impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm definitely changing my opinion: the Trump library is going to be off the chain. It will probably be the first one I visit and look at every exhibit. When all of this is done, there will be enough intrigue to keep visitors staying for days to ingest all the astounding bullshit this guy has done.

 

 

[Junior Miller 1502]

3 hours ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Just about everything you said in this post is wrong.  And either you knew that, so you're a troll.  Or you didn't, so you're a moron.  Which one is it?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

46 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Add it to the fucking list:

 

 

Pretty sneaky by Trump dating back to 2018.

Quote

President Donald Trump is planning to roll out an unprecedented structure for his 2020 reelection, a streamlined organization that incorporates the Republican National Committee and the president’s campaign into a single entity.

It’s a stark expression of Trump’s stranglehold over the Republican Party: Traditionally, a presidential reelection committee has worked in tandem with the national party committee, not subsumed it.

Under the plan, which has been in the works for several weeks, the Trump reelection campaign and the RNC will merge their field and fundraising programs into a joint outfit dubbed Trump Victory.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/18/trump-machine-swallows-rnc-1067875

 

[Red Five 40856]

I really hope they don’t leave out emoluments. That’s been a slam dunk for a long time.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I figured bribery would be No 1 since The Constitution specifically refers to it.

I don’t think an article will be called “bribery.”  It could be but I doubt it because the Ukraine scandal encompasses not just bribery but also the coverup and the abuse of power as Administration policy. 

The democrats need to frame this as a national security crime, not only inviting foreign influence into our elections but also jeopardizing everyone’s freedom by soliciting a foreign government to investigate a private American citizen.  It’s only a step away from asking a foreign power for an assassination “favor” against an American citizen.

[JimmyJames 12271]

23 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm definitely changing my opinion: the Trump library is going to be off the chain. It will probably be the first one I visit and look at every exhibit. When all of this is done, there will be enough intrigue to keep visitors staying for days to ingest all the astounding bullshit this guy has done.

This is a good point. Question is where do you put it? You can’t put it in a university because that will stain the school’s reputation forever and it doesn’t really fit there anyway. Way too trashy. 

I’m thinking you find the largest strip club in the world and convert the building to make it the trump presidential library by day and a strip club/brothel by night. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 It’s only a step away from asking a foreign power for an assassination “favor” against an American citizen.

Heaven's above Hugo, don't give him any ideas. Although he has probably proposed it already.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

This is a good point. Question is where do you put it? You can’t put it in a university because that will stain the school’s reputation forever and it doesn’t really fit there anyway. Way too trashy. 

I’m thinking you find the largest strip club in the world and convert the building to make it the trump presidential library by day and a strip club/brothel by night. 

Seriously, I thought Liberty wanted it. They don't care about reputation in the same ways that the AAU type institutions do. Rather like the way the Creationist museum doesn't care about science in the same way the National Academy does.

[InkaUtexas 25918]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This is a good point. Question is where do you put it? You can’t put it in a university because that will stain the school’s reputation forever and it doesn’t really fit there anyway. Way too trashy. 

I’m thinking you find the largest strip club in the world and convert the building to make it the trump presidential library by day and a strip club/brothel by night. 

Liberty University? Or Trump can just reopen a new one. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This is a good point. Question is where do you put it? You can’t put it in a university because that will stain the school’s reputation forever and it doesn’t really fit there anyway. Way too trashy. 

I’m thinking you find the largest strip club in the world and convert the building to make it the trump presidential library by day and a strip club/brothel by night. 

floating casino in international water.

[Goredho 17401]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

Motherfuckers are cutting into my Price is Right viewing...  fucking Trump. 

[DixonHur 11301]

47 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol:

 

I'd love for them to point out the section of the Constitution that calls impeachment proceedings unconstitutional.

[Goredho 17401]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Accusing the other team of doing what you are doing is a deliberate Orwellian strategy.   It takes the sting out of legitimate criticism.  “Oh you think WE are a cult?  What about that time YOU were a cult?”  

That strategy only works if your supporters are either cynical liars or idiots who don’t understand the basic concepts underlying the accusations.  Which is why it works for the GOP.

Yeah, the blatant political gaslighting seems new to me.  I don't remember it prior to the 2016 election campaign, but maybe I just wasn't as tuned in.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

floating casino in international water.

Run by the Russian mob. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

FUCK.THESE.PEOPLE:

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Seriously, I thought Liberty wanted it. They don't care about reputation in the same ways that the AAU type institutions do. Rather like the way the Creationist museum doesn't care about science in the same way the National Academy does.

Liberty will definitely take it.  State schools like Mississippi State or Auburn would probably take it too. A&M would also, but Trump won't wanna share with Bush.

Pres libraries are privately funded though. Trump's donor well will dry up when he is done and he sure as shit isn't going to spend his own money on it. 

[Firemans4Horn 18048]

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45914]

8 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

FUCK.THESE.PEOPLE:

 

How was this not a bipartisan vote?  Both parties got to vote, right?  Does he want the minority to have the say?  Seems kinda unAmerican.

[Horn Dog 9835]

 

“To my colleagues on the other side, I say this: Give the people back their power. Let them choose the next leader of the free world.

(The 2008 election says Hi.  They choose to check the Dotard)

 

Follow the principles of our Constitution.

(Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution is actually in the constitution)

 

And do not dilute our democracy by interfering in election,”

(LOL.  The entire impeachment is exactly about interference in our election)

 

McCarthy said.

[seven 1367]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

How was this not a bipartisan vote?  Both parties got to vote, right?  Does he want the minority to have the say?  Seems kinda unAmerican.

2 democrats voted no, no Republicans voted yes. It's semantics 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

 

[henrygandorf 29190]

10 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't know what his affiliation is, nor do i care, but "well if you have such good candidates, then why don't you wait for the election" is probably top 2-3 on the chalkboard right now for the gop talking points.  i don't see anyone anywhere even attempting to attack the actual substance.  or even the process anymore.

but tomorrow is another day.

and right on cue...

[Zepol87 9185]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

I only read the first sentence. Just incredible.

Lol that’s hilarious and sad

[Junior Miller 1502]

57 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm definitely changing my opinion: the Trump library is going to be off the chain. It will probably be the first one I visit and look at every exhibit. When all of this is done, there will be enough intrigue to keep visitors staying for days to ingest all the astounding bullshit this guy has done.

The trump library will just be an additional wing to the Las Vegas Mobster Museum. 

[Woland 733]

37 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Question is where do you put it?

1) Three floors of Trump Tower. $200 admission and $100 to park.

2) Queens, overlooking the East River and Rikers Island. It's his home town and will overlook over his retirement residence.

3) Crimea, so Trump can easily make guest appearances.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Woland

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

39 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Liberty will definitely take it.  State schools like Mississippi State or Auburn would probably take it too. A&M would also, but Trump won't wanna share with Bush.

Pres libraries are privately funded though. Trump's donor well will dry up when he is done and he sure as shit isn't going to spend his own money on it. 

Seriously though, this is right.  A middling school looking for something to hang its hat on, particularly in ultra red areas, would kill for it.  I think the real push back there would be Trump not wanting to associate his brand with a University like that.  He'd want something that feels more prestigious.  Scrolling through the top universities in the U.S., maybe you could make a case for Case Western, Ohio State, Florida State since it is in the panhandle part of Florida, Florida if political shenanigans from a R state government makes it happen.  Nothing really above those would want him.

[Born to Run 6569]

That reads like something a junior high kid would write.
Astoundingly bizarro

Why you insulting middle school kids. My 7th grader writes better than that.

[DixonHur 11301]

6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Trump won't wanna share with Bush

I'm sure Trump has shared plenty of Bush over the years...some of those Epstein parties probably got pretty wild

[Todd Gack 432]

7 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Why you insulting middle school kids. My 7th grader writes better than that.
 

yep.  Trump may have dictated that entire statement, so it's probably closer to a 4th grade writing level.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169

[atomheartbevo 89657]

52 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Liberty will definitely take it.  State schools like Mississippi State or Auburn would probably take it too. A&M would also, but Trump won't wanna share with Bush.

Pres libraries are privately funded though. Trump's donor well will dry up when he is done and he sure as shit isn't going to spend his own money on it. 

Trump will have it somewhere on a property he owns.   Even if it’s managed by the National Archives, he’s damn sure going to get his cut somehow.   Maybe a shitty gift shop, restaurant, theater, whatever, but Trump will profit.  

[DixonHur 11301]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump will have it somewhere on a property he owns.   Even if it’s managed by the National Archives, he’s damn sure going to get his cut somehow.   Maybe a shitty gift shop, restaurant, theater, whatever, but Trump will profit.  

He could put in at Mar-A-Lago and use Federal funds for periodic renovations and upkeep

[atomheartbevo 89657]

Also, aggy would move the Bush library to Prairie View or Commerce if Trump wanted it there.  But he won’t, he will want it close.  Probably have an auditorium where he can charge Trumpkins a bunch of money to hear him bitch about Her Emails.   

Edited October 31, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Quote

Despite confirming Taylor’s account about the pressure placed on Ukraine, Morrison did not come off during his closed-door testimony as outraged or particularly troubled by the effort, said people familiar with his deposition.

 

This is the Rs best line of defense in the Senate.  It is brow furrow worthy, but not impeachable.

[HenryJames 66048]

9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

This is the Rs best line of defense in the Senate.  It is brow furrow worthy, but not impeachable.

It won't even be that. It will be there's nothing wrong with what he did.

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Dude's gotta be a bot.  Talks all about how impeachment is "undemocratic" because it doesn't reflect the will of the "voters" yet is fine with a President* who lost the popular vote by 3 million people.

Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:  

Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress … 

It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts … Brett Kavanaugh, who was associate independent counsel in Ken Starr’s office for three years, put this argument most succinctly in a recent article he published in the Georgetown Law Journal: ‘The President is not simply another individual. He is unique. He is the embodiment of the federal government and the head of a political party. If he is to be removed, the entire government likely would suffer, [and] the military or economic consequences to the nation could be severe’ …

“To remove a president is to decapitate another branch and to undermine the independence necessary for it to fulfill its constitutional role … To remove a duly-elected president clashes with democratic principles in a way that simply has no constitutional parallel …

“Federalist 65 also sounds a warning – again, it is a warning that has been invoked over and over again – that impeachments inevitably risk being hijacked by partisan political forces …

“Given the essentially anti-democratic nature of impeachment and the great dangers inherent in the too-ready exercise of that power, impeachment has no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure – reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him …

“For one branch to remove the head of a co-equal branch unavoidably harms our constitutional structure …

“I cautioned that we remember Alice’s plight when the Queen declared ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards’ …

“The country is not well served when either policy disagreements or personal animosities drive the process …

“I am here today to call for bipartisanship in the impeachment process. It is a concept many will say they agree with. But actions speak louder than words. 

“The Framers of the Constitution knew that the greatest danger associated with impeachment was the presence of partisan factions that could dictate the outcome. 

“It is clear from the debates and from the commentaries on the Constitutional Convention that the Framers were concerned that anything less than bipartisanship could, and would, do great damage to our form of government. They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people. 

“The Framers also understood the sentiment expressed nearly 200 years later by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan during the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon. She said, ‘it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision’ …

“In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice …

“Permit one branch of government to subjugate another to its partisan wishes, and you permit the kind of concentration of power that can lead to tyranny. So the system the Framers established is utterly incompatible with the idea that sharp partisan divisions could be sufficient to impeach …

“Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction …

“Look back at the Nixon impeachment. It took on legitimacy when a core of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were moved by the nature of President Nixon’s offenses to break party ranks and vote for articles of impeachment … There was bipartisan consensus that what Nixon did was impeachable …

“Bipartisanship should not wait until the matter reaches the Senate chamber …

“The Constitution provides that ‘the Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments.’ Some consider this provision to impose a duty upon the Senate to try or adjudicate all impeachments. Even if the Constitution imposes such a duty, the Senate has not understood this duty to adjudicate as necessarily requiring a formal trial. There is precedent for the Senate considering dispositive motions that would allow the Senate to render a judgment without holding a trial.”

And Nadler - 

“Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, ‘a substitute for assassination’ … The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity …

We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people …

 

Nixon deserved impeachment; Clinton did not. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

cool?

[washparkhorn 9939]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, see the answer “when it’s a dem.”

What I fucking LOVE about Republicans is their masturbatory fantasy version of the constitution.

 

Goodness - what happened to the "reasonable man" Brisket?  You used to argue both sides of an issue. I doubt you lost that ability. 

[Captainant 27660]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Goodness - what happened to the "reasonable man" Brisket?  You used to argue both sides of an issue. I doubt you lost that ability. 

I think you're mistaking brisket for ya boi anastasia

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 hours ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Just about everything you said in this post is wrong.  And either you knew that, so you're a troll.  Or you didn't, so you're a moron.  Which one is it?

droll and tired political take ver. 2019. 

 

Try harder.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump is using the presidency to sabotage the next election process by soliciting foreign interference. 

Tell me again about “undemocratic.”

Edited October 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[washparkhorn 9939]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think you're mistaking brisket for ya boi anastasia

I don't think so. Brisket for many years was the voice of reason in this ragtag set of voices. 

[Captainant 27660]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

droll and tired political take ver. 2019. 

 

Try harder.

You're calling foul on process and completely ignoring the substance of the impeachment inquiry. I posted last page about it.

Do you not believe the sworn testimony of multiple military officers, combat veterans, and career diplomats that were appointed to their position BY trump and have been corroborated by paper trails? And you instead believe an unqualified hotel magnate that donated a million bucks to trump's inauguration to get the ambassador position?

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

droll and tired political take ver. 2019. 

 

Try harder.

It's still unclear to me whether you're a moron or a troll.  But I guess *whynotboth?.gif*.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

You're calling foul on process and completely ignoring the substance of the impeachment inquiry. I posted last page about it.

Do you not believe the sworn testimony of multiple military officers, combat veterans, and career diplomats that were appointed to their position BY trump and have been corroborated by paper trails? And you instead believe an unqualified hotel magnate that donated a million bucks to trump's inauguration to get the ambassador position?

He's also wrong about the process.  

[CowboyFred 1151]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:  

Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress … 

It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts … Brett Kavanaugh, who was associate independent counsel in Ken Starr’s office for three years, put this argument most succinctly in a recent article he published in the Georgetown Law Journal: ‘The President is not simply another individual. He is unique. He is the embodiment of the federal government and the head of a political party. If he is to be removed, the entire government likely would suffer, [and] the military or economic consequences to the nation could be severe’ …

“To remove a president is to decapitate another branch and to undermine the independence necessary for it to fulfill its constitutional role … To remove a duly-elected president clashes with democratic principles in a way that simply has no constitutional parallel …

“Federalist 65 also sounds a warning – again, it is a warning that has been invoked over and over again – that impeachments inevitably risk being hijacked by partisan political forces …

“Given the essentially anti-democratic nature of impeachment and the great dangers inherent in the too-ready exercise of that power, impeachment has no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure – reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him …

“For one branch to remove the head of a co-equal branch unavoidably harms our constitutional structure …

“I cautioned that we remember Alice’s plight when the Queen declared ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards’ …

“The country is not well served when either policy disagreements or personal animosities drive the process …

“I am here today to call for bipartisanship in the impeachment process. It is a concept many will say they agree with. But actions speak louder than words. 

“The Framers of the Constitution knew that the greatest danger associated with impeachment was the presence of partisan factions that could dictate the outcome. 

“It is clear from the debates and from the commentaries on the Constitutional Convention that the Framers were concerned that anything less than bipartisanship could, and would, do great damage to our form of government. They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people. 

“The Framers also understood the sentiment expressed nearly 200 years later by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan during the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon. She said, ‘it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision’ …

“In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice …

“Permit one branch of government to subjugate another to its partisan wishes, and you permit the kind of concentration of power that can lead to tyranny. So the system the Framers established is utterly incompatible with the idea that sharp partisan divisions could be sufficient to impeach …

“Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction …

“Look back at the Nixon impeachment. It took on legitimacy when a core of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were moved by the nature of President Nixon’s offenses to break party ranks and vote for articles of impeachment … There was bipartisan consensus that what Nixon did was impeachable …

“Bipartisanship should not wait until the matter reaches the Senate chamber …

“The Constitution provides that ‘the Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments.’ Some consider this provision to impose a duty upon the Senate to try or adjudicate all impeachments. Even if the Constitution imposes such a duty, the Senate has not understood this duty to adjudicate as necessarily requiring a formal trial. There is precedent for the Senate considering dispositive motions that would allow the Senate to render a judgment without holding a trial.”

And Nadler - 

“Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, ‘a substitute for assassination’ … The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity …

We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people …

 

Nixon deserved impeachment; Clinton did not. 

Biden: That the republicans in office are spineless hypocrites that don't want to believe that trump has done any of the crimes that have literally been laid out by various indictments and testimony is completely different from the point he's trying to make.  The difference from then and now is that the republicans are either so far entangled and afraid of getting caught in any investigations linked with trump or that they are legitimately putting party over country.  The Nixon process took at least 4 months before they took it up for a vote.  We are nowhere that deep in and all the info that has come out is up there with what was released then with Nixon if not worse and more revealing of the crimes/treason committed.

 

Franklin:  I'll let you break down what is underlined in the statement you bolded and you will have your answer and reason for the impeachment proceedings.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

19 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:  

Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress … 

It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts … Brett Kavanaugh, who was associate independent counsel in Ken Starr’s office for three years, put this argument most succinctly in a recent article he published in the Georgetown Law Journal: ‘The President is not simply another individual. He is unique. He is the embodiment of the federal government and the head of a political party. If he is to be removed, the entire government likely would suffer, [and] the military or economic consequences to the nation could be severe’ …

“To remove a president is to decapitate another branch and to undermine the independence necessary for it to fulfill its constitutional role … To remove a duly-elected president clashes with democratic principles in a way that simply has no constitutional parallel …

“Federalist 65 also sounds a warning – again, it is a warning that has been invoked over and over again – that impeachments inevitably risk being hijacked by partisan political forces …

“Given the essentially anti-democratic nature of impeachment and the great dangers inherent in the too-ready exercise of that power, impeachment has no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure – reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him …

“For one branch to remove the head of a co-equal branch unavoidably harms our constitutional structure …

“I cautioned that we remember Alice’s plight when the Queen declared ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards’ …

“The country is not well served when either policy disagreements or personal animosities drive the process …

“I am here today to call for bipartisanship in the impeachment process. It is a concept many will say they agree with. But actions speak louder than words. 

“The Framers of the Constitution knew that the greatest danger associated with impeachment was the presence of partisan factions that could dictate the outcome. 

“It is clear from the debates and from the commentaries on the Constitutional Convention that the Framers were concerned that anything less than bipartisanship could, and would, do great damage to our form of government. They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people. 

“The Framers also understood the sentiment expressed nearly 200 years later by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan during the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon. She said, ‘it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision’ …

“In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice …

“Permit one branch of government to subjugate another to its partisan wishes, and you permit the kind of concentration of power that can lead to tyranny. So the system the Framers established is utterly incompatible with the idea that sharp partisan divisions could be sufficient to impeach …

“Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction …

“Look back at the Nixon impeachment. It took on legitimacy when a core of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were moved by the nature of President Nixon’s offenses to break party ranks and vote for articles of impeachment … There was bipartisan consensus that what Nixon did was impeachable …

“Bipartisanship should not wait until the matter reaches the Senate chamber …

“The Constitution provides that ‘the Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments.’ Some consider this provision to impose a duty upon the Senate to try or adjudicate all impeachments. Even if the Constitution imposes such a duty, the Senate has not understood this duty to adjudicate as necessarily requiring a formal trial. There is precedent for the Senate considering dispositive motions that would allow the Senate to render a judgment without holding a trial.”

And Nadler - 

“Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, ‘a substitute for assassination’ … The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity …

We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people …

 

Nixon deserved impeachment; Clinton did not. 

The partisan nature of impeachment is a big concern.  But there are two ways to get partisanship:  one side goes crazy and decides to improperly impeach, and one side goes crazy and decides to ignore obvious bad acts.

 

[henrygandorf 29190]

16 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:  

Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress … 

ok?

trump won't be removed based on a partisan vote either.  he's being investigated by the house.  the senate would have to remove him.  not by a majority, but by 2/3 majority (a majority no side ever has on their own).  in short, the system is working.

if you break the law, you get arrested.  if a cop knows that a criminal wouldn't go to prison because the judge or jury was crooked, should that cop stop arresting criminals?

trump's abuse of power cannot go unchecked.  the constitution put together a 3-branch system for exactly this purpose.  a president cannot be arrested or indicted.  it is the house's job to hold investigations when the executive branch goes too far.  if the house refuses to hold him accountable, they're not doing their constitutionally ordered duty.  then the senate will have to go on the record.  not forcing the senate to act is a failure by the house.  again, the system is working.

the fact that we have a president who is actively breaking the law in order to get himself re-elected, all the while going to rallies and joking about staying in office for 3 or 4 terms, should all be a gigantic red flag, and the textbook definition of impeachable offense.

get it together dude.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Courageous Will Hurd bravely voted right along with Nunes, Jordan, and Gaetz today.  This needed to be said.

[CooterBrown 18007]

3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Liberty University? Or Trump can just reopen a new one. 

If he asked, they'd rename it Trump University.