Pelosi lodging threats?

So why did Democrats not allege any crimes?

 

name one crime, specifically... add any proof/evidence of alleged crime...

then we'll have something to discuss...

until then, it's all partisan, bogus bs...

and the whole world knows this...

'cept for those few maniacal whackos hellbent on destroying the good old 'us of a'...

 

Contempt of Congress is a joke.. I mean it's not like it hasn't happened on multiple occasions, Take Lois Lerner for example! She suffered nothing from the act, because team democrat decided to claim she invoked the fifth, when in reality she did not

Debate and discussion

Then again, the leftist organization will lie and bend all the rules to shield one of their own ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

By broad generalities, Pelosi has created a situation where Democrats have almost unlimited latitude to pursue Trump on many areas. The show has just begun.

 

"By broad generalities" , they mean wishful thinking

 

That didn't answer the question so here I'll give you a hint. The Democrats did not allege any crimes in the AoI because there were no crimes to allege.

 

Oh please. Obstruction of Congress is a crime. Bribery is a crime. Extortion is a crime. These have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry if you missed it. Tune off of FOX.

 

no, they have not...

please provide all evidentiary proof...

other than partisan hearsay testimony...

'til then...

peace out...

 

An opinion held by bi partisan previous administrations OLC, not just the current administration

 

If he's removed from office by conviction on impeachment and refuses to leave? Hahaha...THAT would mean the end of Constitutional government, as would your other idea about the Supreme Court overruling a House impeachment. If he actually refused to leave, I suspect the VP would have him evicted, and no one in the Executive Branch could legally follow his orders.
The Constitution very clearly says "the House has the sole power of impeachment," with the Senate holding the "sole power to try an impeachment." On the DoJ legal opinion, it is certainly NOT statute law and could be challenged, with the Court then ruling and holding the power to overturn the policy, if they so ruled. Presumably, U.S. Attorney's follow DoJ guidelines on indictments and aren't guided by "what they dream up." And, of course, the idea that the current impeachment is unconstitutional is absurd. I would expect the violation of statute law will also come up during the trial (the Impoundment Control Act) as part of both the abuse of power charge and the obstruction of Congress charge.

As far as I know, there have been three opinions written in the last 50 years. Two, I believe, were written by Democrats; one by a Republican. The "Republican" opinion was written at the request of Ken Starr, during the Clinton impeachment, by a Constitutional scholar, a professor at the University of Illinois. He argued that a president could be indicted. I think the present DoJ policy dates to an OLC opinion written by a Clinton appointee, who went on to become a Federal Judge on the D.C. Court. Haven't had an opportunity to read the opinion of the Illinois professor, but I see nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit an indictment. My impression is that until Republicans adopted the "unitary presidency" theory, under Bush Junior, it was the Democrats who favored a powerful Executive, dating back to Wilson.

 

Sure. OK. I'm sure they must be....
"Broad generalities" translation...we have nothing so we will claim "broad generalities".

 

Not threats. Bluster and pandoring. Lets not get undergarments all in a twist. Stay calm and vote Trump 2020.

 

And he joins clinton. So do dems dislike Clinton for being impeached? Truth is impeachment has no significance unless there is also removal.

Didn't keep Clinton from serving his second term. Indeed it helped the dems.

 

Feel free to check on when Clinton was impeached.

 

Long before he left office, it's mainly symbolic. In this case, an embarrassment to our nation, thanks to Dems with impeachment in mind, from the moment he won.

 

So, now you realize it was his second term. OK. It "helped Democrats" ? How so? If you may recall his successor was a Republican much to the regret of the world because he used flat out lies to justify a war that is still going on.

 

Just stop right there with the strawman
And furthermore, I am not whom you are quoting when you say "helped Democrats" Ask the poster who said it.

As for the rest, I get it....Bush bad, make all war.

 

And how did Obama emptying Guantanomo bay go?

 

You responded for the other. I await a complete response.
I glad that you finally get it Bush bad, make all war. What a different middle east and world today without that ill advised war. Do you realize that with the money lost so far on that war the US could already be green?

 

Uhmm, how many airstrikes did Obummer carry out, around Congress? Hint, North of 2K.

You want to take a trip down memory lane? I abhorred Bush.

 

I too am disappointed that Obama was unable to make lemonade out of all the lemons given him. I had higher hopes.

 

How many airstrikes has President Trump gone around Congress with, at this point? He would need around a thousand to keep up with the warmongering Obama.

 

I know you're shooting for two wrongs make a right but it just isn't true, defend your guy.

 

those are not threats, those are facts - the People will vote Trump out if the Senate gives Trump a mulligan

never before has a President been impeached for asking a foreign government to help them win the next election while holding up funds for their defense already approved by Congress

impeachment was bi-parisian, independents and democrats voted to impeach, only republicans said, yeah, so,he did it, still not gonna impeach

 

Trump has already been impeached, where you been