Would you vote to impeach? Would you to remove?

What's wrong, not interested in the truth anymore?

 

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
"The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information."

 

^^^ good stuff

 

You mean to tell me that beating Hillary wasn't a high crime? Oh dear.

 

Are you not contradicting yourself? You apparently think there are grounds for "gross incompetence" and "pervasive neglect of duty." You also say "I would not ..., based on what I know now, vote to remove him." You seem to want it both ways. That is very much a Trump tactic. Say one thing. Then take it back with the next statement.

It is a ludicrous, transparent tactic that makes the user look like a fool who lacks core beliefs.

"Gross incompetence" and "pervasive neglect of duty" would not persuade you to remove the President? I am wondering what the hell would.

In addition, it appears as though Trump committed a crime. His lawyer, Giuliani, told us that Trump committed obstruction of justice, a felony.

Giuliani told Hannity in so many words that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.

"(Trump) fired Comey because Comey would not, among to other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation. He's entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that. And he couldn't get that. So he fired him. And then he said, 'I'm free of (these) guys.'"

Special counsel Robert Mueller, who inherited the investigation Comey began, has been asking witnesses about possible obstruction of justice tied to the Comey firing. Giuliani's explanation that Trump fired Comey because the then FBI director was unable to provide him ironclad assurances that he wasn't a target of an ongoing investigation would indicate obstruction.

So, Trump could be guilty of "gross incompetence" and "pervasive neglect of duty" and guilty of a felony, but you would not remove him???

Okay, well, have it your way. That makes about as much sense as anything coming from Trump and Giuliani lately. Has truth and reality suddenly disappeared when it comes to Trump and his diminishing number of fans?

 

what are you guys impeaching for again? I missed where presidents get impeached because you dont like the lawful election results. I keep asking but no one answers. Please cite the crime for impeachment very specifically for which you speak.

 

Well- the truth has obviously eluded you, so the statement is accurate.
You have to be able to recognize a dung beetle at work for what it is- and not explain it as a bug playing marbles.

Well, I'm sure you can from your standpoint. it appears that your minds and a cheese grater seem to have a lot in common, shredding most everything without discrimination. .

But didn't I just invite you to share the Trump-positives you recognize? Did you ignore that, pretend is wasn't there, or just haven't figured out how to fit it into the shredder yet?

 

Shredding conservotopian cheddar is similar to using a grater, yes.

 

Well- truth and hard facts, like blocks of cheese can be impossible to swallow and digest for the left. Shredding it into unrecognizable fodder allows a way to bypass the problem. You see, we do understand what you are doing over there. We hope someday you will too.

 

It's apparent that for all your bluster about the pursuit of truth you have no real interest in it, certainly not with regard to this matter. You said borat understands what happened and you understand what happened.........here's your chance to state your case.

Here's borat's position......which you implied you agree with.

"When a senior federal judge tells you that it's witch hunt based on lies, power grab and utter disregard for rules and the bounds of the mandate, you better pay attention."

Do you agree?

 

You needn't be so unpleasant.
Maybe I am talking out of both sides of my mouth because you still have that word 'could' sitting all over all of these charges. Its sitting in your sentence not just mine. I openly admit I am on the fence here. Its bad, its real bad, but is it worse than using up the resources, time and political capital of three branches of government, in a divisive trial the purpose of which is to nullify the effects of a national election?

While I do believe that the constitution anticipates a broad range of dereliction or malfeasance, nobody has structured an a reasoned and cogent argument for impeachment based on those sorts of charges with respect to Trump. I am waiting to hear one. So far we have only concentrated on the high crime's Mueller is investigating , and not the 'misdemeanors' apparent in chaotic way in which he runs his office, mismanages the staff, and undermines any effective administration of duties. Instead, we seem to expect the 25th amendment has a solution for gross incompetence, when we don't even have a working medical diagnosis or any legal process to force one.

That means we really only have a semi-solid case of obstruction, but no measure of the impact of that obstruction on the institution. He sure has tried to bully, coerce and intimidate the FBI, the Justice Department and the special counsel. But unlike Nixon's administration, they are not really caving and as long as they don't, our urgency to remove, is lessened. Sessions recused. and Rosenstein is refusing to crack. Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury for his role in the Watergate. Comey stood up to Trump, . Patrick Gray under Nixon shredded the evidence in Howard Hunt's safe.

Ironically, its the lack of any respect for Trump, among subordinates that buys us time. As Comey says real and total corruption of these huge agencies is far less likely now than it was in Nixons day, there are a lot more safeguards, and professionals that have worked under them, tend to respect those safeguards

I am guilty of seeming indecisive on this issue because I am! Maybe that is why I am asking for others opinions.

 

I'd vote no. I don't think embarrassing an over-confident, entitled Hillary Clinton and her slobbering sycophants is an impeachable offense.

 

I think this is where i am
Based on current public information i would not vote to remove, but there may be more explicit not yet public information about conspiracy with russia

That said, it seems thatbmany crimes have been committed by those around trump and these should be identified and prosecuted

 

A couple of things about that. First, I think you are overstating the resources required for the investigation. There is no evidence any branch of the government is burdened by it. The House investigation is closed, though a few extremists are still harassing Rosenstein over documents they have no right to see. It isn't like the legislative calendar in Congress is full. The courts can certainly handle of few hearings. The executive, all they need to do is issue a statement saying, "We will have no comment on the ongoing investigation until Special Counsel Mueller issues his report." After all, Don has nothing to hide (wink).
Second, is there really any more important matter to settle than whether the Drumpf campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence a presidential election? How can things in this country ever get back to normal business, or as close as we can come given the Buffoon-in-Chief is prez, until questions surrounding the campaign are answered?

 

So you are saying that our Democracy is hanging on by a thin thread.

I agree

 

I separate the current Congressional investigations and Mueller's from what we are contemplating in this thread. I agree that business can get done now, if Trump was not so obsessed with every detail coming from Mueller or Cnn or Fox.

Impeachment hearings are normally not closed. the entire country, including both the administration and Congress ends up fixated. No legislative initiative gets much steam, and half the West Wing and Cabinet are spending as much time with lawyers, planning defensive strategy and preparing to testify, as they ever do on the rest of their work. The federal courts are less impacted but there are additional hearing and cases sitting on those dockets as motions and hearings are scheduled, then there is the theater over which the Chief justice has to preside. It sure as hell impeded the Clinton administration and the Nixon administration from getting anything done during the process!

Now I will admit that you can't be blamed if you don't see any difference in this administration, with this Congress. They haven't being doing anything anyway!

 

Once again you ignore what questions have been posed to you and come with your own little ploys. Bad form- go back and answer.To be sure you remember what you are ignoring, let's re-state it:
So tell us Lee- what are the things you like most about our president? The characteristics or accomplishments that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?
We know you are hiding them for fear of being attacked by the hate police. But be bold, step up and tell us.

Perhaps the all-time record low for black unemployment that has just been reached?
The remarkable low unemployment levels now that apply to all ethnic groups?
The fact he obliterated the entrenched Clinton Cartel on a shoestring budget from an underdog position?
The unprecedented breakthrough in the 68 year old Korean war?
The soon to be longest economic boom in history?
The fact that even CNN is fessing up, and has somehow finally found the courage to say "Yes- Trump gets credit for the economy"?
The way he pledges to work for all Americans- even you? How can you doubt the character of a man who can pledge that?

How about it- are you going to rate all these things as fake, or man up and give credit where credit is due?

Now back to your ploy.
I have yet to find a complete transcript of the judge's remarks, which means statements known so far are judged simply on what they say individually. I'm sure that means nothing to you, but for clarity- I remind you and other readers of it.

The exact words of Borat's post may be a quote or may be a paraphrase on the judge's message, but that doesn't matter. The clear implications match what I am aware of.
Yes, such a message should indeed be cause for attention. It points out the judge sees your hidden agenda and abuses, and you are at risk.

The quotes I have heard from Judge Ellis's statements support the accusations of lying, of disregard for law and process, for exceeding authority of the mandate- and for basically trying to use the power they had abusively to conduct a witch hunt. Such conduct is consistent with a variety of offenses- and inconsistent with the duties of office. Extremely so. The only surprise is the judge has the backbone to confront the feds with it.

You don't find it offensive because it's not aimed at you. I don't think you are wise enough to realize that giving people the power to do such things poses great threat to everyone- and that will include you when it's convenient for people with that power to do so. The double standard is really no standard at all. It's corruption on any level- including personal, and sooner or later it will come back and bite you.

Now we both know you will grease up this weasel and try to slip it past the parameters of truth to turn it into something else- but, that simply isn't going to change a thing.

Honorable people don't adjust their character like you adjust the Venetian blinds, to keep things you don't want to see in the dark. They see what is going on.
The only people you fool are fools themselves.

 

Obama lied a bunch of times too, and those lies he used to get elected.

 

Obama's lie to get reelected was that "Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run" when the truth was Al Qaeda was growing, getting stronger and more dangerous under Obama and was morphing into other groups like Obama's "JV Team" ISIS.

Al Qaeda was on the run under Obama, running all over the Middle East and North Africa.

 

Yep

'I, Barack Hussein Obama, the smartest president to have ever graced America, have defeated Muslim extremism. You're welcome. now we can get on to the business of you showing your appreciation by reelecting me'

Which is the reason they so desperately tried to downplay the Benghazi terrorist attack -- which occurred less than a month before the election -- as a spontaneous protest over some movie that had been on YouTube for six months.

the condescending scumbags think Americans are idiots. which is understandable, considering their constituents

 

That's exactly why the Obama White House conducted a Benghazi cover up by blaming a You Tube video for two weeks.

Obama's reelection platform was that Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run.

 

Thank you.

 

The idiots of the traitorous far right are condescending to real Americans, who now know who the enemy is of America.

 

I don't have to. Trump's lawyer did it for me. Giuliani told Hannity in so many words that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.

"(Trump) fired Comey because Comey would not, among to other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation. He's entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that. And he couldn't get that. So he fired him. And then he said, 'I'm free of (these) guys.'"

Special counsel Robert Mueller, who inherited the investigation Comey began, has been asking witnesses about possible obstruction of justice tied to the Comey firing. Giuliani's explanation that Trump fired Comey because the then FBI director was unable to provide him ironclad assurances that he wasn't a target of an ongoing investigation would indicate obstruction.

The Cohen/Daniels/payoff thing is just politically stupid and causes Americans to conclude that their President is amoral. There might be a violation of federal election laws. Giuliani provided testimony to Mueller that Trump committed a federal crime made worse by the fact that Giuliani is one of Trump's lawyers.

Want more? I got more.

Those familiar with the June 2016 meeting knew that Veselnitskaya and the three other Russians in the room with Trump's high ranking campaign officials were agents of the Kremlin. How did we know? Junior's friend, the one who arranged the meeting, one Rob Goldstone, told Junior they were operatives of the Russian government.

Goldstone's email said, "The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

It is quite clear that key members of Trump's campaign team were eager to collaborate with the Kremlin. "If it's what you say I love it," Junior said in a reply to Goldstone.

They met at Trump's home, Trump Tower. Trump played a key role in the ludicrous attempt to provide cover for the meeting. His son, son-in-law, and campaign manager attended the meeting with the four Russian agents. Trump's people are meeting with operatives of a hostile foreign power at his home.

Trump promised during a June 7, 2016, campaign appearance that he would soon give a speech outlining “all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.” Trump’s remarks took place just hours after the Trump Tower meeting.

No lawyer in his right mind would argue Trump knew nothing about the meeting. Well, perhaps they could argue that Trump suffers from schizophrenia or a bipolar disorder. There does seem to be some indications of a mental problem.

BTW, that evidence is barely scratching the surface.

 

so you cant cite a single crime but want to impeach. Thats what I figured.