted Mueller report has been out for a while now, digested by just about everyone. Knowing what we know today, do you honestly believe that Trump will be impeached by the House (let's not worry about the Senate in this poll)?

For the 99th time, they want the smoke. As soon as they take a vote, it's over. They don't even have the democrat votes in the House or they would have done it already. They may try to time it with the election, but I doubt they want to chain themselves down as a one issue party. They are that now with the primary fight. Everyone is fighting to see how can go farther left.

Bill Maher put it best regarind Schiff: "You are stalking Trump". It is getting rather creepy...

Issue two, the MSM got burned on the Mueller report and the constant stream of wrong accusations. They could claim "we report, you decide" before, but like it or not, Mueller pretty much ended it. So what is in it for them to follow a process that will lead nowhere? MSNBC will probably stay in, but CNN can't afford to:

Q1 2019 Cable News Ranker (Total Viewers) | Non Fiction Television Series | Cnbc

 

[TheRepublican]

I accepted the results, so how many times do you have to keep this joke up? What would you do if Pence is the president. This is how I was taught! Are you going to investigate that because your candidate didn’t try hard. My advice is to the democrats we have 50 states and if you don’t go to campaign in those states they are going to be your “Russia’s influences”. It’s obviously the working class isn’t nothing to the democrats. Because this party to be like a food pantry and everything else

 

[antiquity]

Ordinary Americans elect representatives, electors elect presidents. Vast regions of the country already dont matter as every candidate doesnt bother campaigning in any state but certain battleground states. You have not demonstrated any knowledge.

Eh...state voters vote for those electors who in turn vote along party lines (at least most of the time). And if a presidential candidates only campaigned in the populous states then none of the other less populous states would have voice.

There is no way the constitution will be changed so the whole electoral college elimination rant and raving is moot.

 

[bomberfox]

Eh...state voters vote for those electors who in turn vote along party lines (at least most of the time). And if a presidential candidates only campaigned in the populous states then none of the other less populous states would have voice.

There is no way the constitution will be changed so the whole electoral college elimination rant and raving is moot.

That is an assumption, the electors are in no way bound to vote how the voters want. That means the people do not elect the president. It was only later on that the EC gained any pretense of being swayed by the voters. Nobody is ranting or raving besides yourself because you cannot back up your arguments beyond high school civics. The fact is what you complain about already happens.

 

[Chomsky]

Problem is Barr and Rosenstein came to the same conclusion there was no obstruction based on the Mueller's report.

Napolitano has been dead wrong in the past, leaving him way behind as the most intelligent judge in the world. Now if you want to read about Napolitano being wrong, here you go

6 Times When Fox’s Judge Napolitano Got Things Very, Very Wrong

Since the recent faux-news debacle, in which Fox Chief Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano announced that according to his “inside sources,” a British intelligence agency wiretapped the Trump campaign, “The Judge” has found himself benched. Apparently, there are limits to Fox’s tolerance for propaganda, even in its workshop of sometimes fact-averse conspiracy theories and partisan hackery. While last week’s incidents seems to have pushed Fox over the edge, it sure wasn’t the first time Napolitano purveyed drivel disguised as “judicial analysis.” Here is a reminder of a few times Nap got it very wrong:

6 Times When Fox's Judge Napolitano Got Things Very, Very Wrong | Law & Crime

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano slams Trump for 'criminal,' 'immoral' obstruction

After reading the Mueller report, Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano came to the conclusion that the behavior of President Donald Trump was “immoral, criminal, defenseless, and condemnable.”

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano slams Trump for 'criminal' obstruction

Do you think Napolitano may be just a little bias, which is why he is dead wrong on many of his conclusion.

But remember in that I bolded, that Mueller did not conclude there was "no obstruction"; he claimed there wasn't adequate evidence to succeed in a criminal prosecution. In fact Mueller specifically wrote that he could not exonerate Trump, and left it in the hands of Congress. Which is where we currently are; in the political realm.

 

[Xelor]

Will The House Impeach Trump?

If support for impeachment reaches ~67% or more in two or more generally credible polls (see: FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings and sort the list by "538 rating." A generally credible poll is one that's got a A or better rating and a negative "advanced +/-" value.) yes.

Why ~67%?

• Because that'd indicate two thirds of the country is keen to have the POTUS impeached, and that indication implicitly indicates the probable viability of placing intense pressure on Senators to convict.
• Because notwithstanding what partisans think/say, and no matter what GOP Senators say publicly, Republicans in Congress know quite well that about 30% of Trump's "base" consists of "deplorables" who will support him and condone his continued presidency no matter what he says or does. And they know that 30%, though useful, is by itself inadequate for winning elections. Accordingly, Congressional Republicans know that if public support for impeachment, and by implication, removal from office, gets that high, their real choices are to "cut bait" or in a highly palpable way create a situation that allows Dems to obtain supermajorities in both houses, or 60 seats, if not a supermajority, in the Senate.

 

[Born Free]

But remember in that I bolded, that Mueller did not conclude there was "no obstruction"; he claimed there wasn't adequate evidence to succeed in a criminal prosecution.

I rest me case.

In fact Mueller specifically wrote that he could not exonerate Trump, and left it in the hands of Congress.

Wrong, where do you get this congress stuff, tell me what authority congress has other than impeachment. So it's only in the hands of congress to impeach or not. Barr and Rosenstein came to the same conclusion that there was no evidence to warrant an indictment, or investigate any further. Congress can give Barr a request to investigate etc, but that decision has already been made by Barr and Rosenstein there is no evidence. So that bridge is closed to congress.

Which is where we currently are; in the political realm.

Where we are is that Barr and Rosenstein already stated there is no evidence of obstruction. So all that is left if Congress can use the Mueller report to impeach Trump. But good luck with that. The liberal House does not have a free impeachment card. Whatever they come up with will be challenged. Further they have no help from the AG. And to get the votes needed from the House is not a given, far from it. And the Senate, you can forget it.

So where we are is, is congress going to try to impeach Trump or not. It's over my friend. And to add cold water on the impeachment idea, Schumer and Pelosi said they had a great meeting with Trump this morning on infrastructure, and then what, while working with Trump on an infrastructure deal, they are working hard to impeach Trump. How does that work?????? I repeat: It's over my friend.

 

[antiquity]

I rest me case.



Wrong, where do you get this congress stuff, tell me what authority congress has other than impeachment. So it's only in the hands of congress to impeach or not. Barr and Rosenstein came to the same conclusion that there was no evidence to warrant an indictment, or investigate any further. Congress can give Barr a request to investigate etc, but that decision has already been made by Barr and Rosenstein there is no evidence. So that bridge is closed to congress.



Where we are is that Barr and Rosenstein already stated there is no evidence of obstruction. So all that is left if Congress can use the Mueller report to impeach Trump. But good luck with that. The liberal House does not have a free impeachment card. Whatever they come up with will be challenged. Further they have no help from the AG. And to get the votes needed from the House is not a given, far from it. And the Senate, you can forget it.

So where we are is, is congress going to try to impeach Trump or not. It's over my friend. And to add cold water on the impeachment idea, Schumer and Pelosi said they had a great meeting with Trump this morning on infrastructure, and then what, while working with Trump on an infrastructure deal, they are working hard to impeach Trump. How does that work?????? I repeat: It's over my friend.

Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump....:lamo I like that one...thanks for laugh.