Dems planning to impeach over "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress"

originally posted by: neo96
Another ICYMI.

Nadler FAILED ? To swear in 'witness's'.

that guy fails at ordering lunch
I don't think anyone is surprised at such

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I guess I'm typing too fast. It's fixed now.

even so
there is no criminal statute for "abuse of power"?
and when congress does not respect the judicial branch of government how can there be obstruction of such?

so you are behind the first ever impeachment attempt with no actual crime?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I can't even bring myself to pay attention to this #show. Democrats have gotten so ignorantly and redundantly retarded that I'd rather do actual work while I'm here at work. Their show is the biggest yawner I've had to witness since I sat outside and waited for my freshly poured sidewalk to dry enough that I could be the first to walk on it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached either. I mean ultimately he just nailed a fat chick and lied about it so his psycho wife wouldn't nail him to a cross.

Trump doesn't deserve to be impeached either because he hasn't done anything beyond what any other modern day President has done.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: kwakakev

Jesus H... the abuse of power is all about Ukraine.
I agree with your last line though.

LOL! No surprise that you didn't understand the comment you're replying too. They are pointing out how ALL of the things the Dems have accused Trump of over the last three years are backfiring and hurting them worse than Trump.

Well, there's a reason she favored kwakakev's last line.

a reply to: shooterbrody

and when congress does not respect the judicial branch of government how can there be obstruction of such?

D's rigged their hearings.

They clearly rigged yesterday.

The whistleblower was never allowed to testfy.

And Democrats are accusing Trump of abuse of power,and obstruction.

It's disgusting.

It's maddening.

It's effing TREASON.

a reply to: LSU2018

NOW there are nations laughing at us over this.

North Koreans are probably looking at House democrats going, "Da fu**?"

a reply to: neo96
don't they have to actually go to court for obstruction of themselves to have occurred?
or will they be demanding jam sandwiches next and when not delivered yell OBSTRUCTION!!!!!????

Democrats even denied Republicans their RIGHT to a minority day.

OBSTRUCTION.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would they go to court when it isn't a judicial matter?

a reply to: shooterbrody

or will they be demanding jam sandwiches next and when not delivered yell OBSTRUCTION!!!!!????

I think they need to call a doctor and have whatever's jammed up D's rears removed and they can use the Affordable Shaft Act to pay for it.

a reply to: shooterbrody

the only obstruction happening in DC is the leftists heads up their asses, OBSTRUCTING healthy bowel movements.

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would they go to court when it isn't a judicial matter?

perhaps because it is really a separation of powers issue?
see congress v obama barak:fast and furious.......

a reply to: butcherguy

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

This is the frame of reference the Framers had when they wrote the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, we need to interpret these archaic phrases as they were intended by the Founding Fathers. Here is what Chief Justice John Marshall had to say on the topic. He was specifically referring to the phrase "levying war" but his justification is also applicable to "high crimes and misdemeanors."

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
so uh please direct me to the ancient and archaic criminal law description of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of a congress that did not yet exist"?

thanks in advance

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: shooterbrody

the only obstruction happening in DC is the leftists heads up their asses, OBSTRUCTING healthy bowel movements.

clearly not obstructing jerrys ability to sleep while working

a reply to: neo96

Exactly, and it's going nowhere. The worst part is that it won't effect a single thing about the corruption of the DNC. Our political system is so #ed I can't think of the words to fit its current status.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why are you getting hung up on criminal law? Is this not a constitutional law case and different standards apply?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I know. The actions of America's DNC is downright embarrassing. These people are elected leaders who are supposed to make professional decisions like adults but they act like a bully gang from elementary school.

a reply to: LSU2018

Our political system is so #ed I can't think of the words to fit its current status.

I can think of a few.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I've seen more than enough to justify this.