IT BEGINS: Democrat Introduces ‘Articles of Impeachment’ on First Day in Power

Administrator · 2019-01-03T18:26:30.413Z

Originally published at: IT BEGINS: Democrat Introduces ‘Articles of Impeachment’ on First Day in Power | Sean Hannity

A California congressman is poised to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Trump on the first day of Democratic-rule in the House of Representatives, reports Fox News.

“Rep. Brad Sherman is reintroducing the impeachment articles that he first filed in 2017 with Democratic co-sponsor Rep. Al Green of Texas,” writes Fox.

“He will be introducing the same articles he introduced last year once the House is in session this afternoon,” confirmed Sherman’s spokesperson.

The legislation faces an uncertain future as Democratic leadership has slowly backed-away from committing to a full-fledged effort to impeach the President, with Nancy Pelosi urging fellow left-wing lawmakers to remain cautious and tone-down the rhetoric.

“Every day, Donald Trump shows that leaving the White House would be good for our country,” added Sherman.

Read the full report at Fox News.

PeterGriffin · 2019-01-03T18:31:16.401Z

Administrator:

“Rep. Brad Sherman is reintroducing the impeachment articles that he first filed in 2017 with Democratic co-sponsor Rep. Al Green of Texas,” writes Fox.

IT CONTINUES!

PeterGriffin · 2019-01-03T19:10:39.784Z

Since the 2017 impeachment filing, President Trump has been directly implicated in felonies in the SDNY investigation as well as the SOC investigation.

So impeach him on one and file sealed charges on the other so it’s waiting for him when he’s out of office.

carpe_diem · 2019-01-04T02:11:51.101Z

The Democrats have nothing on President Trump, and never will when it comes to Russian collusion. They’ll never be able to impeach him, they simply want to rile up their base.

But after awhile, even their own base starts to realize that they’re just full of it, and blowing smoke.

ohknow35 · 2019-01-04T02:44:26.590Z

Yawn!

10 times

Roxiebelle · 2019-01-04T03:22:00.802Z

PeterGriffin:

Since the 2017 impeachment filing, President Trump has been directly implicated in felonies in the SDNY investigation as well as the SOC investigation.

NO he hasn’t!

mollyBrown · 2019-01-04T12:08:18.281Z

Roxiebelle:

PeterGriffin:

Since the 2017 impeachment filing, President Trump has been directly implicated in felonies in the SDNY investigation as well as the SOC investigation.

NO he hasn’t!

Yes he has. Indidual 1 disagrees with you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/individual-1-trump-emerges-as-a-central-subject-of-mueller-probe/2018/11/29/e3968994-f3f7-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?utm_term=.a9e5ceb73237

PeterGriffin · 2019-01-04T14:36:27.315Z

Roxiebelle:

NO he hasn’t!

Yuh huh.

10 Individual 1’s.

Samson_Corwell · 2019-01-04T15:00:00.253Z

This is going nowhere.

carpe_diem · 2019-01-05T03:33:49.134Z

Where is your proof? You have none, it’s simply just empty accusations.

PeterGriffin · 2019-01-05T03:53:09.627Z

The Cohen indictment explicitly named Trump as Individual 1 directing Chien to commit felonies, which is itself a felony, and he’s been identified in other indictments.

SeaManatee · 2019-01-05T03:57:14.516Z

Mexico is paying for the impeachment

carpe_diem:

The Democrats have nothing on President Trump, and never will when it comes to Russian collusion. They’ll never be able to impeach him, they simply want to rile up their base.

But after awhile, even their own base starts to realize that they’re just full of it, and blowing smoke.

Roxiebelle · 2019-01-05T18:08:33.170Z

At the direction of a “federal candidate,” Cohen said, he facilitated payments on two occasions to two women in order to keep information from the public for the purposes of winning an election.

It’s not a campaign finance violation when “personal” funds are used. We’ve been through this with John Edwards and there is legal precedent on this issue, do some research! And President Trump actually used his own funds where John Edwards used someone else’s funds, NO FELONY in either incident!

Zander · 2019-01-05T18:23:16.023Z

Roxiebelle:

At the direction of a “federal candidate,” Cohen said, he facilitated payments on two occasions to two women in order to keep information from the public for the purposes of winning an election.

It’s not a campaign finance violation when “personal” funds are used. We’ve been through this with John Edwards and there is legal precedent on this issue, do some research! And President Trump actually used his own funds where John Edwards used someone else’s funds, NO FELONY in either incident!

In the John Edwards case, his lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, arguing it was not a crime. The Judge ruled, as a matter of law, that it was a crime (if proven), and thus let it go to the jury, which then reached a not guilty verdict. The Judge’s ruling, which is fatal to your argument, is the legal precedent. The jury’s verdict, on the other hand, is merely a verdict in one case, rendered under the facts of that particular case. It is not legal precedent. The reality is literally the opposite of what you have argued above.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

H_Arendt · 2019-01-05T18:39:37.665Z

The problem with your argument is that Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump campaign, not from Trump’s personal accounts…

Roxiebelle · 2019-01-05T18:53:19.157Z

I mean seriously what don’t you get by your own words “if proven”? The jury found “no proof” & the case probably should not have gone to court.

There was actual proof of campaign finance violations in the previous Administration of over a $MILLION$ and all they got was a fine of $300,000 which is more then what President Trump paid for the 2 NDA’s.

It’s a lot of Mueller nothing that is being ginned up by the media to incite and anger those who are already angry at the election results.

I won’t insult you personally like you personally insulted me, but I did flag your post as a TOS violation.

Zander · 2019-01-05T18:57:10.859Z

Roxiebelle:

I mean seriously what don’t you get by your own words “if proven”? The jury found “no proof” & the case probably should not have gone to court.

There was actual proof of campaign finance violations in the previous Administration of over a $MILLION$ and all they got was a fine of $300,000 which is more then what President Trump paid for the 2 NDA’s.

It’s a lot of Mueller nothing that is being ginned up by the media to incite and anger those who are already angry at the election results.

I won’t insult you personally like you personally insulted me, but I did flag your post as a TOS violation.

Naw, all of that is still wrong. And thanks, I’ll respectfully defer to the mods. Have a great Saturday!

carpe_diem · 2019-01-06T23:38:57.770Z

Well then, why isn’t Trump already impeached and in prision then?

I mean if there is all of this direct evidence supposedly linking Trump to a
felony act, wouldn’t he already be behind bars?

I’m just curious, but how long has the witch hunt been going on?
Owe crap wait!!! Is the term “witch hunt” politically incorrect now too?

With all of the terminology of what the Democratic Party says is not politically
correct to say, they should simply start their own dictionary, of what’s not
politically correct to say. That way I can keep up with these things. LMAO!!!

altair1013 · 2019-01-07T01:39:57.836Z

PeterGriffin:

Since the 2017 impeachment filing, President Trump has been directly implicated in felonies in the SDNY investigation as well as the SOC investigation.

So impeach him on one and file sealed charges on the other so it’s waiting for him when he’s out of office.

Are any of the charges non politically motivated? Or were they all brought by leftist hacks? Cuz that is important you know.

altair1013 · 2019-01-07T01:44:36.659Z

Zander:

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Here is what we do know. The dems will find an excuse to impeach no matter how lame. Then the senate will toss it out. Then the dems will need to find a candidate capable of beating Trump in 2020. And that candidate had better be better than Fat Hillary.

Sound about right?