This is another false narrative. The beginning of the end of Gingrich was an ethics scandal not related to impeachment. The republicans lost a handful of seats, but there was no longterm damage to the party caused by the impeachment.
So true.
So you agree with weaponizing congress?
Benghazi!!
No more words are necessary.
Was she a presidential candidate then?
And again, Iâll ask: So your okay with weaponizing congress, IRS (records request) Financial institutions (subpoenaâs) and all that?
If âweaponizingâ is the word for holding these criminal grifters accountable, then so be it.
1 Like
According to Don you cant impeach anyways!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1120323291443539969?s=20
The dude has been on a tweeting and retweeting tearâŚyou can tell the man is stung
âWe are miraculously transformed from politicians to people who leave their Republican and Democrat labels at the doorâŚWeâre there to seek the truth and to find out whether the president is guilty or not guilty, and no stone should be left unturned to make that determination.â â Senator Chuck Grassley said on January 9, 1999
Remember when republicans used to believe that it was their civic duty to find out if a President committed any crimes and to pursue impeachment into wrong doing even if it fails? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
1 Like
Impeachment is a waste of time if the Senate isnât going to convict.
Congress investigating the executive brench isnât weaponizing.
Its one of their Jobs.
Please point that area of the constitution out to me.
The specific language that spells out that investigating the executive branch is their job. Please and thank you.
The senate isnât going to convict Trump as long as he has high support among republicans. The question will be if impeachment will hurt his approval ratings.
Trump is trying to hide his finances, hide the un-redacted report from Congress and still isnât yet being pursued for other abuses of office such as emoluments and other clear conflicts of interest. A formal impeachment trial would give the democrats access to more incriminating documents and put his corruption on full display.
Whether or not the Senate votes to convict him, the democrats would begin to set boundaries, which is more than worth it in my opinion.
If you didnât want Congress to investigate stuff shouldnât have given them that legal power.
You said itâs their job. So you canât find it in our constitution then?
So the power might not be constitutional then?
Given that the constitution grants impeachment power, congressional oversight is implied. Iâve never seen a single republican argue that a president should be unchecked until Trump got elected.
Yes, thatâs why they start an impeachment proceeding. Unlimited investigative powers trying to dig something up, or keep an investigation going to âinfluenceâ an election is not implied nor granted in the constitution.
Dâs â Iâm told â have enough evidence in the Mueller report, they should start impeachment proceedings immediately to comply with the constitution.
Is anybody else here sick of the word âweaponizeâ?
1 Like
Nonsense. Thereâs absolutely no precedent to suggest that congress doesnât have the right to know whatâs going on unless they impeach. I donât even know why that would be considered a good thing other than transparent attempts to protect a corrupt president.
Ultimately, it seems republicans have forgotten that transparency in government is a good thing.
benghazi seems to have been forgotten.
So then exactally, and specifically what impeachable crime are the looking to prove (in a non impeachment hearing) with the bank and financial records?
