Darth Omar (11-22-2019), dukkha (11-22-2019), Earl (11-22-2019), Stretch (11-22-2019), Truth Detector (11-22-2019)
Members banned from this thread: evince |
Opposition to the House Democrats’ drive to impeach President Trump is growing, as 45 percent of national voters oppose the measure versus 43 percent who support it, according to a poll released Thursday.
The results from the Emerson College survey — which come after several days of open testimony by witnesses organized by Democrats — represent a 6-point swing from Emerson’s October poll released while the House impeachment probe was going on behind closed doors.
At the time, 48 percent of voters supported impeaching the president, compared to 44 percent who opposed.
The biggest swing was among independents, who oppose impeachment now by 49 percent to 34 percent, a reversal from October when they supported impeachment by 48-39.
The poll found that 69 percent of American voters were watching the televised impeachment hearings.
Meanwhile, the president’s support in the Republican primary increased this month to 93 percent against former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh.
Overall, 48 percent of voters polled approved of the job Trump is doing, while 46 percent disapproved.
The Emerson College poll was conducted from Nov. 17-20 and surveyed 1,092 voters nationally.
Of those polled, nearly 34 percent, or 369 people, were registered Republicans. Roughly 37 percent, or 401 people, were registered Democrats. The poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.
The Emerson survey is the second one released this week that shows favorable results for Trump.
A Marquette Law School poll released on Wednesday found that just 40 percent of voters in the swing state of Wisconsin thought Trump should be impeached compared to 53 percent who felt he should not.
Similar to the Emerson poll, since the impeachment hearings became public, the number of voters who oppose impeachment have increased since Marquette’s October poll.
The Marquette poll, which interviewed 801 registered Wisconsin voters from Nov. 13-17, has a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/21/trumps...pendents-poll/
keep it coming guys lol
Darth Omar (11-22-2019), dukkha (11-22-2019), Earl (11-22-2019), Stretch (11-22-2019), Truth Detector (11-22-2019)
cancel2 2022 (11-22-2019)
Earl (11-22-2019)
Most independents are Teahicks who thought the Republican party was too liberal. Losers like Sailor
and Anonymouse aka Annoysus. They are traitors and Putin schlong suckers who barely live in the USA
and don't share her great values. They can fuck off and die.
cancel2 2022 (11-22-2019)
cancel2 2022 (11-22-2019)
Phantasmal (11-22-2019)
Earl (11-22-2019)
And that knowledge makes this justice extra sweet.
He is going to add an impeachment tattoo on the forehead to the Putin runway tramp stamp on his lower back.
And there is NOTHING the traitor party can do to stop it. Truth and sweet justice. I hope Trump has a massive heart attack and dies the day after he
is impeached.
Sailor (11-22-2019), Truth Detector (11-22-2019)
Stretch (11-22-2019), Truth Detector (11-22-2019)
Ad hominem. Your response is a logical fallacy. First, nypost didn’t do the poll, they are reporting an Emerson poll of which you can read for yourself. Additionally this poll wasn’t an outlier as a poll from Marquette was posted as well which mentions similar results. This past week was the Democrats big guns and they have utterly failed to move the needle. Correction - they have moved the needle, in the entire opposite direction.
Earl (11-22-2019), Truth Detector (11-22-2019), Wolverine (11-22-2019)
Truth Detector (11-22-2019)
Understanding Adam Schiff’s ‘Bribery’ Theory
By Andrew C. McCarthy
November 21, 2019 2:19 PM
Even assuming Trump's intent was corrupt, this is not the bribery the Framers had in mind in the impeachment clause.
The Constitution makes bribery a predicate for impeaching and removing a president. Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff is pushing the theory that President Trump has committed impeachable bribery because, as Schiff sees it, the president’s conduct violates a subsection of the federal bribery statute.
As in most criminal statutes, Congress includes several crimes in the bribery law. The offenses have gradations of seriousness, ranging from directly paying a public official a lavish bribe, to a public official’s indirectly agreeing to receive (but not ultimately receiving) some “thing of value” to be influenced in some official act. Like some of the lesser bribery offenses, the one Schiff is homing in on does not require an actual bribery (in the sense of an actual payoff).
Specifically, he is accusing the president of making a “corrupt demand.”
Under the law, if a public official, with corrupt intent, demands that someone provide him a bribe (a “thing of value”) as a condition for performing an “official act,” that is enough to prove guilt, even if the official drops the demand before something of value is exchanged. The Democrats’ theory is that Trump, intending nothing other the advancement of his own political interests (i.e., improving his 2020 reelection chances), corruptly demanded that Ukraine conduct investigations of his political rivals in exchange for two official acts — viz., granting a White House visit for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and transferring $400 million in military aid authorized by Congress to help Ukraine defend against Russian aggression.
Schiff theorizes that this statutory bribery crime was complete when the demand was made; it makes no difference that the demand was dropped, and the Ukrainians got their aid. (Zelensky has not yet visited the White House, but Trump did meet him publicly at a session attendant to the annual U.N. festivities in September.)
To be clear, I do not believe Trump could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery because there are significant proof problems, on the issues of both (a) corrupt intent and (b) the causal connection between the purported demand and the official acts. (On the latter, I’ve argued that it is foolish for Republicans to deny the existence of a quid pro quo; that does not mean the proof is strong enough to convict in court — so far, the circumstantial evidence that Trump ordered the defense aid to be withheld is not airtight.)
For present purposes, though, I want to focus on bribery — specifically, on what the Framers had in mind when they wrote bribery into the Constitution as a predicate for impeachment.
Hint: It was not the above-described federal bribery statute, the current version of which was enacted in 1962, some 175 years after the Constitution was written.
The Framers made “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” the triggers for impeachment. Obviously, they were referring to bribery of a high order, on the scale of treason. The latter offense involves making war on the U.S., including giving the enemy aid and comfort. Enemies are foreign powers with which we are at war. The Framers, however, were worried that other foreign powers — even ones with which we are at peace — could corrupt an American president. Bribery was meant to fill that gap. It made impeachment available if a president was bribed by a foreign power to put the might of the United States in the service of the foreign power at the expense of the American people.
Schiff and the Democrats would reject this construction of bribery in the Constitution. Their position is that if it’s bribery under the federal statute, that’s good enough to impeach a president.
But is that really what they think?
On Wednesday, Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified about the two afore-described “official acts” that the Ukrainians sought from President Trump. Sondland said he could only be sure about one of them: the White House visit. As for the second, Sondland could only “deduce” that Trump was holding back on the defense aid to nudge Ukraine into announcing the investigations. Over time, Sondland inferred that the aid was being delayed and worried that it might not be transferred. He directly asked President Trump, who exclaimed that there was “no quid pro quo” — though this was less than convincing: Trump continued to insist that he wanted to Zelensky to do what was “right,” and Sondland understood that the aid was caught in a “stalemate” that could be undone only if it announced it would do the investigations.
Democrats spent most of Sondland’s hours of testimony pushing him very hard on this second official act, the provision of defense aid. Schiff and majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, repeatedly walked Sondland through the timeline and got him to agree that he’d “put two and two together.” Why the vigorous effort to induce an admission (which Sondland could not give) that the aid was absolutely conditional on the investigations?
Because Schiff knows that not all bribery is created equal. He knows the first official act is not good enough for impeachment, even if it’s good enough for the federal bribery statute. That is: No one in America except the most ardent anti-Trumpers is going to support the impeachment of the president of the United States over the mere denial of a White House visit to a foreign politician.
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that all the facts were as the Democrats claim, including that the president’s intent was corrupt. That would indeed establish a corrupt demand under the bribery statute, just as Schiff theorizes. But Schiff knows, like everyone knows, that that would not be close to the bribery needed to justify impeaching and removing a president.
And that’s because the Democrats’ theory is simply wrong. A violation of the federal bribery statute is not the bribery the Framers had in mind in the impeachment clause.
Schiff is anxious to tie the defense aid to the quid pro quo, too, because it’s clearly more serious than denying the White House visit. But that betrays his real problem: A statutory bribery offense is not necessarily enough. Even if he can prove one, there’s a big leap to impeachment and removal.
As we’ve said several times, impeachment is political, not legal. Congress does not need to prove a statutory crime; and no court can tell the House what an impeachable offense is — the brute fact is that Democrats are the majority, and they have the raw power to cite any alleged misconduct that can win a simple majority vote.
Yet, in the GOP-controlled Senate, a two-thirds’ supermajority is necessary to convict and remove a president from power. If House Democrats go down their bribery road, the Senate will have the opportunity to consider what the Framers had in mind when they put bribery in the impeachment clause. Here’s betting the senators will not conclude that a “corrupt demand” makes the cut.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and an NR contributing .
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...d-impeachment/
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
that's really what this is all about, isn't it? Notice in your responses to me, you didn't talk about how trump is this huge violator or criminal, it's all about "getting trump" to satisfy your trump derangement syndrome.
I don't think it will be much of a badge. The polls are continuing to bear out the fact that america now sees this as an entirely partisan and desperate issue. You guys emptied the clip this week, with the media fully on your side, and your progress went in complete reverse. When it gets to the senate and republicans can subpeano biden, schiff, the fake whistleblower and other deep state actors, you all are completely buttfucked. I say bring it on.
Your grossly unprecdented behavior only serves to further factionalize, polarize, and destroy america.
Here is what democrat nadler said about impeachment during clinton:
You have no popular will, you do not have an overwhelming consensus. You are hypocrites. The most ironic thing of all though, is that your TDS will be your very own undoing.The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity.
Earl (11-22-2019)
Bookmarks