The Democrats were wrong to call it a coup. The two impeachments aren't equal, however. Trump has done far worse than tell a lie under oath about a sexual harassment case.
this was published 19 minutes into Trump's presidency: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ampaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
Well I guess if Trump would have followed the law and put his businesses in a blind trust this would not have happened. The TRUMP is a victim crowd is a special kind of stupid. DD
Ya, and it makes sense. A blowjob is less detrimental to our system of government than having foreign diplomats bribe the president by staying at his businesses before they meet him.
Well, they weren’t wrong. Dipshit in chief is the only person on the planet who thought it would be ok to hold the G7 summit at his own court club. If anything, people who were categorically against trump from the outset have been proven right. He has no regard for the rule of law, or anything else besides acting in his self interest.
That movement to remove Trump is an entirely separate movement. It had no major support from Congress and is nothing more than a distraction from the current well-founded movement based on ample evidence.
This is a pretty good article into the history of impeachment. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/28/the-invention-and-reinvention-of-impeachment
Oh I know and so do most sane people watching this impeachment crap unfold. The temper tantrum of the left must be brought to an end.
Didn't you say before that if there was quid pro quo you would be in favor of going after the President? If I'm confusing that with something else, my apologies. The President broke the law. He used the power of being head of state to withold aid in order to force a foreign nation to investigate an American citizen and political rival. He then altered the transcript he sent to Congress in an attempt to hamper their oversight which they obligated to perform in the United States Constitution. Calling that constitutional duty a coup or sedition is senseless and off base.
Is it illegal for a sitting president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival? Not a difficult question, nobody seems to be willing to answer. How about you old friend?
"Honey? The Facebook newsfeed is the wrong colors again. It keeps showing up as red and not blue when I post. Can you come down here?"
"The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime." https://time.com/5720748/impeachment-trump-flawed-legal-theory/ We Shouldn't Impeach Trump on the Basis of Flawed Legal Theory The President, on Oct. 25 Tom Brenner—Reuters By Robert Ray November 7, 2019 Ray is a partner at Thompson & Knight LLP and, as independent counsel from 1999 to 2002, issued the final report in the Whitewater investigation As the U.S. House of Representatives hurtles toward impeachment ahead of the holidays, it is appropriate to consider, in as dispassionate a way as possible, what really is at issue for the country to decide. One must begin with the words of the Constitution. The removal of the President from office necessarily proceeds only with a determination, through House impeachment and upon conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate following trial, that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” have been proved. What constitutes a “high” crime? Alexander Hamilton provided the answer in the Federalist papers: only those offenses within Congress’s appropriate jurisdiction that constitute “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office. The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime. Half the country at present does seem prepared to conclude, on the basis of the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House on Sept. 25, that Trump at least raised the prospect of an unlawful quid pro quo. The theory seems to be that Trump proposed an exchange of something of personal benefit to himself in return for an official act by the U.S. government. On one side of that alleged quid pro quo would be the public announcement of an investigation by Ukraine into a rival presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a member of Biden’s family. On the other: the release of temporarily withheld foreign aid, including military assistance. The problem with this legal theory is that an unlawful quid pro quo is limited to those arrangements that are “corrupt”–that is to say, only those that are clearly and unmistakably improper and therefore illegal. But in the eyes of the law, the specific, measurable benefit that an investigation against the Bidens might bring Trump is nebulous. There is a serious question as to whether it could ever constitute a criminally illegal foreign campaign contribution of personal benefit to President Trump. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel and the Criminal Division at the Justice Department apparently have already concluded it couldn’t. Just as important, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struggled since at least the early 1990s with application of the federal anticorruption laws to situations like this, where an “in kind” benefit in the form of campaign interference or assistance is alleged to be illegal. more at the link
Impeachment is grounded on satisfying a federal definition of what is a crime? Congress could simply remove or narrow that definition and the POTUS can sign it into law and we are done? Right after the Constitution was ratified, there was no law that would specifically made treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors a "crime". Did that mean that these "crimes" were not impeachable? The founder was pretty clear about one impeachable offense. Abuse of power for personal gain and not for the public good. They were scared sh*t that someone in power would be bribed by powerful and wealthy kings. Imagine George Washington as POTUS taking bribe from the King of England and Congress cannot get rid of him because there is no established Congressional or federal law that clearly spells out the legality of such an act. To limit impeachment to established congressional or federal laws while ignoring the Constitution is quite ridiculous. Still, we don't have to willy nilly define what's impeachable. The last time this was necessarily defined, by the Clinton white house is below (you can go back to Nixon timeframe to see similar definitions)... At the end of the day, this is still a political process and not a legal one. The problem is Congress needs to do the right thing and not the political thing - fat chance that would happen. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/clinton10-2b.html Impeachable acts need not be criminal acts. As Professor Black has noted, it would probably be an impeachable act for a President to move to Saudi Arabia so he could have four wives while proposing to conduct the Presidency by mail and wireless from there; or to announce and adhere to a policy of appointing no Roman Catholics to public office; or to announce a policy of granting full pardons, in advance of indictment or trial, to federal agents or police who killed anyone in the line of duty in the District of Columbia.36 None of these acts would be crimes, but all would be impeachable. This, because they are all "serious assaults on the integrity of government."37 And all of these acts are public acts having public consequences. But the reverse is not true: criminal acts are not necessarily impeachable. Holders of public office should not be impeached for conduct (even criminal conduct) that is essentially private. That is why scholars and other disinterested observers have consistently framed the test of impeachable offenses in terms of some fundamental attack on our system of government, describing impeachment as being reserved for: "offenses against the government";38 "political crimes against the state";39 "serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government";40 "such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order";41 "wrongdoing convincingly established [and] so egregious that [the President's] continuation in office is intolerable";42 "malfeasance or abuse of office,"43 bearing a "functional relationship" to public office;44 "great offense against the federal government";45 [*]"acts which, like treason and bribery, undermine the integrity of government."46
I might as well just keep on quoting Lindsey Graham.. "You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”"
