US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24

[Per]

Did i just hear correctly on the news that the dems wont even get to remove trump because theyll need the senate to approve his removal...which happens to be controlled by the Republicans?

Right, that’s been clear all along. A two thirds majority in the senate is needed to remove him from office, and the republicans hold a majority of the seats. So it probably won’t happen.

Now, the consitution states that the senate should function as impartial jurors, listen to and evaluate the evidence presented, and base their verdict on that and that alone. But we all know that’s not what will happen.

A number of republican senators (mcConnell, Graham...) have already stated that they have no intention of being impartial; which I guess must mean they’re convinced Trump is guilty but will still vote against his removal.

I mean, if they thought he was innocent, why scoff at impartiality?

The only question in my mind is, when they openly defy the constitution, couldn’t they go to jail for that?

”Lock them up! Lock them up!”

A lot of the leading democrats (including Pelosi) were opposed to going the impeachment route, precisely because they know the senate will not play ball, but when the Ukraine story broke, they felt they had no choice any longer. They had to draw the line

And even though the likelyhood of some twenty republican senators voting for the removal of Trump is close to zero, they hope that when all the criminal acts and violations of the constitution are brought to light, the voters will respond by removing Trump in 2020. It’s far from certain, because many Trumpeteres seem to actually approve of him ”breaking all the rules” so we will just have to wait and see.

Also, when he is no longer president, all the evidence they’ve dug out can be presented in a court of law instead, and then his party hacks can’t save him!

[Strangelove]

^ Lol, yeahno, there were no "criminal acts" committed by Lord Trump.

Trying to impeach Donny on Trumped-up charges will completely destroy the Dem Party.

But they knew they were already on the road to destruction so why not have their fantasy moment in the sun...

[Strangelove]

After WWIII Lord Trump can just appoint himself President for Life.

Of the....WORLD!!!

Sounds good to me!

I thought you were opposed to the globalist agenda, the creation of a world government?

Well see, after WWIII things will be different.

But still, there will be only one person fit to be President of the World at that point.

[ukcanuck]

Whelp, no matter what happens next, the stench of dishonesty will never come out of Trumps legacy.

The republicans are such cunts the dems should do this:
The House should withhold sending any articles to the Senate unless a majority of senators commit to holding an open and fair trial. Pelosi can highlight Trump’s continued cover-up and obstruction while noting his abuse of power is a crime in progress. https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit ... ng-senate/

[Topper]

The 6th Amendment

[Per]

^ Lol, yeahno, there were no "criminal acts" committed by Lord Trump.

Some 700 historians disagree with you in the joint statement they have issued:

We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” as George Mason described impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.

President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.

President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with “the misconduct of public men” which involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Collectively, the President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, “the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.”

It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.

Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue, “unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents…despotic in his ordinary demeanour.” That demagogue, Hamilton said, could easily enough manage “to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day.” Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would “throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

https://medium.com/@historiansonimpeach ... 4ed2277b16

[Per]

The 6th Amendment

Thinking of the whistle blower?

Everything the whistle blower told has been confirmed by documents and other witnesses. He/she just alerted the authorities to what was going on but is no longer relevant or part of the impeachment process.

That’s just a red herring.

Unfortunately, another part of the 6th amendment, that about impartial jurors, will be violated as the constitution states that the members of the senate shall serve as jurors, and several of the republicans, in violation of the constitution, have stated that they have no intention of being impartial. A sad day for democracy.

I mean, they could at least pretend.....

Anyway, I would also urge that vice president Pence considers the 25th amendment.

[5thhorseman]

I sure hope Pence is a Canucks fan and is here right now feeling Per's urges.

[ukcanuck]

The 6th Amendment

That’s the point speedy public and impartial the only thing the senate guarantees is the speedy acquittal bit.

[Per]

It's hilarious that many republicans are claiming this impeachment is frivolous and uncalled for, yet they are the ones who impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife...

To me it seems pretty clear that the impeachment clause in the constitution is meant precisely to be used against corruption and abuse of power.
The only thing odd is that they left out the part of how Trump is using the office to enrich himself through his hotels.

The most blatant thing, that he actually was forced to back out of, was when he wanted to hold the G7 meeting at one of his own resorts!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ext-summit

[Topper]

It's hilarious that many republicans are claiming this impeachment is frivolous and uncalled for, yet they are the ones who impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife...

To me it seems pretty clear that the impeachment clause in the constitution is meant precisely to be used against corruption and abuse of power.
The only thing odd is that they left out the part of how Trump is using the office to enrich himself through his hotels.

The most blatant thing, that he actually was forced to back out of, was when he wanted to hold the G7 meeting at one of his own resorts!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ext-summit

Per, you are wrong!

Clinton was impeached for a crime identified during a Special Council investigation. An actual crime on the statutes. - perjury. He lied in his testimony while under oath. He said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky yet she admitted they did have sex and his sperm was found staining her clothes. They had evidence of his crime . The Senate did not pursue the matter because they felt lying about his fidelity to his wife did not meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanours.

The Nixon impeachment was investigated by an independent council.

The investigation into Trump was conducted in the a secretive basement room by partisan politicians and then in public hearings where the ability to call and question witnesses was curtailed and controlled by the same partisan politicians. No statute listed crime or misdemeanour was found in this horribly one sided investigation. There is no evidence and no crime. There is a request for investigations into corruption. Is that wrong or do you wish to support corrupt foreign states? There was a delay in granting foreign aid. There is no evidence of a connection between the two events. There is only conjecture and presumption. This investigation and evidence procedures of the Democrat controlled process mirrors those of despots not democracies.

They held focus groups to try to identify a crime. The focus group came up with a crime based on publicity that even the corrupt process couldn't support.

This is mob justice, not jurisprudence.

When The Mueller independent council investigation failed to identify any crimes, it appears the foes of the President decided fair impartial investigations were not going to produce their desired outcome so partisan controlled, 3rd world, closed door, methods were the only way. After all, look at the success the upper levels of the FBI and DOJ had had with FISA. When you can't find evidence, make it up and then use it in a circular fashion to support itself.

Three Democrats voted against one article of impeachment, a fourth Democrat, who is a presidential candidate, voted present. Two Democrats voted against the other article of impeachment, a third Democrat, who is a presidential candidate, voted present. No Republicans voted for impeachment

If the investigation process had a modicum of non partisan fairness would the outcome be any different? If the investigation were conducted by an independent council, would the outcome be any different?

[Topper]

The 6th Amendment

Thinking of the whistle blower?

Everything the whistle blower told has been confirmed by documents and other witnesses. He/she just alerted the authorities to what was going on but is no longer relevant or part of the impeachment process.

That’s just a red herring.

The whistle blower's conjecture was confirmed as conjecture, you are correct. The transcript, and those who were in the room at the time of the call testified the transcript is correct, proves that conjecture. Several Democrat called witnesses testified during the Intelligence Committee hearing that it was all conjecture.

It is confirmed, the whistle blower lied on his statement. Any testimony as to the extent of those lies was blocked in the partisan proceedings.

As for 6th Amendment, where was Schiff in the Justice Committee hearings and why was he not called to explain his report and it's findings. After all, at the Democrats insistence, Mueller testified to back up his report, Barr testified to back up his summary of the Mueller report. Horowitz testified to explain his report. Instead they sent the Democrats lawyer to the Judiciary committee hearings to answer questions about the report. The same lawyer who the Democrats on the Judiciary committee delegated to question witnesses.

Here was a witness also having the role of interrogator.

What of the context of anti-corruption in the Ukraine was ever looked at? Isn't the investigation of corruption at Burissma involving the son of the then Vice President a core issue in the case. Being a political rival is not a get out of jail free card. The Obama administration was investigating Trump for Russian collusion during the last campaign. Was he not a political rival? In fact the kept up the secret investigation of Trump and lied to obtain FISA authorizations in that investigation even after he became President.

[Topper]

In a terrifyingly display of Orwellian irony, the Democrats created secretive basement, politically biased investigation and when the President invoked executive privilege to avoid lending credence to the sham process, the Democrats used that as a basis for one of their articles of impeachment.

[Strangelove]

[Strangelove]