Articles of Impeachment

Carnal_Flower

Literotica Guru
Joined
May 31, 2014
Posts
6,896
Six Dems have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Trump, less than a year into his Administration!

We might have expected charges of collusion or treason a year ago, but who could have expected so many crimes?

We have taken this action because of great concern for our country and our Constitution, our national security and our democracy," Cohen said. "We believe President Trump has violated the Constitution.”

Five articles of impeachment will be introduced, alleging obstruction of justice, violations of both the foreign and domestic emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary and undermining the freedom of the press.

Also: Being a dumbass
 
Six Dems have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Trump, less than a year into his Administration!

We might have expected charges of collusion or treason a year ago, but who could have expected so many crimes?

Also: Being a dumbass

Articles of impeachment are fairly easy to introduce, even though strictly a waste of time. To what crimes do you refer?
 
Articles of impeachment are fairly easy to introduce, even though strictly a waste of time. To what crimes do you refer?
I guess you'll have to read the proposed indictment to find out. I might expect emoluments, obstruction of justice (as per Nixon), and collusion with a hostile foreign power to be in the mix.

Remember that impeachment (indictment) is a political process, not a criminal trial. Congress may consider historical definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanors" but those aren't binding. Congress defines the crimes. If HRC were POTUS the Gup Congress would have started impeachment hearings last February, citing whatever. Probably impeach and remove her VP whats-is-name too.
 
I wonder if there is something I should know know from lower level politics because it seems like they are wasting time.
 
Remember that impeachment (indictment) is a political process, not a criminal trial. Congress may consider historical definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanors" but those aren't binding. Congress defines the crimes. If HRC were POTUS the Gup Congress would have started impeachment hearings last February, citing whatever. Probably impeach and remove her VP whats-is-name too.

Indeed, HRC as President would have already been impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate if she had openly invited Russia to hack into her opponent's emails and had subsequently fired the head of the FBI for investigating collusion with the Russians.

Her husband came close to the same fate for lying about his sexual encounters, so can you imagine what the Fox-inspired GUPs would have done if a Russian collusion issue were placed on the other party?
 
This isn't any different than constantly going after Hillary Clinton on Benghazi and e-mails was/is. The constant pressure takes a toll and sways the smaller-brained voters. I'm amused that the Trump dupes/dopes here choose not to see the technique connection.
 
Six Dems have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Trump, less than a year into his Administration!

We might have expected charges of collusion or treason a year ago, but who could have expected so many crimes?



Also: Being a dumbass

Obstruction seems clear to me but they are going nowhere unless and until control of the House switches in '18. Sort of makes me wonder why they are doing it?
 
Crimes against humanity, common sense, and human decency.

cher.jgp_.jpg



Articles of impeachment are fairly easy to introduce, even though strictly a waste of time. To what crimes do you refer?
 
I guess you'll have to read the proposed indictment to find out. I might expect emoluments, obstruction of justice (as per Nixon), and collusion with a hostile foreign power to be in the mix.

Remember that impeachment (indictment) is a political process, not a criminal trial. Congress may consider historical definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanors" but those aren't binding. Congress defines the crimes. If HRC were POTUS the Gup Congress would have started impeachment hearings last February, citing whatever. Probably impeach and remove her VP whats-is-name too.

Okay, so let's see the proposed indictment. :)

As I said before, somebody could bring up articles of impeachment against Trump because they don't like the way he combs his hair, or anything else. That would have about as much chance of succeeding as anything else they come up with.
 
Obstruction seems clear to me but they are going nowhere unless and until control of the House switches in '18.
Even then it's basically dead until something else changes. At this point only 3% of Democrats were willing to sign on sponsoring impeachment. Nancy Pelosi is on record earlier this month saying she doesn't think impeachment is someplace the House should go based on the current evidence. Till most Democrats in the House support impeachment simply being a majority is not enough.

Sort of makes me wonder why they are doing it?
Political theater. It's the same reason Republicans passed numerous measures to overturn ACA for Obama to immediately veto. Appeal to the part of the base who doesn't care that it's pointless as long as action is being taken. It can also sort out internal caucus politics by highlighting issues in front of the electorate.
 
Except that doesn't hold water. The million tries at overturning the ACA were joined by a healthy chunk of the Republicans to stir up the base. This has the effective leader of the party shooting it down.
 
I agree.

I like hearing it even if I know full well it has no practical reality.

Plus, its on the record for sometime down the line when his ass is thrown out of office.


Political theater. It's the same reason Republicans passed numerous measures to overturn ACA for Obama to immediately veto. Appeal to the part of the base who doesn't care that it's pointless as long as action is being taken. It can also sort out internal caucus politics by highlighting issues in front of the electorate.
 
Even then it's basically dead until something else changes. At this point only 3% of Democrats were willing to sign on sponsoring impeachment. Nancy Pelosi is on record earlier this month saying she doesn't think impeachment is someplace the House should go based on the current evidence. Till most Democrats in the House support impeachment simply being a majority is not enough.


Political theater. It's the same reason Republicans passed numerous measures to overturn ACA for Obama to immediately veto. Appeal to the part of the base who doesn't care that it's pointless as long as action is being taken. It can also sort out internal caucus politics by highlighting issues in front of the electorate.

Time for Pelosi to go the way of the dodo, but your point is well taken.
 
It's obvious that introducing impeachment bills makes the Trump dupes/dopes posting to this forum upset enough to post about it, so that makes it worthwhile to do. :D
 
That had occurred to me.

They're so quick to say it's "just a waste of time."

Notice no one said any of the charges aren't true.

It's obvious that introducing impeachment bills makes the Trump dupes/dopes posting to this forum upset enough to post about it, so that makes it worthwhile to do. :D
 
Except that doesn't hold water. The million tries at overturning the ACA were joined by a healthy chunk of the Republicans to stir up the base. This has the effective leader of the party shooting it down.
The reasoning still applies. One was the party leadership itself scheduling the hopeless attempt to advance political interests. This is minority group of the Democratic caucus using the hopeless attempt for their smaller groups interests. The tool isn't particularly different just the size of the group using it.
 
Pelosi is no dummy. Some call her the best Congressional vote-counter of the last century. (Let the flaming begin.) Unlike Gups calling votes at ceremonial times, she waits till she has the votes in hand. She knows impeachment, trial, and removal are impossible anytime soon.

Why file the articles? They're like an electric cattle prod shoved against Team Tromp's thin skin. Start at the shoulders and work down. Make Tromp fear that it'll eventually reach his ass. That'll hurt. Electro-shock his feet and he won't be able to walk. Then back up to his ass. Over and over. Expect 'rogue' Dums to file more and expanded articles every few weeks.

Oh yeah, the next set may include Tromp directing DoJ to hire private attorneys (at US$500-1000 per hour) to defend his private business interests against charges of illegally accepting domestic and foreign emoluments. That's right, taxpayer -- YOU are funding Tromp's corrupt defense.

USA Today: Taxpayers pay legal bill to protect Trump business profits

Q: Why doesn't Tromp pay his own private legal bills?
A: Because he's a thief. And probably can't affort to.
 
Back
Top