Do democrats understand (1 Viewer)

Rich2018 said:

When countries turn their back on liberalism, they turn their backs on people.

Click to expand...

GDViking said:

That is the case, congress can choose to impeach or not, however, it is their prerogative...

Click to expand...

WCH said:

According to Pelosi, we have to wait until they gather/create some evidence.

Click to expand...

Logical1 said:

Do democrats understand the fact to impeach a president he will have had to commit high crimes. We have lunatics like Waters screaming impeach 45 impeach 45. But then she seems to be unable to define what high crimes he has committed.

Making democrats cry because the "her turn" criminal serial liar Hillary got beat by President Trump is not a high crime. Get over it and move on!!!!

Click to expand...

Rich2018 said:

No we don't.


We want Trump soundly defeated at the 2020 presidential election.

We want Trump to be utterly rejected by the American voter and a landslide victory for whoever the Democrat candidate is.


Then and only then do we want to see criminal charges laid against Trump and his son. No presidential pardon. Trump convicted of multiple felonies (possibly even treason).

We want Trump in an orange jumpsuit, his hands handcuffed behind his back as he's led away to serve the remainder of his natural life behind bars.

Click to expand...

Logical1 said:

Do democrats understand the fact to impeach a president he will have had to commit high crimes. We have lunatics like Waters screaming impeach 45 impeach 45. But then she seems to be unable to define what high crimes he has committed.

Making democrats cry because the "her turn" criminal serial liar Hillary got beat by President Trump is not a high crime. Get over it and move on!!!!

Click to expand...

Born Free said:

I suggest you go bitch at someone else and don't respond to my post. Then you'll feel better. All I see you post is meaningless lip service.

Click to expand...

veritas1 said:

Well, in that case, you should call your representative and ask them why they're moving forward trying to impeach Trump. Nadler and Schiff are leading you guys over a cliff. This thing is now looking like persecution as opposed to investigation. There is no legitimate reason why anybody in Congress should be looking at anything Trump did as a private citizen. That is not their responsibility and the more they pursue such things, the more they'll alienate everyone except the fringe. That combined with a strong economy in 2020 will see Trump win handily.

Click to expand...

Logical1 said:

Do democrats understand the fact to impeach a president he will have had to commit high crimes. ...

Click to expand...

1. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
2. Democrats understand "impeachment and impeachment trial are not judicial activities. That is, they are devices designed to resolve an essentially political question: shall this person continue to hold this office to which he was elected or appointed? It uses a political forum: the Congress. And, upon conviction, its sanction is political: removal from office and disqualification from further office." As Publius wrote, "The subjects of [impeachment's] jurisdiction are those offenses 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."
3. Today sits a comportmentially and temperamentally reprobate POTUS who stands as an unindicted, due to DoJ policy, FEC law violator, and a Senate comprised of "tools of ... faction."
4. The Founders intended POTUSes be "independent for his continuance in office" and eschew temptation "to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence."
5. Impeachment's authoritative sources are:
   1. the language of the Constitution itself;
   2. the intentions of the founding generation as revealed in the debates of the convention and thereafter in the debates on ratification;
   3. the body of precedent created by prior American impeachment proceedings, of which there are 16 instances -- 12 judges, a senator, a Secretary of War and two presidents;
      • Moreover, impeachment precedent is merely informative for the legislature's lacking the stare decisis doctrine, the impeachment decisions of one Congress are not binding on subsequent Congresses. Understanding that precedential absence is why Ford qualified his remark with "at a given moment in history."
   4. the analysis of jurisprudential scholars; and
   5. considerations of reason, common sense, and sound public policy.
6. Re: imposing a criminality criterion for impeachment, ones mandating so are they who oppose the POTUS' removal from office.
   • See the minority views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, et al in the Impeachment Proceedings of Richard M. Nixon.
   • See Sen. Johnson's explanation for his vote against impeachment in Trial of Andrew Johnson.
7. Democrats understand that during the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787:
   • Delegates twice voted in favor of the general proposition that the president should be removable for "malpractice or neglect of duty," which they described as a body of offenses outside the common law crimes for which presidents and other federal officials could be impeached, using terms such as "maladministration, .... corrupt administration," "neglect of duty," and "misconduct in office."
   • On August 20, 1787, the Committee on Detail stipulated that federal officers be impeachable "for neglect of duty, malversation, or corruption."
   • Delegates understood "high crimes and misdemeanors" diction as a technical term drawn from English legal practice whereby the phrase embraced non-criminal conduct. As a "technical term" it "furnishes the boundary of the [impeachment] power." Among the various kinds of official misconduct that fell within the English usage of "high misdemeanors" were such non-criminal behavior as abuse of power, neglect of duty, encroachment on the prerogatives of Parliament, and betrayal of trust.
     • English history provided the Framers' main source of precedent and comparison. E.g., Adams reviewed English impeachments before proposing MA's assembly impeach judges for violating its charter. MA's having impeached jurists for non-criminal infractions was well known to the delegates.

Logical1 said:

Do democrats understand the fact to impeach a president he will have had to commit high crimes.

Click to expand...

SonOfDaedalus said:

He directed Cohen to lie to Congress about his Moscow tower deal. Cohen's statement to Congress was reviewed by Trump's lawyers. Cohen's statement to Congress matched what Trump was saying.

Is that crime enough for you?

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

You can't possibly defend that as a principle.

Let's take an example - just assume for the sake of argument that Trump did what Manafort and many others did and hid $100 million or $500 million in offshore bank accounts to evade federal income taxes. Well, a person who did that is unfit to lead the executive branch of government that includes the IRS and that has a bunch of laws making that conduct illegal. We might as well welcome a mafia head or drug lord as our President so long as he gave up those positions the day before he was elected. No one is stupid enough to believe that's an appropriate outcome, but we'd have to be just that stupid to buy into your premise.

Click to expand...

veritas1 said:

You don't think the IRS has been going over Trump's finances with a fine tooth comb for years? The Dems going on a fishing expedition against Trump is no different than the Ken Starr investigation and we know how you all felt about that.

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

Great - there is no principle involved except you don't want Democrats looking at Republicans/Trump. Got it. You should have said so the first time.

Click to expand...

veritas1 said:

No, because it is not their job. Their only concern should be what Trump does as POTUS, not some business deal he had 15 years ago. As I said, the Dems all howled about Ken Starr looking at Whitewater and other things from way before Clinton became president yet now they support the same type of fishing expedition against Trump.

Click to expand...