There have been many posts on this site that have argued that D Trump had not been impeached because the articles of impeachment had not been passed the the Senate. There has also been discussion on this forum that a future Republican majority in the House of Reps could have a vote to expunge the impeachment.
So it hasn’t happened yet. Gotcha.
They may expunge him, but it will be just symbolic. He was impeached. It is finished. That being said, I see this as a purely political hit job and nothing more. I also see this impeachment as being the start of the new normal. I expect future presidents will be impeached if their party does not hold the house.
I think going forward they should change the rules on impeachment where they have to get 2/3s vote or a majority of both parties to impeach.
Won’t that require a change to the constitution?
probably, but I wouldnt expect much pushback. They changed the rules after FDR won the presidency three times limiting the amount of time to 2 terms for future presidents. They could also just make it an informal rule in the house through procedure…We will not take an impeachment vote unless we have the majority of both parties supporting it or a 2/3rds vote. It should be easy enough to implement.
I was thinking another Whine thread.
Actually impeachment as a political hit job when we (GOP) investigated Clinton for 5-years over a land deal while he was governor and then finally impeached him for getting a hummer in the Oval Office and lying about it.
So it didn’t start with Trump, he’s the second.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
2 Likes
The question is based on what has been presented at the impeachment inquiry/hearing should D Trump have been impeached? In my opinion the answer is an unqualified yes.
I would argue there is a very big difference. The difference being that D Trump has been impeached for what initiated the impeachment inquiry.
Lol. Too funny…
1 Like
Thank gawd none of you whined on these boards from January 20, 2009 through January 19, 2017.
1 Like
Are not these actions, Rules made by congress, a clear rule restricting the freedom of the press?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” - First Amendment to the Constitution
I know that this is not a law…but it is a rule regarding how they are running the impeachment hearing…and is in fact an act that abridges the freedom of the press.
I wonder how the supreme court would rule on such a thing…could it?
I hope on his last day in office he wears a sports jersey of his favorite team with the number 45 and the words Impeach This in lieu of the name.
It will be a badge of honor to know that he accomplished what he has while fighting party before country hacks every step of the way.
Maybe we should start a thread on which team he would choose?
Right now…LSU Tigers.
…and what good did it do?
Mostly therapeutic I suppose.
Therapeutic? All of that anger, seething, loathing that went on during that era. Phew.
Did not matter so much then and the Trumpophobia doesn’t matter so much now.
It is a good thing to vent.
Impeachment isn’t a good way to do it.
It is what it is now.
I generally agree, however perjury is a crime and he wasn’t impeached for his activities with Lewinsky.
1 Like
Good. I understand libs are upset because they want to make a spectacle out of it.
Well to bad so sad…
1 Like
Your post gives the impression that you see the current impeachment as a political hit job as well.
Do you?
Of course it is. The problem is that Trump got caught which means its public knowledge now.
If this had been a DEM with a GOP House the same thing would have happened.
Maybe in the future Presidents will think twice about using the Office of the President to extort a country as a means of benefiting their reelection campaign. Trump gave them the fuel to light the political fire.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
