56% of Voters Believe Impeachment is Partisan Politics

[WyattEarp]

I found this more interesting than simple polling on impeachment.

Per Quinnipiac:
"While voters are split on impeaching and removing Trump from office, 56 percent of voters still believe that members of Congress who support impeaching the president at this point are doing so more based on partisan politics than on the facts of the case, with 36 percent saying it's more based on the facts of the case."

The big shift towards impeachment was within the ranks that call themselves Democrats. The above quote makes you realize the cynicism surrounding the current threats of impeachment. It appears Democrats answered honestly about the motivations for impeachment. Impeachment is not favored by independents.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642

It is likely once the initial wave of media hysteria passes support for impeachment will subside.

 

[oldjones]

I found this more interesting than simple polling on impeachment.

Per Quinnipiac:
"While voters are split on impeaching and removing Trump from office, 56 percent of voters still believe that members of Congress who support impeaching the president at this point are doing so more based on partisan politics than on the facts of the case, with 36 percent saying it's more based on the facts of the case."

The big shift towards impeachment was within the ranks that call themselves Democrats. The above quote makes you realize the cynicism surrounding the current threats of impeachment. It appears Democrats answered honestly about the motivations for impeachment. Impeachment is not favored by independents.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642

It is likely once the initial wave of media hysteria passes support for impeachment will subside.

It's hard to imagine anyone thinking it's not partisan at this point in the process. Once there's evidence to be assessed, then there'll be some basis for objectivity. We have yet to see any sign that the White House cares about that. Dollars to donuts they do everything they can to keep the whole thing as partisan, and as personal, and as far-removed from objectivity as they can. There's little else they can do while the House inquires.

We shall see if the House manages to put together a respectably proven case to pass to the Senate. More to the point, we'll see whether claims of innocence and guilt have any basis in fact, or whether they stay on the level of partisan attacks. If they do, that leaves the House and the President where they began. Highly unlikely that either would think that desirable, if they had anything substantive to put in play that supported their position. We'll see who goes objective and who stays partisan, as the work gets underway.

Mere claims won't win a single voter to Trump. And how well did slagging his opponent on a personal, partisan level work for him last time?

 

[WyattEarp]

It's hard to imagine anyone thinking it's not partisan at this point in the process. Once there's evidence to be assessed, then there'll be some basis for objectivity. We have yet to see any sign that the White House cares about that. Dollars to donuts they do everything they can to keep the whole thing as partisan, and as personal, and as far-removed from objectivity as they can. There's little else they can do while the House inquires.

We shall see if the House manages to put together a respectably proven case to pass to the Senate. More to the point, we'll see whether claims of innocence and guilt have any basis in fact, or whether they stay on the level of partisan attacks. If they do, that leaves the House and the President where they began. Highly unlikely that either would think that desirable, if they had anything substantive to put in play that supported their position. We'll see who goes objective and who stays partisan, as the work gets underway.

There's a lot more conveyed in your post than meets the eye. The argument that the House will know what an impeachable offense is when they find it is the whole argument against the current impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump (and the impeachment of Bill Clinton before Trump).

The House initiating impeachment inquiries based on their disdain for how a President conducts himself and his policies is wrong. The basis for impeachment inquires should be the clear and current evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The basis for these inquiries shouldn't be the pursuit of a yet to be identified crime.

I think the House has made a mockery of impeachment under our Constitution. It has now become an extrajudicial political weapon. The Republicans share in the blame.

 

[mellowjello]

There's a lot more conveyed in your post than meets the eye. The argument that the House will know what an impeachable offense is when they find it is the whole argument against the current impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump (and the impeachment of Bill Clinton before Trump).

The House initiating impeachment inquiries based on their disdain for how a President conducts himself and policy is wrong. The basis for impeachment inquires should be the clear and current evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The basis for these inquiries shouldn't be the pursuit of an unidentified crime.

I think the House has made a mockery of impeachment under our Constitution. It has now become an extrajudicial political weapon. The Republicans share in the blame.

There is no pursuit of a crime.
There is evidence of a crime and the investigation is pursuing that.
The Republicans have made a mockery of the Constitution in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation.

 

[oldjones]

There's a lot more conveyed in your post than meets the eye. The argument that the House will know what an impeachable offense is when they find it is the whole argument against the current impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump (and the impeachment of Bill Clinton before Trump).

The House initiating impeachment inquiries based on their disdain for how a President conducts himself and his policies is wrong. The basis for impeachment inquires should be the clear and current evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The basis for these inquiries shouldn't be the pursuit of a yet to be identified crime.

I think the House has made a mockery of impeachment under our Constitution. It has now become an extrajudicial political weapon. The Republicans share in the blame.

How many pages do think the detailed Rules for Everything a President Must Do and Everything a President Is Prohibited From Doing would run to? Who would draft and approve it? And how could it be kept current and up-to-date? Not to mention what President would ever have time to read it? Or would take the word of the underling who had if it ran against what he felt he must do?

If you had such a Library-filling monstrosity that defined all the offences, there'd be no point in tying up Congress with the matter at all. Just hire a some cops and detectives to staff the new PBI, and a Presidential Prosecutor to take it to the judge. But who arrests the President? Or makes the President honour the Search Warrant? Or makes him answer even the most basic questions?

Of course it's extra-judicial, because the President is the f'ing sovereign. By definition there's no instruction or rule book for the job, 'cause it's his job to get the rules made and to make them work. That's why his Executive privilege means he can't be prosecuted except for crimes and misdemeanours so high they can't be defined, although they can certainly be detected when the smell's so obvious it can't be ignored.

Check the Constitution, it was never anything but extra-judicial, nor can it be anything but extra-judicial. It is the Government working.

 

[Frankfooter]

If Trump tries to make more of the Ukraine whistle blower's testimony public he'll likely also have to make the IRS whistle blower public as well, which could make his taxes public finally.

https://www.salon.com/2019/09/30/wh...r-trumps-irs-audit-could-be-released_partner/

 

[WyattEarp]

How many pages do think the detailed Rules for Everything a President Must Do and Everything a President Is Prohibited From Doing would run to? Who would draft and approve it? And how could it be kept current and up-to-date? Not to mention what President would ever have time to read it? Or would take the word of the underling who had if it ran against what he felt he must do?

If you had such a Library-filling monstrosity that defined all the offences, there'd be no point in tying up Congress with the matter at all. Just hire a some cops and detectives to staff the new PBI, and a Presidential Prosecutor to take it to the judge. But who arrests the President? Or makes the President honour the Search Warrant? Or makes him answer even the most basic questions?

Of course it's extra-judicial, because the President is the f'ing sovereign. By definition there's no instruction or rule book for the job, 'cause it's his job to get the rules made and to make them work. That's why his Executive privilege means he can't be prosecuted except for crimes and misdemeanours so high they can't be defined, although they can certainly be detected when the smell's so obvious it can't be ignored.

Check the Constitution, it was never anything but extra-judicial, nor can it be anything but extra-judicial. It is the Government working.

My opinion is you need a crime and you need to declare the charges. I do not think that mentioning the Bidens was a crime. It's likely an impropriety and certainly could be censured. I don't think it's a crime.

If all the House Dems have is a bet that they can dig up a big crime, that's a cynical political move. A move that is likely to continue damaging the relationship of the House and President for future Administrations to come.

 

[toguy5252]

I find it both hilariously funny and quite sad that the Trumpanistas just but the PGOTUS talking points all of which have been debunked and are legally wrong. Fortunately for him he has the unquestioning loyalty of the dumbest most gullible cohort in the world.

 

[WyattEarp]

I find it both hilariously funny and quite sad that the Trumpanistas just but the PGOTUS talking points all of which have been debunked and are legally wrong. Fortunately for him he has the unquestioning loyalty of the dumbest most gullible cohort in the world.

Don't you find it odd that Schiff kicked off the inquiry with dramatic over-the-top theatrics reenacting the Trump-Zelensky conversation in fictional and prejudicial words. Schiff as the prosecutor in this situation should not be testifying let alone reenacting evidence that is readily available to us all. I would call that "playing to the base".

Whether you agreed with the proceedings or not, impeachment proceedings for Nixon and Clinton were very stoic, avoided histrionics and maintained House decorum.

 

[toguy5252]

Don't you find it odd that Schiff kicked off the inquiry with dramatic over-the-top theatrics reenacting the Trump-Zelensky conversation in fictional and prejudicial words. Schiff as the prosecutor in this situation should not be testifying let alone reenacting evidence that is readily available to us all. I would call that "playing to the base".

Whether you agreed with the proceedings or not, impeachment proceedings for Nixon and Clinton were very stoic, avoided histrionics and maintained House decorum.

I thought it was a very poor attempt at theatrics. but it did not change any oif the facts. What i do find odd is that none of the PGOTUS's surrogates are actually attempting to defend his conduct but rather misstating the facts or making up facts or attempting to divert attention or quoting debunked conspiracy theories etc. it is impossible in my view for any thinking person to read the WH "transcript" and not conclude ate least foe the purpose of oversight etc that the PGOTUS was using the military aid which had been properly appropriated and withheld by him was being used for his partisan purposes. Impossinle.

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't you find it odd that Schiff kicked off the inquiry with dramatic over-the-top theatrics reenacting the Trump-Zelensky conversation in fictional and prejudicial words.

Schiff nailed it, his paraphrased summary was right on the money.

Colbert nailed it again, as well.

This weekend, “the president and his allies all journeyed to the mountains of madness, where all meaning was devoured in the cavernous maw of stupid, and they all got on the crazy train for one reason: to try to confuse everyone about a very simple story,” joked Colbert.

That story is called Don and the Giant Impeach, and it goes like this: “Once upon a time, Donald Trump called the president of Ukraine and asked the foreign leader to investigate Joe Biden. The end.”

Its a really stupidly open and shut case, with Trump admitting he did it, claiming it was fine and providing all the evidence necessary to impeach with the whistle blower's complaint.

 

[Charlemagne]

 

[WyattEarp]

Schiff nailed it, his paraphrased summary was right on the money.

Colbert nailed it again, as well.

So it's okay for basically what is the prosecution to paraphrase verbal evidence in histrionic fashion? If that's not a ridiculous statement enough, you think this can also be prosecuted by a late night comedian.

Frankfooter, look around you. Whether you and I agree with all of them or not, we are surrounded by very serious people who for the most part have serious thoughts.

 

[toguy5252]

So it's okay for basically what is the prosecution to paraphrase verbal evidence in histrionic fashion? If that's not a ridiculous statement enough, you think this can also be prosecuted by a late night comedian.

Frankfooter, look around you. Whether you and I agree with all of them or not, we are surrounded by very serious people who for the most part have serious thoughts.

It has no evidentiary basis. It is becoming a convenient point of distraction. And compared to the lunacy spouted by usual suspects like Jim Jordan, Lindsay Graham and Kevin McCarthy it was Shakespeare.

 

[WyattEarp]

It has no evidentiary basis.

You can say that but the point was to make a case for impeachment. I bet most people who watch CNN and MSNBC have heard Schiff's theatrical version and not the actual transcript.

 

[Big Sleazy]

That means 44% of the population is retarded.

 

[WyattEarp]

I love historical examples. As an addendum, Gingrich resigned shortly after the impeachment vote. He could not control his party's desire to take an impeachment vote.

 

[Frankfooter]

That means 44% of the population is retarded.

Nah, only 41%.
That's where Trump's support sits.

(not that I would use the word 'retarded' to describe you. I have others)

 

[oldjones]

My opinion is you need a crime and you need to declare the charges. I do not think that mentioning the Bidens was a crime. It's likely an impropriety and certainly could be censured. I don't think it's a crime.

If all the House Dems have is a bet that they can dig up a big crime, that's a cynical political move. A move that is likely to continue damaging the relationship of the House and President for future Administrations to come.

In the opinion of the Framers and the words of their Constitution, whatever the House determines to be a sufficiently serious misdemeanour and/or crime is what's needed. That all gets declared in the charges. In the end the Senate decides the guilt of the person impeached, and of what offences. Or none. No one can do any of that without starting somewhere, and digging.

Thanks for your opinion anyway, it's unusual for laws to be so vague, and ordinary people in their ordinary lives have inalienable rights to have such stuff spelled out beforehand. They need that clarity and deserve it because they're ordinary, and need to be told what to do, and what not to by the Nation's government. Presidents are a Branch of that Government, and if you check your copy, it nowhere says who gets to tell Presidents what to do. We elect special people to Government, who we think will usefully figure all that stuff out in company with the other co-equal Branches, and who will do the best they can, in the best way the laws and principles of the Republic provide, for the good of all.

If the only thing that keeps them in line is their fear of a written code of rules, which someone else had to to spell out in detail for them, then we've elected the wrong President. Vote for the guy who wrote the Book, not he guy who can't be bothered to read it.

In any case that is how the framers wrote the Rules we have; their version of what the United States of America was to be. If your guy has done no high crimes or misdemeanours, he'll skate like the other Presidents who've been impeached. Have faith in your Founders and let the process unfold as they provided.

That's all that's happening.

 

[toguy5252]

I found this more interesting than simple polling on impeachment.

Per Quinnipiac:
"While voters are split on impeaching and removing Trump from office, 56 percent of voters still believe that members of Congress who support impeaching the president at this point are doing so more based on partisan politics than on the facts of the case, with 36 percent saying it's more based on the facts of the case."

The big shift towards impeachment was within the ranks that call themselves Democrats. The above quote makes you realize the cynicism surrounding the current threats of impeachment. It appears Democrats answered honestly about the motivations for impeachment. Impeachment is not favored by independents.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642

It is likely once the initial wave of media hysteria passes support for impeachment will subside.

LOL. That might be because only 40% of Republicans think Trump mentioned Biden in the phone call even though it is in the WH transcript , the Chosen One has acknowledged it on multiple occasions etc. Truly the dumbest most gullible cohort on the planet.

"Just 4 in 10 Republicans say they think President Trump discussed an investigation into Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden during a phone call with Ukraine's president, despite Trump acknowledging having done so, according to a new Monmouth University poll.

The survey, which was released Tuesday, found that 40 percent of Republican respondents said Trump "probably did" raise the idea of an investigation into Biden and Biden's son over unsubstantiated allegations of corruption during a July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Meanwhile, 29 percent of Republicans said Trump "probably did not" mention an investigation into Biden."

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...40-percent-of-republicans-say-trump-mentioned