To IMPEACH ????
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
The burning question, is this impeachment going to accomplish anything positive? What's the next thing it's going to lead to? Is it going to encourage Trump to do better or at least address the concerns PART of the electorate appear to have? Or is it just going to further divide the "left" from the "right"?
Warning lights are flashing for Democrats as they impeach Trump
Believe it or not it is a CNN article
Believe it or not it is a CNN article
I think this charade has accomplished one thing for sure. It's gone a long way toward proving the "bloody mindedness" of the Democraps!
They are just catering to their electorate.....
Like T. Barnum said "there is no such thing as bad publicity"
After all this impeachment hearing is a circus show.....and they are the clowns.......non?
Like T. Barnum said "there is no such thing as bad publicity"
After all this impeachment hearing is a circus show.....and they are the clowns.......non?
Ah, poor Trumpkins. They just can't grasp the truth that their hero is a crook, liar, thief and a conman. Y'all been conned by the best (worst) conman ever. Reality is beyond their comprehension.
While I hesitate to use the word "totally", there is one word that is appropriate...…………………"WRONG"!
Maybe why Nancy Pelosi is contemplating not sending the articles to the Senate . More smoke and mirrors .
OK, I'll verify that it's complete crap.
First off, impeachment is not a criminal process. Conviction is not a criminal conviction, and therefore a convicted subject of impeachment has no criminal record. Further, the Constitution expressly states that the sole consequence of conviction upon impeachment is removal from office. No execution. No jail. No fine. So the entire idea of a "pardon" is completely irrelevant.
Second, the House does not "deliver" a bill of impeachment. It drafts the bill, like all other legislation, and votes on it. If it passes, the Senate takes it up and holds a trial. The House has no control over that. So if the House wants to pile up draft bills and never vote on them, fine. It's like all the other bills that don't get voted. They die at the end of the Congressional term. If the House votes on and passes one or more of them, impeachment then passes to the Senate, and there is nothing the House can do about it.
Whoever you got this from knows nothing of the Constitution.
A Trump-empowering act of impeachment
The impeachment of President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is like a Leafs-Bruins playoff series: everybody knows how it’s going to end, but they have to play the games anyway.
Wednesday was Game Six—the formal vote in the House of Representatives on two specific “high crimes,” with all of the Democrats (except one or two) recording in favour of Trump’s indictment, and, of course, the Republicans unanimously opposed.
Sometime in the first week of the first month of the first year of the Roaring Twenties, they’ll face off in the seventh and deciding contest. Spoiler alert: It won’t be the blue team that wins, and the Senate will skate The Donald back to the Oval Office in January or February with a shiny silver grail that reflects his Sunkist hair and perfect teeth.
Like the S&P 500, Trump’s approval rating never has been higher. This week’s opinion polls suggest that the likelihood of his re-election, like his waistline, is growing every day, even in the fulcrum states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Reduced, in this instance at least, to a partisan rebuke—a mere pinprick rather than a lethal injection—the third formal presidential impeachment in nearly 240 years of constitutional government creeped ever on.
What will happen when an exonerated, invigorated, re-elected Trump, who throughout his life has proved himself incapable of contrition or remorse—except in the early death of his alcoholic older brother—breaks bad again, no one can predict. With 91 per cent of Republicans approving his performance and only six per cent of Democrats agreeing, a second impeachment and a second acquittal may not be out of the realm of possibility, come 2021 or ’22, should the Congress remain divided after next November’s elections.
As the House convened on Wednesday morning, it was expected that it would take nearly 12 hours for the chamber to perform its final cumbersome act of the moot, pre-scripted melodrama, with the elderly white men of one team, and the rainbow rabble of the other side, taking turns to make rousing speeches full of tidbits for next autumn’s attack ads and Facebook fulminations.
The president, meanwhile, was on his way to Battle Creek, Michigan, the home of Kellogg’s cereal, where he would spend the evening hours ricing out his usual profane snap, crackle and pop.
Back to the U.S. Capitol. “Give them wisdom and discernment,” a minister was urging the Heavenly Father before the representatives’ moot and tedious marathon commenced. So vital, so historic, so momentous and so consequential were Wednesday’s final actions in the House that barely one-eighth of the 435 members were physically present when the Articles were introduced for debate. The public bleachers—a hot ticket for Andrew Johnson’s impeachment in 1868—were less than half-filled. If the president claims the biggest crowds ever, he will—imagine that—be lying.
“You are offending Americans of faith by continually saying ‘I pray for the President,’” Trump seethed, excommunicating Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the eve of Game Six. “You know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in the negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!”
“If we allow one president—any president, no matter who she or he may be—to go down this path, we are saying goodbye to the republic and hello to a president-king,” was Pelosi’s most recent rejoinder. (It was Mrs. Pelosi, of course, who spent the past year holding off her hottest-headed, Trump-hating Trotskyites, declaring that “unless something is so compelling and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path.” It wasn’t, and they tripped along the dead-end alley anyway.)
“More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials,” Donald Trump crocodile-teared on Tuesday in a typical outburst of self-pity.
Actually, it wasn’t. Many of the women—and a handful of men—who were accused of demonic practices in Massachusetts in 1692 were hanged whether they pleaded innocent or guilty, leading one of the condemned, a farmer named John Proctor, to (figuratively speaking) tweet WITCH HUNT!!! and complain that our accusers and our judges and jury, whom nothing but our innocent blood will serve … condemned us already before our trials.
Sound familiar?
“This a democracy-defining moment,” Rep. Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a floor speech typical of the day.
Trump’s impeachment, he went on, was “not just for this president but for every future president.”
“This is a very sad day for all of us,” opposed Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, noting that 58 Democrats voted ‘aye’ on a motion to impeach Trump more than two years ago, back when Volodymyr Zelensky still was a television comedian pretending to be the president of ungovernable Ukraine.
“I oppose proceeding any further,” Rep. Cole proclaimed.
They proceeded anyway.
www.macleans.ca/news/we-must-act-democrats-unveil-trump-impeachment-charges/
The contrast between the Clinton impeachment and this one is striking.
That was a procedurally correct impeachment over no substantive issue.
This is a procedurally ridiculous impeachment over grave substantive issues.
If I were in Congress, I'd commit suicide. But aside from that, I would vote against this ridiculous bill of impeachment.
That was a procedurally correct impeachment over no substantive issue.
This is a procedurally ridiculous impeachment over grave substantive issues.
If I were in Congress, I'd commit suicide. But aside from that, I would vote against this ridiculous bill of impeachment.
Depends on how you want to look at the impeachment process as a whole.
If the idea is to get Trump out, then no, it's done nothing.
If the idea was to at least say "there is a line that can be crossed" then they've done it.
If the idea was to give Trump a stain on his presidency for history, they did it.
If the idea was to show the US public that Trump is a monster, that depends on who you talk to.
If the idea was to divide the country more, that depends.
If the idea was to show the Senate - and Republicans in general - are as corrupt as Trump, they did it.
There's a lot of ways to look at it and whether Impeachment was worth it or not... well...
When you compare Republicans of Clinton's impeachment to the ones today - even some of those same people - to me it shows pretty well that the party is corrupt and despite how 'correct' it was, Clinton's was not about anything other than getting him out of office.
What in your opinion makes what happened ridiculous? Howso? Do you think the Dems had a choice here?
They had a choice to impeach him for bribery, which is what he did, instead of "abuse of power," which is a meaningless term.
How about the FACT the Democraps are as corrupt as the Republicans? That's the salient message in the whole charade!
