Just keep tweating and talking Donald!

Ummmm read up on your History. Andrew Johnson was the first to be impeached and removed.

Read history yourself. Andrew Johnson was impeached but he was acquitted. By a single vote.

I'll take that bet

I mean, I do know it's a long shot, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Pelosi won't hold a vote, because she knows it doesn't have a good chance of passing, and if it does - Republicans control the trial, and that would spotlight crimes of Democrats.

Trump has already handed us the evidence that he is guilty. The Democrats are the majority in the congress, it is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be impeached. It is unlikely that it will be removed in a Senate Trial, but his is guilt is so obvious, if the Impeachment Inquiry reveals more wrong doing, it is possible that some Senate Republicans will say, enough is enough.

Impeachment begins with a vote, and democrats are afraid of it....for good reason. This is going to cost them BIG next November. People recognize that the only person to get anything done is Trump, and they're still chasing their tails over disproved collusion, disproved quid-pro-quo, and soon to be proved Biden corruption.

They were elected to congress to legislate, and they've done none of it.

First of all they have all kinds of legislation, last time I looked there were over 200 bills, that McConnell refuses to put to a vote in the Senate. Many of them are bipartisan too. McConnell's logic is that Trump won't sign-off on them. He is not acting like the House is a co-equal branch of government. The claim that the Democrats don't do anything is false though because of what I just said. Also, they weren't elected only to legislate, they were also elected to put a check on Trump.

Are you mixing up a vote for an impeachment inquiry - which is not required by the constitution, with a vote to impeach? There will be a vote to impeach. I don't buy the logic that it will be bad for them November. It could be, but I think it is the right thing to do. It was bad for the Republicans in the short run when they impeached Clinton on obstruction of justice and for lying (before Congress) about an affair. Trump has 10 cases of obstruction in the Mueller report, I don't know why that wasn't taken seriously, it was obstruction of a much more serious matter. People disapproved of the Clinton impeachment, but there weren't enough votes to remove him in the Senate. Except among Trump's base, I don't think it will be unpopular to impeach him.

There will probably NOT be enough votes in the Senate to remove him either, but as I said, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. At some points Republicans may decide that he is too much of a liability.

You obviously didn't read the mueller report then, it says no such thing.

The path to impeachment is:

1. Justice Department or an independent council investigates charges & presents them to the House Judiciary Committee

that failed, Mueller didn't uncover any impeachable offense

2. House Judiciary Committee (HJC) reviews evidence

They haven't uncovered any yet....

3. HJC drafts Articles of Impeachment

Nothing to draft without evidence

4. HJC debates Articles of Impeachment (as with Nixon)

a farce under Nadler

5. Entire House of Representatives debates Articles of Impeachment & votes on them (Simple Majority)
(If this happens, President is considered Impeached)

I don't think they have the votes

6. Senate holds the Trial "Will the official be kicked out of office"
a. House Judiciary Committee acts as the prosecution-- presents evidence against the accused

I look forward to Nadler handling this effort...It's been a while since I saw a monkey f**k a football

b. Accused chooses own lawyers to present defense

They're screwed

c. Chief Justice of Supreme Court acts as Judge and rules on admissibility of evidence

They're screwed

d. Senate acts as the Jury

They're screwed

First of all, there are many impeachable offenses that were not in the purview of the Mueller Report. Campaign finance law violations (Stormy Daniels), and ignoring the Emoluments clause come to mind.

The whole 2nd volume of the Mueller Report is about Obstruction of Justice.
Here's a link
https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/f5fe536c-81bb-45be-86e5-a9fee9794664/note/a8d336ef-e98d-4a08-987d-b4c154b22700.pdf

Volume 2 starts at page 209.

Because the DOJ has a policy of not inditing a sitting president, Mueller left the issue up to Congress, which did not take action on it. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, although impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial.

I don't understand why Republicans didn't take the potential Obstruction of Justice offenses more seriously, and I don't think that the Democrats would have opened an impeachment inquiry based on that because of the public reception to the report, kneecapped by Barr.

However, the phone call with Ukraine was so black and white, that the mood of the country has changed.

I believe that impeachment in the house is a foregone conclusion now.

Removal after a trial in the Senate is a long shot, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

Democrats were promising to impeach Trump on November 9th 2016. They haven't found any evidence yet, which is why they're holding these "hearings" and "testimony" behind closed doors. This is not how the process is supposed to work. The Federalist Papers clearly describe powers and protections given to both parties (congress and the president), and yet the Democrats want all the powers while denying all of the protections.

This is a sham, and goes right along with the playbook back to their FISA abuse. False allegations, in a secret court, with secret witnesses, no cross examination, and no defense. Imagine if this was the legal system in the USA - you could be jailed because someone wrote a lie about you, and you were never allowed to defend yourself....or even know what the allegations were. That's coming if this is allowed to happen. If they can do it to the occupant of the highest office in the country - they damn sure can do it to you.

Never before has a president been impeached with secret evidence, secret testimony, secret witnesses, or behind closed doors. NEVER!

the impeachment inquiry is just an investigative stage. There will be no secret evidence, testimony etc if they decide to impeach.

@MichaelRichey - that would not make the testimony or evidence secret. Only the identity of the whistleblower

You haven't been watching the news then. They're talking about having the "whistleblower" testify via video, with an obscured face, and altered voice. They don't want his/her identity known, ever.

That's a secret witness, chum.

There is a reason we know the name of every government whistleblower, it's because they're investigated to determine bias, to determine providence of the evidence, and generally determine their credibility. Dems don't want this whistleblower investigated.