It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump must be impeached. Here’s why.

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
www.washingtonpost.com... d4b7d

Innocent until proven guilty?
Sure as long as you are on the right team it seems.
With multiple Senators, Congressional representatives, and Department heads claiming "no evidence" there is a call from the Washington Post via a Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School for impeachment.



No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader


Can't even wait for someone to actually be charged these days, or at least have some kind of evidence.


The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice.The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office.No American president has ever been removed for such abuses, although Andrew Johnson was impeached and came within a single vote of being convicted by the Senate and removed, and Richard Nixon resigned to avoid that fate.Now the country is faced with a president whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to our system of government.

So conduct that "suggests" a danger to our system of government is enough?
And this from Harvard law?
wow


But whether it is devotion to principle or hunger for political survival that puts the prospect of impeachment and removal on the table, the crucial thing is that the prospect now be taken seriously, that the machinery of removal be reactivated, and that the need to use it become the focus of political discourse going into 2018.

Well there you have it.
The rallying cry for the midterms from the left will be impeach or else. No evidence, no charges, bow to our political will or else.

Good luck with that.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Thank you sir for the laugh.

Very much needed.


+23 more 
posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why is it that all the Harvard Constitutional law professors seem to know nothing about the constitution or the law?


+8 more 
posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
When you have MSM getting all excited over two scoops of ice cream, they have lost all credibility in my eyes. All that's in the news these days (and even here on ATS) is Trump this and Trump that. It's getting really boring and I wish people started worrying about real issues, not imaginary ones. What about the economy, jobs, wages and education? Who cares about suggested bad behavior. You don't have to like a person to have them be the president. Time to give him a chance.


+5 more 
posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

They keep calling for impeachment, but I've yet to hear one democrat deny the charges of corruption brought to light by Wikileaks. No evidence is needed to impeach Trump though. RUSSIANS!


+7 more 
posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Even MORE baffling is why do some think impeachment means removal from office. Maybe its because theyre parrots who have no idea what theyre talking about?? WHY do they want Pence as president so badly??

Bizarre....



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.washingtonpost.com... d4b7d

Innocent until proven guilty?
Sure as long as you are on the right team it seems.
With multiple Senators, Congressional representatives, and Department heads claiming "no evidence" there is a call from the Washington Post via a Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School for impeachment.



No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader


Can't even wait for someone to actually be charged these days, or at least have some kind of evidence.


The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice.The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office.No American president has ever been removed for such abuses, although Andrew Johnson was impeached and came within a single vote of being convicted by the Senate and removed, and Richard Nixon resigned to avoid that fate.Now the country is faced with a president whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to our system of government.

So conduct that "suggests" a danger to our system of government is enough?
And this from Harvard law?
wow


But whether it is devotion to principle or hunger for political survival that puts the prospect of impeachment and removal on the table, the crucial thing is that the prospect now be taken seriously, that the machinery of removal be reactivated, and that the need to use it become the focus of political discourse going into 2018.

Well there you have it.
The rallying cry for the midterms from the left will be impeach or else. No evidence, no charges, bow to our political will or else.

Good luck with that.





LOL! I love how he conveniently left out the only other President in history to be impeached....Bill Clinton...but there's no liberal bias with that professor right? If I were the head of a school and saw this I would have serious concerns with bias in a classroom....people like this should not be teaching our youth.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
How about NO.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

I dont know
I am stunned conduct that "suggests" was written as the only step needed to impeach.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Revisionist history, it is a classic tool of the left.

2nd



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

No evidence is needed per this harvard schooled constitutional law professor
crazy



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LSU0408

No evidence is needed per this harvard schooled constitutional law professor
crazy
Umm!
edit on 15-5-2017 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No one except the people investigating Trump know whether there is evidence or not. Clapper just said yesterday that people are misquoting him saying there is no evidence.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
TRUMPEACHED.........................IM...........possible...........and.........ridiculous!

The POTUS America needs! GO TRUMPY GO!


edit on 15-5-2017 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: shooterbrody

No one except the people investigating Trump know whether there is evidence or not. Clapper just said yesterday that people are misquoting him saying there is no evidence.

Oh so all those including clapper who have spoken to the media and said there is not evidence are just lying?
That is getting to be a pretty large pool of liars.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why is it that all the Harvard Constitutional law professors seem to know nothing about the constitution or the law?

Why is it that random people on the internet think they know more about the law than a law professor from Harvard?



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: shooterbrody

No one except the people investigating Trump know whether there is evidence or not. Clapper just said yesterday that people are misquoting him saying there is no evidence.

Oh so all those including clapper who have spoken to the media and said there is not evidence are just lying?
That is getting to be a pretty large pool of liars.

If they aren't investigating it themselves, then yes. Everyone on both sides is talking out of their ###, unless they are personally a part of the investigation.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
"I dont like him so therefore he must be removed." /thread.

No evidence to back up anything let alone the mention of a hearing being called into question. Im sorry but this has turned out to be a witch hunt with democrats/liberals trying desperately to find dirt on Trump to justify removing him from office.

You can be an expert in constitutional law all you want to. Without some sort of proof, your illegitimizing the word "impeachment".

Right now it sounds like the left are angry at Trump for firing Comey and want revenge.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why is it that all the Harvard Constitutional law professors seem to know nothing about the constitution or the law?


Yeah Harvard...go figure.
That's where Obama "studied" law and then he "taught" Constitutional law in Chicago.
So it is easy to see the type of crap they are peddling at Harvard.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


Innocent until proven guilty?


Impeachment is analogous to an indictment so your statement doesn't make much sense in this context.


With multiple Senators, Congressional representatives, and Department heads claiming "no evidence" there is a call from the Washington Post via a Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School for impeachment.


You seem stuck on "no evidence." It's funny how the same Trump supporters who have glommed onto a misinterpretation of statements from folks like Clapper are the very same people who are undeterred by more than a dozen separate investigations into Benghazi. There's an ongoing investigation. The fact that in January, Clapper hadn't seen any evidence of collusion after about a month of investigation (and remember, he wasn't privy to the details of the FBI counterintelligence investigation and in fact said he was unaware of its existence) has no bearing on the status of the investigation now.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the only time that "no evidence" matters is when the investigation is concluded — not at some arbitrary point in time prior chosen for political expediency.


So conduct that "suggests" a danger to our system of government is enough? And this from Harvard law? wow


Yes. Neither Trump nor his associates need be guilty or proven guilty of collusion with the Russians during the election in order for his behavior to warrant impeachment. It's called obstruction of justice. The professor explains his position in a bit that is not suprisingly missing from your OP:


Trump accompanied that confession with self-serving — and manifestly false — assertions about having been assured by Comey that Trump himself was not under investigation. By Trump’s own account, he asked Comey about his investigative status even as he was conducting the equivalent of a job interview in which Comey sought to retain his position as director.

Further reporting suggests that the encounter was even more sinister, with Trump insisting that Comey pledge “loyalty” to him in order to retain his job. Publicly saying he saw nothing wrong with demanding such loyalty, the president turned to Twitter with a none-too-subtle threat that Comey would regret any decision to disseminate his version of his conversations with Trump — something that Comey has every right, and indeed a civic duty, to do.

To say that this does not in itself rise to the level of “obstruction of justice” is to empty that concept of all meaning. Obstruction of justice was the first count in the articles of impeachment against Nixon and, years later, a count against Bill Clinton. In Clinton’s case, the ostensible obstruction consisted solely in lying under oath about a sordid sexual affair that may have sullied the Oval Office but involved no abuse of presidential power as such.




top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join