MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Maineiacs]

Yes, friends, this is the Mod-sanctioned, giant economy-sized Impeachment Megathread! Rules are rules and will be obeyed.

We hope that this thread will have only impeachment-related posts but we do understand that three will be overlap between this and the MAGAThread and the Election megathread. We will be magnanimous in our grace and justice, as we always are, but thread-jacks will be dealt with harshly.



So, to start, the first of the public hearings in the House of Representatives will start at 10:00 AM Eastern Time (GMT minus 5) on Wednesday, November 13th. Here are some note from The New York Times:

I honestly hope this goes through. Trump is an idiot in my opinion.

Trump being an idiot is one of his nicer qualities. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, corrupt bully.

[Drongonia]

But their hearsay and opinions are that Trump can do no wrong even if all the evidence says otherwise so that's different because facts and reasons and logic.
Actually, I just realized what I said is actually basically GMS's view- if you disagree, there's just an irreconcilable difference of opinion between you and him that nothing can ever possibly change, upon which evidence or empirical information have no impact. We're all just isolated minds drifting in the darkness perceiving everything differently, and you can never prove to him that the two of you are witnessing the same reality.

Cheerful thought to end the night on!

r/im14andthisisdeep

[Risottia]

I honestly hope this goes through. Trump is an idiot in my opinion.

Trump being an idiot is one of his nicer qualities. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, corrupt bully.

While despising mr.Trump rather vehemently, I would guess that those aren't exactly charges one could use to impeach the PotUS, innit?

I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

[Greater Miami Shores]

]

And those witnesses don't have any facts other than their hearsay and opinions. I have seen links to this. Their are other witnesses who support that it has not happened. Republicans want to call certain witnesses in defense of President Trump and can be blocked by Democrat Adam Schiff and the Democrat majority on the committee, as Adam Schiff has blocked and stated so.

Even in US Courts of Laws Grand Juries at times are divided on the guilt or innocence of a Person based on the same so called evidence presented in US Courts of Laws.

I am sorry if the others don't fit your narrative of your anti Trump views. I get it you support the Democrats don't like or you hate President Trump based on the posts I have seen on these Trump Maga Threads, and their is nothing wrong with that, from your personal and political perspective. Just as their is nothing wrong with that, of my personal and political perspective of support for the Republicans and President Trump.

And who has been blocked from being called?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I do happen to have bad eye sight so posting these xxxxxxxxxxxx separations help my eye sight when preparing a post. I have knocked off the lols and lol attacks, ok a lol if their is a joke or I make a joke, but no lol attacks. I really am trying to change my style, but it is hard not the repeat the same statements in the same, different and similar words, as they fit the posts and counter posts.

I have seen articles in the past stating Adam Schiff blocks witnesses or tells the Republican he will not allow certain witnesses that will talk about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, but I have not been able to find them online right now. If I find specific links later on I will post them for all to see while quoting you directly.

I can understand Adam Schiff not wanting Joe Biden or Hunter Biden to testify but they and the other witnesses the Republicans wish to call should be allowed to testify as Ukraine is involved in the impeachment issue.

If this is the why Democrat Adam Schiff is goin to be acting during the Public hearings I hope the independent voters and the American People see through the Democrats Political Kangaroo style court against President Trump. Note I said If.

The Whistleblower should testify in public or behind closed doors in front of the committee of Democrats and Republicans present on the committee.

I know many of you here don't like and accept right wing sources as credible, I for one don't question the credibility of any leftist sources, here is the source:
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/adam-s ... id/939274/
A few excerpts and you can all read the rest of the article Posted Wednesday November 13, 2019:

Rep Republican Jim Jordan Rep - Ohio, blasted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Tuesday for blocking witnesses from answering Republican questions during a closed-door impeachment hearing regarding President Donald Trump.

"Chairman Schiff has prevented the witness from answering certain questions we have during the deposition," Jordan, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee, told reporters at the Capitol. "One of the things you do in these depositions is ask the basics: Who? What? Where? When? Why?

"When we asked the [witness] who he spoke to, Adam Schiff said, 'We're not going to allow that.'
"To everyone he says, 'This is not classified,'" Jordan continued. "He'd tell us that.
"The witness has their counsel there," the representative continued. "They don't need Adam Schiff being chairman and lawyer.

Rep. Jim Jordan is now telling us that Adam Schiff is blocking the witness from answering specific questions from Republicans:

https://therightscoop.com/adam-schiff-n ... questions/

[Greater Miami Shores]

And those witnesses don't have any facts other than their hearsay and opinions.

I mean, if you want to get all solipsistic about it, do any of us really have anything other than our hearsay and opinions?

As I have posted many times before on the other thread. A certain nation, it was either Gormwood or Vassenor I cant remember and I have not looked for the link yet. Posted to me, the difference is we have the truth on our side. I will edit this post with the link when if find it. As I have posted many times before on the other thread, my fellow anti Trump nations always put down my posts as wrong based on facts and defend their posts as right based on facts, based on their facts, not their opinions. As their posts to me proves.

They put down my comments, right wing sources as wrong, biased propaganda, and defend their comments and leftists sources as right and credible, I don't do this to their leftist sources and I have posted and quoted leftists sources as well and I am still wrong based on facts, based on their facts, according to them.

They have asked unnecessary questions of me over and over again when they don't like and don't accept my answers agree with it or not, a very light form of very light non actionable harassment. They have made fun of my posts in support of President Trump on their posts to me and on their posts to each other, and deny it all. I can prove it all with their posts to me, but it is not actionable.

They did flame me twice, I did not want to report anyone they all know I don't. But recently they went to far and crossed a line. I still did not want to report anyone, but I figured they might ease of on the light harassment and the flame. I lost the first case and I won the second case where the person and its 2 nations have been banned for ever. I still think I had a good case against them on both cases.

Now I don't report anyone unless I think they have broken an NS rule against me, I don't report other nations that don't have anything to do with me. I have never and will never try to get a fellow nations general and RP threads locked for any reasons as has been done to me and other nations many times, how dare I. Not even the RPs are safe anymore on NS, this is sad, this is very sad.

I for one don't place any nation on my foe list or ignore list as I call it. I post to all nations and persons.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Trump being an idiot is one of his nicer qualities. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, corrupt bully.

While despising mr.Trump rather vehemently, I would guess that those aren't exactly charges one could use to impeach the PotUS, innit?

I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

Posted by Risottia:
I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

I once read an article that stated President Trump can do so. I would have to look for it and edit it on this post.

[The Archregimancy]

Trump being an idiot is one of his nicer qualities. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, corrupt bully.

While despising mr.Trump rather vehemently, I would guess that those aren't exactly charges one could use to impeach the PotUS, innit?

I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

That depends on the verdict.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution begins:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

The question is then whether 'removal from Office' and 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office' are necessarily the same punishment, or whether the Senate can vote to apply these as separate punishments. Article 2, Section 4 makes it clear that removal from office is automatic upon conviction following impeachment, but makes no further mention of disqualification from office.

There is no precedent on the issue for a presidential impeachment. The Senate failed to convict either Johnson or Clinton, so the point has never been tested at the presidential level.

There are, however, two cases of judicial impeachment in 1862 (West Humphreys) and 1913 (Robert Archbald) where the Senate held separate votes on 1) conviction and removal from office, and 2) to then to bar from office.

On that basis, precedent exists in Senate impeachment trials to make these separate punishments. If that precedent is applied to Trump's impeachment, and if the president is convicted (which currently appears unlikely, but we're exploring a hypothetical), then it would be potentially be possible for the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office without barring him from further office or running in the 2020 presidential election.

But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate. The 1912 presidential election, where former president Theodore Roosevelt ran against the Republican party he previously represented as president from 1901-1909 after it became apparent that he would fail to gain the party's nomination over sitting president Taft - and then came second behind Wilson but ahead of Taft - perhaps offers the closest historical equivalent (it was also the last time the Republican Party failed to finish in the top two in a presidential election). But it's obviously not a precise analogue, either; not least because Roosevelt hadn't been impeached and removed from office, but had merely followed the existing precedent of not standing for a third term in the 1908 election.

[The Archregimancy]

I mean, if you want to get all solipsistic about it, do any of us really have anything other than our hearsay and opinions?

As I have posted many times before on the other thread. A certain nation, it was either Gormwood or Vassenor I cant remember and I have not looked for the link yet. Posted to me, the difference is we have the truth on our side. I will edit this post with the link when if find it. As I have posted many times before on the other thread, my fellow anti Trump nations always put down my posts as wrong based on facts and defend their posts as right based on facts, based on their facts, not their opinions. As their posts to me proves.

They put down my comments, right wing sources as wrong, biased propaganda, and defend their comments and leftists sources as right and credible, I don't do this to their leftist sources and I have posted and quoted leftists sources as well and I am still wrong based on facts, based on their facts, according to them.

They have asked unnecessary questions of me over and over again when they don't like and don't accept my answers agree with it or not, a very light form of very light non actionable harassment. They have made fun of my posts in support of President Trump on their posts to me and on their posts to each other, and deny it all. I can prove it all with their posts to me, but it is not actionable.

They did flame me twice, I did not want to report anyone they all know I don't. But recently they went to far and crossed a line. I still did not want to report anyone, but I figured they might ease of on the light harassment and the flame. I lost the first case and I won the second case where the person and its 2 nations have been banned for ever. I still think I had a good case against them on both cases.

Now I don't report anyone unless I think they have broken an NS rule against me, I don't report other nations that don't have anything to do with me. I have never and will never try to get a fellow nations general and RP threads locked for any reasons as has been done to me and other nations many times, how dare I. Not even the RPs are safe anymore on NS, this is sad, this is very sad.

I for one don't place any nation on my foe list or ignore list as I call it. I post to all nations and persons.

Miami, this is not the place to make this type of post.

If you want to complain about people who you believe are flaming you, report it in the Moderation forum - do not make passive-aggressive posts about how you've been wronged by specific other people in a debate thread in General.

Continuing to make this type of post in a thread where debate is likely to be heated, and where the moderator team are likely to be strict over applying site rules, may well lead to you being warned for baiting and (in the case of the deleted individual) gloating.

So please, do not continue this discussion in this thread.

[Greater Miami Shores]

While despising mr.Trump rather vehemently, I would guess that those aren't exactly charges one could use to impeach the PotUS, innit?

I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

That depends on the verdict.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution begins:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

The question is then whether 'removal from Office' and 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office' are necessarily the same punishment, or whether the Senate can vote to apply these as separate punishments. Article 2, Section 4 makes it clear that removal from office is automatic upon conviction following impeachment, but makes no further mention of disqualification from office.

There is no precedent on the issue for a presidential impeachment. The Senate failed to convict either Johnson or Clinton, so the point has never been tested at the presidential level.

There are, however, two cases of judicial impeachment in 1862 (West Humphreys) and 1913 (Robert Archbald) where the Senate held separate votes on conviction and removal from office, and to then to bar from office.

On that basis, precedent exists in Senate impeachment trials to make these separate punishments. If that precedent is applied to Trump's impeachment, and if the president is convicted (which currently appears unlikely, but we're exploring a hypothetical), then it would be potentially be possible for the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office without barring him from further office or running in the 2020 presidential election.

But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate. The 1912 presidential election, where former president Theodore Roosevelt ran against the Republican party he previously represented as president from 1901-1909 after it became apparent that he would fail to gain the party's nomination over sitting president Taft - and then came second behind Wilson but ahead of Taft - perhaps offers the closest historical equivalent (it was also the last time the Republican Party failed to finish in the top two in a presidential election). But it's obviously not a precise analogue, either; not least because Roosevelt hadn't been impeached and removed from office, but had merely followed the existing precedent of not standing for a third term in the 1908 election.

Posted by The Archregimancy:
But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate.

I agree. If President Trump were to resign before being impeached in the house which would move the case to the senate for conviction or non conviction, he could still run for President. But he would not have the backing of the Republican Party, President Pence would have the backing of the Republican Party.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

While despising mr.Trump rather vehemently, I would guess that those aren't exactly charges one could use to impeach the PotUS, innit?

I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

That depends on the verdict.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution begins:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

The question is then whether 'removal from Office' and 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office' are necessarily the same punishment, or whether the Senate can vote to apply these as separate punishments. Article 2, Section 4 makes it clear that removal from office is automatic upon conviction following impeachment, but makes no further mention of disqualification from office.

There is no precedent on the issue for a presidential impeachment. The Senate failed to convict either Johnson or Clinton, so the point has never been tested at the presidential level.

There are, however, two cases of judicial impeachment in 1862 (West Humphreys) and 1913 (Robert Archbald) where the Senate held separate votes on conviction and removal from office, and to then to bar from office.

On that basis, precedent exists in Senate impeachment trials to make these separate punishments. If that precedent is applied to Trump's impeachment, and if the president is convicted (which currently appears unlikely, but we're exploring a hypothetical), then it would be potentially be possible for the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office without barring him from further office or running in the 2020 presidential election.

But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate. The 1912 presidential election, where former president Theodore Roosevelt ran against the Republican party he previously represented as president from 1901-1909 after it became apparent that he would fail to gain the party's nomination over sitting president Taft - and then came second behind Wilson but ahead of Taft - perhaps offers the closest historical equivalent (it was also the last time the Republican Party failed to finish in the top two in a presidential election). But it's obviously not a precise analogue, either; not least because Roosevelt hadn't been impeached and removed from office, but had merely followed the existing precedent of not standing for a third term in the 1908 election.

I’d say these are separate convictions, indeed. At most, you can remove from office and bar from future office, which would mean that you can also just remove from office.

However, in such a case it would be favorable for the Republicans to also bar him from future office, since Trump running as a third party candidate would split the Republican vote. In fact, it would be in favor of the Democrats to allow him to run for future political office.

[The Archregimancy]

But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate.

Posted by The Archregimancy:
But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate.

I agree. If President Trump were to resign before being impeached in the house which would move the case to the senate for conviction or non conviction, he could still run for President. But he would not have the backing of the Republican Party, President Pence would have the backing of the Republican Party.

Miami, please learn to use the quote function properly

It is completely unnecessary to quote a post via the quote function, and then to cut and paste a section of that same post into a box via the box function, writing out 'posted by [nation x]' when you're simply repeating what you've already quoted.

If you only want to quote part of the post you're replying to, simply hit 'quote' and then delete the bits that you don't want to reply to before hitting 'submit', as I have done here.

You don't need to quote the entire post you're replying to.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Posted by The Archregimancy:
But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate.

I agree. If President Trump were to resign before being impeached in the house which would move the case to the senate for conviction or non conviction, he could still run for President. But he would not have the backing of the Republican Party, President Pence would have the backing of the Republican Party.

Miami, please learn to use the quote function properly

It is completely unnecessary to quote a post via the quote function, and then to cut and paste a section of that same post into a box via the box function, writing out 'posted by [nation x]' when you're simply repeating what you've already quoted.

If you only want to quote part of the post you're replying to, simply hit 'quote' and then delete the bits that you don't want to reply to before hitting 'submit', as I have done here.

You don't need to quote the entire post you're replying to.

Yes and thank you for explaining to me that I need to stop complaining about other nations on this thread and all threads, regardless if it is actionable or not actionable and if I have any concerns to take them directly to the Moderators forum, I will do so from now on, thank you - The Archregimancy.

I understand what you are saying but I use the boxes with the posted by to emphasize that part of the other nation's post on my post not on the other nation's post above, this is the reason I do this. I want the other nation's post or part of that post directly on my post with my comments for emphasis directly on my post.

[The Archregimancy]

I understand what you are saying but I use the boxes with the posted by to emphasize that part of the other nation's post on my post not on the other nation's post above, this is the reason I do this. I want the other nation's post or part of that post directly on my post with my comments for emphasis directly on my post.

Don't.

Stop using boxes in addition to quotes.

Just quote the part of the post you want to reply to, like everyone else does.

End of discussion.

Now back on topic, please.

[Phoenicaea]

i won t dive in detail, not able. the ruler (more adapt label rather than ‘the president’, which would give an outfitted flavour of rule of law) has to flee.

i wonder why the accuses in the impeachment case are not worth it. the regent is corrupt, inept: he has persistent conflict of interest. that is guilt.

[Greater Miami Shores]

i won t dive in detail, not able. the ruler (more adapt label rather than ‘the president’, which would give an outfitted flavour of rule of law) has to flee.

i wonder why the accuses in the impeachment case are not worth it. the regent is corrupt, inept: he has persistent conflict of interest. that is guilt.

I am not sure what you mean by President Trump has persistent conflicts of interests? The regent is corrupt and inept are opinions not facts. I and millions of Republicans and even independent voters who support President Trump disagree with your opinions.

[Phoenicaea]

I am not sure what you mean by President Trump has persistent conflicts of interests? The regent is corrupt and inept are opinions not facts..

^yes, at least this is what i meant in grammar. conflict of inerest is a melt of your role as an official and as a personal gain, often in spite of the law.

i say it briefly as a sample: if ruler has got sons in law or partners, of his own societies, give them favours (so to himself) with public treasure pays for it.

[Greater Miami Shores]

^yes, this is what i meant. conflict of inerest is a melt of your role as an official and as a personal gain, often in spite of the law.

i say it briefly as a sample: if ruler has got sons in law or partners, of his own societies, give them favour (so to himself) with public treasure pays for it.

I don't know why you did not quote me directly, I think it is not based on any bad reasons since you seem to have answered my post, and I have never had any problems with you. I have never had any problems with this nation I know.

President Trump is a multi Billionaire, he has many business interests all over the world, it is hard for him or any US President or world leader to make decisions that might affect his business interests all over the world. His sons are also millionaires in their own right, but thanks to their father.

My Post would also fit well on the new Trump All Things Not Impeachment Thread. I think the word Trump should be added to the All Things Not Impeachment Thread.

[Phoenicaea]

^what i say, is that isn t fairness that it isn t debated (i haven t quoted because of wreck habits, i m often not used to, no rude reason for this).

congress and senate vote, dispose. if you bring impeachment about ‘conflict of interest’ representatives decide. not proposing myself as people’s will.

[Salandriagado]

While despising mr.Trump rather vehemently, I would guess that those aren't exactly charges one could use to impeach the PotUS, innit?

I am wondering: let's assume mr.Trump is found guilty and is sacked from his office before next year's elections. Would he be allowed to stand again as candidate?

That depends on the verdict.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution begins:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

The question is then whether 'removal from Office' and 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office' are necessarily the same punishment, or whether the Senate can vote to apply these as separate punishments. Article 2, Section 4 makes it clear that removal from office is automatic upon conviction following impeachment, but makes no further mention of disqualification from office.

There is no precedent on the issue for a presidential impeachment. The Senate failed to convict either Johnson or Clinton, so the point has never been tested at the presidential level.

There are, however, two cases of judicial impeachment in 1862 (West Humphreys) and 1913 (Robert Archbald) where the Senate held separate votes on conviction and removal from office, and to then to bar from office.

On that basis, precedent exists in Senate impeachment trials to make these separate punishments. If that precedent is applied to Trump's impeachment, and if the president is convicted (which currently appears unlikely, but we're exploring a hypothetical), then it would be potentially be possible for the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office without barring him from further office or running in the 2020 presidential election.

But it's surely unlikely that Trump could win the 2020 presidential election under these circumstances; not least because it would mean that his own party had turned against him, and that he'd likely have to run as an independent or third party candidate. The 1912 presidential election, where former president Theodore Roosevelt ran against the Republican party he previously represented as president from 1901-1909 after it became apparent that he would fail to gain the party's nomination over sitting president Taft - and then came second behind Wilson but ahead of Taft - perhaps offers the closest historical equivalent (it was also the last time the Republican Party failed to finish in the top two in a presidential election). But it's obviously not a precise analogue, either; not least because Roosevelt hadn't been impeached and removed from office, but had merely followed the existing precedent of not standing for a third term in the 1908 election.

That, and if he were removed from office, I doubt he'd avoid further criminal procedings for long. Kinda hard to campaign from a cell.

[Zurkerx]

Ah, so all impeachment stuff goes here now. Was a bit perplexed why that was the case but I understand now. Anyway, now onto impeachment:

What Trump is hiding from the Impeachment Hearings

I do truly believe that if Trump was innocent, they would be turning over troves of documents and witnesses to basically back them up and say "hey look, you all got it wrong, and we have the evidence to prove it". Instead, we get "Witch Hunt! Sham! Perfect Call!"

Remember folks: innocent people don't hide the evidence of their innocence; only guilty people do.

[Risottia]

...

Thank you, Your Archiness.

[Cannot think of a name]

Folks are pretty entrenched.

The survey from Politico/Morning Consult released early Wednesday found 62 percent of respondents said there is no chance they could change their minds regarding impeachment, with another 19 percent reporting there’s only a small chance of doing so.

Only 2 percent said there is a strong chance they could change their mind, with another 8 percent responding that there is “some chance” they could change their mind.

The percentage of those in the poll who support removing Trump from office nearly mirrors support for the impeachment inquiry. Forty-nine percent of voters in the poll support the House impeaching Trump, and 48 percent support the Senate removing him from office.

Overall though, very few voters said believe Trump will actually be removed from office.

Only 8 percent of respondents say it’s “very likely” the Senate will remove the president, and just 14 percent say it’s even “somewhat likely.”

[Zurkerx]

Folks are pretty entrenched.

The survey from Politico/Morning Consult released early Wednesday found 62 percent of respondents said there is no chance they could change their minds regarding impeachment, with another 19 percent reporting there’s only a small chance of doing so.

Only 2 percent said there is a strong chance they could change their mind, with another 8 percent responding that there is “some chance” they could change their mind.

The percentage of those in the poll who support removing Trump from office nearly mirrors support for the impeachment inquiry. Forty-nine percent of voters in the poll support the House impeaching Trump, and 48 percent support the Senate removing him from office.

Overall though, very few voters said believe Trump will actually be removed from office.

Only 8 percent of respondents say it’s “very likely” the Senate will remove the president, and just 14 percent say it’s even “somewhat likely.”

It's no surprise: the country is deeply divided and partisan. However, this should be more concerning:

Few respondents, however, told pollsters they plan on tuning into the first public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill in 21 years.

Just 27 percent said it’s “very likely” they will watch, with another 31 percent saying it’s “somewhat likely.” Thirty-three percent say it’s not likely they’ll watch the impeachment hearings at all.

Which is beneficial to Trump at first because if people aren't going to bother to pay attention, then it takes some pressure off of Republicans. Hopefully people we'll read the news updates.

[Cannot think of a name]

Folks are pretty entrenched.

It's no surprise: the country is deeply divided and partisan. However, this should be more concerning:

Few respondents, however, told pollsters they plan on tuning into the first public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill in 21 years.

Just 27 percent said it’s “very likely” they will watch, with another 31 percent saying it’s “somewhat likely.” Thirty-three percent say it’s not likely they’ll watch the impeachment hearings at all.

Which is beneficial to Trump at first because if people aren't going to bother to pay attention, then it takes some pressure off of Republicans. Hopefully people we'll read the news updates.

I was bothered by that as well, but then thought, "Wait. I work from home but I didn't always. All this shit is going to happen while people are at work...of course they're not going to watch this shit."

People got shit to do. I don't expect them to set their DVRs (is that still a thing for people? I haven't had cable in like five years I think...) and watch the dry ass hearings after a day at work. All of this is going to go through the filter, and since you can customize your filter to give you the news you want to hear, well...

[Zurkerx]

It's no surprise: the country is deeply divided and partisan. However, this should be more concerning:

Few respondents, however, told pollsters they plan on tuning into the first public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill in 21 years.

Just 27 percent said it’s “very likely” they will watch, with another 31 percent saying it’s “somewhat likely.” Thirty-three percent say it’s not likely they’ll watch the impeachment hearings at all.

Which is beneficial to Trump at first because if people aren't going to bother to pay attention, then it takes some pressure off of Republicans. Hopefully people we'll read the news updates.

I was bothered by that as well, but then thought, "Wait. I work from home but I didn't always. All this shit is going to happen while people are at work...of course they're not going to watch this shit."

People got shit to do. I don't expect them to set their DVRs (is that still a thing for people? I haven't had cable in like five years I think...) and watch the dry ass hearings after a day at work. All of this is going to go through the filter, and since you can customize your filter to give you the news you want to hear, well...

True. Even I won't be able to watch it though my phone is bound to blow up with notifications so I'll read those throughout the work day (and some while at the gym).

I know I filter my news although that's for sports stuff; everything else I get. I'm gonna love the headlines from Fox today when I get those alerts... For the sake of everyone, let's hope their filters aren't set to ignore impeachment stuff.