I think Hillary's supporters see her chance to replace Biden as front runner is improving or wishful

Lately, it seems she's coming out quite strong against Trump, calling him as illegitimate President and aggressively supportive of the Congressional Democrats on the impeachment. Since most of the declared candidates are more leaning to the Left; and have taken to support the Socialists' ideas such as tax the rich, medicare for all, housing for all, free college, pay all student debts etc., only Biden is the proven centrist who is attractive to a lot of Democratic supports of Obama.

I think if Biden falls, the party will be looking for an alternative to Warren, Kamela and others. I think Hillary, by trying to convince others that the impeachment of Trump is important because he's an illegitimate President who "stole" the presidency from her, then, it'll be her that should be restored to Presidency or at least given another chance by the Democratic Party to run again as presidential candidate. I think she's hoping that Biden will fall by the wayside due to the problem of his son as alleged; and that will set the stage for another Moderate in the party like her. Just thinking but what do I know. Interesting US politics.

Comments

  • Next time I speak with her, marc, I will let her know your views.

    In the meantime, keep your eye on the impeachment proceedings. That will move much faster than the Democratic Party nominating process.
  • If you are interested, Marc, and not just blowing smoke, Hillary will be on Rachel Maddow’s show tomorrow night. Maybe she will announce her candidacy on the show!
  • edited October 2
    Good idea to definitely lose any chances of winningimage
  • I sure hope Clinton runs again because mainstream fake polls showing socialist Pocahontas and Bernie in the lead, due to the recent exposure of crooked Biden, is causing the stock-market to spiral. Micronesia should pull out their investment funds from US money markets if socialism is taking over.
  • Thanks for the laughs, z. Your rants rival those of the Ranter-in-Chief.
    image
  • Scarface photo-shopped. Give it up. Leftists lost the memes war. That's why the left promotes deceit and censorship. Trump will tweet to keep Americans informed. We don't trust fake news.
  • Back to the point of the thread. The socialist candidates can actually beat Trump. Fund managers base their analyses on the fake news and fake polls. So when they say a democrat is winning the race, like they did so convincingly in 2016, and that candidate wants to go after the banks and rich investors, it affects the stock market. The more the stock market spirals, the less chances Trump will get re-elected. So yeah, your best candidate is one of the radical socialists who want's to punish the rich to give free stuff to all, including free healthcare to illegal aliens.
  • ...the impeachment show on fake news also affects the stock market. Libtards don't know thus don't care.
  • Jesus Christ Almighty, z, you are one smart genius. Ever think of a career in writing? You know, fiction, disinformation, propaganda? Maybe you can make some shit up to convince the steel workers in that Louisiana steel company that went belly up that losing their jobs is the fault of the socialists. LOL
  • You give away Pelosis fake piousness by saying the Lords name in vain. Notice how she tries to appeal to American Christians lately? "We need to pray for the president" She says. lol.
  • I do not utter the Lord’s name in vain. Ever.
  • She is still blaming Russia for her lost oh wait its Ukraine now.

    She will never be elected to the highest office in America. She is a crook. Period.
  • Funny, she said the same thing about you at dinner last night.
  • So here are some of the possible outcomes/scenarios from several fronts:
    1. Speaker Pelosi does not allow the whole House to vote on the impeachment--although she has enough Democrats to vote. In this case, President will not turn over any documents as requested by the impeachment committees. SCOTUS will side with the administration (Executive Branch) on this due to separation of power.
    2. Speaker Pelosi calls the vote; and make the impeachment formal. The House will vote to impeach after some hearings; but when it goes to the Senate, the Senators will reject it--will not approve the impeachment. So it will just die in the Senate.
    3. Moderate Democrats who were hesitant to be dragged to vote for impeachment will then have to run on the failed impeachment.
    4. During the impeachment proceedings and hearings, Biden will be brought up. Hillary's chance among Obama supporters will be greatly enhanced.
    5. But the DNC will not allow Hillary to be the nominee--although she and the Democratic party have been saying that Trump is illegitimate president; which means, in her mind, she is the legitimate bearer of the Democratic party's Obama legacy.
    6. But all the primary candidates--Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc.--will fight that; saying Hillary did not go thru the rigor of the primary debts like they did.
    7. And if DNC Chairman puts Hillary as primary candidate, he will be accused of unfairness; and this will split the party even more--much more worse than when Donna Brazille left DNC accusing the Committee in favoring Hillary and Debbie;
    8. Democratic base will be pissed off with the let down--the failure to remove the sitting President--that the voters will not bother to vote when the election time comes.
    9. If the Republicans can use the failed impeachment--to target all the Democrats who knew it would fail in the Senate but still fell in line with Pelosi--it most likely will swing independent voters to vote for Trump.

    These are possible scenarios or outcomes from the impeachment push. Chairman Schiff, by having met with the whistleblower early on and without informing the IG about it--has created a huge credibility problem with Speaker Pelosi's unilateral decision to formalize the impeachment--on her own, as one person--and not thru the democratic process of involving all the House members. Just my thoughts but what do I know looking at the whole thing several thousands of miles away.
  • Here's a scenario for you: The U.S. House passes articles of impeachment, Republican senators abandon Trump's sinking ship, Trump passes his job to Pence, and Pence grants him immunity from prosecution so he can stay our of jail.
  • FM, yes, that's another option. I believe it has happened before. But I think the Senate, with Republican majority, will not abandon Trump. They will make the argument that the basis for the House impeachment is not convincing enough--not absolute--that there is another interpretation. Besides, it was reported that many Democrats began to push for impeachment since even before Trump took office. So it's based on hate for Trump; based on the "hurt" feelings that Hillary did not win; etc.

    I think Republicans will support Trump because if they were to "abandon" Trump, most of them will be voted out by the Republican voters in the next election.
  • If Republicans stick with Trump, they will go down in the next election.
  • FM, I won't argue with you on that. I am assuming you are living in the US Mainland now; so you have a better feel of the political environment there. But from what I can gather, Republican voters are over 90% supporters of Trump. The Independents are split. And of course, the Democrats are mostly against Trump--mostly due to the fact that he beat Hillary when at the last Presidential election, they were so 100% sure that Hillary was going to be the President. So it's understandable that the Democrat voters are still "hurt"; and the House Democrats are going to "feed" their base with the impeachment.

    Republican voters, on the other hand, are satisfied with Trump for keeping most of his campaign promises so far: lower taxes; immigration and border/walls; strong military; strong economy; lowest unemployment numbers; highest employment numbers; highest numbers of employment for women, Hispanic Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans; improving trade imbalances; etc., etc.,

    On the pipeline--awaiting House's congressional actions--are: infrastructures improvements; trade agreement with Mexico/Canada to replace NAFTA; reduction of medicine costs; etc.

    As such, there is strong basis for Republican voters to vote for Trump again in 2020 election. All of his accomplishments were achieved while the Russia investigation distractions went on which led to the conclusion that there was no collusion and no obstruction. Republican voters do like politicians who keep their campaign promises; not like typical politicians that once voted in, they forget about their promises to the voters.

    Going forward, I am sure somebody will dig up something since the "Deep State" is still pretty much active and alive. But the Republican voters will vote for Trump again. And any Republican Senator who votes against Trump in the Senate in regards to the impeachment will be voted out by the Republican voters. There is no political alternative. In their opinion, Trump is not perfect but he gets things done.
  • This member of the Democratic Party is not and was not “hurt” when Trump and Russia won the White House. And this member of the Democratic Party doesn’t believe for a moment that the impeachment of the fascist totalitarian in the White House (and very possibly the Attorney General and Secretary of State) is being pursued to “feed” the Democratic Party “base,” however that is defined.

    Der Fuhrer Drump is being impeached because he is a criminal. You may not believe that, because you drank the Kool Aid. Best you stick to that which you believe to be true, and leave your assumptions about the motivations of the Democratic Party to the Democrats.
  • Sarem, I won't name my relatives and friends who are US voters; Republicans and Democrats. They are spread out in the US mainland: Silver Spring, Maryland; Bay Area, California; Riverside, California, Chico, California, Kona, Hawaii, etc.--about 10 voters who are split. I am not taking sides. You may not be feeling "hurt" by Hillary's loss but there are many people (Democrats) who are. My comments and observations are based on them.

    In your post above, you were saying that I "keep my eyes on the impeachment proceedings". Well, I have been; and am saying that it's not as straightforward as the Democrats want. There are distinctions between issues and questions that are purely constitutional in nature vs those that have statutory implications.

    As long as Pelosi does not get the full House vote on the impeachment, the procedures will be guided by statutes which include, among others, the concept of executive privileges/protection which the administration will invoke which means the administration and staff will not be allowed by the principal of separation of powers and the executive privileges. Your objection to, and hatred of, Trump may not be rooted to your being "hurt"; but millions of Democrats are. That's what I am told.
  • The only vote the full House will or has to take is the vote on Articles of Impeachment voted out of the Judiciary Committee. No other votes of the full House are required, regardless of what Kevin McCarthy says.

    When that vote of the full House is taken, at least 230 votes will be cast in favor of impeachment, and less than 200 votes will be cast against. A Bill of Impeachment will advance to the Senate.

    You made up all that crap about privilege. Or, you heard it from Tucker Carlson or Hannity. Really, go back and read that last paragraph. It is incomprehensible!
  • marc, a president facing impeachment by congress is not protected by blanket "executive privilege."

    Congress can use it's subpoena power to demand relevant executive branch documents for an impeachment proceeding.

    Failure to proved documents can result in charges of contempt and obstruction of justice.

  • FM, one legal analyses is that the cleanest way to move forward is for the Speaker to put the articles of impeachment to the vote of the entire House members--Democrats, Republicans, Independents. If she were to do that, it's assumed that the majority of the Democrats will approve it. That way, at least, it went thru the process that allowed the Republicans to vote for the record.

    After that, the impeachment manager will be appointed who will be either Schiff, Nadler or somebody. They will then be in a good position to demand evidence (documents) from the White House. They need to have solid, clear evidence, with no ambiguity or conflicts, etc. They need to be prepared to make the case in front of the Senate following all the rules of evidence, etc.

    If the evidence are less than 100% clear or are tainted with bias or inadequate, then, that will allow the Senators to dismiss the case. It has to be 100% perfect for them to convict a sitting President.

    I read somewhere that the WH has ordered all relevant and related documents preserved. But I am sure they will provide only what would be appropriate and legal to provide--without compromising the authority of the President as a separate branch of the government. So we'll see how it goes.
  • How can Speaker Pelosi put Articles of Impeachment before the full House of Representatives for a vote before they are drawn, and voted on in Committee? The Articles cannot be drawn without the evidence being gathered from all relevant sources. If I understand what you are saying, the full House should vote before any hearings are held or any evidence (other than the president's admissions) is gathered.

    You seem to believe that the process now in place -- with the relevant committees gathering evidence and drawing Articles of Impeachment based on the evidence which is gathered by the committees -- will not afford the members of the Republican Party a vote. That is, frankly, gibberish.

    Imagine the process in the House is like the process before a Grand Jury, with the House of Representatives being the Grand Jury. The prosecutors investigate the allegations, and bring evidence to a Grand Jury. Only when the evidence is presented to the Grand Jury does the Grand Jury decide whether or not to indict the defendant. Mueller brought evidence before the Grand Jury, and after the evidence was presented the Grand Jury indicted Flynn, and Gates, and Manafort, based on the evidence presented to it. The Grand Jury is not given a vote on whether evidence should be gathered.

    Once the relevant committees have drawn the Articles of Impeachment, based on the evidence that has been gathered (the current process), each Article of Impeachment will be presented to the full relevant committees for a vote. For instance, the Judiciary Committee of the House will gather evidence on an Article asserting Obstruction of Justice (Mueller Report, Vol. II). That is currently being done, with the Judiciary Committee seeking the actual evidence presented to the Grand Jury, and seeking testimony from relevant individuals, such as Don McGahn and others who testified before Mueller. The House Select Committee on Intelligence is currently in the process of gathering evidence regarding efforts to coerce foreign governments to make shit up about Biden and his son to help Trump get elected.

    Once the evidence gathering process is completed, thus determining the scope of each Article of Impeachment, each committee will hold a vote on the Article(s) of Impeachment drafted by that particular committee. The Democratic Party members of the relevant committees, being in the majority, will win the votes in committee on any Article presented to them. Then each committee-approved Article will be included in a Bill of Impeachment, which will then be presented to the full House of Representatives for a vote of all members present. At that time, after the gathering of evidence and drawing of Articles of Impeachment, the Republican Party will be able to make any argument it wishes in opposition to the Articles in the Bill of Impeachment, such as the bullshit about Ukraine conspiring with Clinton, and Biden getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired to protect his son.

    Then, when the entire House of Representatives gets an opportunity to vote on the Articles presented in the Bill of Impeachment, and the Articles are approved by a simple majority of the members present and voting, the Articles will be forwarded to the Senate, like an indictment issued by a Grand Jury would be forwarded for trial in court. The evidence already gathered by the House committees will be presented to the Senate, if McConnell permits, and the Senate will decide, by a vote requiring a 2/3 majority, whether to convict.

    That was the process used in the Clinton impeachment, if you recall. Clinton's impeachment was based on evidence already gathered by Ken Starr, and provided voluntarily (including otherwise secret Grand Jury evidence) to the House Judiciary Committee. The House Judiciary Committee voted out Articles of Impeachment, which the full House approved by a majority vote, and the Bill of Impeachment was sent to the Senate for trial (and acquittal).

    Although I have tried to understand your argument, marc, it just doesn't make any legal sense. Please point out where I have misunderstood you.
  • One additional point. You state "If the evidence are less than 100% clear or are tainted with bias or inadequate, then, that will allow the Senators to dismiss the case. It has to be 100% perfect for them to convict a sitting President."

    Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a criminal trial, where the evidence of wrongdoing must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt ("It has to be 100% perfect for [the Senate] to convict"). It would be possible to obtain a conviction based solely on the whistleblower complaint and the summary of the Ukraine telephone call, if enough republican Senators had put up with enough bullshit from Trump and just wanted him out. Unanimity is not required, just a 2/3 majority. It is a political process, after all.

    And in case you were not aware, McConnell apparently does not even have to bring the Bill of Impeachment to the floor of the Senate for a trial. He can do a "Garland," and not even recognize the Bill of Impeachment. At least that is what your Republican compadres seem to argue.
  • Sarem, you're right in the many points that you are making. I don't dispute because I am not a Constitutional expert. But if I understand the WH strategy as mentioned in public tv, etc., the WH is demanding that Speaker Pelosi put the question about the impeachment to the whole/full House. Not necessarily the articles of impeachment but a House resolution or something that will be voted by all House members--whether to proceed with the impeachment or not.

    Once the House approves a House resolution--not articles of impeachment--then, that will be the basis for the Committees to hold hearings. The Speaker and the HOuse can adopt any resolution that they want. This will "formalize" the impeachment hearings process. It's my understanding that the reasons the Republicans and the WH are pushing for a "formal" process--is so that, it provides equal rights and access to the Republicans--to call witnesses, to demand documents, to have equal access to question any witness, including the whistleblowers, documents, testimonies, etc.

    It's my understanding that the reason the Speaker is not yet willing to "formalize" the process is that the informal process give her and the committee chairs and Democrats access to witness that can be denied to the Republican members of the same committee. The Republican side complain because in one of the recent closed hearing, the Chairman only allowed the legal counsel for the Democrats to grill the witness but did not allow the Republican the same rights. So unless the impeachment process is formalized, this kind of one side informal decisions by the Committee chairs will taint the gathering of evidence, etc.

    Sarem, I am just curious if you know the reason why the Speaker seems hesitant to put the vote on formalizing the impeachment process to the whole House? Wouldn't that be better since it will be approved by the Majority which is the Democrats? Just wondering.
  • The short answer is that no preliminary vote is required. The longer answer would require an analysis of the Republican Party motivation in demanding such an unnecessary vote. Could it be that the Republicans want to delay as much as possible and to create as much as possible a circus atmosphere where people might forget the serious nature of the impeachment process and the fact gathering process?

    Why should the Speaker of the House accede to an unnecessary vote just because Republicans whine loudly that the process is not “fair” to them? Isn't it true, marc, that even if a preliminary vote of the full House were taken, the only result of the vote would be for the Republicans to have the opportunity to muddy the waters even more? Wouldn't the result of a preliminary vote of the full House be exactly the same as a vote of the full House after a full investigation and fact gathering process?

    Did McConnell agree to hold hearings and a vote on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland just because not doing so was “unfair” to the nominee and the accepted Constitutional process? Get real.
  • Sarem, it was already reported last week that McConnell had said that he will take up the impeachment if the articles of impeachment is approved by the House.
  • I know. I’m just saying that a politician in quest of power for power’s sake, trust as far as you can throw. Politics for some is blood sport.
Sign In or Register to comment.