Rand Paul Puts The Screws To Wobbly Republicans

[von_Bismarck]

Your mistake is that you think impeachment is a judicial act.
It is a political act, no more, no less.

If the Democrats held both houses of Congress,
then they could simply remove him and undo the will of the people.

Praise be to the Gods that the House does not run our country...

Obstruction of justice in this context doesn't refer only to judicial activity, you fucking moron. One of the potential articles of impeachment considered for Trump was exactly obstruction of justice.

 

[Rightguide]

Soliciting foreign interference in a US election is a crime. Illegally withholding funds appropriated by congress is a crime. Illegally surveilling a US diplomat is a crime.

But even putting those aside, simple abuse of power is more than enough grounds to impeach the president.

Yeah put those aside because they aren't crimes Trump is guilty of, or they would be specific Statute violations specified in the Articles of Impeachment. Illegally surveilling American citizens and the Trump Campaign is illegal and actually happened and is in the process of being prosecuted.

And since the impeachment process is in the constitution itself, your claims that impeachment is unconstitutional is staggering in its stupidity.

I've already posted the legal opinions of two constitutional experts on the unconstitutionality of the House impeachment process. Yes, the power of impeachment is in the Constitution, but the process the house uses to to accomplish it cannot be pursued beyond the limits of the Constitution itself, which only specifies actual crimes as ground for impeachment; nor can that process violate the constitutional rights of the President, which it plainly does.

 

[Rightguide]

Obstruction of justice in this context doesn't refer only to judicial activity, you fucking moron. One of the potential articles of impeachment considered for Trump was exactly obstruction of justice.

No it wasn't. It was obstruction of congress. It would have been obstruction of justice if the SCOTUS ruled he had to honor the subpoenas of the House and he refused to do so, but the House accused him of a crime for taking his case to court, which is his right to do in order to determine the legality of those subpoenas.

 

[von_Bismarck]

No it wasn't. It was obstruction of congress. It would have been obstruction of justice if the SCOTUS ruled he had to honor the subpoenas of the House and he refused to do so, but the House accused him of a crime for taking his case to court, which is his right to do in order to determine the legality of those subpoenas.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles approved. Obstruction of justice was a separate article considered, but set aside by House leadership.

 

[zipman]

Yeah put those aside because they aren't crimes Trump is guilty of, or they would be specific Statute violations specified in the Articles of Impeachment. Illegally surveilling American citizens and the Trump Campaign is illegal and actually happened and is in the process of being prosecuted.




I've already posted the legal opinions of two constitutional experts on the unconstitutionality of the House impeachment process. Yes, the power of impeachment is in the Constitution, but the process the house uses to to accomplish it cannot be pursued beyond the limits of the Constitution itself, which only specifies actual crimes as ground for impeachment; nor can that process violate the constitutional rights of the President, which it plainly does.

Bwahahaha.

That's a lame effort even by your sad standards.

The impeachment is absolutely constitutional.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles approved. Obstruction of justice was a separate article considered, but set aside by House leadership.

That's because they knew they couldn't prove obstruction of justice.

And Obstruction of Congress is going to be a hard case considering POTUS is only subject to the authority of the HoR in suuuuuuper specific ways that Trump hasn't violated.

"We're really mad Hillary lost, ORANGE MAN BAD!!" is all team (D) has right now.

They know it, the Senate knows it, everyone knows it.

 

[jomar]

Yap, yap, yap.

Trump won the election. Spinning alternate universe facts to try and make that not seem "legitimate" is a sign of a loser.

I'm not spinning anything, just correcting an overstatement. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is once again on display.

 

[Rightguide]

Bwahahaha.

That's a lame effort even by your sad standards.

The impeachment is absolutely constitutional.

No it isn't.

 

[Rightguide]

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles approved. Obstruction of justice was a separate article considered, but set aside by House leadership.

Obstruction of Congress is not a crime. You will not find it in the U.S. Criminal Code. Obstruction of Justice is a crime found in the U.S.C., it wasn't charged because the House did not have the requisite facts that rise to the evidentiary standards required to charge Obstruction of Justice. So, relying on your ignorance of the law they charged Obstruction of Congress because the President chose to exercise his right to take the legality of House subpoenas to the federal courts for disposition.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Obstruction of Congress is not a crime.

UH HUAAA!!!! Trump has to do what the people tell him, that means the house and the (D)eez call the shots and if he doesn't comply then he's a dictator and a threat to democracy everywhere.

Orange man bad damn it!!

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

LOL

 

[jaF0]

Whiney Little Ranny belongs in a dunk tank at a carnival sideshow.

In Canada.

 

[bestone4ever]

No it isn't.

Then why was he legally impeached? You really have no leg to stand on here.

 

[Rightguide]

UH HUAAA!!!! Trump has to do what the people tell him, that means the house and the (D)eez call the shots and if he doesn't comply then he's a dictator and a threat to democracy everywhere.

Orange man bad damn it!!

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

LOL

Yep, stage 4 TDS on display when it comes to the left.

 

[Rightguide]

Then why was he legally impeached? You really have no leg to stand on here.

He wasn't legally impeached. The Constitution requires real crimes for impeachment grounds, there are none. The Democrats have insulted the Constitution.

You, being an intellectual invertebrate, have no need of legs. So please crawl back under your rock.

 

[Adre]

An impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. There’s no such thing as an illegal indictment, it is merely an accusation. People are frequently acquitted of accusations and impeachments. The fact remains they were impeached or accused. Your argument is without merit.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then why was he legally impeached?

He was dishonestly impeached because "Orange Man Bad!!" that's why.

You really have no leg to stand on here.

Says the guy who can't cite the laws that Trump violated.

The first article is a joke....asking the Ukraine to investigate corruption in Ukraine isn't soliciting the Ukraine to interfere in the US election just because it's exposing the (D) front runner for being the quintessential dirty dirty old rich white guy (D)'s are allegedly against and consider the enemy.

The second article isn't a crime, and isn't an impeachable offense just because it pisses the house (D)eez off that Trump doesn't just do whatever they say.

 

[BotanyBoy]

An impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. There’s no such thing as an illegal indictment, it is merely an accusation. People are frequently acquitted of accusations and impeachments. The fact remains they were impeached or accused. Your argument is without merit.

If that were his argument. But I don't think it is.

 

[Rightguide]

An impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. There’s no such thing as an illegal indictment, it is merely an accusation. People are frequently acquitted of accusations and impeachments. The fact remains they "were" impeached or accused. Your argument is without merit.

Past tense, that is the point. If one is illegally accused, it means even less and indicts the accuser.

 

[Adre]

If that were his argument. But I don't think it is.

He said Trump was “illegally impeached.” That’s not a thing.

 

[Adre]

Past tense, that is the point. If one is illegally accused, it means even less and indicts the accuser.

It is not illegal to make an accusation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He said Trump was “illegally impeached.” That’s not a thing.

If you want to ignore the "for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors " threshold for impeachment.

Making impeachment based entirely on
https://veryersatznews.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/angry-sjw.gif


.....not exactly legal.

 

[Rightguide]

It is not illegal to make an accusation.

Bullshit, it could very well be malicious prosecution.
which is actionable.

 

[Adre]

If you want to ignore the "for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors " threshold for impeachment.

Making impeachment based entirely on
https://veryersatznews.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/angry-sjw.gif


.....not exactly legal.

Show me where the document defines “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

[HisArpy]

Obstruction of justice in this context doesn't refer only to judicial activity, you fucking moron. One of the potential articles of impeachment considered for Trump was exactly obstruction of justice.

No, it wasn't.

Obstruction of Congress is NOT obstruction of justice.

Congress, when stymied by someone who won't comply with their demands, or someone who exerts a privilege, has ONLY ONE recourse - to seek a court order. It is ONLY AFTER THAT ORDER IS ISSUED AND THE PERSONS SO ORDERED FAILS TO COMPLY that it becomes "obstruction of justice" and/or "contempt of Court".

At this juncture, the House has failed to do what it is Constitutionally mandated to do. Rather than obey their limitations and Constitutional duties, they "invented" a new catchword phrase and have impeached the President on that basis (in part).

The trouble is, the "invented" rationale isn't Constitutional since it is neither "treason, bribery, a high crime or misdemeanor".

 

[Adre]

Bullshit, it could very well be malicious prosecution.
which is actionable.

Twist yourself into a pretzel if you like, he is impeached and will forever be described as the impeached 45th President of the United States. Your refusal to accept the fact will be ignored by history I can assure you. Btw, I have stated several times here that I want him removed by the voters, not by Congress. And if the Democrats nominate Biden I believe that will come to pass.