The purpose of Impeachment.

This is why you don't put Democrats in management positions.

They think it is okay for a boss to have sex in the office with an intern, on the clock, on company property. What could that possibly hurt?

 

More multi-topic spam, eh?

 

Nadler fell asleep today during the hearing.

 

Actually there does have to be a crime supported by facts. And those facts have to meet with Federal evidence standards.

The House is following just one of the avenues available towards bringing an impeachment to the floor.

"Facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House."

While the House doesn't determine the final disposition, there still has to be a purported crime that requires adjudication. To date, the House has nothing substantial to present to actually establish, "standing."

So enjoy the charade while you can before you end up weeping that this will not remove Trump from office.

 

What I have learned from the OP is that Orwellian tactics absolutely work on Leftists. So much of what was written in the OP is nothing more than baseless propaganda.

 

A couple of significant disagreements. You are correct that the framers were worried about the president gaining too much power, but it was their 2nd biggest concern. The greatest concern was how to keep Congress from using impeachment to gain control over and disable the president. This is what they spent more time discussing than other concerns and one of the reasons that they did not accept maladministration as warranting impeachment -- because that would have left impeachment entirely up to the House's whims and make impeachment for political gains probable. They settled on high crimes and misdemeanors as they were known in common English law and meant egregious wrongs against the country or the citizens. None of your examples match that test. What Trump did with Zelensky would have generated a big ho-hum from the framers. What the House is currently doing would match their greatest fears with impeachment.

ps for the record, what Trump suggested Zelensky might do had nothing to do with the 2020 election. That is just a convenient wishful dream on your part.

 

Not more harmless than a president requesting a foreign leader to investigate something that the leftist opinion machine views as being politically motivated. Fixed it for you.

 

Agreed. At the time the Constitution was written, the idea of a "sovereign monarch" was giving way to the "sovereignty" of the people themselves. You might say it was similar to the Protestant Revolution in theology, with the idea of a direct relationship between the parishioners and God, without having to go through the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. The ideal expression of the people as sovereign was via the "town hall meeting," or a "direct democracy." However, it was recognized that in any sizable society this would be virtually impossible to implement. The "compromise" was "the republic," or democratic representative governance, which is what the Constitution sought to establish in 1787. Initially, the only "popular representation" at the federal level was via the House. The Senate was elected via State Legislatures. The President was elected via the Electoral College. Nor did the Supreme Court possess the same power they hold today, without the power of judicial review for constitutionality, and with a relatively small and limited jurisdiction. IMO, "original intent" means three branches with separate powers, but NOT necessarily "equal powers." Only Congress holds the political power to dismiss others from public offices, which is the expression of the sovereignty of the people themselves. I thought that might have been better explained by the "Constitutional scholars."
The other point, I thought deserved more attention, was the "power of the purse" and Trump's aborgation of that power by suspending the Ukraine funding without the approval of Congress. The power to tax and direct funding is probably the most important of Congressional powers. The funding had been cleared both by the Congressional vote itself and the subsequent DoD clearance, which presumably would have negated a separate Executive Branch suspension. The timeline of events indicates that there was no formal notification given to Congress on the suspension, and no particular reason given to the other departments of the Executive Branch regarding the rationale for the suspension other than "it's a Presidential order." In fact, I believe that the "legality" of the Presidential order was still under review at the time the suspension was lifted. We still have no clear explanation from the White House regarding why the aid was suspended or why the suspension was lifted? We deserve more than "it was a perfect phone call."
And, I'd note that stronger powers for the Executive is NOT a conservative principle in the realm of liberal democracy, which is why many "conservatives" have left the Republican Party, to be substituted by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

 

Trump is challenging the Congressional "power of the purse," perhaps the most fundamental of Congressional powers. For that reason alone, he must be impeached, convicted and removed from office.

 

Good luck with that.
President 'challenge" the "power of the purse" all the time.

 

And, if they're allowed to get away with it, that's the fault of Congress in not protecting its Constitutional powers. The President is merely an agent of the sovereignty of the people, as represented in Congress. The Republican Party has, IMO, deserted its conservatism in favor of fascism, authoritative Big Government.

 

Oh goody! A brand new Trumpist conspiracy theory. I haven't heard them come out with a new one in a looong time. Something like... two hours.... They appear to be getting sluggish. Those Russian fake news production folk need to pick up the pace, don't you think? Did they think that conspiracy buffs can make it that long without their conspiracy porn?

 

Does a presidential veto of a spending bill "challenge" the power of the purse?

 

Google doesn't have a translation for word salad yet... ???

 

And yet... we have Trump. A nightmare, but irrelevant to this thread.

 

Does anyone know what he is trying to say?

 

Oh... and it's going to get much worse for Trump supporters. Believe you me. Much much worse.

 

None of my business who a President has consensual sex with. It's a private matter and not my call to say if it's "okay" or not.

On the other hand, a President abusing power to attempt to perpetuate him or herself in power is my business..

 

Absolutely. It's part of the "checks and balances." But, with sufficient votes, Congress wins.

 

You said:

Trump is challenging the Congressional "power of the purse," perhaps the most fundamental of Congressional powers. For that reason alone, he must be impeached, convicted and removed from office.

So... the President cannot veto a spending bill without challenging the power of the purse and thus committing an impeachable offense?
The President must be impeached for doing so?

 

Seems like a threat?

You going to make a list of trump supporters Democrats are going to punish?

 

The Trump/Republican position on impeachment reminds me of the famous passages in "Catch 22," wherein the new Squadron Commander, Major Major Major, announces a new "open door policy" in order to offer fair and transparent information to the members of the squadron. Anyone, at anytime may see the Major to voice their complaints or ask about squadron policy (similar to wanting a transparent impeachment trial, with first person witnesses of fact), but only when Major Major Major isn't there (the prohibition against replying to Congressional subpoenas).
Thus does life imitate art.

 

Pure hogwash. Trump in no way challenged the House's "power of the purse." In normal circumstances if the president sends aid that congress has authorized down a rat hole, that would be highly negative..... but even that is not impeachable.

 

Don't know. It appears to be to correct an election Democrats weren't smart enough to win ,,,,,,,,
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
BREAKING: In CNN interview this a.m., Clinton consultant Paul Begala said he met privately w Nancy Pelosi right after the Dems won the House in 2018 to discuss impeaching President Trump. Begala also said Dems will have to keep impeaching Trump if he's not removed & is reelected

So, cut the games.