would love for Trump to tell nancy on election night "You're Fired" after winning reelection and taking back the houseZemira said:
I was flipping channels earlier and stopped on Foxnews for a few minutes (normally avoid the cable news channels).
I'm not sure who the woman was but she was talking about Trump's reality TV experience. She implied that giving Trump the stage for impeachment with the MSM documenting every move of one of the people who excelled in reality TV is absolutely stupid. Basically her gist was giving a free reality TV show to one of the largest reality TV stars is suicide by the Democrats.
Dear Cote/Dear VintsCromagnum said:
I love this ****
BenFiasco14 said:richardag said:There was a good argument concerning this on Ingram's show between Saul Weismann(??? Not sure of the name/spelling) and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz argued there had to be a crime and cited a case concerning President Alexander Hamilton. Not sure what is correct, above my pay grade.aggiehawg said:That is the language used in the Constitution but there is no definition of those terms within the Constitution. It is a term of art, not a defined legal term. Thus, nothing for a court of law to parse nor render judgment.jblaschke said:OK, this is something I don't understand. Doesn't impeachment have to be based on high crimes and misdemeanors?aggiehawg said:No. The premise is wrong because impeachment is a political not a legal process. No court should and hopefully would not even entertain such a suit.oysterbayAG said:
If the Dems in the House vote to start an Impeachment Inquiry, I think Trump will immediately file a law suit to stop it based on the Constitution not allowing impeachment for political reasons. There must be a real crime !
Consequently, which types of behavior constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever a majority of the House says they are. It is then incumbent upon the Senate to decide whether such behavior warrants removal from office and in a separate determination, whether a ban from any future federal office should be imposed.
Quote:
Because impeachment is "a NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men," Hamilton continues, it was a power proper to vest in "the representatives of the nation themselves." The "model from which the idea of this institution has institution has been borrowed pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it." Hamilton noted that several state constitutions followed that same model of dividing the impeachment power between the two houses of the legislature. He then explicitly linked institutional arrangement to constitutional function: the power of impeachment is to serve "as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government." Hamilton cinches the point with a rhetorical question, to which he assumes the answer is obvious: "Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?" Hamilton reiterated the point for emphasis in The Federalist No. 66, referring to "the powers relating to impeachments" being, "as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that [legislative] body upon the encroachments of the executive."
You DO realize he wasn't question the claim about a crime being needed.richardag said:BenFiasco14 said:richardag said:There was a good argument concerning this on Ingram's show between Saul Weismann(??? Not sure of the name/spelling) and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz argued there had to be a crime and cited a case concerning President Alexander Hamilton. Not sure what is correct, above my pay grade.aggiehawg said:That is the language used in the Constitution but there is no definition of those terms within the Constitution. It is a term of art, not a defined legal term. Thus, nothing for a court of law to parse nor render judgment.jblaschke said:OK, this is something I don't understand. Doesn't impeachment have to be based on high crimes and misdemeanors?aggiehawg said:No. The premise is wrong because impeachment is a political not a legal process. No court should and hopefully would not even entertain such a suit.oysterbayAG said:
If the Dems in the House vote to start an Impeachment Inquiry, I think Trump will immediately file a law suit to stop it based on the Constitution not allowing impeachment for political reasons. There must be a real crime !
Consequently, which types of behavior constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever a majority of the House says they are. It is then incumbent upon the Senate to decide whether such behavior warrants removal from office and in a separate determination, whether a ban from any future federal office should be imposed.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/15/alexander-hamilton-the-federalist-and-the-power-of-impeachment/Quote:
Because impeachment is "a NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men," Hamilton continues, it was a power proper to vest in "the representatives of the nation themselves." The "model from which the idea of this institution has institution has been borrowed pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it." Hamilton noted that several state constitutions followed that same model of dividing the impeachment power between the two houses of the legislature. He then explicitly linked institutional arrangement to constitutional function: the power of impeachment is to serve "as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government." Hamilton cinches the point with a rhetorical question, to which he assumes the answer is obvious: "Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?" Hamilton reiterated the point for emphasis in The Federalist No. 66, referring to "the powers relating to impeachments" being, "as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that [legislative] body upon the encroachments of the executive."
The argument is if impeachment becomes a political procedure then the US Government becomes more a parliamentary form form of government. Example is ongoing in the UK with Boris needing votes of confidence, similar to Australia etc,
Again above my pay grade.
ETA: Dershowitz brought up adultery involving Hamilton which was a crime. It was not considered a high crime but a low crime. I didn't fully understand Dershowitz's point.
LOL. Thanks for the assist here.Quote:
You DO realize he wasn't question the claim about a crime being needed.
He was wondering when the **** Alexander Hamilton was ever President...
Quote:
Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.
The behavior of politicians and idiots on social media is not, in my opinion, indicative of the "the country". If that behavior was, Trump wouldn't be president and the liberals would hold both the House and the Senate and Kavanaugh wouldn't be on the SCOTUS.BenFiasco14 said:
Impeachment on this is gonna tear the country apart worse than the Kavanaugh stuff. Ugh. Just when you think it couldn't get any uglier
And re the Alexander Hamilton thing, richardag or whoever posted that, I wasn't disputing what Hamilton was talking about, I was just wondering where the President part came from, as he wasn't a potus
It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.
They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.
Rapier108 said:It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.
They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.
Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.
Rapier108 said:It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.
They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.
Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.
Tulsi is the most centrist of them all right now and that is pretty ****ing scary.c-jags said:Rapier108 said:It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.
They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.
Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.
While I have more than a few things against Tulsi, I appreciate her staying out of this one as well going crazy and saying maybe third trimester abortions were a step to far.
Should we just civil war this mofo and get it over with?BenFiasco14 said:
Impeachment on this is gonna tear the country apart worse than the Kavanaugh stuff. Ugh. Just when you think it couldn't get any uglier
Actually impeachment doesn't even poll that well. The only group where it gets over 50% is among Democrats and not by much. It is the Democrats who describe themselves as socialist, very liberal, or progressive who are all in and that is not the entire Democrat Party, but it is the base.bmks270 said:Rapier108 said:It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.
They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.
Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.
Who needs facts when 47% of the country will support you unquestionably.
I believe it was planned but not to find a mole. It was to use the mole to have the press focus on Ukraine and Trump, but the script was written to flip the attention to Biden, Hillary and the dems. JMOBTHOB-98 said:
Is it possible that the "Whistle Blower" was actually a planned thing that was released to find a mole or to make the Dems look bad? Then the administration has the transcript ready to release the next day that vindicates him. It just fortifies the Witch Hunt comments.