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

Damn I'm thankful to not be a Democrat. Nadler is embarrassing. Pelosi is old and embarrassing. Schiff is a liar without a conscience. The DNC is broke, and run by Tommy "US Sucks!" Perez...

Rashida, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, represent the future of Dims???!!!

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Breakthestreak



Game , Set , Match ...........Its OVER.....


www.breitbart.com...

Not a surprise

Every sane person knew it was a farce from the very beginning.
That article is funny to read. I can feel the rage building from the reeeeeee crowd already as they read through it and become torn from their cognitive dissonance

I wonder why they didn’t impeach him for withholding aid or for quid pro quo??? What happened there?

Next year they’ll have a ‘win’, surely? They can’t consistently lose every single match, every single time.

Can they?

a reply to: [post=24810832]Breakthestreak[/


Timing Is Everything in Life . Trumps Rally in P.A. Tonight will be the Final Icing On the Cake of the Dems Complete Political Destruction going into 2020 . CHEERS Fellow Patriots ! ............

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: [post=24810832]Breakthestreak[/


Timing Is Everything in Life . Trumps Rally in P.A. Tonight will be the Final Icing On the Cake of the Dems Complete Political Destruction going into 2020 . CHEERS Fellow Patriots ! ............

His rallies are great tv.
I wonder if he’ll beat biden’s crowd size of 140?

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: [post=24810832]Breakthestreak[/


Timing Is Everything in Life . Trumps Rally in P.A. Tonight will be the Final Icing On the Cake of the Dems Complete Political Destruction going into 2020 . CHEERS Fellow Patriots ! ............

His rallies are great tv.
I wonder if he’ll beat biden’s crowd size of 140?

I would Imagine ......)

a reply to: Breakthestreak

So much TRUTH embodied in a single meme.

Obi-Wan Trump says: twitter.com...

Should be a great Trump rally in PA tonight. Started with intro guests at 7pm Eastern.

Link to live (embedded) video: thehill.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Obi Wan

That’s funny as hell. President Obi Wan

That’ll take off, and will result in screeching

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The President doesn't need to commit a crime to be impeached. It's up to Congress to determine what's impeachable. Third POTUS to ever be impeached. How exciting for him.

a reply to: links234

The President doesn't need to commit a crime to be impeached.

Untrue.

It is true that no Federal statute needs to be violated, but actions that are not strictly illegal but are dangerous to national security by virtue of the President's high office are rather considered "high crimes and misdemeanors." In addition, some actions may not be considered criminal to ordinary people, but rise to the definition of a "high crime and misdemeanor" by virtue of the high position held.

But some action which could be considered criminal must take place. This is not a situation where one can blankly read some dry boring document in legaleeze and point to where an action is technically illegal, but neither is it a situation where just not liking someone or disagreeing with their ideology is sufficient grounds. The requirements for impeachment require that one actually think about what is going on.

Impeachment is an indictment of the President. How many times have we seen people indicted for ridiculous things that no one believed was appropriate? How many times have obvious abuses of police power been dropped because a Grand Jury refused to indict? This is no different. The President of the United States is being indicted for not agreeing with and bowing to Congress... in other words, for doing his job according to the Constitution.

The President is not beholden nor subservient to the Congress. He heads a co-equal branch, not an inferior branch of government. Therefore he is above the charge of "Obstruction of Congress" because Constitutionally he has no duty to cooperate with Congress. One could even argue that the very reason the Executive Branch exists is to serve to offset the slowness and partisan bickering of Congress.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Dumb Democrats try harder to impeach President Trump when he rails about how unfair it is to impeach him.

What a strategist!

a reply to: TheRedneck

During the final Judiciary impeachment arguments tomorrow, Republicans will turn Democrats into mince-meat over these 2 weak articles.

When will this no longer be an impeachment "inquiry"?

For telling the democraps to F off?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't agree with the premise of your argument but there are greater minds than mine that have argued the same arguments throughout history.

If the Congress so wills it then the President can be impeached. I think what the hearings and the years long investigations have proven, beyond any doubt, is that the President did exactly what these articles have laid out. He deserves to be impeached because he's, not only a threat to national security, but a threat to the Republic itself.

originally posted by: mikell
$45,000,000 Plus and thats it. Think of how many children sleeping on the streets in California that could have bought homes for.

Or beer for me!!

Tax the rich to pay for our agenda indeed! And these are the ones telling us constantly they need more to take care of us ... then they do this with it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" jives with what I've said most of this thread. I disagree with the second part of your post however.

If Nixon hadn't resigned, one of the Articles he would have been impeached for is Contempt of Congress. Of the 11 Articles that were brought against Andrew Johnson, pretty much all of them were about his issues with Congress.

Now you may not agree with what the House is charging Trump with, but there is clear precedence that shows it falls in line with previous impeachments.

a reply to: links234

If the Congress so wills it then the President can be impeached.

No. What you are suggesting places the Congress above the law and above the Constitution. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government are all co-equal. That means none serve at the pleasure of another.

Congress can impeach a President for a crime, even though that crime may not be an actual statue in this one instance. They cannot impeach a President (at least not Constitutionally) simply because they want to. In this case, neither Article of Impeachment is a crime.

I think what the hearings and the years long investigations have proven, beyond any doubt, is that the President did exactly what these articles have laid out. He deserves to be impeached because he's, not only a threat to national security, but a threat to the Republic itself.

Tweeting is not a crime. Talking with a foreign leader is not a crime. Having a personal attorney is not a crime. Coordinating investigations into potential corruption is not a crime.

If any of these things can be considered a crime, there are 535 members of the Congress who are also guilty.

You can dislike President Trump all you want. I will even support and defend your right to openly dislike him. But when you begin to attempt to overturn an election without cause, and to declare the Congress as having absolute power over an election by the people of the US, that I will not defend, condone, nor support. The people rule in this country, not some talking heads who managed to convince enough people into voting for them. If the people vote Trump out, I will accept that. But I will never accept Congress voting him out in opposition to the people without a damn good cause.

Your dislike and wild unfounded accusations do not qualify as a damn good cause.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If Nixon hadn't resigned, one of the Articles he would have been impeached for is Contempt of Congress. Of the 11 Articles that were brought against Andrew Johnson, pretty much all of them were about his issues with Congress.

Re Nixon: we do not know if the Contempt of Congress charge would have withstood muster; Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

Re Johnson: The charges brought against him were based on overt actions intended to deny the Legislative authority of Congress.

Johnson was adamant about firing Lincoln's Secretary of War over ideological reasons. That was, as Chief Executive, his right. But even though Congress passed legislation, sufficient to override Johnson's veto, protecting Edwin Stanton, Johnson still attempted to make end runs around the legislation. Appealing to the Supreme Court would have been the appropriate remedy, but he chose other methods. That led to his impeachment. It is interesting to note that, while it was close, even these actions were insufficient to remove him from office.

Had I been alive in those days, I might have sided with Johnson's desire to remove Stanton. I really can't say, but it is likely. What I can say is I would not have been OK with his actions to deny Congress' power of legislation. Nor would I be OK if Trump were to try and shortcut legislation passed over a veto by any means other than the courts. The only power the President has concerning legislation is the power of the veto, which can be overridden. The Judicial Branch maintains power to deny Legislation on Constitutional grounds. If the veto power is overridden, the only legal route for a President is to invoke the Supreme Court. If they agree with the Congress, that's it. Done. Live with it.

That is actually getting into the question of whether any single situation is cause for changing the way the Constitution is read. I say it is not. Better to suffer through a situation as long as that situation is sufferable than to throw away the very rule of law and order.

That situation is quite different than simply saying, in effect, that Trump would not fully comply with what he and many others saw as illegal practices being carried out in search of a cause for impeachment. That's what the Obstruction of Congress charge is all about. Not one single investigation has been shut down, not one single illegal action has been taken to try and shut them down, and not once has Trump availed himself of several less-than-proper methods to do so, despite having the legal authority to do so. Proclaiming innocence and objecting to improper actions is not obstructing anything.

TheRedneck

What was the official charge for Bill Clinton’s impeachment? a reply to: AndyFromMichigan