My Worst-Case Impeachment Scenario

Vanity | Oct 18, 2019 | Matt Bracken

[real saxophonist]

Gardner's a worthless POS, has been since he was my Rep. No matter how he might vote, he's done as a senator anyway. Chickenpooper's gonna run all over him.

Of course I hope I'm wrong about that, but I doubt I am.

[hotsteppa]

Another stupid vanity.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

If your scenario pans out and Trump is convicted and removed from office, he’ll just run for president again in 2020 and win in a landslide.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m pretty sure that if Trump is convicted in the Senate then he’d be ineligible to hold any public office.

[morphing libertarian]

Prohibited by the constitution. Read the article on impeachment

[subterfuge]

Back off! Travis has earned the right to post any vanity he please on this forum.

[bk1000]

They remove Trump at their own risk. If they have no respect for voters, voters will have no respect for them. There will be blood.

[cymbeline]

My opinion is that if there’s a trial or some forum where evidence is made public, attention will suddenly turn from impeachment to the corruption against Trump since he entered the race.

Therefore, I think there will never be a trial.

[Louis Foxwell]

Don’t tink so. The Consitution does not create qualifications for the office of the president beyond citizenship and 35 yrs of age.

[HamiltonJay]

Trump isn’t getting removed from office...

Why are people so dense....

Look folks, here is the reality of impeachment...

Impeachment, this impeachment BS is ALL ABOUT INTERNAL DEMOCRAT PARTY POLITICS.... Its not about Trump...

The Democrats are heading to a slaughter this cycle in the presidential election and they know it, regardless of who their nominee is... However if the nominee is a “moderate” candidate, then the far whackadoo left goes “SEE WE DIDN’T GO LEFT ENOUGH!” and continues to rise in influence... If however the nominee is a leftist and they get slaughtered, then that argument is neutered, the party can moderate for the 2024 election when they actually have a chance of winning.

This “impeachment” nonsense is all about ensuring they get a leftist nominee... Why else do you think they are doing this on UKRAINE for crying out loud? They all claim that Trump is guilty of countless impeachable things since he won... but suddenly its all about Ukraine? Why? Simple, because they know that Ukraine will harm Biden and get him out of the way.

Once you realize this impeachment nonsense has NOTHING to do with Trump, but is all about internal Democrat party stuff, you can grab your popcorn and enjoy the show.

By allowing “impeachment” the far left are getting themselves knee capped, by giving them exactly what they want.

Impeachment will fire up the Trump base to DEFCON 5, it will anger and piss off the disenfranchised Ds and most of the I’s a as well.... ensuring that whoever D winds up with the nomination won’t only lose, but will be slaughtered.

Allowing the impeachment to go forward riles up the far left base, but it doesn’t bring in one more vote for them come election time and galvanizes most everyone else against them.

Even if they write and pass articles of impeachment in the house, the senate is not going to convict... The GOP is not going to have 20 people vote to convict over this garbage in the senate.. .its a NON STARTER....

There is ZERO calculus where this is a win at the ballot box for the Democrats this cycle.... so why do it? Simple, it will ensure the knee capping of the radical left wing of the D party so that the party can have a shot at 2024.... Knee capping the idiots by giving them exactly what they want....

Calm down folks... Enjoy the political theater...

[napscoordinator]

You are missing two more. You need 20. Thankfully you only have 18.

[Damifino]

I hope you are wrong also... would likely escalate to bullets.

[Pollard]

So your worst case impeachment scenario is CWII basically

[AndyJackson]

Rand Paul is not a RINO. He is a libertarian. A lot of his votes against Trump are on constitutional principles, which one could admire, except we cannot afford futile symbolic gestures at this point in our history. We need to rid us of the cancer before we put ourselves on a diet and exercise regime.

[napscoordinator]

Nope. Ineligible.

[hotsteppa]

And who are you again to tell me I can’t post my own opinion as I please? As I said, another stupid vanity that serves no purpose. If you don’t like it too bad.

[ChronicMA]

Republicans and Democrats in competitive districts can not vote for impeachment in the House unless there is a credible offense that Republican and Independent voters would agree is credible.

To date there is nothing like that, so Schiff is basically on a fishing expedition trying to find something like that.

[jospehm20]

I think the most likely outcome is the Senate votes to dismiss without a trial. There is no way they will let President Trump’s team call witnesses and publicly present all the dirt they have on the swamp creatures.

[nathanbedford]

You are quite right to post this vanity, those who object regard this forum as a place fit only for cheerleading.

In addition to thinking himself presidential timber, every senator with a law degree, and that means most of them, thinks of himself as Supreme Court Chief Justice. That means they regard themselves as arbiters both of the law and of the Constitution. More, they regard themselves as figures of history who will be judged by history for the gravity and wisdom of their votes.

When it comes to impeachment senators, at least most Republicans in this instance, want to seem "senatorial", judicious, wise, above politics, savants of the law.

I have been posting for some time that the law simply can not mean what the Democrats allege, that a president offers a quid pro quo for investigating corruption involving United States citizen aboard is guilty of violation of law because it might advantage his forthcoming political campaign. To conceive of the law otherwise is to render every president impotent in his key constitutional function of being chief diplomat. It violates constitutional principle, it is violative of the unitary executive.

In other words, even with a quid pro quo, a president who "solicits" some "thing of value" which might benefit is campaign cannot be guilty of a crime so long as there is a legitimate constitutional function supporting the solicitation of a foreign country. If it were otherwise, the president simply could not function in the international arena. If it were otherwise, the Constitution would be violated. No law can supersede the Constitution, no law can amend the Constitution.

For these reasons I think fewer senators than 20 will defect. Of course a few, led by Mitt Romney, are simply looking for a plausible excuse to do so.

[Big Red Badger]

Don’t see it
Happening, Travis.
You didn’t Factor in
President Trump.