• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,745
Reaction score
24,087
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Democratic leaders announced Tuesday they will bring two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and setting up the third impeachment of a US president in history.

"Today, in service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment, charging the President of the United States Donald J. Trump with committing high crimes
and misdemeanors," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said at that news conference.
..
"President Trump violated his oath to the American people. He placed his own private interests ahead of our own national security and the integrity of our elections," House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said at the end of Monday's impeachment hearing. "Such conduct is clearly impeachable. This Committee will proceed accordingly."

They will vote on this in Judiciary later this week, before it's potentially brought to a full House vote.

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump - CNNPolitics

I thought Schiff's speech was well done and compelling at the end. Of course, I believe part of the country figures this is all true...but as long as Trump also gives them something in the deal, it's OK.
 
I’m not sure they could have picked two weaker offenses than what they did. Honestly, I think Obstruction of Congress is a non-starter if you support the concept of co-equal branches of government and separation of powers. If allowed to stand, that would set the precedent for future administrations that they have to do what Congress demands or be impeached. I don’t want an imperial presidency, but I certainly don’t want an imperial clown car, either.

If that was their best case, I think they came up short.
 
I’m not sure they could have picked two weaker offenses than what they did. Honestly, I think Obstruction of Congress is a non-starter if you support the concept of co-equal branches of government and separation of powers. If allowed to stand, that would set the precedent for future administrations that they have to do what Congress demands or be impeached. I don’t want an imperial presidency, but I certainly don’t want an imperial clown car, either.

If that was their best case, I think they came up short.

Obstruction of congress is low hanging fruit. They have sondland's testimony to confirm had the admin allowed evidence to move freely, Trump may have been exculpated. Then again, not everything is covered by executive privilege. But you already knew that.
 
They will vote on this in Judiciary later this week, before it's potentially brought to a full House vote.

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump - CNNPolitics

I thought Schiff's speech was well done and compelling at the end. Of course, I believe part of the country figures this is all true...but as long as Trump also gives them something in the deal, it's OK.

“Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” Turley will say, according to his prepared opening statement obtained by the PBS NewsHour.

“This is not how an American president should be impeached,” he will add.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/12/Turley-Testimony.pdf
 
“Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” Turley will say, according to his prepared opening statement obtained by the PBS NewsHour.

Turley, the Republican's pick for defending POTUS, disagrees with the impeachment? Say it isn't so.
Clinton was already investigated by Republican partisans for 4 years and impeached for a BJ...but you're sensitive to the madness that will follow when Trump is impeached for abuse of power?

Turley is a ****ing idiot. That you can't post in your own words, is unfortunate.
 
I don't get why they are not adding charges based on Mueller report. The OP link says

Democrats had debated adding a third article of impeachment on obstruction of justice, which would have captured the allegations against Trump that were detailed in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Pelosi and her top lieutenants ultimately decided to keep the articles focused narrowly on Ukraine, out of concern for moderates who only backed an impeachment inquiry once the Ukraine scandal spilled into public view.

Yeah, but just like Mueller report adds context to Ukraine (see below), Ukraine adds context to Mueller findings. I don't think they could not justify a "yes" vote for Mueller report based findings.

But the episodes detailed in the Mueller report are expected to be incorporated into the charges that Democrats are laying out on Tuesday. In the Judiciary Committee, Democrats expressed Trump's actions in Ukraine as part of a broader pattern of misconduct that began during the 2016 election and still continues today.

Ok, but Mueller laid out 10 instances of Obstruction, and some included all 3 elements needed for formal charges (if it were not for the Presidents position).

I think NOT including Mueller report based Obstruction as a separate charge might be seen as if Mueller did not find anything impeachable, even though he clearly did.

Also, all the Emoluments Clause violations, both foreign and domestic, seem quite impeachable to me.
 
Last edited:
Turley, the Republican's pick for defending POTUS, disagrees with the impeachment? Say it isn't so.
Clinton was already investigated by Republican partisans for 4 years and impeached for a BJ...but you're sensitive to the madness that will follow when Trump is impeached for abuse of power?

Turley is a ****ing idiot. That you can't post in your own words, is unfortunate.

Impeachment relies on an informed electorate. “Clinton was impeached for a B.J.” No he was not. He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury.

Trumps charges are nothing burgers in the minds of the majority of people, just like Bills B.J., except Bill lied to a G.J. Trump pissed of the bureaucracy of the deep state.
 
There was no real choice for Democrats, after all of this effort there were really only two alternatives.

Go with Articles of Impeachment, be called out by Republicans rushing to FoxNews, and ultimately see the whole thing become a greater wedge issue for 2020.

Or, do nothing with Articles of Impeachment and be ridiculed for it by Republicans rushing to FoxNews, and ultimately still see the whole thing become a greater wedge issue for 2020.

This really is an epic mess now since we all know Senate Republicans will not remove Trump, this is all an issue for the next election.

The history lesson here, that will not be kindly written about, is political ideology and situational ethics have become more important than the integrity of either the Executive or the Legislative Branch of government.

No one involved in all of this will get a "they did the right thing" footnote.

The shenanigans by House Democrats alone suggest intention for Articles of Impeachment was thought about before the means to do it was realized with the full strategy being find a crime, and that was matched by House Republicans convinced that it is acceptable for the Executive Branch to put their political intentions above the function of the Presidency and watch their party become the talking points for Russian intentions.

Then you get Trump himself... literally in the top 3 worst Presidents in US history, and that is interesting company. There no longer is a standard for holding a President accountable, and by implication Trump has convinced Congressional Republicans he is above the Constitution.

Sad times we are in, a terrible moment in US history.
 
I think Obstruction of Congress is a non-starter if you support the concept of co-equal branches of government and separation of powers.

You need to go back and retake your civics class their buddy. Each branch of government exists for a specific purpose. One of the core purposes for Congress is the power of oversight into the Executive Branch. If the Executive Branch is blocking Congress from doing what it is specifically designed to do they are attempting to take power away from the Legislative branch and consolidate it into the Executive which is a massive abuse of power that requires the President's removal.
 
No one involved in all of this will get a "they did the right thing" footnote.

Yes, the Democrats most certainly will, because Donald Trump is very very clearly guilty of all the crimes they have charged him with and then some. When a President is guilty of egregious abuses of power, particularly using that power in attempt to undermine our Democracy you don't take a poll of registered voters to decide if it's okay to remove him. You do your job and remove him.

If the Senate doesn't convict then it's the Democratic Nominees job to use the debate stage and the attention given to the campaign to brow beat Senate Republicans for their lawlessness and insure Democrats take back the Senate as well as the White House.
 
Yes, the Democrats most certainly will, because Donald Trump is very very clearly guilty of all the crimes they have charged him with and then some. When a President is guilty of egregious abuses of power, particularly using that power in attempt to undermine our Democracy you don't take a poll of registered voters to decide if it's okay to remove him. You do your job and remove him.

If the Senate doesn't convict then it's the Democratic Nominees job to use the debate stage and the attention given to the campaign to brow beat Senate Republicans for their lawlessness and insure Democrats take back the Senate as well as the White House.

LOL sorry, you think the Democrats will get a good mark out of this? Interesting....
 
Yes, the Democrats most certainly will, because Donald Trump is very very clearly guilty of all the crimes they have charged him with and then some. When a President is guilty of egregious abuses of power, particularly using that power in attempt to undermine our Democracy you don't take a poll of registered voters to decide if it's okay to remove him. You do your job and remove him.

If the Senate doesn't convict then it's the Democratic Nominees job to use the debate stage and the attention given to the campaign to brow beat Senate Republicans for their lawlessness and insure Democrats take back the Senate as well as the White House.
That won't happen, try again in 2024.
 
I'll just be glad when this damn witchhunt is over.
 
I don't really think obstruction of whiny assed Dems in Congress is going to get much of a reaction from anyone except a shrug.
 
They will vote on this in Judiciary later this week, before it's potentially brought to a full House vote.

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump - CNNPolitics

I thought Schiff's speech was well done and compelling at the end. Of course, I believe part of the country figures this is all true...but as long as Trump also gives them something in the deal, it's OK.

My conclusion is that they are looking for a way out of this impeachment mess that they got themselves into.

1. Abuse of power.

There is zero evidence that Trump did anything for political/personal purposes. This article is a non-starter.

2. Obstruction of Congress.

There are three court cases that affect this issue. The House Dems are acting like they are not willing to let the cases move through the courts for a resolution. That's going to negate this article.​

There is no way the House Dems do NOT know this stuff...hence, my conclusion.
 
Yes, the Democrats most certainly will, because Donald Trump is very very clearly guilty of all the crimes they have charged him with and then some. When a President is guilty of egregious abuses of power, particularly using that power in attempt to undermine our Democracy you don't take a poll of registered voters to decide if it's okay to remove him. You do your job and remove him.

If the Senate doesn't convict then it's the Democratic Nominees job to use the debate stage and the attention given to the campaign to brow beat Senate Republicans for their lawlessness and insure Democrats take back the Senate as well as the White House.



That's it, stay positive. Better than many on your side who are pulling their hair out and sobbing uncontrollably because no one will take their partisan charges seriously.
 
What ever happened to the bribery charge they kept shoving?


Guess the polling for that wasn't getting traction.
 
Impeachment relies on an informed electorate. “Clinton was impeached for a B.J.” No he was not. He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury.

Trumps charges are nothing burgers in the minds of the majority of people, just like Bills B.J., except Bill lied to a G.J. Trump pissed of the bureaucracy of the deep state.

Clinton had the guts to go before the grand jury and then apologized to the American people for what he did. In the end it was an impeachment about a BJ. Starr had nothing after investigating for years and settled for the BJ. That was how the republicans acted when they had nothing.

How are the Dems supposed to act when they have real impeachable violations? And their leaving half of the violations out of the mix.

Will we ever see Trump testify for anything? Will we ever see Trump apologize for anything? That's the difference between a POTUS going out with polling in the 70s versus a POTUS who cant break 45% and never will.
 
What ever happened to the bribery charge they kept shoving?


Guess the polling for that wasn't getting traction.

The bribery/extortion is included in the Abuse of Power article. That's what the whole thing is about. But then, Hannity said it didn't happen, so that's all you can understand.
 
Obstruction of congress is low hanging fruit. They have sondland's testimony to confirm had the admin allowed evidence to move freely, Trump may have been exculpated. Then again, not everything is covered by executive privilege. But you already knew that.

Where did I say anything about executive privilege? The entire issue should have been decided by the courts. If successful, Congress will have elevated themselves above the Executive branch to the point where a future President (maybe someone you like) is impeached for not giving Congress something they demand.
 
My conclusion is that they are looking for a way out of this impeachment mess that they got themselves into.

1. Abuse of power.

There is zero evidence that Trump did anything for political/personal purposes. This article is a non-starter.

2. Obstruction of Congress.

There are three court cases that affect this issue. The House Dems are acting like they are not willing to let the cases move through the courts for a resolution. That's going to negate this article.​

There is no way the House Dems do NOT know this stuff...hence, my conclusion.

Face the facts my conservative Trumpster Diver, Your cult leader is being impeached. Elections have consequences.:2wave:
 
Turley, the Republican's pick for defending POTUS, disagrees with the impeachment? Say it isn't so.
Clinton was already investigated by Republican partisans for 4 years and impeached for a BJ...but you're sensitive to the madness that will follow when Trump is impeached for abuse of power?

Turley is a ****ing idiot. That you can't post in your own words, is unfortunate.

We all know that Pamela and the other two bow tie wearing nerds are unbiased.

Do you really think that Schiff and Nadler didn't consult with the whistleblowers attorney to find the mst partisan constitutional lawyers on the planet and then sit down with them and go over the strategy of CLAIMING that obstruction of justice is impeachable?
 
Clinton had the guts to go before the grand jury and then apologized to the American people for what he did. In the end it was an impeachment about a BJ. Starr had nothing after investigating for years and settled for the BJ. That was how the republicans acted when they had nothing.

How are the Dems supposed to act when they have real impeachable violations? And their leaving half of the violations out of the mix.

Will we ever see Trump testify for anything? Will we ever see Trump apologize for anything? That's the difference between a POTUS going out with polling in the 70s versus a POTUS who cant break 45% and never will.

Ask yourself WHY.......
 
Where did I say anything about executive privilege? The entire issue should have been decided by the courts. If successful, Congress will have elevated themselves above the Executive branch to the point where a future President (maybe someone you like) is impeached for not giving Congress something they demand.

Presidents already can be impeached for not giving up documents and blanketly ordering no testimony. That's the definition of obstruction.
 
You need to go back and retake your civics class their buddy. Each branch of government exists for a specific purpose. One of the core purposes for Congress is the power of oversight into the Executive Branch. If the Executive Branch is blocking Congress from doing what it is specifically designed to do they are attempting to take power away from the Legislative branch and consolidate it into the Executive which is a massive abuse of power that requires the President's removal.

Thanks for the advice, buddy, but what I posted was accurate. You seem to believe that Congress’s oversight authority is absolute and cannot be challenged. It’s not.
 
Back
Top Bottom