I think a formal introduction of articles of impeachment is at most 50/50, based upon what has come out so far. I think the likelihood of a formal vote is 25/75 and an actual referral fo the Senate is 10/90. This is all based upon what has transpired thus far.

JPW,

The public opinion on impeachment has barely moved since the Ukraine story broke.

So far, with these public hearings, nothing new is coming out.

Too many vulnerable House Dems in blue districts.

It's one thing to hold these show trials - this looks more like political campaigning than a serious inquiry - it's quite another to introduce articles of impeachment based on this and force a vote.

Who knows? Maybe Schiff has something that is nuclear. I'm not seeing it so far though.

My comments are couched by wearing a political hat. It's purely political analysis.

Personally, I think Trump is toxic and if Democrats throw in obstruction per the Mueller report, I think removal is a possibility. I still think removing him via the ballot box is the best way to go, but I wouldn't cry into my cereal if congress removed him via impeachment.

Having said that, what he's being (correctly IMO) accused of is precisely the same thing the Obama administration was guilty of. Biden absolutely set up a quid pro quo to kill an investigation into Burisma, which is a company his son was profiting handsomely from despite any qualifications other than his dad being VP to Obama.

After 2 years of extreme hype over Russian collusion I think that because the Mueller report was such a dud on that front and this his testimony was such a disaster that much of the public is just fatigued over the constant outrage. It really is the boy who cried wolf scenario. We have a couple of House Democrats speaking out against this process. Nancy Pelosi had to be dragged into agreeing to this. Unless Schiff has something new under wraps, we really aren't learning anything new through these hearings. Democrats might bring articles of impeachment for a vote, but I think that's unlikely. As I said, way too many vulnerable Dems in red districts and if Team Schiff can't build strong unity and consensus within his own party there is no way he's going to build Republican support. As it is, this inquiry is structured to be very one-sided. If articles are introduced and the House votes to impeach the power then shifts to the Senate and puts the ball in McConnell's court. That means that the whistleblower will be compelled to testify as will Adam Schiff. The big wild card in all of this is the impending release of the Horowitz IG report and, to a lesser extent, the outcome of the Michael Flynn trial. Ultimately, my belief is that Democrats will use this as campaign fodder but won't bring impeachment up for a vote.

Wow Jeff. You've sunk so low. You really need to take a step back and examine yourself.

#28 | POSTED BY JOE A

I just completed my self-examination.

Here are my observations:

At 48 my hair is starting to turn grey. My hairline is receding a bit and it's a bit thin on the top of my head. I have a bit of a beer gut and enormous genitalia. I'm unfortunately sporting 3 paper cuts on my left hand and they are pretty nasty as far as paper cuts go. I'm wearing jeans and a blue Polo sweatshirt. Pretty boring stuff...

Idaho,

I'm going by Biden's own words:

So they said they had " they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to " or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said " I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

For the record, Biden is my preferred candidate. If the election were tomorrow I'd vote for him and that takes the whole Burisma thing into account.

So, I say that I'd vote for Biden tomorrow and that still isn't good enough for Donkey Suit Dan.

#47 He got the prosecutor fired by withholding aid, or so he claimed. Said prosecutor happened to be investigating the company his son worked for. Snopes says that wasn't the reason why Biden sought to get the prosecutor fired. Fine by me. Even though Snopes is biased and sometimes produces shoddy work, I think they generally strive to get it right. That coupled with Gal's #46 and I'm good with the argument that investigating Burisma wasn't the reason that Biden wanted the prosecutor fired.

Idaho,

The reason it's not good enough for you is not the same reason it's not good enough for Danforth.

FFS Idaho.

I already ceded Gal's and Snopes' explanation. What do you want? Blood?

I know Danforth won't accept anything less than full Hodgkinson, but you are usually more reasonable than that.

#53 - Thanks for that.

#55 You officially have JDS.

Re-read #54 and #48 as many times as necessary for it to sink in.

I'll even repost #48 and put the key part in bold:

#47 He got the prosecutor fired by withholding aid, or so he claimed. Said prosecutor happened to be investigating the company his son worked for. Snopes says that wasn't the reason why Biden sought to get the prosecutor fired. Fine by me. Even though Snopes is biased and sometimes produces shoddy work, I think they generally strive to get it right. That coupled with Gal's #46 and I'm good with the argument that investigating Burisma wasn't the reason that Biden wanted the prosecutor fired.

#48 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Gal's #53 provides some nice clarity.

I admit that I've never closely followed the Hunter Biden/Ukraine/prosecutor firing story very closely because I never thought it was a big deal. I apologize for inaccurate statements I've made pertaining to it. I will try to be more accurate with my comments moving forward.

It's also confusing because there a lot of unfamiliar Ukrainian players/names, many of whom are corrupt. Often one corrupt official or prosecutor is replaced by another who is just as corrupt.

#63 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I think it's safe to say that corruption abounds in Ukraine.

#62 JPW My #61 was directed more at Idaho than you. It was pretty obvious to me that you were speaking in a more general sense than a personal one.

Normally you run away.

#67 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

That's because I need to get more exercise.

#70 Idaho.

I admitted my ignorance regarding the Burisma story. I admitted that due to my ignorance I made false statements regarding it.

I admitted my error and even apologized for it. That is more than 90% of the people who post on this site would do. Yet, you still feel inclined to pile on.

Why is that?

I'm feeling rather irritated with you today.

#72 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

I noticed.

Justagirl and GTBrit,

I think what happens is I like to comment while wearing my politics hat. So, when I say, "I don't think Trump will be impeached", it gets misconstrued as me saying I don't think Trump should be impeached.

I also try to view politics from a historical perspective. Example: Have prior presidents engaged in similar actions, and if so, what were the repercussions? That kind of question comes off as whataboutism as a means of deflecting criticism, which isn't my intent.

What I need to do a better job of doing is offering up qualifiers so people don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'll work on that.

As for impeachment...

Trump has been a sleaze-ball his whole life and I knew that being elected president wouldn't change who he is. The problem is the voters put him into office in spite of all of his personal baggage (which was and is considerable).

I certainly believe that taking his corrupt acts in sum, a case for impeachment can be made. Having said that, Trump is far from the first president who has proven corrupt and whilst I'll shed no tears if he's impeached and removed, I'd much rather see him removed via the ballot box.