Image from KGBT-TV
Figures The First Formal Impeachment Inquiry Resolution Vote Is On Halloween
As reported throughout this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered an impeachment inquiry vote for this week, scheduled for Thursday, Halloween.
As the Indivisible Twitter world has been buzzing, the leftist community in McHenry County is urged to contact Congresswoman Lauren Underwood with phrasings like “we’ve got your back” and other similar support statements.
Underwood caved into the impeachment inquiry crowd back on August 20, so her vote in support is not unexpected.
But a recorded vote nonetheless, and as predicted here on McHenry County Blog, this is a huge mistake on Underwood’s part. Especially with eight and counting Republican candidates eager to face her in next year’s election.
And why all the Republicans put together raised nearly $1,000,000 compared to Underwood’s less than $700,000 haul for the 3rd quarter.
Here is the link to House Resolution #660 through congress.gov:
And here is one video of many concerning tomorrow’s vote:
And here is an example of the Left trying to get support for Underwood’s after-the-fact vote (formal resolution in Congress.Gov link above):
Relax, the Democrats will have the fallout from this to deal with:
The Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax
(how much did you make? Send it in!)
If you’re a Democrat who supports “Medicare for All,” pick your poison. You can ruin your political career and immolate your party by imposing a ruinous new sales tax, a gargantuan income tax hike or a surtax on corporate income that would wreck thousands of businesses.
This is the cost of bold plans.
Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone. Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires. But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%—that’s right, if you took all the income of couples earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.
FILE – In this July 30, 2019 file photo, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., embrace after the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
FILE – In this July 30, 2019 file photo, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., embrace after the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
More
Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody. Or, the government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. Or here’s a good one: Just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.
The best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.
The upside to these impossibly draconian scenarios is that nobody would pay anything for health care, except in the $7,500 example. And it’s possible that Medicare for All would cover health care for more people at a lower total cost than we spend now, meaning the average cost per person would go down. The problem is transitioning from what we have now to whatever Medicare for all would be. And it’s a giant problem, like crossing the Mississippi River without a bridge or a boat. The other side might look great but you’ll die before you get there.
Warren, Sanders and others tout the virtues of this magical health care program without explaining what it would cost. Sanders has at least suggested some possible ways to pay for it, including premiums paid by enrollees, a wealth tax on millionaires and income tax rates as high as 52%. Warren has been cagier, saying only that under her plan “costs” would go down for middle-class families. Under pressure to explain, Warren has pledged to come up with a financing plan soon. Now, maybe she doesn’t have to.
Paul Revere, interesting set of metrics, and sure the Democrats will get what’s coming to them, but neither Lauren Underwood or Sean Casten support Medicare-for-All, as over half of the House Democrats do now.
Even Oberweis’ mailer was clear where Underwood stands, and I applauded him for being very careful to be clear Underwood’s position.
Curious how much of the $1,000,000 in “raised” money from the combined GOP candidates came directly from the candidate?
Oh on, did Franks approve your last post?
What about Underwood’s pervert roommate?
Did she clear out all her sex toys and other items from the Congressional den of Underwood?
Did underwood drink out of the same milk carton>?!
Oh, that’s been displayed on my “tote-board” grid in several articles, but in the event you may not have seen/remember those numbers, it’s $400K total, with 200K from Oberweis, and 100K each from Gradel and Rezin.
The $400K still counts as receipts on the FEC Form 3s.
John, if Warren or Sanders gets the thumbs up at the 2020 Dem convention next July in Milwaukee,
the infantry (House) will fall in line.
If it’s dentures Biden, I have no idea what he will bring to the table.
Also keep in mind Mike Pence may be the president at that point, and that puts control of the senate up for grabs.
The course of the United States could literally change overnight, just as it did on Tuesday, November 8, 2016…
Power is a funny thing, great when you have it, not so good when you lose it.
“Also keep in mind Mike Pence may be the president at that point, and that puts control of the senate up for grabs.”
Huh? For that to take place that means you think
a) President Trump would have been not only impeached but removed from office by a 2/3 vote of the Senate or
b) President Trump is out of office for different reason(s) like death, as he’s 73.
God only knows about “b” so let’s look at “a”.
It would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to convince 67 of 100 senators to remove President Trump from office.
We have not seen that to date, just leftists with trumped-up (pardon the pun) charges of a telephone call at the end of July.
Even the Mueller Report did not trigger the 9/24 decision by Speaker Pelosi to start the informal impeachment inquiry.
But it was the Mueller Report that triggered Sean Casten (6/20) and Lauren Underwood (8/20) to support an impeachment inquiry.
With what the House Democrats have now, while questionable the President’s actions do not mandate removal from office.
And I do not see 20 Republican senators crossing over to vote with the 45 Democratic senators and 2 independents to get to 67 votes to remove with what we have now.
At this point, I don’t see all 45 Democrats voting to remove the President from office.
I think it’s just great what the Left has done to Trump for three years now.
The precedent is now set for the Right to weaponize the Intelligence Community, to bedevil some f’wit future Democrat President.
Lopez,
Can we agree that Underwood “raised” $700,000 while the GOP “raised” $600,000? It’s misleading to compare quarterly numbers and claim that the GOP is outraising her when $400,000 is based off on self-funding. Raising money is not the same thing as self funding your campaign. I like to give you crap on here. We disagree on a ton of issues. We disagree on how to advance issues that are best for our county and our district. But for the most part you are intellectually honest. This is not a time that you are being intellectually honest.
You wrote:
“But a recorded vote nonetheless, and as predicted here on McHenry County Blog, this is a huge mistake on Underwood’s part. Especially with eight and counting Republican candidates eager to face her in next year’s election.
And why all the Republicans put together raised nearly $1,000,000 compared to Underwood’s less than $700,000 haul for the 3rd quarter”
No, John. It’s not why the Republicans are outraising Underwood because they aren’t outraising Underwood.
Vasco D. Gama – doesn’t be jealous that Dems have better sex than boring old Republicans.
Yes those headshots of Underwood and that impossible coiffure, always evoke whimsy and I’m somehow reminded of a 70’s issue of Playboy.
“Did she clear out all her sex toys and other items from the Congressional den of Underwood?”
Really Vasco, I mention a pol taking an opportunity for a photo op and you call me immature?
What about an active sex life frightens you?
Active sex life? Underwood’s roomie was a pervert. Sex with underlings. Sex with strange men. Sex with bizarre machines. Sex with strange women. Sex with dogs.
It’s all too much for me. But then again, Mr. Avant garde Pokorny, I’m just a fuddy duddy.
Washington takes on all the degeneracy of Rome at its utter decadence.
Horrid ‘penoras’ like the vaping, voging Underwood are the last chapters of a rotten government that needs to be burned out with flamethrowers.
Perv Oh On: Take note, Underwood needs a new roomie. See if you and Nicky Provenzano and Brian Sager can come up with some young ‘chicken.’
Underwood must get her fix, and dance with her trixies, like the last roommate.
Why did Pelosi tell Underwood to “cool her jets”?
I agree with your points John, I’m thinking worst case scenario with a 20% chance, similar to what chance Trump had of winning the presidential election.
I don’t think most republicans realize the abject hate the snowflake bolsheviks have for Trump.
Reading some of these comments makes me believe, Tony Perkins is not completely ruling out letting Janet Leigh stay at the Bates Motel again.
Oh (11:52), yes & no. Money is still money, and can be spent. But since Ted Gradel is given the threshold of having raised the most money from donors, then “yes”, your rule would hold.
I think it’s more interesting in the article published later today, that the 14th district tied the 45th district of California to have the most “On the Radar” Republican candidates as identified by the NRCC.
What I didn’t put in that article is the California district did not add anyone in 3rd quarter, so the 14th district Republican candidates achieved the tie.
No question, Underwood is in the better seat with nearly $2 million in the bank at this moment.
But that seat gets a little less comfortable when at least 4 candidates who can raise money, from donors or self-funding or both, have done so, and 2019 is not over.
The Democrats per Pelosi and Schiff, have been conducting a Kangaroo Court on the so-called impeachment inquiry. SOME of the fraudulent actions, non-actions and or decisions done by them include:
A. Beginning the “inquiry” by neglecting to bring the issue to the entire House for vote of approval to proceed.
B. Conducting the inquiry without transparency.
C. Preventing House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee from getting copies of the transcripts of statements made by those being questioned/interviewed.
D. Restricting Republican Committee House members to ONLY viewing/reading transcripts, not taking any notes, in a SCIF room and ONLY with a Democrat House staff person (stooge or stooges) there to monitor Republicans.
E. One of the most outrageous actions by Schiff is him STOPPING those being interviewed from answering a number of questions directed to them by Republican Committee members.
F. Not allowing Republican Committee Members to subpoena persons to be interviewed.
G. Not allowing the President to have a White House counsel present during the interview sessions.
H. Selectively leaking by Schiff or his people to the mostly left wing media certain items and out of context. The same left wing media that has been in the tank for Democrats and are out to destroy Trump since his election in Nov 2016.
I. Failure to specify the “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” allegedly committed by Trump.
Democrats prove over and over and over and over and over again that they cannot be trusted in government operations.
A. This argument has been rejected by the federal court.
B. See A. also, where are Trump’s tax returns?
C. Republicans on 4 different committees can sit on the hearings.
D. Same rules apply to dems.
E. Cite? What questions were deemed to be improper? For example, did they want to out thw whistle blower who is protected under the law?
F. Majority party makes the rules. Elections have consequences.
G. He will have counsel present at the trial. How is the President prejudiced by not having a lawyer present in the INTERVIEW stage?
H. Awe…
I. It will be spelled out in the articles of impeachment.
There needs to be quote, “High Crimes (plural) AND (connector) Misdemeanors” as a predicate for starting impeachment hearings per the Constitution. Not a single Democrat has enumerated the “High Crimes AND Misdemeanors”. In the case of both Nixon and Bill Clinton, there were high crimes that enabled the start of an impeachment inquiry.
Furthermore, the leader of the Kangaroo Court, Adam Schiff, had been on left wing news media many times over the last 2.5 years claiming that he had, or there was, proof of collusion by Trump with Russia. Mueller Report brought no indictments, Trump was cleared on this matter. Schiff proved that he has ZERO credibility and is a liar many times over.
In this recent “matter” of the phony impeachment, Adam Schiff early on said he had no prior contact with the so-called whistleblower which was supposed to be the reason for the impeachment hearings. Turns out Schiff lied again. He and his staff had met with the whistleblower before the whistleblower issued his/her charge. Schiff and/or his staff conspired with the Whistleblower and this matter should be investigated by the U.S. AG for possible charges of conspiracy and/or collusion to defraud. Schiff again, along with his Democrat colleagues, including Pelosi, proves he/they have ZERO credibility.
But, in any event, the supposed reason for Whistleblower and impeachment inquiry was the Trump conversation with the Ukraine President. Trump released the transcript of that conversation for transparency and there is absolutely nothing in there comprising either a crime nor a misdemeanor.
Whistleblower contents were not first-hand. These were heresay and 2nd and 3rd hand which makes all of the whistleblower input as worthless.
Bottom line is that left wingers and Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for something, anything, ever since his election in Nov 2016. They are sore losers and crybabies since they felt that their grossly incompetent and thug candidate lost to Trump. They are now grasping at straws and showing how ridiculous they are as well as are the entire Democrat Party.
Yeah dude… um…. so they are not going to impeach based on what Schiff says on TV.
They aren’t impeaching based off a filed complaint.
But that is what people talk about on Fox News so I guess it makes sense to see it painted here.
Do yourself a favor and read the opening statements of all the witnesses who have given depositions the pst couple weeks.
Or… don’t and watch Fox News and attack the process instead of what key witnesses have already said.
It is telling that the best defense Bred could come up with is to go after Schiff.
Oh hey another key advisor of the national security counsel just quit today.
Are any of the guys from this summer still there??? Totally normal.
Oh on, you are on Franks’ payroll.
Freaky Franks.
WE THE PEOPLE , TAKE NOTE, AND MAKE SURE LAUREN UNDERWOOD IS NOT RE-ELECTED!
We the people elected Underwood.
Oh has not answered the question of exactly what are the “High Crimes AND Misdemeanors”. Just rambling on, mentioning Fox News.
Pitiful that the “best” that the Democrat House in control used is the fraudulent and lying Schiff with zero integrity to conduct the secret hearings. If Pelosi wanted a Kangaroo Court, she should have designated some Democrat House member with a smidgen of integrity. Maybe there are none in the House?
Article II against Nixon was titled, “Abuse of Power”
Hopefully that answers your question.
Using the office of the presidency to pressure a foreign government into investigating your political rival seems to be the reason that people on the National Security Counsel quit their post, hired lawyers, and hid the call.
Article I against Nixon was “Obstruction of Justice” It looks like Pelosi isn’t taking the road map Mueller gift wrapped her from his report but that could/should be another charge to be filed.
Oh, you insult our intelligence.
Define “secret” hearing.
Republicans from 4 different committees can go.
A quarter of the Republican congressmen who participated in the Brooks Brothers riot staged by that Republican congressman from Florida who is a human frat paddle had ACCESS to the *secret* hearing!
Now that the investigation is moving into the next phase and we will be hearing public testimony, whinny crybaby Republican will find a new grievance. LOLGOP.
Should also be noted that Article III charged Nixon with Contempt of Congress for not turning over papers and ignoring subpoenas. Looks like that could be in play depending on how the White House responds to subpoenas deemed necessary to the investigation.
Take your pick of the litter, Bred!!!!
Tim Morrison, the top Russian and Europe advisor on Trump’s National Security Council, is corroborating the testimony of another senior U.S. diplomat who gave a detailed account of how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine into launching an investigation into Biden.
The damn isn’t breaking.
It’s broken.
The Republican arguments aren’t arguments.
Read the statements.
Educate yourself.
It’s done.
Trump is wearing that scarlet I.
Azorean – persuasive argument, as usual, from the Republicans who fall in line and have no real defense.
If anyone insults the Republicans’ intelligence, it’s Kellyanne Conway.
THIS MORNING!!!!!???!!!!…. on Fox News….
“And guess what? A drifty little secret, they don’t have the votes.”
Kellyanne Conway, professional liar.
Now I see why you people are so confused.
52 U.S.C. § 30121(a) reads as follows.
(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
A violation of subsection (a)(2) is a felony. Given what the President has publicly acknowledged, what element of the crime hasn’t been admitted ?
Looks like Bill Clinton and his Democrat National Committee committed crime(s) in accepting election campaign money from Chinese citizens. Per: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/chinese-illegally-donated-bill-clinton-reelection-campaign-media-downplayed/
“A 1998 Senate Government Affairs Committee report on the scandal found “strong circumstantial evidence” that a great deal of foreign money had illegally entered the country in an attempt to influence the 1996 election. The DNC was forced to give back more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals.
The most suspect funds were brought in by Johnny Chung, a bagman for the Asian billionaire Riady family.”
Maybe a leftwinger or Democrat should explain why any candidate for public office in the U.S. is exempt from scrutiny or investigation of wrongdoing. Why is Joe Biden, who has shown signs of dementia, exempt from any investigation into his quid pro quo action of withholding U.S. money authorized to be given to Ukraine UNLESS that country fires the investigator looking into fraud/crimes at the company that hired Biden’s son?
It would appear that Democrats believe that anyone suspected of a crime is off the hook as soon as they announce their candidacy for a public office.
I’ll tackle that Bred.
The United States wanted that prosecutor fired because he wasn’t looking into fraud and crimes. The “investigation” into Hunter was dormant. Joe Biden was representing not only the view of the United States government, but it was also shared by all of our western allies. All western countries thought that the prosecutor needed to go. Joe Biden was not working for himself. By all accounts, the investigation into the gas company that Hunter held a board seat was dead.
Contrast with Trump’s quid pro quo. Trump was acting AGAINST the bi-partisian interests of the United States to protect Ukraine against the Russian government. Trump held up that money to help himself politically in his election, not to benefit the government.
See the difference?