Everything politicians do can be said to be “for political purposes”. How about an impeachment inquiry “for political purposes”. How about spying on a political campaign “for political purposes”?
What? It’s as if Trump has done nothing to warrant this serious RARE event. Btw Isn’t impeachment political?
Who did this?
Who else did he ask Ukraine to investigate besides his possible political opponent? Anyone?
Patent nonsense. I have been lectured at many times by a number of posters on this forum re the sanctity of the USA constitution and how wise the people who were involved in the drafting of that document. On that basis if the authors of the USA constitution did not think it was appropriate to include the impeachment process it would not be in the USA constitution.
If the Democrat interpretation of impeachment protocols hold, on day one of his/her inauguration the next president could be investigated for whatever fanciful suspicion politicians choose, and thrown out for no real crime at all.
2 Likes
You mean something like lying about whether they received oral sex?
You’re a couple decades too late. The GOP already set the precedent
Where in the Constitution does it state that the process for ascertaining whether the President should be removed for treason, bribery, and/or high crimes and misdemeanors is to let the voters decide?
Take your time.
I’ll wait.
Lying, even under oath, is not a big deal to the children of the father of lies.
Trump totally agrees
Take it up with this guy
Free and fair? I think you mean propaganda and lies.
Wow. It’s staring you right in the face.
Using the power of the presidency to not withhold Congressionally-approved military aid (QUID) if a foreign government will provide oppo research (and nothing else was asked for) on your political opponent (PRO QUO) is illegal. Period. In fact, there doesn’t even need to be a “quId”. The “pro quo” (solicitation) IS the offense.
Opening an impeachment inquiry if Congress has credible evidence that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors is constitutionally MANDATED. Period. Doesn’t matter whether the party in charge doesn’t like the President or not. Doesn’t matter if YOU don’t think the evidence is credible.
How are you not seeing this? I realize this is a political discussion, but THERE IS LITERALLY NO OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS.
3 Likes
67 is the magic number for removal.
We are all gonna miss the Donald if that happens.
Allan
Of course the votes mattered. It seems to me you are arguing that potential criminal and obviously unconstitutional behavior of our highest elected official should not matter.
I guess the Right Wing no longer wishes the US Constitution be upheld, here and now, regardless what Speaker Pelosi said way back then.
Removing a sitting president from office, on conviction in the Senate on Articles of Impeachment, for their being found guilty of committing High Crimes and Misdemeanors is adherence to the very spirit but more importantly adherence to the very letter of the Constitution.
Such removal would be remedy, Constitutional remedy, for a president in gross violation of his/her oath of office AFTER their legal and Constitutional election to that office.
I feel you are taking an incorrect view of what is currently taking place in our nation.
1 Like
I’m still waiting for the OPer to point to that clause in the Constitution that states the way to discern if a President has committed bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office is to let the people vote for it.
OPer…have you found such a clause yet?
2 Likes
Technically. But would need 2/3 of senate which is a pretty high bar.
The framers had no idea that an agency like the CIA and others would eventually be created, with the lack of oversight that would allow it’s appointed managers to surveille and collate the comprehensive and detailed information being gathered today, on all politicians. They did not envision that the lack of oversight would allow such agencies even to deliberately operate so as to entrap politicians in immoral and criminal behaviours sufficient to blackmail them into doing the bidding of those agencies, across party lines. They did not envision agencies capable of manipulating the majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle so that these agencies could target any particular politician, judge or bureaucrat who stood in the way of their agenda, and could blackmail or bribe house and Senate majorities into expelling those obstructions. Otherwise, they would not have allowed two thirds of the house and Senate to expel and also ban a president from appealing to the public for vindication from an engineered traitorous coup, by “the people” undoing the dishonest work of a bribed and blackmailed rabble and reinstatingbtheir champion.
The framers actually wanted a pretty weak executive branch. It’s only in the last 100 years that we have allowed the executive branch to become so strong.
1 Like
Whose campaign other than the Trump campaign was investigated in 2016?
If you think that occurred and are upset with it then surely you would be upset that Trump is upping the ante. Im sure that you dont subscribe to the “2 wrongs make a right” mentality
