Today, at what was supposed to be an allegedly solemn moment, Nancy Pelosi gloated while signing the House articles of impeachment. Souvenirs were handed out. It was so obnoxious that even CNN noticed. But this is a Pyrrhic victory.
Housed dems are f**ked and they know it. Now the whining is in full force.
The two weaselly articles of impeachment were (finally) walked over to the Senate. They are
- Abuse of power
- Obstruction of power
Alan Dershowitz has argued that the two articles do not meet Constitutional standards
If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void.
An analogy to consider from ordinary criminal cases may be imperfect but informative. If a grand jury were to indict a citizen on an unconstitutional “crime,” like marrying a person of a different race, the trial judge would immediately dismiss the indictment and refuse to subject the defendant to a trial. Indeed, the House plays a role similar to that of a grand jury in the impeachment context, and the Senate plays a role similar to the trial court. In the presidential impeachment context, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides and rules on the legal and evidentiary issues.
Pelosi has gotten her pound of flesh, but at what cost? She has stated that Trump will be impeached “forever” but what has done to the process of impeachment? This impeachment is unique- it is 100% partisan for the first time in history. There were no crimes. Future generations will not view this well and she likely has guaranteed Trump’s reelection.
The democrat goal is trump’s conviction and removal from office. Anything less will be characterized as a “cover up” by the sad democrats.
But let’s back up for a second. What was their argument against Trump?
What was the basis for this “abuse of power” thing?
The argument was that Trump was abusing his power by trying to investigate a potential political opponent.
This begs the question-
If it is an abuse of power to investigate a potential political opponent, aren’t Pelosi and dems guilty of abuse of power?
They are attempting an investigatory coup of a political opponent.
And then, beyond that, shouldn’t the democrat Senators running for the Presidency be forced to recuse themselves for this “trial” as they are potential political opponents?
Inquiring minds want to know.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
This is far from the last gasp of the coup. The impeachment of the despised votes for Trump will proceed. Letting the fact that Trump swore an oath to uphold the laws of the USA, investigating a possible crime spree in Ukraine, well ignore that. They define that as abuse of power. Pelosi is celebrating cause her kid was in Ukraine involved with an energy company, she thinks this will stop the investigation into Ukraines missing and misappropriated Aid dollars.
Obstruction of kickback and sweetheart family contract deals of Congress.
As the great Yogi Berra said IT AINT OVER UNTIL ITS OVER this is not The end the Democats are all Traitors their loyalty is to the Globalists the CFR and their own crooked corupt Democrat Party
Likewise, I believe anyone, like Waters, who have been demanding impeachment since Trump was elected should recuse themselves because their is NO WAY of a non-biases, non-partisan, objective decision from them.
Pelosi is a great example of the kind of person that should NEVER have political power in this country. Most likely her “managers” were chosen for having the same quality.
Well, wiping the lipstick from the pig’s lips, that was never exactly the actual argument. The argument was that Trump coerced a foreign government into digging up dirt on his political opponent by withholding congressional appropriated funding in order to help his reelection outcome.
While the evidence has been overwhelming and is becoming more so by the hour, there’s still Article # 2 which as we use to say back in my poker playing days, the cards are on the table and speaks for themselves.
@Ronald J. Ward:
I guess it’s worth a try… WHAT evidence? (do you know what “evidence” is?)
We DO have evidence… VIDEO evidence with the perp’s own words… that Biden actually extorted Ukraine to end an investigation of a corrupt company his son worked for. We have NO evidence Trump did anything of a kind.
@Deplorable Me:
By what possible stretch was that worth a try? Even if I was unaware of your void of reasoning or intellectual honesty and even if I didn’t already know that I’d get a more constructive debate from a garbage can than you, what would exhuming this dead horse gain? We both know full well what the evidence is. It’s a matter of what you will (or are allowed to) accept.
No, it really wasn’t worth a try at all. You say such silly things.
@Ronald J. Ward: Wow. Look at all that evidence. Twice as much as the House presented.
Just making sure you are really Rich. Yep… same old Rich.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Yep. They sure do. And they say Trump did nothing wrong, overwhelmingly.
Go away.
@Nathan Blue:
If that were true, there would be no need of the sham so-called trial Moscow Mitch and Putin’s Bitch are insisting on.
But of course, you and yours are divorced from truth.
I can’t help but chuckle at the sophomoric argumentative skills of the resident Trump butt sniffing crowd here. It’s as if I should lower myself to your mentality and say “Make me!”. Funny stuff.
@Ronald J. Ward:
why did you bring Hillary into this?
This impeachment is going to introduce a new element in impeachments for the future. Whereas now the Constitution specifies Bribery, Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The new one will be ‘we have a majority in the House’. Everyone has noted that ‘abuse of power’ and ”obstruction of justice” are not one of the impeachable offenses listed in the Constitution.
Certainly the four active senators campaigning for president, in opposition to Trump are/can not be impartial jurors and should recuse themselves. (this should be a basic requirement.)
@e: @Ronald J. Ward:
and of course, if it was not presented, it still can’t be presented. You are not allowed to ‘make it up’ as you go along.
@Redteam:
Pretty sure we were talking about the denial of overwhelming evidence against Trump and why the need for McConnell’s cover up but I’ve come to learn that a “but Hillary” somehow brings a certain calm to the Trump enablers.
@Redteam:
Are you seriously suggesting having the 4 sit out would give us impartial jurors?
Personally, I think it should go to the SCOTUS or at least they should have full control or at least, more of the say than they do. I seriously doubt that the framers believed their would be such abetting of a lawless con man by a Russia owned senate.. But I didn’t write the Constitution.
@Ronald J. Ward: @Ronald J. Ward:
That would take an amendment, and put it in the hands of the unelected.
@Ronald J. Ward:
yet, despite all this ‘overwhelming’ evidence the Dims have not shown any evidence. They are even claiming that Trump obstructed justice because he wouldn’t allow some of this evidence to be presented, yet here you are saying they actually presented ‘overwhelming’ evidence. Which is it?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Thank goodness because it’s clear you don’t understand it or the purpose for it. If the impeachment trial were held in the SCOTUS and it came out that the president actually committed a crime, which court then would try his criminal case? That’s why the Senate does the trial. At least it seems as if the people that wrote the constitution had an understanding of what it was for, unlike some Dims on here.
@Ronald J. Ward:
at least those sitting in judgment would not be actively campaigning against him.
the members of the democrap managers from the house collaborated to bring this chaotic, bathetic drama to the stage. the morning of November 4, will usher in a new set of rules. the democraps will loose the house and loose further in the Senate.. bar fly nacey will be out of a job. and house committees will be scrapped with the implementation of new leadership. one can not count the number of body bags needed for the terrorist press, pansy ass snowflakes and ass kissing media activists.
@Redteam:
That’s “Putin’s Piece”, and that insults them both, believe me.
@Redteam: Henceforth, all that is needed to impeach a sitting President is a majority in the House and the will to lie and make a complete mockery of laws, justice, truth and the Constitution. Democrats have established the precedent and the model. As much as I would hate to see us go down that path, I would actually enjoy watching Democrats scream and squirm if they were subjected to the same rules they imposed on Republicans in their sham House hearings.
As should anyone that has been calling for Trump’s impeachment without a crime or evidence since he won his election. In fact, any of those people should be run out of Congress; they do not represent the Constitution.
@Ronald J. Ward:
See, that’s just the thing… if it’s so “overwhelming”, why can’t anyone blindly believing in it present a single particle of it? Like Schiff’s “evidence” of Trump’s collusion, it seems to totally disappear anytime anyone asks to see it. Now, you, who ALWAYS evades any responsibility to provide substance to your fantasies, can be excused for dodging the requests, but you aren’t alone. EVERY whining liberal avoids it like they were asked to personally contribute to supporting the illegal immigrants they insist on entering the country. It is so “overwhelming” as to not be able to put into the printed word, apparently.
Nah… there are other Democrats. It’s just the most blatant and obvious of the liars should be culled out.
@Redteam:
Oh they’ve indeed shown it but you refuse to see it.
@Ronald J. Ward: Can’t see what isn’t there. Can’t show what doesn’t exist. What is actually “overwhelming” is the level of ignorance of the people that BELIEVE this impeachment crap.
@Ronald J. Ward:
According to due process and the American legal system, they haven’t.
Thank God we stopped ill-minded people like you from taking away constitutional law.
@Deplorable Me:
I know.
@Nathan Blue:
Well, yeah they have. You just either fail to accept that fact or you can’t see it.
@Ronald J. Ward: luckily for us all our legal system requires the burden of proof and incensed ideological fodder like yourself can’t run around making up the rules as you go.
Trump is acquitted and wins second term. No contest.
@Nathan Blue:
Aside from me never implying I had such powers, why is it that the party of Trump is adamant about impeding the burden of proof?
I absolutely agree he will be acquitted by the GOP, just as he would be if he admitted plotting and even implemented a genocide of people based on political, racial, gender. or other factors. Trump is your god and I get that.
His winning another term is yet to be seem. His ambitions and your conceding that there will be “no contest” is a big part of the problem.
@Nathan Blue:
AJ/Ward, an angry “person of color” said:
Obviously, he missed what San Fran Nan said in an answer to a reporter which was:
“It’s not a question of proof, it says what allegations have been made and that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward, but it should not be ignored in the context of other events that could substantiate some of that,”
See, if you are a Democrat who is trying to convict a Republican, you don’t need proof of a crime, all you need are allegations. Never mind that there is no more “going forward” for ol’ Nan. It is all in the hands of the Senate and you can be sure there will be no funny business now that Adam Schitt-for-brains and Jabba The Hut are no longer in charge.
And yeah, like San Fran Nan’s statement doesn’t put over two centuries of American juris prudence on it’s head.
@Ronald J. Ward: Of course you know. Because there IS none. You know it, yet you parrot it anyway.
Yet with scores of requests, NO ONE can show a shred of it. With so much “uncontested” evidence, strange no one can provide an example of it.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Obama, and his criminal AG, Eric Holder, implemented the deaths of over 200 Mexican citizens with their Fast and Furious program. Don’t remember you complaining about that. Projecting again, AJ/Ward?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Trump is just another disposable person that the electorate has put into the temporary position of the office of the President. Nothing more.
it’s actually people like you and your party that have already conceded that it’s going to be “no contest”, and have resorted to unethical and illegal means rather than Fielding a relevant and viable candidate who stands on an actual platform I was out of use and actions to offer the populace.
you and yours have turned this into a juvenile soccer match, thinking that it’s about your “side” winning.
It’s not a big part of the problem, that is the problem. So far Trump has been the solution. He’s merely getting actual results, results that are not subjective. He’s delivered on his promises in a real way that does not require the entertainment complex to forge a legacy that doesn’t exist.
Of course it is completely okay to not like Trump. But you like him and be pleased with his performance is merely that: the accusations of trump worship and the like are just the words obey dwindling faction of our government and electorate who have traded free thinking for an “us or them” state of absolutism that the rest of us will not tolerate.
@retire05:
It’s hard to distinguish your argument considering your manipulation of text. Let’s review the actual text:
There’s 1 thing consistent with you and your cloned Trump ass worshipers and that’s you are dishonest, partisan, divisive, and honor has no place in your existence.
@Ronald J. Ward:
I understand that you are not very intelligent. That’s your cross to bear, not mine.
You basically said that us “cloned Trump ass worshipers” would not care if Trump “even implemented a genocide of people based on political, racial, gender. or other factors.” I simply pointed out that was EXACTLY what Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. did when he allowed Fast and Furious which killed Mexicans.
English seems to be your second language.
@Ronald J. Ward: And yet none of us are going on Leftist blogs just to spout anonymously about how those people are not free to think as they like…
Honor? Nope.