Poll: Three in ten Democrats say they would either definitely vote against a candidate who favors impeachment (18%) or are unsure (12%). 70% of Democrats would definitely vote for such a candidate. Among Republicans, 84% would not back a candidate seeking to impeach President Trump. A plurality of independents (47%) say the same.
A NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll of likely voters shows that whether a candidate supports impeaching President Donald Trump could have an impact during the upcoming midterm elections:
A congressional candidate’s position on whether or not to impeach President Donald Trump could be a motivating factor in this year’s midterm elections. A plurality of registered voters (47%) say they would definitely vote against a candidate for Congress who wants to impeach the president. 42% would definitely vote for a candidate who has that intent, and 10% are unsure.
Notably, three in ten Democrats say they would either definitely vote against a candidate who favors impeachment (18%) or are unsure (12%). 70% of Democrats would definitely vote for such a candidate. Among Republicans, 84% would not back a candidate seeking to impeach President Trump. A plurality of independents (47%) say the same.
“If the question of impeachment dominates the news this fall, like so many other voter concerns, it breaks along partisan lines,” Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, said. “But, because nearly one-third of Democrats are not eager to open up this debate, it is one potential campaign issue that advantages the GOP.”
Mueller is doing everything he can to pressure Manafort into saying that he either saw collusion or saw obstruction. It is pressure designed to get Manafort to say what Mueller wants to hear.
Mueller needs a witness, ’cause there isn’t any evidence.
This is a political counterterrorism investigation that’s being made to look like a criminal investigation, and I have learned that it is perfectly fine for prosecutors and cops to lie to suspects in pursuit of a confession.
RUSH: I checked the email during the break. An interesting question: “Rush, you haven’t talked about the second indictments that have been handed down against Paul Manafort,” and I’m paraphrasing the email. The question basically is these things still have nothing to do with even the campaign. Everything Manafort’s being indicted for happened before the campaign, and then a letter writer very astutely mentioned that Mueller is changing the venue from Washington, D.C., to the Eastern District of Virginia, which is where Manafort lives.
….I think that Mueller is doing everything he can to pressure Manafort into saying that he either saw collusion or saw obstruction. Mueller needs a witness. To date, there has been no leak confirming any evidence of collusion exists because it didn’t happen.But if enough pressure can be applied as it was to Flynn, if enough pressure can be
… Manafort, with these two indictments, is facing the rest of his life in jail. These indictments now are serious. The first indictments were not swept away. They were added on to. But now we’ve got money laundering. Now we’ve got tax avoidance, multiple counts. Thirty-two counts, I think, in this latest indictment. And if he’s convicted on all of them, he can say good-bye to any quality of life ever. And this is pressure designed to get Manafort to say what Mueller wants to hear. “Rush! Rush, doesn’t what Manafort says have to be true?”
Well, you would think. But in something like this, believe me, it can be structured. I’m just trying to tell you that the objective here hasn’t changed. The objective is to get rid of Donald Trump. It has not changed and it will not change.
….The indictments against Manafort, he would spend the rest of his life in jail — and this is white-collar crime. It’s bank fraud, it’s tax fraud, it’s money laundering. It’s all kinds of really bad stuff for which sentencing guidelines, 32 different counts in this indictment, he could figuratively… I mean, literally spend the rest of his life in jail. That’s on one hand. On the other hand, here’s Mueller and his investigators saying (paraphrased), “But, you know, it doesn’t have to be that way, Paul.” It has to be always be “Paul.” It wouldn’t be “Mr. Manafort.”
They become friends, kind of like the Stockholm Syndrome with a kidnapping victim. “It doesn’t have to be this way, Paul. You just have to unburden yourself. You just have to tell us what you and I already know, Paul. You just have to confirm to us that the campaign was working with Russia. You just have to say it,” or alternatively, “Paul, you just have to tell us what you know about how the president was trying to shut us down, obstruct justice.” Mueller needs a witness, ’cause there isn’t any evidence.
“Of course there isn’t a prosecutor in the world that would take false evidence and try to pass it off as real!” I used to think that. I used to. I used to instinctively believe that. But I know that this is a political counterterrorism investigation that’s being made to look like a criminal investigation, and I have learned that it is perfectly fine for prosecutors and cops to lie to suspects in pursuit of a confession.
So they desperately want Trump, and they have who knows? Endless amounts of money and the full force power and pressure of the massive federal government behind them. And what’s telling is that there isn’t any evidence yet. There won’t be any real evidence ’cause Trump didn’t collude. That all happened on the Democrat side. That’s what nation doubly outrageous.
( KQED ) Billionaire investor and Democratic donor Tom Steyer says he bought 535 copies of the controversial new book about the Trump presidency, “Fire and Fury,” and plans to have them hand-delivered to each member of Congress. Last October, Steyer launched an internet and TV ad campaign to impeach Trump.
“We believed when we started this impeachment petition on Oct. 20, we felt every subsequent day would bring information that would bolster our argument that this was a dangerous, unfit president who needed to be removed from office,” Steyer told KQED Newsroom, “and from what I can tell, this book makes that case in very bold letters.”
…Steyer says he supports the Mueller investigation but believes that there is an “open and shut case that [Trump] has met the criteria for impeachment.”
“We’re not convincing anyone to do this,” Steyer added. “We’re enabling them to put together a collective national voice to speak up to national officials.”
Steyer has poured millions of his own dollars into the impeachment campaign, which includes an online petition and TV ads with Steyer making the case for impeachment.
Is Robert Mueller’s impaneling of a new grand jury in Washington step one in the impeachment of President Donald Trump?
No indictable crime is required to trigger impeachment proceedings
Justice Department’s assignment of a prosecutor to investigate Trump without specifying a crime or the factual basis for a criminal investigation
A grand jury may issue a report that recommends an official’s removal from office
( National Review by Andrew C. McCarthy ) The principal function of a federal grand jury is to investigate a suspected crime with an eye toward returning an indictment — a formal accusation of felony misconduct. In the alternative, a grand jury may file a “no true bill,” a formal finding that the prosecutor failed to show probable cause that the subject of the investigation committed a crime. Sometimes, however, to vote yea or nay on a proposed indictment is not the grand jury’s only option. In certain situations, federal law authorizes a grand jury to file a report detailing its findings, even if criminal charges are not forthcoming. One such situation involves investigations of public officials. Instead of returning an indictment, a grand jury may issue a report that recommends an official’s removal from office.
These columns have lamented the Justice Department’s assignment of a prosecutor to investigate the president without specifying a crime or the factual basis for a criminal investigation. We’ve also observed that no indictable crime is required to trigger impeachment proceedings. Neither, we now note, is a provable crime a prerequisite for the issuance of a grand-jury report.
Thus, the question arises: Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s impaneling of a new grand jury in Washington step one in the impeachment of President Donald Trump?
Judge Beryl Howell, who could decide Trump’s fate, worked for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee
Howell signed off on Mueller’s request to assemble a grand jury
If grand jury put together a report that would kick off impeachment proceedings, Howell is the person to approve making any of its findings public (or available to Congress)
From Daily Beast:
Beryl Howell is in a position to make pivotal decisions. And her importance could only grow. Federal court rules indicate that she signed off on Mueller’s request to assemble a grand jury, a highly secretive gathering of about two dozen people in Washington’s E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse that will grill witnesses and demand Trump associates’ documents.
And if (well, when) Team Trump’s lawyers hit back, Howell will be the umpire-in-chief: deciding whether or not Trump allies’ lawyers can quash subpoenas, and whether or not people like Jared Kushner can invoke what’s known as executive privilege to get out of testifying under oath before Mueller’s grand jury.
These decisions could be immensely consequential.
“Even though she worked for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she’s been very straight-arrow as a judge and she wouldn’t be impaneling a jury for the heck of it, or anything less than there being ample justification for it,” said a former federal lobbyist, referring to Howell’s previous work for Sen. Patrick Leahy. “She’s like Mueller: He wouldn’t ask for it unless he had more than enough evidence to justify it, and she wouldn’t have granted it unless he did.”
Hilarious! Democrat is blackmailing Trump with impeachment in order to stop him using twitter.
Appearing at Tucker Carlson Wednesday night, Trump non-stop use of twitter is the real reason why Democrat Brad Sherman filed an article of impeachment against President Trump. Democrat Brad Sherman said he hope by this impeachment, it would stop Trump from tweeting. Oh really?
Sherman tells Carlson that with the articles of impeachment, Trump’s advisers will tell him he has to stop tweeting and that they ‘need to convince him his presidency is at risk.’
Trump twitter is the bomb the Democrat Party and the liberal media want to stop more than anything else. The unhinged left are so scared about his tweet, they don’t know when it’s going to explode, how it’s going to explode that the Democrat loonies have to resort to threat of impeachment in order to stop the rogue president from doing what we all love him doing.
On Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) formally introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump claiming the president obstructed justice when he fired FBI director, James Comey. So far, he has one supporter.