THE IMPEACHMENT VOTE IS NOT GUARANTEED

Here's why.

The democrats need 218 votes for impeachment, and they have 233 democrats in congress with 1 independent who would likely vote for impeachment (234 essentially). The republicans have 197.

31 of those democrats are in a district that Trump won. Assuming every republican votes against impeachment, the democrats will FAIL to impeach Trump if at least 17 of these democrats vote against impeachment.

TWO democrats even voted against the inquiry. The vote for the inquiry and a vote to impeach are NOT the same thing politically, and it's plausible some or many of these vulnerable democrats could vote against impeachment.

These are democrats in districts Trump won:

>Rep. Tom O’Halleran (AZ-01)

>Rep. Lucy McBath (GA-06)

>Rep. Lauren Underwood (IL-14)

>Rep. Cheri Bustos (IL-17)

>Rep. Abby Finkenauer (IA-07)

>Rep. Dave Loebsack (IA-02)

>Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03)

>Rep. Jared Golden (ME-02)

>Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI-08)

>Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11)

>Rep. Angie Craig (MN-02)

>Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-07)*

>Rep. Susie Lee (NV-03)

>Rep. Chris Pappas (NH-01)

>Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (NJ-02)*

>Rep. Andy Kim (NJ-03)

>Rep. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05)

>Rep. Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)

>Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (NM-02)

>Rep. Max Rose (NY-11)

>Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18)

>Rep. Antonio Delgado (NY-19)

>Rep. Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)

>Rep. Kendra Horn (OK-05)

>Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA-08)

>Rep. Conor Lamb (PA-17)

>Rep. Joe Cunningham (SC-01)

>Rep. Ben McAdams (UT-04)

>Rep. Elaine Luria (VA-02)

>Rep. Abigail Spanberger (VA-07)

>Rep. Ron Kind (WI-03)

*Voted AGAINST the inquiry

Sauce for 31 democrats:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434113-the-31-trump-districts-that-will-determine-the-next-house-majority

Sauce for two who voted against the inquiry:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-broke-ranks-on-impeachment-resolution-vote

Some anons think it's "good" for Trump to be impeached because the Senate can then 'introduce evidence' and that this is part of the plan.

I disagree. The Senate can call the same witnesses regardless of if Trump had been impeached, and this is not part of the plan

The charges against Trump are likely going to be "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress". Abuse of power is refuted by the facts, and Turley refuted obstruction easily.

The democrats in these Trump districts are vulnerable! If they vote for this, they basically will lose. So, EITHER WAY, this would be a good meme war because if they don't vote, Trump isn't impeached.

But if anons and others make clear to them if they vote they will be voted out, and they STILL vote, then we'll take back the house!

CALLING ALL MEMEFAGS, THIS IS PART OF THE 2020 MEME WAR.

LET US MEME THIS INTO REALITY.

>>7472887

And I think Rep. Jeff Van Drew is already against impeachment, like he was against the inquiry.

>>7472893

>The fact that Shiff, Pelosi and Nadler are still clinging to the already debunked articles of impeachment is hilarious.

True.

>Bring it on to the Senate for the real stuff to begin.

It doesn't need to go there is my point.

If they fail to impeach, the Senate can still call the same witnesses and introduce the evidence without the legitimate impeachment on the record.

>>7472898

>>7472899

<Trump being impeached is a good thing!

The Senate can call these witnesses regardless.

Are you seriously claiming Trump being impeached is part of the plan and Trump is in on it with Pelosi?

That's ridiculous. Trump is reacting perfectly though.

>>7472907

EXACTLY!

Which is why I think the meme campaign would be a great thing.

>>7472913

No shit. If they fail to impeach there won't be an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Not exactly breaking news there.

The Senate can call the same witnesses anyway without Trump being formally impeached.

>>7472922

>if Trump gets impeached Patriots are in control and wanted him to get impeached

>>7472914

>>7472939

Thicc ≠ Fat

>>7472940

>religious-like gibberish

ok boomer

>>7472941

I refuse to think Trump being impeached is part of the plan. They are ALREADY discredited due to the impeachment so far.

There's a chance to could be stopped, but too many are ok with Trump being impeached.

>>7472949

>They predict it'll be blocked by the Senate

Oh there's no doubt Trump isn't being removed. I'm saying it could be stopped from formally impeaching Trump.

>>7472948

>>7472961

<ratings

So we need to let Trump be impeached for ratings? Trump doesn't WANT to be impeached, but if he does of course he wants a Senate trial.

I'm sure ratings would be high if Eric Ciaramella and Adam Schiff go before the Senate. The impeachment ratings are down as fuck anyway.

>>7472967

lmfao who even cares about them, they're horrible candidates and Biden being in the spotlight is a good thing.

>>7472964

I'll say this slowly for you.

The Senate does not need a trial to call the witnesses they want to for the trial.

>>7472960

>>7472961

<unironically thinking Trump being impeached is part of the plan

wew…

>>7472989

<the senate can't hold hearings unless there's an impeachment trial

KEK wtf is wrong with you boomer?

>>7472999

<you have a rude awakening coming

I think we all do.

Trump is going to be impeached and most of the redditors and boomers here think it's part of the plan, and won't do anything to try and prevent it.

/qresearch/ of 2018 would do this in an instant.

>>7473007

What?

>>7473023

Oh. Let me be clear.

IF Trump is impeached, the senate won't remove him, and he'll win reelection anyway.

>>7473034

No. Saudis.

>>7473040

>>7473043

<Trump being impeached is part of the plan

This is actually shit shills say of cuckchan. Sure I don't "know" the plan, but I definitely don't think it's part of it, it's a REACTION to it.

[They] are impeaching as a counter move.

My point is no one wants to get into a meme war because they're fine with Trump being impeached. I'm not. I can be avoided while the Senate still can call people to testify in an oversight setting.

>No need to pull the boomers into something they aren't part of, they have enough things they actually are guilty of.

kek, o7

Whatever. I tried.

I'll take the meme war to cuckchan or something.

>>7473059

>>7473071

heh

>>7473074

>Impeachment and being removed by the Senate are different.

>This has ZERO chance of being passed by the Senate.

I know, I said that already.

Impeachment is impeachment though. And Trump will likely be impeached for doing nothing at all.

>>7473080

Impeachment is just a vote in the house, removal is different.

If no one gets it through to these vulnerable dems, they'll just vote for it sheepishly.

>>7473126

Imagine if they fail though.

It would be a legendary win for justice and the rule of law.

<Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump

<abuse of power

<obstruction of Congress

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/impeachment-articles-announced/index.html

<abuse of power

>Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

>Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country.

>History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341

<obstruction of Congress

>Professor Jonathan Turley criticized Congress for implying that President Trump was obstructing justice by going to the Supreme Court for rulings about impeachment.

>He added, “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power — it’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/its-your-abuse-of-power-impeachment-witness-rips-congress-for-obstruction-of-justice-claim

top fucking kek

>>7473159, >>7473173 Q proof for 1:29 & 12/9

Love it. NOTABLE

>>7473396

Yea that was me.

Posted it here first.

>>7473379

If ANY republican votes for this, they're gone in 2020.

>>7473349

<impeachment is part of the plan

I know what Q has said, and you're taking it out of context to rationalize it being a good thing Trump is impeached.

>>7473459

What is bad about it?

>>7473541

I wouldn't expect it any sooner really.

He's got a lot to do.