Skip to comments.NY Times Journalist Engages in Bizarre, What-If Impeachment Fantasy
Posted on 10/29/2019 9:30:08 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
While reading the absurd New York Times impeachment porn fantasy by Carl Hulse which was published on Saturday, you have to pinch yourself every few sentences to remind yourself that you are actually reading a bizarre what-if written by the chief Washington correspondent for a major newspaper.
What if the Senate votes to convict President Trump after he was impeached by the House, meaning about 20 Republican senators vote with the Democrats. And then, and then just a majority of them could vote to keep him from running for President again? Of course, before you get to the simple majority to vote to prevent Trump from running for another term that Hulse is so excited about, you first have to clear the impossible hurdle of a 2/3 vote which won't be happening... unless Mitt Romney could be cloned about 20 times.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Creative Writing assignment by a High School student.
Remove Trump at your own peril.
Most of the voting population would view this as a successful Coup d’état
In what world would this kind of thing be considered journalism?
The United States
What kind of rainbows, unicorns, and fluffy bunnies live in his world. Obviously his shrink has given him mood altering drugs to ameliorate his TDS.
Math is not their strong suit.
Implicit in his fantasy is the fear that Trump would win the election, even after impeachment removal from office, and that that has to be thwarted. The author holds America and Americans in contempt.
These are the people who talk about democracy, democracy, democracy. They desperately want to save our democracy.
And the way to do that, apparently, is to overturn the lawful 2016 election and to make sure that the voters are not allowed to vote again for the guy they prefer. His popularity makes him dangerous.
Just to triple check, somewhere along the line, someone accounts for SCOTUS ruling that ‘Orange Man Bad’ being an acceptable high crime for the House to impeach on, right? They’ve tapped Roberts or someone to give a green light to turning impeachment into little more than a spectacular No Confidence vote that undoes an election?
They dont view that election as democracy. They think Hillary should be president because of the popular vote.
"We can have "Drumpf" out of office by February on a dozen high crimes.Then we immediately go after Pence...for being a Christian...and we can have him out of office by May.And then: President Nancy Pelosi!"
The SCOTUS itself plays no role in impeachment or its trial. Impeachment is the sole preserve of the HoR and the trial is conducted in the Senate. During impeachment of the President the Senate is presided over by the Chief Justice (presumably to avoid a conflict of interest if the VP were presiding. Remember under the original rules the VP was the man who came in 2nd). The House can impeach for anything it wants and claim it is a high crime/misdemeanor.
Democrats have been talking about impeachment since November 2016. Their latest ‘crime’a withholding of funds to Ukraine is just the latest in a long line of terrible things that PDJT is or has done. It really does all boil down to Orange Man Bad.
Impeachment didnt stop Clinton from being re-elected
Uh, you do know what year Clinton was impeached, right?
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.