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.

 

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

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I haven't seen nearly as much abuse of power come out of Trump's whitehouse as I saw come out of Obama's whitehouse. I can't believe any regular citizen in the country would be dumb enough to believe the Democrats on this. All presidents have their job to do, they are not required to bow down to congress on everything, especially their rival party.

I think that we should disband the Democratic party and get a new party to replace it, the people need good congressmen in Washington, sending the biggest deceivers there is not working. At least Trump says what he believes, better than the Democrats who constantly deceive the people. Oh yeah, There are Republican deceivers too, but Trump kind of says it like he sees it, he is not politically correct.




posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
This has to be the biggest crock I have ever seen... and my first recollection of politics was the Nixon resignation!

We have two Articles of Impeachment:
  • Abuse of Power - although I don't know what power he has abused. Trump is the President! The President is allowed to talk to foreign leaders and make decisions on how to deal with them. It's the job description! And it is common knowledge that Ukraine is widely regarded as having a corrupt government, so an abuse of power would be not wanting them to investigate corruption in their country.

  • Obstruction of Congress - that is nothing more than the President's proper role as a check and balance on the Congress. Not opposing Congress when he felt Congress was acting rashly would be neglect of duty and a violation of his oath.
Right now I'm thanking God that these fools didn't get hold of Trump's tax returns... or they would likely be adding another Article of Impeachment for paying taxes!

I'm sure this whole thing will boil down to a censure only. Every time they open their mouths Trump's popularity goes up. Nancy Pelosi has apparently decided to take up the USMCA now, after the whole damn country has been complaining about them not paying attention to it. It's all about saving face now, and covering their rears... because they have been showing their butts ever since the 2018 elections.

Too little too late if you ask me. Anyone remember the cola wars? Coca-Cola had the lion's share of the market, but Pepsi was starting to build a customer base, so Coca-Cola decides to try and change that formula that had kept them in the black for so long and make "New Coke." Coca-Cola lovers hated it and the stock plummeted. So in the end, Coca-Cola switched back to their old recipe and accepted a smaller share of the market.

The DNC could have lain in wait for Trump to actually do something... they could have passed laws the people want, like infrastructure repair bills and prison reform and a reasonable budget and legalization of marijuana... but no, they ignored the thing that could have endeared them to their supporters and instead tried to change the House into the FBI, and failed miserably at it. Now they're going back to what they should have been doing, less than a year before the next election, and they'll suffer the same fate Coca-Cola suffered: less power.

In this case, it may be no power after 2020. After all, Coca-Cola didn't put rat poison in their "New Coke."

TheRedneck

edit on 12/10/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

As I said, the first person impeached and convicted by the Senate was over "chronic intoxication." At what point in US history was alcoholism deemed a crime?

The Founders' definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," in their own words, is based off the definition found in English Common Law. The actions of the Founders, as demonstrated by the Pickering case, has reiterated this fact. Since then, a fairly modern Supreme Court has stated that the intent of the Founders should be used when interpreting archaic phrases.

If we go with the Founding Fathers, what Trump is accused of would be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor."



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Another ICYMI.

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

I heard about that. Does that mean those witnesses could lie to congress without exposing themselves to a perjury charge?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



We have two Articles of Impeachment:
Abuse of Power - although I don't know what power he has abused. Trump is the President! The President is allowed to talk to foreign leaders and make decisions on how to deal with them. It's the job description! And it is common knowledge that Ukraine is widely regarded as having a corrupt government, so an abuse of power would be not wanting them to investigate corruption in their country.

Contempt of Congress - that is nothing more than the President's proper role as a check and balance on the Congress. Not opposing Congress when he felt Congress was acting rashly would be neglect of duty and a violation of his oath.

good analysis
thanks
I thought they would go with an actual crime
not this made up mess



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: neo96
Another ICYMI.

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

I heard about that. Does that mean those witnesses could lie to congress without exposing themselves to a perjury charge?


Pretty much.

Nothing D's have done thus far would EVER fly in a real court of law.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


If we go with the Founding Fathers, what Trump is accused of would be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor."

No, if we go with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, what Trump is accused of would be "properly fulfilling his role as President."

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

As I said, the first person impeached and convicted by the Senate was over "chronic intoxication." At what point in US history was alcoholism deemed a crime?

The Founders' definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," in their own words, is based off the definition found in English Common Law. The actions of the Founders, as demonstrated by the Pickering case, has reiterated this fact. Since then, a fairly modern Supreme Court has stated that the intent of the Founders should be used when interpreting archaic phrases.

If we go with the Founding Fathers, what Trump is accused of would be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor."

I get it
you are for congress removing a president for political reasons with no actual crime
no worries
just dont cry about it when it gets harry reided back on you



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I am for the Constitution being followed. Per the guidelines laid out by our Founding Fathers I do believe there is enough evidence to impeach Trump. As of right now I don't think there's enough to convict, but I do think there's enough to at least get to a trial phase.

So tell me, do you believe that we should adhere to the Constitution and the vision laid out by our Founders?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
the more this goes on, the more i think the goal of congress is less about removing trump and more about weakening the power of the executive branch and the president, we might be seeing the start of a great change to the American political system, a decentralization of political power, weakening of the federal government and power shifting towards the states or corporations/other foreign entities.

if congress get's their way and successfully impeaches trump in this manner it'll be a loss in representation of the people forever, it'll turn our republic more towards oligarchy like ancient rome was before ceasar became emperor. history might be repeating by the stage being set for a future American emperor, someone that will hold great influence in a future more powerful Congress established after trump is removed. hope everyone will be prepared for the consequences in the near future, as in, foreign nations being conquered for real by an imperialist aggressive America with nothing holding it back at home, like a president representing the will of the people through his own power over Congress.

America unleashed if you will.
edit on 10-12-2019 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

May not pass the Articles over to the Senate until November 15th 2020.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ChefFox

fivethirtyeight.com... not just trump voters but the independents are the ones the dems really wanna sway with this sham

perry: A party-line impeachment vote in both chambers doesn’t really do anything useful for the Democrats. But their choices may be a party-line House impeachment vote in December … or in February/March. I just don’t see any pro-impeachment/removal GOP votes in Congress. There is a question of whether impeachment could be supported by 60 or 70 percent of Americans, which would mean it’s a real political winner for Democrats, even if Trump remains in office. But that would require basically all independents or some sizable number of Republicans to support it, and I just don’t see that happening under any scenario. ameliatd: This is the issue, I think, Perry. It’s hard to imagine what evidence could emerge by February or March that would change a lot of people’s minds — either voters or Republicans in the Senate. Our polling with Ipsos suggests that people’s views on impeachment are increasingly baked in — or they’re not really paying attention. So, it’s of course possible that if Democrats could get a big witness like former national security advisor John Bolton or acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to share what they know, that could shake things up. But it just seems really unlikely that they’d be able to get that evidence through a court battle in the next few months.
so they are throwing one last hail Mary in hopes of delfecting from the current crop of bad dems



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

No way...



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

By the way, you're the one that asked for an example of someone that had been impeached for something that wasn't a crime. I pointed out that the very first person in US history was impeached and convicted for "chronic intoxication."

You then tried to claim that Federal judges are held to different standards than Presidents. I pointed out that, according the Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution the same guidelines apply to both.

I simply answered the question you originally posed. It's not my fault you don't like the answer that is supported by the Constitution and the words of our Founding Fathers.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Dems are just setting up their talking points for when they lose in 2020.

Trump won by cheating.

Sound familiar?

ho hummm

What a bunch of sore losers.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Trump is guilty as sin. He needs to face justice!


Guilty of what?

I am so sick of this crap. All you leftists do anymore is accuse people of BS. Everyone is a racist, sexist, deplorable based on nothing. No facts back any of it up. You losers are exposing yourselves to everybody that stops and thinks for themselves.

If you are are going to accuse someone of being a criminal you better have a damn good reason.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

As I said, the first person impeached and convicted by the Senate was over "chronic intoxication." At what point in US history was alcoholism deemed a crime?

The Founders' definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," in their own words, is based off the definition found in English Common Law. The actions of the Founders, as demonstrated by the Pickering case, has reiterated this fact. Since then, a fairly modern Supreme Court has stated that the intent of the Founders should be used when interpreting archaic phrases.

If we go with the Founding Fathers, what Trump is accused of would be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor."

I get it
you are for congress removing a president for political reasons with no actual crime
no worries
just dont cry about it when it gets harry reided back on you


Maybe its just me but its felt like (even before Trump's election) that its a foregone conclusion the Republicans can/will do everything to hurt the Democratic party to the exclusion of all else. In effect, no change.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254



I am for the Constitution being followed.

excellent
treason, bribery, high crimes and misdomeanors

obstruction of congress is not in such
nor is abuse of power

nor has any president been impeached without an actual crime

not that any of that matters to the bamn people



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

As I said, the first person impeached and convicted by the Senate was over "chronic intoxication." At what point in US history was alcoholism deemed a crime?

The Founders' definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," in their own words, is based off the definition found in English Common Law. The actions of the Founders, as demonstrated by the Pickering case, has reiterated this fact. Since then, a fairly modern Supreme Court has stated that the intent of the Founders should be used when interpreting archaic phrases.

If we go with the Founding Fathers, what Trump is accused of would be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor."

I get it
you are for congress removing a president for political reasons with no actual crime
no worries
just dont cry about it when it gets harry reided back on you


Maybe its just me but its felt like (even before Trump's election) that its a foregone conclusion the Republicans can/will do everything to hurt the Democratic party to the exclusion of all else. In effect, no change.

thanks harry reid

it does all really start there



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
which other president has been impeached with no crime?
i will wait.....

no worries
this will rubberband similar to the nuclear option
short sited people



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join