The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Recent Polling News (Source)
"Since July, the poll found support for an impeachment inquiry has grown by 25 points among Democrats, 21 points among Republicans and 20 points among independents.
"According to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls, support for impeachment among Republicans has increased from 8 percent last month to 16.2 percent presently, while support among independents has leaped from 33.9 percent to 44.4 percent."
Pelosi announced the House impeachment inquiry two weeks ago on 9/24/19. Since then, the polls have shown the public increasingly in favor of that action. The most recent polls show sentiment continues to grow, including noteworthy movement among Republican and independent respondents.
"Since July, the poll found support for an impeachment inquiry has grown by 25 points among Democrats, 21 points among Republicans and 20 points among independents.
"According to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls, support for impeachment among Republicans has increased from 8 percent last month to 16.2 percent presently, while support among independents has leaped from 33.9 percent to 44.4 percent."
Pelosi announced the House impeachment inquiry two weeks ago on 9/24/19. Since then, the polls have shown the public increasingly in favor of that action. The most recent polls show sentiment continues to grow, including noteworthy movement among Republican and independent respondents.
If anyone has ever tried to reason with an alcoholic, that it basically the same thing as trying to talk sense with the Dems and them going ahead with this impeachment b.s.
Did you say the same thing about the Clinton impeachment? Just wondering.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Just curious... Anyone have any comments on this official impeachment inquiry being launched not by the House of Representatives in a legislative impeachment process, as per the Constitution, but instead by the Speaker of the House via fiat?
The reason I ask is, it seems to me, and I could be wrong, but it seems to be a little one-sided. By launching an impeachment inquiry by decree and constraining the process to the House committees instead of The People's House at large, it prevents the minority party (in this case, Republicans) from issuing subpoenas for documents, from calling witnesses, from entering evidence into the record, from cross-examining witnesses, and from the right of confrontation (a right which goes back to even before the Magna Carta). Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that basic decency of fairness and due process are taking a bit of a hit here.
The reason I ask is, it seems to me, and I could be wrong, but it seems to be a little one-sided. By launching an impeachment inquiry by decree and constraining the process to the House committees instead of The People's House at large, it prevents the minority party (in this case, Republicans) from issuing subpoenas for documents, from calling witnesses, from entering evidence into the record, from cross-examining witnesses, and from the right of confrontation (a right which goes back to even before the Magna Carta). Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that basic decency of fairness and due process are taking a bit of a hit here.
Fairly long time ago. Don't remember exactly my opinion at the time regarding impeaching Clinton. Probably thought it was wrong for person of power in a work environment having relations with a young subordinate. Guess I'm just old fashion. I don't recall being out there with a pitchfork and a torch about impeachment though.
Such secrecy...
No Legitimate Media Would Accept Adam Schiff's Impeachment Lies
A legitimate media would scream for impeachment witness transcripts to be released, not just to them but to the public.
www.breitbart.com
Last edited:
1. The constitution does not specify the process to be used by the House. It is left to the House itself to decide how to proceed with it's pre-impeachment inquiry.
2. You raise a valid point regarding the fairness of the process to both Republicans and Democrats.
3. What the House is doing is no less fair than what the Senate did when it refused to take up a valid Obama Supreme Court nomination, thereby stealing the seat and giving it later to a Republican nominee.
I did not like that the Senate literally stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama. I don't like that the Democrats are denying the ability for Republicans to call witnesses during the impeachment inquiry hearings. I believe the processes themselves should be always fair to all involved.
Dems are keeping it in secrecy and racing against time because they see a hurricane approaching:
amp.dailycaller.com
Report: John Durham Has Expanded Investigation Of CIA, FBI Activities
The U.S. attorney probing FBI and CIA counterintelligence activities related to the Trump campaign has expanded the scope of the inquiry, according to Fox News.
amp.dailycaller.com
Meetings held behind closed doors for security reasons are not secret investigations. Republican members are present and participate in those hearings too.
While I want the process to be fair for all, I also want Trump to honor subpoenas properly issued. It is not for him to say whether the process is fair or not. It is his duty to comply with subpoenas. It is also to his advantage if he is innocent. Instead of providing transparency to clear his name, he is refusing to cooperate. That's one of the reasons public sentiment is shifting in favor of the impeachment inquiry and impeachment itself. Trump's response to the inquiry makes him look guilty. If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding it?
But the House itself did not decide this. The Speaker and a handful of committee chairmen decided this. Also, as the Speaker (and Judiciary Committee chairman) made crystal clear, this is not a pre-impeachment inquiry, this is a formal impeachment inquiry, launched, I might add, with no formal process and instead launched by fiat.
It may have been dirty politics, but no one's due process rights were violated by the Senate refusing to give advice and consent of a nominee. You also have to keep in mind that the Republican Senate's refusal to consider Garland was a direct response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's invocation of the Nuclear Option to confirm federal judges over the objections of the minority.
Seriously? That's the argument you're going with? Even in Congressional committees, the 4th Amendment still applies. While Congress' power to issue subpoenas is quite broad, is not unlimited, as SCOTUS has made very clrar. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some "legitimate legislative purpose," the court has said. "If you have nothing to hide..." is not a legislative purpose, it's a political purpose.
May be the democrats biggest mistake. That being all the secret processes and keeping Republicans out of the process. They were together in Nixon, but not here. Court of public opinion will shift if it appears Trump is getting railroaded. Getting close. Just watch those Trump fundraising numbers. Probably a better guide than some of the polls.
Yes, and that's the way it is. The House elected its Speaker and vested certain powers in her. She is exercising those powers under the House rules. Had the American people not taken the House away from the Republican's in 2016 and given it to the Democrats, things would be different. Had the Republicans retained the house, there would be no impeachment inquiry at all.
The House will be up for grabs again in 2020. A lot of Republicans are commenting that the Democrats have to move quickly because it will be worse for them in this drags into the election season. Maybe, but I don't see how. The swing districts were swing districts in 2016 and Democrats won a good number of them. I've seen no polling that shows any change of sentiment in those districts, except perhaps those that show farmers and factory workers souring on Trump. The 2016 momentum seems very much in place. Indeed, now that impeachment is on the table, anti-Trump momentum is growing there too.
The problem for Trump and the Republicans is not one of timing or process. The problem is that evidence of Trump's guilt is coming to light and Trump is acting like a guilty man.
Trump clearly has strong fundraising capability but as I've said before, the candidate with the most money is not always the one who wins.
Also note that Trump is the only serious Republican candidate raising money. If you compare his committee recent total to the combined total of the top 5 Democratic candidates, the Democrats win (Tump's $124 million to the Democrats' $158 million). If you want to use money as an indicator you must concede now that the Democrats are winning, or you must wait for the Democratic nominee to be selected so a one-on-one, apples-to-apples comparison can be made.
Another difference that may become significant later in the race is the legal expenses Trump has and the fact that he is using campaign money to pay them. His Democratic opponent will not have such expenses, freeing that money to be spent on campaigning instead of defending.
That assumes Trump is not impeached or does not resign beforehand.
Well then why are you bitching about Garland?
Because the way it was with Garland was unfair. Denying Obama's nominee a vote in the Senate was an unfair act of malfeasance on McConnell's part. It is an act that merits McConnell's removal from office in my opinion.
Your complaint about Pelosi and Republican House member rights in the impeachment inquiry is not without merit. But if you're OK with McConnell's actions under the Senate rules, it logically follows that you must be OK with Pelosi's actions under the House rules, does it not?
I don't like either action. As I said, I believe the processes should be fair to all. I would prefer that the Senate vote had been allowed. I would prefer that the Republicans have the ability to call witnesses and issue subpenoas in the impeachment inquiry.
That may be true but for the most part I am thinking the democrats fighting each other for the nomination will have put their money close since they will be battling each other and Trump won't have that cost.