Ann Coulter: Donald Trump could be impeached

[ABX]

No Ann, breaking promises is not a high crime. It just means he is the same BS artist he has always been and many warned about.

Ann Coulter told Fox Business’ Stuart Varney on Monday that if President Donald Trump doesn’t keep his promises, impeachment could well be on the horizon.

Varney noted that Coulter had “lately been down on Trump,” referring to her recent blog posts blasting the president his lack of action on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Coulter stated in a recent interview that she was close to jumping ship on the president.....

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/22/ready-ann-coulter-donald-trump-could-be-impeached/

[beandog]

I didn't know you could be impeached for not doing what Ann wants you to do. 

 If we could impeach Presidents for not keeping promises, we'd be impeaching them all.

[INVAR]

She helped make Trump possible, and now she is insinuating that his broken promises are high crimes and misdemeanors?

You were warned Ann, and you went to war upon those who did the warning and who would not vote for Trump.

[mystery-ak]

Ann  this is what gets you impeached...praying this is more fake news

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=264084.new#new

    WaPo: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

[goodwithagun]

Ann has no business throwing a trumpertantrum over this. She was warned.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

No Ann, breaking promises is not a high crime. It just means he is the same BS artist he has always been and many warned about.

No, it isn't, but that's not what she said:

"... I hope Trump notices that if he doesn’t keep his promises, Republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections, Democrats will have the House of Representatives, and they absolutely will impeach him.”

I think she's wrong, we don't have a majority because of Trump or his promises, and I don't see us losing enough in the midterms to swing it to the Dems, but if we did, as she says, they could impeach him.

[INVAR]

Ann  this is what gets you impeached...praying this is more fake news

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=264084.new#new

    WaPo: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

Even if this turns out to be true, the Faithful will declare it fake news and attack the sources as anti-Trump and therefore part of the "coup".

Same as those of us have been declared part of the Hillary/Leftist "Coup" for daring to talk about all this crap.

[Oceander]

No, it isn't, but that's not what she said:

"... I hope Trump notices that if he doesn’t keep his promises, Republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections, Democrats will have the House of Representatives, and they absolutely will impeach him.”

I think she's wrong, we don't have a majority because of Trump or his promises, and I don't see us losing enough in the midterms to swing it to the Dems, but if we did, as she says, they could impeach him.

The problem with politics is that negative isn't simply the inverse of positive when it comes to influence.  Trump certainly didn't help the GOP get its majority, but now that he's the GOP's guy, his negatives will affect the rest of the GOP and he could very well cost the GOP its majority in the 2018 midterms.  If that happens, impeachment most certainly beckons.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The problem with politics is that negative isn't simply the inverse of positive when it comes to influence.  Trump certainly didn't help the GOP get its majority, but now that he's the GOP's guy, his negatives will affect the rest of the GOP and he could very well cost the GOP its majority in the 2018 midterms.  If that happens, impeachment most certainly beckons.

That is true, his negatives could tarnish the brand (further).  But AC specifically said we could/would lose because he broke his promises.  My (not well made) point was that broken promises isn't going to lose the HR.  The people who voted for him were:

1) Going to vote GOP anyway, and will continue to do so.
2) Dems and Independents who voted for him due to his promises.
3) Dems and Independents and GOP who voted for him for other reasons (for example, Hillary).
4) GOP voters who care so much about his promises that they'll punish the party if he breaks them.
5) GOP voters who care about his promises, but won't punish the party if he breaks them.

[hopefully I got that right]

So, if he breaks his promises, we lose some/most of #2, but then we had a decent majority without them anyway and they may have voted Trump at the top and Dem down-ticket, and #4 who I suspect are nowhere near populous to lose us even one seat, let alone 30.

[catfish1957]

No Ann, breaking promises is not a high crime. It just means he is the same BS artist he has always been and many warned about.

Did anyone tell Ann (1) It takes 50% + 1 house votes to impeach (2) GOP hold the House. (3) 67 Senators to convict?

I think Ann wants to generate needless controversy.

[libertybele]

First of all, Trump has to commit an impeachable offense.  What crime has he committed?  Secondly, I believe she is correct to an extent; if he doesn't build the wall which was the one issue that launched his campaign and landed him the presidency, not only is he done, but so is the GOP.  Second issue will be Bammycare; if it is not repealed and replaced the GOP is done.  They have a chance to deliver and to make some changes according to what the people want, not what D.C. wants, and if they don't do so, the GOP loses and so do the people.  Honestly, if the GOP loses the majority in both houses, I see Trump marching along to the tune of the liberals and impeachment will be the furthest thing from their minds.

[Mesaclone]

Even if this turns out to be true, the Faithful will declare it fake news and attack the sources as anti-Trump and therefore part of the "coup".

Same as those of us have been declared part of the Hillary/Leftist "Coup" for daring to talk about all this crap.

That's not why you have been declared part of the "Coup". In fact, you are only seen as "useful dupes" of said coup....not members of it....very different, indeed.

As for if it turns out to be true...well....since virtually everything else thrown at the wall has turned out to be false, why should this be any different. As for sources, could there possibly be a more blatantly anti-Trump source than Wapo? Its become comical, right along with the NYT. 6 months of investigating and not a single source has any evidence of collusion...worse, these sources are virtually all "anonymous" meaning they are mostly from the Clinton/Obama camp. More importantly, it seems to be getting more and more likely that the Wikileaks leaker was not Russian, but an inside Dem operative...making this whole Russian absurdity ever more ridiculous.

The irony here is that nearly all of us "Trumpers", as you call us, are wide open to making criticisms of the president's actions and demeanor when warranted...the persons blinded by hate/anger are most certainly in the NT camp. They are suffering from a form of what is clearly a Derangement Syndrome, Trump could bring them Cold Fusion, Ambrosia and a Unicorn to ride and you'd rant about what an Orange Baboon he is...that's just the level of your discourse. Quite frankly, your monochromatic arguments are dull and witless, absent any semblance of intellectual articulation to support your silly assertions. On the other hand, you'd make a great Editor at Wapo or the NYT...so there are job prospects available to you. So its not ALL bad news.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

First of all, Trump has to commit an impeachable offense. 

No, 217 (I think, not sure if it's a majority or a majority of those voting, either way it's not happening) members of the House need to vote to bring him up on charges.

[catfish1957]

No, 217 (I think, not sure if it's a majority or a majority of those voting, either way it's not happening) members of the House need to vote to bring him up on charges.

If dims are stupid enough, I hope GOP counters with Obama offenses.  With some litmus test established on which is more serious.

The Holder era alone could fill a book.

[geronl]

So, if he breaks his promises, we lose some/most of #2, but then we had a decent majority without them anyway and they may have voted Trump at the top and Dem down-ticket, and #4 who I suspect are nowhere near populous to lose us even one seat, let alone 30.

You are correct the scrupulous, principled GOP voters are few and far between these days.

[Oceander]

First of all, Trump has to commit an impeachable offense.  What crime has he committed?  Secondly, I believe she is correct to an extent; if he doesn't build the wall which was the one issue that launched his campaign and landed him the presidency, not only is he done, but so is the GOP.  Second issue will be Bammycare; if it is not repealed and replaced the GOP is done.  They have a chance to deliver and to make some changes according to what the people want, not what D.C. wants, and if they don't do so, the GOP loses and so do the people.  Honestly, if the GOP loses the majority in both houses, I see Trump marching along to the tune of the liberals and impeachment will be the furthest thing from their minds.

The grounds for impeachment are not limited to defined criminal conduct.

[Oceander]

That is true, his negatives could tarnish the brand (further).  But AC specifically said we could/would lose because he broke his promises.  My (not well made) point was that broken promises isn't going to lose the HR.  The people who voted for him were:

1) Going to vote GOP anyway, and will continue to do so.
2) Dems and Independents who voted for him due to his promises.
3) Dems and Independents and GOP who voted for him for other reasons (for example, Hillary).
4) GOP voters who care so much about his promises that they'll punish the party if he breaks them.
5) GOP voters who care about his promises, but won't punish the party if he breaks them.

[hopefully I got that right]

So, if he breaks his promises, we lose some/most of #2, but then we had a decent majority without them anyway and they may have voted Trump at the top and Dem down-ticket, and #4 who I suspect are nowhere near populous to lose us even one seat, let alone 30.

fair dinkum

[INVAR]

The irony here is that nearly all of us "Trumpers", as you call us,

WRONG.  I do not use that term. Others do.

are wide open to making criticisms of the president's actions and demeanor when warranted...

No you're not.  Cite a criticism you people have made over his actions and demeanor.  All I have read from your ilk is analogies to 6th dimensional chess, rope-a-doping and other justifications or outright dismissal of his silly actions and statements.

Trump could bring them Cold Fusion, Ambrosia and a Unicorn to ride

Hmmm.... sounds like Trump's campaign promises from last year.   Or maybe just uttering Barker spiel at a circus tent for what is inside?

and you'd rant about what an Orange Baboon he is...that's just the level of your discourse.

Once again WRONG.  I do not use that term.

Quite frankly, your monochromatic arguments are dull and witless, absent any semblance of intellectual articulation to support your silly assertions.

You are projecting again.

On the other hand, you'd make a great Editor at Wapo or the NYT...so there are job prospects available to you. So its not ALL bad news.

I hate the city and the Northeast... so NO - those prospects are not an option, even though it would be fun to turn them inside out. I like it here in the middle of nowhere, where Jesus is still respected, we have and practice liberty most of Americans no longer recognize, and we're armed to the teeth so we can load up our freezers with venison and other goodies on the one hand and make sure no Yankees want to be stupid enough to push their crap on us out here on the other.

[Emjay]

I didn't know you could be impeached for not doing what Ann wants you to do. 

 If we could impeach Presidents for not keeping promises, we'd be impeaching them all.

Ann Coulter has lost all credibility.... she has turned every way but loose.

[Emjay]

Did anyone tell Ann (1) It takes 50% + 1 house votes to impeach (2) GOP hold the House. (3) 67 Senators to convict?

I think Ann wants to generate needless controversy.

Absolutely and as for Trump's promises ... he's kept some of them; tried to keep others and ... well, is there a time limit.

The closest Trump will come to impeachment is after his first term if he either realizes he can't get the nomination again or decides he's got better things to do and drops out.

But... we could impeach Ann... or could we?

[Emjay]

WRONG.  I do not use that term. Others do.

No you're not.  Cite a criticism you people have made over his actions and demeanor.  All I have read from your ilk is analogies to 6th dimensional chess, rope-a-doping and other justifications or outright dismissal of his silly actions and statements.

Hmmm.... sounds like Trump's campaign promises from last year.   Or maybe just uttering Barker spiel at a circus tent for what is inside?

Once again WRONG.  I do not use that term.

You are projecting again.

I hate the city and the Northeast... so NO - those prospects are not an option, even though it would be fun to turn them inside out. I like it here in the middle of nowhere, where Jesus is still respected, we have and practice liberty most of Americans no longer recognize, and we're armed to the teeth so we can load up our freezers with venison and other goodies on the one hand and make sure no Yankees want to be stupid enough to push their crap on us out here on the other.

I hope it won't offend you but I hate those quote things you use in your replies.  Very annoying.

[Emjay]

WRONG.  I do not use that term. Others do.

No you're not.  Cite a criticism you people have made over his actions and demeanor.  All I have read from your ilk is analogies to 6th dimensional chess, rope-a-doping and other justifications or outright dismissal of his silly actions and statements.

Hmmm.... sounds like Trump's campaign promises from last year.   Or maybe just uttering Barker spiel at a circus tent for what is inside?

Once again WRONG.  I do not use that term.

You are projecting again.

I hate the city and the Northeast... so NO - those prospects are not an option, even though it would be fun to turn them inside out. I like it here in the middle of nowhere, where Jesus is still respected, we have and practice liberty most of Americans no longer recognize, and we're armed to the teeth so we can load up our freezers with venison and other goodies on the one hand and make sure no Yankees want to be stupid enough to push their crap on us out here on the other.

Saying 'you and your ilk' is equally offensive.  Just say what you mean ... trumpers.

[INVAR]

I hope it won't offend you but I hate those quote things you use in your replies.  Very annoying.

Saying 'you and your ilk' is equally offensive.  Just say what you mean ... trumpers.

I do not care that you are offended by what I write, nor do I care that you hate how I do it.

In fact, given your snowflakishness to such things, I will obviously be annoying you even more in the future.

How about them apples lady?

[Frank Cannon]

The grounds for impeachment are not limited to defined criminal conduct.

What are you talking about? I cannot find an instance where someone was impeached without "defined" criminal conduct. It specifically says in the Constitution that treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the offenses they can charge someone with. 

BTW, impeachment is a far cry from removal from office.

[Emjay]

I do not care that you are offended by what I write, nor do I care that you hate how I do it.

In fact, given your snowflakishness to such things, I will obviously be annoying you even more in the future.

How about them apples lady?

I am so glad that you don't care.  I am so glad that you have the word 'snowflakishness' in your vocabulary.

I'm just glad you're you.