How would you expect a recusal to work in this situation? It is the job of the House to vote for impeachment, no one else can do that for them and if everyone with a bias recused themselves then who would be left that could do anything? How many people you gonna find in the House who don't have any strong feelings about Trump one way or the other?

Is impeachment interfering in the 2020 election? Ok, sure, technically it could be called interfering with an election because it might affect some voter's minds however it is not illegal interference with the election.

They do a BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY, just like it was done in the past (Nixon). Or, they appoint an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL to do the investigation, just like they did it in the past (Clinton).  Either way, it is NOT supposed to be a majority party running an inquiry for a month prior to even holding a vote.  And they don't give it to the House Intel Committee chair, Adam Schiff, who has a 2-year record of lying about how Trump is guilty, and there is evidence to prove it.

The House Judicial Committee is the appropriate committee to start the inquiry, but (1) Nadler had his shot and failed, and (2) the Dems could not create a cloak of secrecy for the proceedings outside of pretending the inquiry involves national security in some way.

I don't think the supposed request to dig up dirt on Biden has any more to do with national security than the fraudulent Russia Collusion attempted coup did.  If that were the case, Hillary and the DNC leadership should be in prison now for paying for dirt on Trump from foreign sources.  Hopefully there's more coming in that situation.

All this impeachment crap is a smoke screen for every dirty swamp rat who tried to stop Trump before and after the 2016 election in the Steele Dossier & Collusion snipe hunt, and to distract from the fact the Dems have the worst people possible trying to get the nomination -- none of whom have a good chance of beating Trump.

If a cop, judge, or prosecutor had a conflict of interest such as running for the same office then they would be expected to recuse themselves. Is anyone running for president in 2020 currently on the committee holding the impeachment inquiry though?

Using a tool like impeachment isn't interfering with an election.

How about using a lawsuit to run for office., only to drop that suit once he lost. 3 days later.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

They do a BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY, just like it was done in the past (Nixon). Or, they appoint an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL to do the investigation, just like they did it in the past (Clinton).  Either way, it is NOT supposed to be a majority party running an inquiry for a month prior to even holding a vote.  And they don't give it to the House Intel Committee chair, Adam Schiff, who has a 2-year record of lying about how Trump is guilty, and there is evidence to prove it.

The House Judicial Committee is the appropriate committee to start the inquiry, but (1) Nadler had his shot and failed, and (2) the Dems could not create a cloak of secrecy for the proceedings outside of pretending the inquiry involves national security in some way.

I don't think the supposed request to dig up dirt on Biden has any more to do with national security than the fraudulent Russia Collusion attempted coup did.  If that were the case, Hillary and the DNC leadership should be in prison now for paying for dirt on Trump from foreign sources.  Hopefully there's more coming in that situation.

All this impeachment crap is a smoke screen for every dirty swamp rat who tried to stop Trump before and after the 2016 election in the Steele Dossier & Collusion snipe hunt, and to distract from the fact the Dems have the worst people possible trying to get the nomination -- none of whom have a good chance of beating Trump.

Still, any dem running for president and calling for impeachment is making an attempt to change the outcome of the 2020 election. This fact cannot be disputed. Just like the impeachment process itself is an attempt to change both the outcome from the 2016 and the 2020 election. I think it shows the dems are in a very weak position here. And are grasping at the impeachment straw in hopes of trying to beat Trump in 2020. It is as obvious as the hair on my head....... Wait.......

Still, any dem running for president and calling for impeachment is making an attempt to change the outcome of the 2020 election. This fact cannot be disputed. Just like the impeachment process itself is an attempt to change both the outcome from the 2016 and the 2020 election. I think it shows the dems are in a very weak position here. And are grasping at the impeachment straw in hopes of trying to beat Trump in 2020. It is as obvious as the hair on my head....... Wait.......

Hair?  As in singular?

Still, any dem running for president and calling for impeachment is making an attempt to change the outcome of the 2020 election. This fact cannot be disputed. Just like the impeachment process itself is an attempt to change both the outcome from the 2016 and the 2020 election. I think it shows the dems are in a very weak position here. And are grasping at the impeachment straw in hopes of trying to beat Trump in 2020. It is as obvious as the hair on my head....... Wait.......

I agree. Members of Congress calling for the impeachment of the President (the defacto 2020 GOP nominee) on flimsy, if not bogus, evidence of a "crime" is election interference.  No different than the Dems pretending that Trump doing his job to get to the bottom of 2016 interference is election interference, for no other reason than the investigation centers around his POTENTIAL political opponent. 

Hell, when Biden loses the nomination, this whole issue will be a nonstarter, and the Bidens will lose the protection of claiming dirty tricks by Trump.

You can't make this shit up.

How about using a lawsuit to run for office., only to drop that suit once he lost. 3 days later.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Not sure if you are referring to a specific instance but that would be one way of trying to influence an election. I think as long as the person filing suit had  actual grounds to file a suit then it is legal and there is nothing that can be done about it. However if it was a nuisance suit the court could knock it down and maybe the defendant could counter sue for court costs.

They do a BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY, just like it was done in the past (Nixon). Or, they appoint an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL to do the investigation, just like they did it in the past (Clinton).  Either way, it is NOT supposed to be a majority party running an inquiry for a month prior to even holding a vote.  And they don't give it to the House Intel Committee chair, Adam Schiff, who has a 2-year record of lying about how Trump is guilty, and there is evidence to prove it.

The House Judicial Committee is the appropriate committee to start the inquiry, but (1) Nadler had his shot and failed, and (2) the Dems could not create a cloak of secrecy for the proceedings outside of pretending the inquiry involves national security in some way.

I don't think the supposed request to dig up dirt on Biden has any more to do with national security than the fraudulent Russia Collusion attempted coup did.  If that were the case, Hillary and the DNC leadership should be in prison now for paying for dirt on Trump from foreign sources.  Hopefully there's more coming in that situation.

All this impeachment crap is a smoke screen for every dirty swamp rat who tried to stop Trump before and after the 2016 election in the Steele Dossier & Collusion snipe hunt, and to distract from the fact the Dems have the worst people possible trying to get the nomination -- none of whom have a good chance of beating Trump.

As far as I understand it, this is just an idealistic argument, it should be done this way or that way, but in the end there really isn't much in the way of regulations on exactly how it is supposed to be done. There is no rule saying it has to be done in the House Judiciary committee, the committee on reconstruction held an inquiry that led to the impeachment of Andrew Jackson. In fact there is nothing in the constitution that says an impeachment inquiry has to be held at all.

You don't sound worried that Trump will ever get removed from office so why make such a big deal of it? If the dems want to hold an impeachment inquiry or vote to impeach then they get too because they control the house. It will go to the Senate and the trial will fail, Trump will remain president. Somewhere between 49 and 51% of people think he should be impeached, so are you worried that it might affect voter's minds?


Clinton and the DNC got away with it because they didn't pay the foreign source. They paid an American who then hired someone else. Clearly they were skirting the law but hard to prove Clinton knew the guy she hired was going to hire a foreigner. I could be missing something but that's what I thought was the difficulty with that particular aspect of the Clinton issue.

Not sure if you are referring to a specific instance but that would be one way of trying to influence an election. I think as long as the person filing suit had  actual grounds to file a suit then it is legal and there is nothing that can be done about it. However if it was a nuisance suit the court could knock it down and maybe the defendant could counter sue for court costs.

Im referring to chin.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

As far as I understand it, this is just an idealistic argument, it should be done this way or that way, but in the end there really isn't much in the way of regulations on exactly how it is supposed to be done. There is no rule saying it has to be done in the House Judiciary committee, the committee on reconstruction held an inquiry that led to the impeachment of Andrew Jackson. In fact there is nothing in the constitution that says an impeachment inquiry has to be held at all.

You don't sound worried that Trump will ever get removed from office so why make such a big deal of it? If the dems want to hold an impeachment inquiry or vote to impeach then they get too because they control the house. It will go to the Senate and the trial will fail, Trump will remain president. Somewhere between 49 and 51% of people think he should be impeached, so are you worried that it might affect voter's minds?


Clinton and the DNC got away with it because they didn't pay the foreign source. They paid an American who then hired someone else. Clearly they were skirting the law but hard to prove Clinton knew the guy she hired was going to hire a foreigner. I could be missing something but that's what I thought was the difficulty with that particular aspect of the Clinton issue.

Your understanding is inaccurate.  The facts are the facts. History doesn't care if you understand or not.  It exists for all to see.