Posted on 08/24/2018 7:47:32 PM PDT by Signalman
The television-news media desperately need to fill twenty-four hours every day in order to sell advertising to support their stations, their management, their employees, and their negotiated settlements and non-disclosure-agreement pay-outs to women whom they must silence after one or another of their male employees has violated them. CBS has had Charlie Rose. NBC Matt Lauer. With too much money, too much perceived power, many intelligent media-attractive women who benefit further from the daily efforts of world-class aestheticians and make-up artists, the ingredients are there. Certainly Fox News has had their share of pay-outs, too. And the thing is, we have no idea how many others also are being paid to shut up. So the television-news media have to keep the money pouring in. Same with the print media.
Would you watch TV news 24/7 to get the latest commodities reports on oranges? For how many hours daily? Unless you deal in oranges, probably not a whole bunch. How about “sweet crude oil” futures? It would have to be pretty sweet, indeed, to keep your attention. I am an Orthodox rabbi, and I cannot remember the last time I put down a volume of the Talmud to keep abreast of the latest prices on pork bellies.
So they have to figure out how to keep the ratings up.
-snip-
Even if the Democrats miraculously grab the Senate in November, there still would be at least 48 Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats would need to get 15-20 Republican Senators to vote with them to oust President Trump. Any Republican Senator who would vote that way would be signing his or her political death warrant — the end of his or her political career. They all know it. Therefore none of them would do it.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Problem is, the American Left adores nonsense.
I can picture a 20 million armed-man,march on D.C.
No, he’s not. People resign because they don’t want to face the embarrassment of major defeat, generally. I don’t believe they’d have to courage to vote him out. I don’t even believe the Dem leadership have that courage - they just have big mouths to control their base. Much like McCain lying that he supported repealing Obamacare.
Congress can literally impeach a president simply because they think he's ugly, if they want to.
Perhaps impeachment is not tethered to reality, but that’s not necessary in the progressive mind. It only has to look legal. They are grasping at any small crumbs or kernels to make the coup not look like a coup. To make it look legal. They think they can palm it off to the public through the media. Then they’ll want us keep voting to make the republic keep looking like a republic. They don’t care about reality. They think they can fix that like they fix elections.
The nonsense is the Democrats influencing their liberal useful idiots that impeachment will remove the president.
Impeachment does not remove a president. The liberals observed that Bill Clinton's impeachment did not remove him.
First, they have to make Obama Speaker of the House.
The only way Congress can remove Trump is if a lot of Republicans vote to remove him. There’s no way in hell those same Republicans are removing Pence, who has been an establishment player his entire career.
Quite a reach from "ugly" to high crimes and misdemeanors: Those are law terms, although vague in their definition and/or application, but hardly include a blonde come-over. I disagree with your simplistic hypothesis.
Do you remember the specific circumstances why Billy Clinton was impeached? No fair Googling.
So, the liberals think controlling congress means they also get to choose who gets to be president.
This means every time congress changes hands so does the president.
The liberals want to turn America into a banana republic. Typical, since so many of them come from banana republics.
Let's say the House votes to impeach President Trump because they don't like his hair. Then let's suppose the Senate votes to remove him from office. All of this is done exactly as proscribed under the Constitution.
What legal recourse does Donald Trump have under these hypothetical circumstances? Th answer is NONE.
So wrong that I'm surprised after reading your comments for years. Bad hair doesn't fall under Article 2, Section 4 that states the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Treason and Bribery are obviously felonies. "Other high crimes" would probably be felonies, also. "Misdemeanors" is like not paying a parking ticket, but it is still worthy of impeachment. If I don't like Trump's hair, nor the way he dresses, nor the way he uses Twitter to make his inane points is not in any way any of the above. Yes, I know many are claiming "obstruction of justice" from his tweets. Guess what? POTUS can say the same thing in press conferences or Rose Lawn announcements. It's his prerogative.
Apparently, your Constitution and mine are at odds. The fallacy of this Mueller Russian collusion crap if Trump is even somewhat connected is not even a misdemeanor. It's not a crime. So what is the whole fucking point of this witch hunt?
Clinton blatantly perjured himself to the world in his historical video deposition (and lost his law license). The House had no choice but to impeach (indict/charge) him. The Senate were pussies and did not try him.
Trump has yet to be shown any misdemeanor or otherwise. A new Dim majority House has no cause. It would backfire on them big time. If they get the House, I hope Maxine Waterbrain leads the charge. They will finally get the riots and revolution they are asking for. Can you say clandestine militia?
You're sitting there making legal arguments when impeachment is not a legal process.
“I don’t believe they’d have to courage to vote him out. I don’t even believe the Dem leadership have that courage - they just have big mouths to control their base.”
I don’t either but when mueller presents to congress a long laundry list of ‘crimes’ and ‘obstruction of justice’, that will give them the fig leaf they’re looking for. Anyone that was squeamish about pulling the lever won’t be because they will be upholding the rule of law. It all depends on what Mueller has...
You may be right. I hope you’re not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.