Articles of Impeachment -- comment

None of that changes the fact that Obama refused to cooperate with Congress on multiple occasions, does it?

 

Trump has the capability (not legal right) to ignore Congress, and Congress has the capabilty AND legal right to impeach him for that..

And here we are..

 

No. And he could have been impeached for it. Doesn't forgive Trump - and I sure don't want a socialist President like Warren being able to ignore Congress, do you? Cause what you are claiming is for her to have that authority.

 

You are correct.

Now, why did the Dems skip the part where they sent it to the courts in order to try and force Trump to cooperate?

I know why. Do you know why?

 

Bingo. So now you understand that the Dems are trying to impeach Trump for doing something once, that Obama actually did multiple times.

Yes, I would want Warren to be able to ignore Congress, as that would be her legal right. The courts would then decide if there was a compelling enough legal justification for ordering her to cooperate with Congress.

That's how that should work for EVERY sitting President. It's not a President's "authority" to ignore Congress, it is a President's right to ignore Congress. If Congress doesn't like it, they can take it to court, and tell it to the judge(s). This is called "due process".

It didn't work that way this time though. The Dems decision to skip over the courts, and go straight to impeachment, is unprecedented.

Do you know why the Dems skipped over the courts, and decided not to bother with due process? I know why.

 

Correct. The impeachment articles are simply "orangeman bad" mixed in with a few legal phrases.

 

I read this and I think of all the lost opportunities we had to impeach FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Obama, etc. All of them did far worse things than Trump, but the Republicans chose to let it go.

We were fools.

 

Really? Nobody is curious?

I've offered to tell you why the Dems skipped over the courts as they clamored for impeachment.

I really do know why. Want me to tell you why? Isn't the curiosity killing you?

 

See the Part in RED?

The GOP House did the Same thing to Clinton in 1998.

To Wit:

A Partisan House Impeachment with ZERO Chance of Senate Conviction.

As far as the rest of your post?

"Opinions" DIFFER, and you are certainly entitled to express yours.

 

None of the charges have any evidence whatsoever to support them. Even if some were half way true they wouldn't be grounds for impeachment. Then Nadler's icing on his sponge cake was the insinuation of collusion with Russia (or he might have been referring to the joke about Hillary's emails Trump made campaigning) and the implication that Mueller found him guilty of something. For another on one can obstruct justice by refusing congressional subpoenas.

 

No, I am saying Articles of Impeachment ought to be more than a comedic nightclub act.

 

I still disagree with your premise that they skipped that part... they've gotten NOTHING but successful rulings, but with Trump appealing everything, nothing will get solved in time to remove this National Security threat to our country.

Even the SCOTUS is taking up the 3 Trump cases, but with no possible resolution until June 2020.... Just too long...

 

Sort of fitting though, when you stop to think about who they are impeaching...

 

They got ZERO successful rulings on forcing impeachment witnesses to testify, because you don't get successful rulings when you don't even bother taking it to court.

Do you want to know why they didn't take any of it to court? I know why.

 

Were you saying that when b- Rock did it ? I highly doubt it !

 

Just curious...

If you were on trial for an alleged crime, and the DA decided to skip over the trial, and throw you in right into jail, and the reason he gave was "going through the courts would just take too long", would you be cool with that?

 

Did anyone notice the articles of impeachment don’t mention any specific crime?

Basically, they say Trump pissed off Congress.

 

Trump can deny congress all day. That’s not a crime. It’s only when Trump defies a court ruling to comply with congress when he gets into trouble.

 

Nope, no time for due process. It takes too long. We need to impeach him now, daddy!

 

I noticed, and I know why there's no specific crimes mentioned.

Anybody want me to tell them why?

 

Exactly.

Only THEN, will we find out out Roberts intends to portray himself as a Pro-Trump STOOGE.

 

First of all, I watched Trump make that remark and he wasn't smiling. It was delivered more as a specific signal...but, granted, that's a personal opinion. Mueller wasn't looking for "collusion." He was looking for conspiracy between the Russians and members of the Trump campaign. Trump personally wasn't a "target" of the investigation until he fired Comey and told the world he did it to stop the Russian investigation (and yes...he back-tracked on that as on many other things). It was Trump appointee Rosenstein, who as Acting AG, appointed Mueller and added to Mueller's charge the part about a possible Presidential obstruction of justice. Mueller confirmed the intelligence agencies finding of Russian interference and indicted a number of Russians. He failed to find "conspiracy" between any member of the Trump campaign and the Russians rising to the level of evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a conclusion that doesn't mean exoneration, but exactly what it says...evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And, it's not a closed case. Horowitz investigated parts of the FBI investigation; Barr and Durham are investigating other parts, as is the Federal Attorney for the Southern District of New York and, perhaps, other State and Local authorities as well. Gates, Flynn and Stone are still to be sentenced and there is a possibility they may have additional information to give to federal prosecutors. IOW, there are still numerous open legal issues, wherein additional evidence may or may not be found. On obstruction, Mueller's finding was somewhat different. Although I am not aware that Mueller was under ANY deadline to complete his report, he seems in Part 2 of the report, to be documenting evidence of obstruction found up until the writing of the report itself. He states that no conclusion was reached at all. In part, that was because of his lack of ability to question the President directly (but doesn't explain why he didn't pursue that course) and the fruitlessness of continuing to pursue obstruction in light of the DoJ policy regarding not indicting a sitting president. So...he passed the buck to his boss, AG Barr, without any decisive recommendation at all. Barr then argued there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction, with or without the DoJ policy. Mueller did not disagree, but left the impression that there were two possible paths to BOTH additional investigation and possible indictment: 1) discarding the DoJ policy on non-indictment (which would be in Barr's power) and/or 2) the Congressional impeachment power.
Finally, the Constitution gives broad latitude to Congress on its impeachment powers. There are few details in the Constitution. Impeachment and Conviction on Impeachment are two separate actions, the first in the House, the second in the Senate. Each chamber is left to conduct impeachment according to its own rules, which may be related to the federal rules of evidence or not. Due process may apply or not. It's left entirely to each Congressional chamber.
The key charges are 1) abuse of power and 2) obstruction of Congress. The first deals with the Ukrainian tel-con and the withholding of Congressional appropriations without formal notice or cause. The second is related to the failure of the Executive Branch to cooperate with Congress in its investigation of the first.
So what's your problem?

 

And I'm equally curious when you realized that analogy was completely ridiculous, but decided to forge on anyway??

I'm guessing pretty early...

 

It's possible we find out a LOT sooner than next June how Roberts intends to portray himself...

 

Historically, these Democrats are going to look like complete scumbags. I welcome them to continue as it exposes who they really are.

Nancy sealed the deal the other night when she said they have been working on Impeachment for 200+ days, just we previously claimed and always knew.