Remember: it's no longer "President Trump" - it's "Impeached President Trump"

[Rightguide]

Update: still impeached.

What you fail to realize is Nancy's unconstitutional process and selfish political motives has diminished the stigma of impeachment, just as she diminishes the dignity of her office.

 

[coati]

What you fail to realize is Nancy's unconstitutional process and selfish political motives has diminished the stigma of impeachment, just as she diminishes the dignity of her office.

History will make those sort of judgments in the long run. Fox News talking points operate on a very short time horizon.

 

[adrina]

What you fail to realize is Nancy's unconstitutional process and selfish political motives has diminished the stigma of impeachment, just as she diminishes the dignity of her office.

Please elaborate on what makes this process unconstitutional.

 

[Rightguide]

History will make those sort of judgments in the long run. Fox News talking points operate on a very short time horizon.

Has nothing to do with Fox News. We see it with the partisan vote in the House, even her own Democrats doubt her strategy in withholding the articles, The inability to identify actual crimes, the polls show the loss of public support for this impeachment, and you're going to see only partisan support for it in the Senate. In the end it fails, the President is strengthened.

 

[RoryN]

Please elaborate on what makes this process unconstitutional.

No response.

Meanwhile, GOP says they don't have the votes to dismiss the articles.

 

[bigsly]

Update: still impeached by the most politically partisan House impeachment vote in American history.

Not surprising a total partisan hack would think that's .

 

[RoryN]

waaaaaaahhhhh

Easy on the tears, snowflake Boomer.

 

[Rightguide]

Please elaborate on what makes this process unconstitutional.

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” These articles are so vague they could be applied to any United States President in history. The strictly partisan vote violates the fears of Alexander Hamilton that a decision to impeach might be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.” It's obvious Pelosi is motivated by the mentality of Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.”

Unfortunately for them, there is a law, the law of the land...the Constitution, which does not allow the House to institute impeachment proceedings that fall outside the stated limits of the Constitution itself. The idea that impeachment is whatever the House says it is, is a reductionistic and lawless view. The Constitution is clear, only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” are impeachable offenses and neither charge amounts to any high or low crimes or misdemeanors.

House member are sworn to the mandated duty to support, defend, and apply the Constitution as written. These articles violate the constitution so in the words of Hamilton they are void as he so stated in the Federalist Parers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

 

[adrina]

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” These articles are so vague they could be applied to any United States President in history. The strictly partisan vote violates the fears of Alexander Hamilton that a decision to impeach might be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.” It's obvious Pelosi is motivated by the mentality of Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.”

Unfortunately for them, there is a law, the law of the land...the Constitution, which does not allow the House to institute impeachment proceedings that fall outside the stated limits of the Constitution itself. The idea that impeachment is whatever the House says it is, is a reductionistic and lawless view. The Constitution is clear, only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” are impeachable offenses and neither charge amounts to any high or low crimes or misdemeanors.

House member are sworn to the mandated duty to support, defend, and apply the Constitution as written. These articles violate the constitution so in the words of Hamilton they are void as he so stated in the Federalist Parers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

What standards, legal precedent and documentation did you use to determine these articles of impeachment do not meet the standards of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Do you think the same thing about Clinton being impeached for obstruction?

All you have done is reiterated and elaborated on your opinion that it is unconstitutional. Surely you have something to back up your opinion?

 

[contrifan32]

What standards, legal precedent and documentation did you use to determine these articles of impeachment do not meet the standards of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Do you think the same thing about Clinton being impeached for obstruction?

All you have done is reiterated and elaborated on your opinion that it is unconstitutional. Surely you have something to back up your opinion?

Maybe the perjury charge had something to do with it.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What standards, legal precedent and documentation did you use to determine these articles of impeachment do not meet the standards of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Vetteguide:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o6UBil4zn1Tt03PI4/source.gif

Do you think the same thing about Clinton being impeached for obstruction?

Vetteguide:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-04/8/20/enhanced/webdr10/anigif_enhanced-9176-1428539383-10.gif

All you have done is reiterated and elaborated on your opinion that it is unconstitutional. Surely you have something to back up your opinion?

Vetteguide:

https://media.giphy.com/media/FwpecpDvcu7vO/giphy.gif

 

[Rightguide]

What standards, legal precedent and documentation did you use to determine these articles of impeachment do not meet the standards of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Do you think the same thing about Clinton being impeached for obstruction?

All you have done is reiterated and elaborated on your opinion that it is unconstitutional. Surely you have something to back up your opinion?

The Constitution only allows specific crimes as grounds for impeachment. Neither of the two articles are specific crimes, as I stated.

Ken Starr, former Appeals Court Judge, and Solicitor of the United States, and in the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment, the prosecuting independent counsel. He identified 11 felony violations of federal law by President Clinton, perjury and obstruction of justice being the two settled on by the House. Note, the third charge of "abuse of power" (not being a real crime) was rejected 285-148.

I've already posted the opinions of two nationally known constitutional scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin, agreeing with my assessment. Pay attention.

 

[HisArpy]

The Constitution only allows specific crimes as grounds for impeachment. Neither of the two articles are specific crimes, as I stated.

Ken Starr, former Appeals Court Judge, and Solicitor of the United States, and in the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment, the prosecuting independent counsel. He identified 11 felony violations of federal law by President Clinton, perjury and obstruction of justice being the two settled on by the House. Note, the third charge of "abuse of power" (not being a real crime) was rejected 285-148.

I've already posted the opinions of two nationally known constitutional scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin, agreeing with my assessment. Pay attention.

They keep bringing up the Clinton impeachment without understanding that Clinton was impeached for ACTUALLY committing "a crime".

It doesn't matter what the "crime" was, it WAS "a crime". One that Clinton admitted to perpetrating.

There is nothing in the law that makes "abuse of office" a "crime". The underlying conduct MAY be a crime, but it would be that exact conduct which is the impeachable offense. It is the same for "obstruction of Congress" - no "crime".

Thus the Articles are invalid as without any basis under the Constitutional mandate of what offenses constitute grounds for impeachment.

 

[RocketLauncher]

 

[Rightguide]

They keep bringing up the Clinton impeachment without understanding that Clinton was impeached for ACTUALLY committing "a crime".

It doesn't matter what the "crime" was, it WAS "a crime". One that Clinton admitted to perpetrating.

There is nothing in the law that makes "abuse of office" a "crime". The underlying conduct MAY be a crime, but it would be that exact conduct which is the impeachable offense. It is the same for "obstruction of Congress" - no "crime".

Thus the Articles are invalid as without any basis under the Constitutional mandate of what offenses constitute grounds for impeachment.

Totally agree. It's amazing some people just can't see what are really simple fundamental facts.

 

[Rightguide]

Is there some reason why you're exposing your tail on every thread? Just wonderin'.

 

[heathergives]

Is there some reason why you're exposing your tail on every thread? Just wonderin'.

Perhaps a pusillanimous train of thought?

 

[Rightguide]

Perhaps a pusillanimous train of thought?

LOL...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Perhaps a pusillanimous train of thought?

LOL...

You miss saying those fifty-dollar flair words every five minutes, don't you, Vette?

C'mon, admit it. Let out another "benighted" for old times' sake!

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[adrina]

The Constitution only allows specific crimes as grounds for impeachment. Neither of the two articles are specific crimes, as I stated.

Ken Starr, former Appeals Court Judge, and Solicitor of the United States, and in the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment, the prosecuting independent counsel. He identified 11 felony violations of federal law by President Clinton, perjury and obstruction of justice being the two settled on by the House. Note, the third charge of "abuse of power" (not being a real crime) was rejected 285-148.

I've already posted the opinions of two nationally known constitutional scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin, agreeing with my assessment. Pay attention.

So you have posted other opinions from people who happen to agree with your assessment. That's nice?

Over 500 legal scholars signed on to a letter that the impeachment isn't unconstitutional. Three of the four that testified in the hearings in December believe the impeachment isn't unconstitutional.

That's the problems with posting and believing opinions - kinda like assholes, everyone has one and they're not too difficult to find.

In the meantime, you saying what you think isn't what I asked for. Just you saying the words "the Constitution only allows specific crimes as grounds for impeachment. Neither of the two articles are specific crimes, as I stated." doesn't mean diddly.

So in essence, you base the legitimacy of your opinion on the opinion of two people who are telling you what you want to hear.

That's.... nice.

 

[schism666]

You miss saying those fifty-dollar flair words every five minutes, don't you, Vette?

C'mon, admit it. Let out another "benighted" for old times' sake!

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

he's such a dumb fuck. like he thinks we don't know that heather is his female alt.

 

[heathergives]

he's such a dumb fuck. like he thinks we don't know that heather is his female alt.

Keep on thinking; you'll blow a fuse.

 

[jomar]

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” These articles are so vague they could be applied to any United States President in history. The strictly partisan vote violates the fears of Alexander Hamilton that a decision to impeach might be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.” It's obvious Pelosi is motivated by the mentality of Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.”

He’s impeached for life so some legitimate criteria was met.

But for the sake of argument let’s say Trump never did what he did and Alexander Hamilton’s fears were realized.

Would not McConnell’s vow to ignore his pledge to hold an impartial trial by coordinating with Trump, the defense, also speak to Hamilton’s fears? In other words, if the house impeached on the comparative strength of the house majority, would it not be the senates responsibility to determine the truth and not act in kind as they accuse the house of doing?

 

[Conager]

https://youtu.be/KnyOhEUiKuY

Cocaine Mitch reams them some more.

 

[HisArpy]

He’s impeached for life so some legitimate criteria was met.

But for the sake of argument let’s say Trump never did what he did and Alexander Hamilton’s fears were realized.

Would not McConnell’s vow to ignore his pledge to hold an impartial trial by coordinating with Trump, the defense, also speak to Hamilton’s fears? In other words, if the house impeached on the comparative strength of the house majority, would it not be the senates responsibility to determine the truth and not act in kind as they accuse the house of doing?

So, basically what you're saying is that standing behind the law to prevent lawlessness is lawless?

That's got to be THE MOST disingenuous crap you've said yet.