The GOP Senators are the Cowards of the Country IMO!

Citizen rights are granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not remove those rights during impeachment. However, impeachment is a political process and a those rights do not really apply because it is only a removal from office.

The problem is that unless it is a fair process in both the house and senate, the whole process becomes meaningless. It started out meaningless and it ended the same way.

In short, the democrats in the house drank the Cool Aide and then they called the republican senators cowards for not drinking the same Cool Aide.

 

[

Thst was some quality rebuttal, ...if you were on the Springer show

Show where in the constitution the congress has the power to override executive privilege

 

Well said. I have nothing to add.

 

That is not the way the Constitution works. If the Constitution grants a right, it can only be removed, if the Constitution says it is removed or by due process. It does not have to say it is retained. It is retained because it was not removed.

 

This post belongs in a dumpster. Cool Aide, is that what this is all about? The trial was about a corrupt president attempting to extort a political favor from a weaker country. The impeachment was done in accordance with the Constitution using Congressional rules written by Republicans the in the majority.

Senators like Susan Collins, harboring the impossibly naive belief that little Donnie learned his lesson and will never do it again, are in for a surprise. Well, Susan, he seems to have missed the lesson. He uncorked a stream of vulgar language in front of his Republican cheering fans in the East Room. Then, in a National Prayer breakfast, he unleashed a fusillade of attacks on political opponents.

Trump's nothing more than a disgusting, irreligious, thug bully.

 

The house had ample opportunity to subpoena witnesses and take it court, if necessary. They would not allow witnesses that the defense wanted. The whole thing started as a sham and ended as a sham. The republican senators refused to drink the same Cool Aide.

I agree. I did not vote for Trump or Hilary because neither was worth my vote. However, the democrats are no better than Trump. The whole place is a cesspool.

 

The only thing I read from you are misconceptions and failures to support anything you post with actual facts, not to mention diversions.

No one said it does. Your misconceptions are just that. The House overrode nothing while exercising its power to impeach.

That's also correct but again, the House conducted its power to impeach within the constraints of the Constitution. You are not posting anything that means anything. What is your point, if you actually have one?

It is popularly accepted to be constitutional because SCOTUS said so. It is found nowhere in the Constitution. If you believe it is please cite the exact clause.

The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution by its own mandate (Article VI Paragraph 2) and it grants the House the power to impeach the President. Executive Privilege is found nowhere in the Constitution and "laws" or theories cannot override the Supreme Law of the Land because they are subordinate to the Constitution and must be in compliance or they are null and void from inception.

The power granted to the House to impeach the President is in black and white, exclusive and indisputable and not subject to Article III. In this case the President did not even formally dispute anything, he simply obstructed the House's power to impeach. You keep trying to introduce the President's alleged power of Executive Privilege to override the Constitution but that's also a phantom because he never even formally challenged the House using that alleged power. What he did was commit obstruction, plain and simple.

So far everything you posted is not only unsupported by anything but does not even address the facts I posted. You can't refute facts with worthless hot air.

 

The Constitution grants no one any rights. No piece of paper can grant rights, they are inherent and unimpeachable. Read the Declaration of Independence.

 

As always, great post.

I think if you look back at both Trump and Clinton impeachments, there is one other aspect: Was it wrong what both of them did? Absolutely. The congress people who protected them knew it was wrong, but they protected their power over doing the right thing. I am a professor. If I did with one of my students what Clinton did with Monica in the WH, I'd be fired, and rightly so. The Dems back then would have been better off not protecting Clinton, that would have probably spared us Hillary. The Dems would be much better off now.

This is similar to the GOP Senators protecting Trump. They ALL know what he did was wrong, and that they would be outraged should a Dem president do a similar thing. They know it is a shallow victory that may not paint them in a good light in the history books.

With that said, I have stated before that I was against impeachment, rather have the voters throw Trump out. Censure, however, would have been the right thing to do. Something had to be done to send the message to Trump that he is not above the law. With the way impeachment went, I fear that the opposite message was sent by the GOP Senators.

 

Check the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence is not a binding document.

Possibly, the Bill of Rights, guarantees our rights rather than grants them. But, I am not generally into parsing of words.

 

That may be.
However that does not mean they can get executive witnesses without a judge to compell them, and therefore no abuse of congress, which was rightly shot down in the senate trial.

Popular ? Foolishness.
Upheld by SCOTUS as constitutional and therefore law of the land. Deal with it.

Judged constitutional by the SCOTUS and therefore supreme law of the land.
Or, are you asserting that the supreme court has no authority to do so?

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, so you lose.

 

Yes, protects existing rights. None were granted.
The poster just felt the need to assert this as if nobody else knew

 

Show me where he doesn't.

Show me where in the constitution the House has the power to override executive privilege.
The abuse of power charge is meaningless as the House has no authority to demand this of the executive without a judicial order.



.

 

The constitution grants no rights. You have to show where they have been taken.

And your silly assertion of Obstruction of Congress is meaningless as the Congress has no power to override executive privilege without judicial order. And this charge was properly shot down at trial

 

The Bill of Rights grants no rights. I referred you to the Declaration of Independence for concept of rights.

To be more accurate the Bill of Rights protects all individual rights. It’s extremely important to understand the concept, wording is critical, especially in law which is what the Constitution is.

 

What we need is a viable third party to challenged the establishment or the two major parties. Both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors, etc. That's where they get their tens of millions of dollars to run their campaigns and organizations.

But a viable third party will never happen. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws as a mutual protection act.If there is one thing both major totally agree on is that no viable third party will ever rise. They want to keep their monopoly on our election system and have been very good at doing so since 1856.

 

The constitution grants no rights to anyone.
You have to show where these rights are removed, as per your assertion.

Also you have to show that the House has the power to override executive privilege without judicial order, which it does not, and which blows your silly obstruction of congress charge out of the water, which the senate reaffirmed

 

Best part is, the 95+% of the voters run around and parrot the line of "not viable", scripted for them by the parties.

 

We can play with words until the cows come home, but the Bill of Rights contain our rights. I don't really care where they came from over two hundred years ago. They are there and that is what counts.

 

He was impeached by a politically partisan kangaroo court and was acquitted by another one. Welcome to politics.

 

What short term consequence will there be? Do you think the Dems can take control of the Senate due to the Repubs duplicity? Cuz otherwise, if they keep the majority, McTreason will be able to frustrate the will of the people with respect to a variety of issues.

 

I totally agree. With Bill Clinton 79% of all Americans agreed that he committed perjury and 53% said he obstructed justice, yet only 40% were in favor of impeachment and removal.

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/11/poll/

Way below the 60% needed from all Americans as was the case in favor of Nixon's removal. With Trump it was 48% of all Americans who said he used Ukraine to dig up dirt or a quid pro quo, 46% on the obstruction of congress. 43% for removal. Questions 21, 22, 43.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/73jqd6u5mv/econTabReport.pdf

The strangest part of all of this is Bill Clinton's approval rating rose from 8 points from beginning to the end of his impeachment process and trial, Trump's have risen 5 points since 13 Nov to the end of his trial. I think what both of these have in common is both were one party instigated and the public wanted elections to decide whether one or the other should be removed from office. Yes, a censure would have been the right way to go. In fact that is what the Democrats tried to convince the Republicans to do with Bill Clinton and they had said they would vote for the censure.

 

That assertion is not supported by the facts. But I know how fond you are of false equivalences.