Jonathan Turley 'inundated with threatening messages' after testimony opposing Trump impeachment

[Conservative]

I am characterizing his behavior. I don't think Trump should be removed from office unless the Senate makes the decision, as outlined in the Constitution.

You seem to think the only article in the U.S. Constitution that matters is Article 2. You are mistaken. There are two other branches of government.

Yes there are and precedence has shown that Impeachment was always used for high crimes and misdemeanors, not subjective politics based upon pure hatred and dislike for Trump. Today's Democratic Party is setting a dangerous precedence which radicals obviously love as they promote division and chaos. I know you are going to support Republican efforts to oust a Democratic President in the future based solely on politics and without any compelling evidence of a crime?

 

[Conservative]

Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Bribery

Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.

Overview

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged.

Asking for a favor doesn't meet that definition as there was no quid pro quo!!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes there are and precedence has shown that Impeachment was always used for high crimes and misdemeanors, not subjective politics based upon pure hatred and dislike for Trump. Today's Democratic Party is setting a dangerous precedence which radicals obviously love as they promote division and chaos. I know you are going to support Republican efforts to oust a Democratic President in the future based solely on politics and without any compelling evidence of a crime?

There is evidence. The call transcript. Sondland's testimony.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Asking for a favor doesn't meet that definition as there was no quid pro quo!!

solicit

verb

so·​lic·​it | \ sə-ˈli-sət \

solicited; soliciting; solicits

Definition of solicit

transitive verb

1a: to make petition to : ENTREAT

b: to approach with a request or plea

solicited Congress for funding

2: to urge (something, such as one's cause) strongly

3a: to entice or lure especially into evil

b: to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute

4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas solicited donations

Soliciting | Definition of Soliciting by Merriam-Webster

--

Bribery

Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.

Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Asking for a favor doesn't meet that definition as there was no quid pro quo!!

That doesn't make any sense.

The definition of bribery also includes a request for the bribe. The request for a bribe need not be successful for a crime to occur.

 

[Conservative]

There is evidence. The call transcript. Sondland's testimony.

And yet Turley disagrees as does the actual testimony from Sondland that you want to ignore, want me to post the video again?

 

[Conservative]

solicit

verb

so·​lic·​it | \ sə-ˈli-sət \

solicited; soliciting; solicits

Definition of solicit

transitive verb

1a: to make petition to : ENTREAT

b: to approach with a request or plea

solicited Congress for funding

2: to urge (something, such as one's cause) strongly

3a: to entice or lure especially into evil

b: to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute

4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas solicited donations

Soliciting | Definition of Soliciting by Merriam-Webster

--

Bribery

Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.

Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Apparently the part where nothing was promised for doing that favor escapes you. What part of Turley's testimony and opening statement don't you understand?

 

[Conservative]

That doesn't make any sense.

The definition of bribery also includes a request for the bribe. The request for a bribe need not be successful for a crime to occur.

What did Ukraine get for that so called favor but better yet what did Trump get? No quid quo pro!!! Post that definition and then tell Turley how wrong he was. Your passion for this issue is over the top, not sure what you expect to get out of all your efforts because this isn't going anywhere, total acquittal and re-election along with loss of Congress for your efforts.

 

[Conservative]

Rules for Americans, by the Founding Fathers:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Your argument isn't getting a lot of traction and lack of support from basically independents doesn't bode well for the 2020 elections if you continue

Impeachment needle not moving as majority of voters oppose removing Trump: polls | Fox News

But among independent voters, the Monmouth survey indicates by a wide 55-36 percent margin, they oppose impeaching and removing Trump from the presidency. In the Quinnipiac poll, independents oppose the move by a smaller 52-44 percent margin.

You don't win with less than 50% supporting this issue.

 

[Moon]

I am not saying the Courts do not have the authority to intervene in this dispute. I am saying that Trump should not be asserting bullsh*t legal arguments to begin with.

And I don't know why you, a so-called conservative, are okay with this idea of absolute immunity.

If you were a real conservative you would reject the idea entirely. You would be appalled by the mere suggestion of it. But you're not. And that makes you an authoritarian/fascist, not a conservative.



Do you believe that the President has "absolute immunity"? Yes or no?

I’m a fascist because I want the courts to do what they’re supposed to? You’ve just lost any credibility you might have had. If you ever get around to wanting to have a serious discussion about something and think you can do it without making me or my chosen political lean the topic, let me know.

 

[Jay59]

This isn't true. Obama's administration, on occasion, would separate families. What Trump did that was different was to stop deporting people via a civil procedure, and instead, deport people via a criminal procedure. This change in policy created a situation where families were separated more often, by at least two orders of magnitude. Therefore, did you support Trump's policies at the border which resulted in great numbers of families being separated?

Weasel. They are not Trump's policies.

All you have to do is read the comments from Trump supporters on this forum. And read your own comments. Your own comments reveal that you do not believe Democrats should be allowed to participate in the legal and political life of our Republic.

I am reading your comments and you are trying to justify disregarding an election. One of the other posters even said that the election did not signify the will of the people. Supposedly, actions speak louder than words. Your actions show that you do not want Republicans having a voice in the election.

Impeachment is a valid, constitutional process. It's valid even when Democrats are involved in participating in the process. And the President is not above the law, sorry. Presidents are not immune from investigation, even if the President is a Republican. What you really mean to say is that Democrats can participate just as long as they do everything they can to benefit the furtherance of Republican policy goals.

Again, you are putting your words in my mouth. You are saying that Republicans can come along as long as they don't disrupt your plans. We know this is true, because you are still trying to undo the 2016 election.

 

[eohrnberger]

The illegal immigrants can be processed and deported without being treated like dogs.

If you make that accusation or assertion, I think it's not accurate in and by far of the vast, vast majority of illegal immigration cases. :shrug:

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I’m a fascist because I want the courts to do what they’re supposed to?

It is correct that the courts can intervene to stop Trump, that doesn't excuse Trump's behavior though. And that's effectively what you're doing, you're excusing his behavior by saying the courts will resolve it, so it's no big deal.

The courts shouldn't have to resolve it to begin with! Trump should simply cease asserting claims of absolute immunity -- which have ZERO basis in the law and our history -- and participate in the impeachment inquiry...as...is...his...duty.

You’ve just lost any credibility you might have had. If you ever get around to wanting to have a serious discussion about something and think you can do it without making me or my chosen political lean the topic, let me know.

There is a big difference between having a legitimate, principled argument about some aspect of the Constitution one the one hand, and simply asserting the President is above the law on the other. I'm interested in the former, you appear to be interested in the latter, and it is for that reason I will call you and every single fake conservative out.

 

[eohrnberger]

Technically, no, because the definition of bribery includes the solicitation of a bribe. A failed bribery attempt is still a crime, just liked a failed murder is still a crime.

The way I heard it bribery is also a crime of intent, which needs to be proven in order for the charge to stick. Also interesting that the Democrats of the House dropped their original bribery charge, and it wouldn't be a bad guess that they couldn't meet the legal standard of a bribery charge. :shrug:

But that doesn't matter, because we know Ukraine was aware of the request.

With respect to the phone call, Zelenskyy heard Trump say, "I would like you to do us a favor though..."

With respect to the testimony of the various witnesses, including Sondland, Ukraine was made aware of the conditions Trump wanted.

Per Sondland'd testimony of his conversation with Trump 'I want nothing' and 'I want Zelenski to do the right thing', or words to that effect.

So, I have no idea what you're talking about.



The word 'bureaucrat' is not a dirty word. Bureaucrats do important work. The government performs vital services for the American people. The government needs people to help it function. And all a Bureaucrat means really is someone that follows the rules of a particular bureaucracy.

"follows the rules of a particular bureaucracy"
Of which some in the diplomatic corp apparently haven't. The president has a free hand to conduct foreign relations, and is not constrained by what the diplomatic corp bureaucracy demands or deems. They have an option, which is the door, should be not be able to fulfill their diplomatic corp duties, which is to implement the president's foreign policies and positions.

What is obvious is that the career officials were concerned that Trump appeared to be putting his own selfish interests above that of the Republic as a whole.

Rooting out corruption committed by US citizens / politicians and foreign 2016 election influence are 'his own selfish interests'?

 

[eohrnberger]

(continued)

. . . And if you are conceding that career officials were not in control of foreign relations then you are tacitly admitting that Rudy was not working for Trump as his personal lawyer, that Rudy was, in fact, carrying out duties delegated to him by the President. The reason why this is important is that if Rudy was acting on Trump's orders then it will be easier to prove Trump abused the office of the President.

The president has a free hand to conduct foreign relations as he sees fit, which includes, whether I disagree with it or not, employing his own personal lawyer, which I think is a big mistake, partially contributory to leading to where we find ourselves now.[/quote]

This isn't true. The President is not the sole arbiter, and I think you mean arbiter, not arbitrator, an arbitrator helps resolve disputes between two people, and an arbiter is a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining something.

Aw geez spell correct. As posted above, the president has next to no limitations on his conducting foreign relations, policy, and positions. That is in fact true.

Foreign affairs
Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls (subject to confirmation by the Senate) and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials.[29] With the secretary of state, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments.

On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.[43] For example, President Wilson led the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments,[44] and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate executive agreements with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.[45]
Powers of the president of the United States - Wikipedia

As just one example, any treaty the President enters into with another country must be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate.

The power of Congress to pass laws and appropriate funds also necessarily means it will have some say in how the country's foreign policy is set.

Checks and balances, to a point, yes.

The President has enormous power as it relates to foreign policy. The President does not have the power abuse the office of the President so as to benefit himself at the expense of U.S. national interests.

Response posted above.

The President's power, therefore, is limited. It is not unbound. The President must abide by the oath of office he took.

Who's arguing that the president's power is unlimited? We are arguing the bounds of that power specific to foreign relations and foreign policy.

The bureaucrats in the diplomatic corp are correct in this case. It is a violation of Trump's oath for him to put his own personal interests above that of the Republic. If Trump does not want to pursue the interests of our Republic, or cannot put the interests of our Republic above his own personal interests, and do his DUTY, as he promised when he took the oath of office, then it is HE that must resign.

Again, response posted above.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The way I heard it bribery is also a crime of intent, which needs to be proven in order for the charge to stick. Also interesting that the Democrats of the House dropped their original bribery charge, and it wouldn't be a bad guess that they couldn't meet the legal standard of a bribery charge. :shrug:

This is a direct consequence of Trump not allowing people to testify and withholding the documents Congress needs.

Per Sondland'd testimony of his conversation with Trump 'I want nothing' and 'I want Zelenski to do the right thing', or words to that effect.

This is true.

Sondland also testified that Trump told him to listen to Rudy and Rudy told him to condition the White House visit on an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

Sondland also testified that even though Trump said he wanted nothing, he still believed Trump wanted him to condition various things Ukraine wanted on an investigation of the Bidens.

Impeachment Hearing Day 4 Transcript - Gordon Sondland Testifies - Rev

Dan Goldman: (43:36)
So, you do acknowledge you spoke to President Trump as you indicated in that text, right?

Gordon Sondland: (43:42)
If I said I did, I did.

Dan Goldman: (43:43)
And that after that conversation, you were still under the impression that the aid was contingent on these public announcements?

Gordon Sondland: (43:51)
I did not get that from President Trump, but I was under the impression that absolutely it was contingent-

Dan Goldman: (43:56)
Well, you weren’t dissuaded then. Right? Because you still thought that the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations, after speaking to President Trump.

Gordon Sondland: (44:05)
By September 8th I was absolutely convinced it was.

Dan Goldman: (44:09)
And President Trump did not dissuade you of that in the conversation that you acknowledge you had with him?

Gordon Sondland: (44:14)
I don’t ever recall, because that would have changed my entire calculus. If President Trump had told me directly, “I’m not-

Dan Goldman: (44:21)
That’s not what I’m asking Ambassador Sondland. I’m just saying, you still believed that the security assistance was conditioned on the investigation after you spoke to President Trump? Yes or no.

Gordon Sondland: (44:31)
From a timeframe standpoint, yes.

--

Of which some in the diplomatic corp apparently haven't. The president has a free hand to conduct foreign relations, and is not constrained by what the diplomatic corp bureaucracy demands or deems. They have an option, which is the door, should be not be able to fulfill their diplomatic corp duties, which is to implement the president's foreign policies and positions.

This isn't entirely true. The President's power with regard to implementing U.S. foreign policy or any other aspect related to the executive branch is not limitless. The President cannot commit treason, bribery, or abuse the office of the President. Further, the President cannot engage in actions contrary to U.S. national interest as that too would be a violation of his oath. What is in U.S. national interests is determined by objective reality, not by Trump's whim. The President is not a dictator and civil servants are not obligated to carry out illegal orders. The idea that the President can do whatever the hell he wants is pure fiction.

Rooting out corruption committed by US citizens / politicians and foreign 2016 election influence are 'his own selfish interests'?

Let me ask you a question:

Is it your honest opinion that Trump did not intend to hurt Biden's chances in 2020 when he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The president has a free hand to conduct foreign relations as he sees fit, which includes, whether I disagree with it or not, employing his own personal lawyer, which I think is a big mistake, partially contributory to leading to where we find ourselves now.

If Trump's personal lawyer used the power and authority of the government to advance Trump's personal interests he will find himself in prison soon and Trump will find himself impeached and removed from office, if it's proven he ordered Rudy to do such a thing.

president has next to no limitations on his conducting foreign relations, policy, and positions. That is in fact true.

This is not true. His power and authority as a temporary holder of the office of the President do not allow him to commit crimes and impeachable offenses.

The President cannot solicit a bribe in exchange for U.S. military aid, for example.

Checks and balances, to a point, yes.

You wrote the president is the sole arbitrator of how he wants to conduct foreign relations.

I did not write that. You did.

Who's arguing that the president's power is unlimited?

You wrote the president is the sole arbitrator of how he wants to conduct foreign relations.

I did not write that. You did.

 

[eohrnberger]

This is a direct consequence of Trump not allowing people to testify and withholding the documents Congress needs.

Congress should have gone to court with their subpoenas, but they are in too much of a hurry for that proper procedure, it seems.

This is true.

Sondland also testified that Trump told him to listen to Rudy and Rudy told him to condition the White House visit on an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

Sondland also testified that even though Trump said he wanted nothing, he still believed Trump wanted him to condition various things Ukraine wanted on an investigation of the Bidens.

Impeachment Hearing Day 4 Transcript - Gordon Sondland Testifies - Rev



--

Between Rudy and Trump, who overrules whom?

This isn't entirely true. The President's power with regard to implementing U.S. foreign policy or any other aspect related to the executive branch is not limitless. The President cannot commit treason, bribery, or abuse the office of the President. Further, the President cannot engage in actions contrary to U.S. national interest as that too would be a violation of his oath. What is in U.S. national interests is determined by objective reality, not by Trump's whim. The President is not a dictator and civil servants are not obligated to carry out illegal orders. The idea that the President can do whatever the hell he wants is pure fiction.

"The idea that the President can do whatever the hell he wants is pure fiction."
That's not the position I was describing.

Let me ask you a question:

Is it your honest opinion that Trump did not intend to hurt Biden's chances in 2020 when he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens?

Based on Trump's fixation and focus being on the 2016 election and vindicating himself and his victory would appear to be far higher in his priorities than the challenge that Biden would or would not present (more likely not to Trump anyway) in the 2020 election.

Heck, the primary candidate hasn't even been determined yet.

So, no, I don't think the possible 2020 race against Biden was on Trump's mind at the time of the call. I don't think that Trump worries at all about Biden as an election competitor.

There might even be something to that.

Joe Biden Announces 2020 Run for President, After Months of ...
[url]https://www.nytimes.com › politics › joe-biden-2020-announcement[/URL]
Apr 25, 2019 - The former vice president has stayed on the sidelines while his record has been ... Joe Biden Announces 2020 Run for President, After Months of .... on to lead the fight against his divide-and-conquer politics today,” said ...
​

At least they have the date correct when when Biden announced.

 

[eohrnberger]

If Trump's personal lawyer used the power and authority of the government to advance Trump's personal interests he will find himself in prison soon and Trump will find himself impeached and removed from office, if it's proven he ordered Rudy to do such a thing.



This is not true. His power and authority as a temporary holder of the office of the President do not allow him to commit crimes and impeachable offenses.

The President cannot solicit a bribe in exchange for U.S. military aid, for example.



You wrote the president is the sole arbitrator of how he wants to conduct foreign relations.

I did not write that. You did.



You wrote the president is the sole arbitrator of how he wants to conduct foreign relations.

I did not write that. You did.

"You wrote the president is the sole arbitrator of how he wants to conduct foreign relations."

That obviously does not denote nor condone illegal activities. Aw come on!

 

[Thoreau72]

I just wanted to know with absolute certainty that you are okay with the idea of the President soliciting a bribe or abusing his office in some way.

I'm sad to learn you are okay with bribery.



If you want to get into a discussion about campaign finance reform, and the influence of lobbyists, we can do that.

But bribery, where someone gives something to a public official in exchange for an official act or government asset, is illegal.

People get in trouble for it all the time:

FEMA Officials Charged With Bribery Over Puerto Rico Power Contracts - Government Executive

So, no, "bribery" has not been going on for years inside the Beltway. And when it gets discovered people should be punished.

Do we have problems with our system? Yes.

Is the answer to give up? No.



I vehemently disagree, but there is really no point in me talking to someone who doesn't believe in right and wrong, has no moral compass, doesn't believe in the Rule of Law, doesn't think the President has any duties or obligations by virtue of the oath he took to the Constitution, doesn't believe in following a set of rules, and the idea of government providing essential services in an efficient way, and that any abuse of official power is acceptable because official government power isn't legitimate anyway, and so on and so forth, so I hope you have a good day.

I am not OK with bribery, and I'm not OK with taking the country to war under fraud, and I'm not OK with the Global War Of Terror we have been waging under fraud, and I'm not OK with the Patriot Act and many other things the government has done.

But I'm pragmatic, and I've known for 50 years or more that my thoughts and opinions on government policy and actions means absolutely nothing. Life goes on, no matter what my thoughts and opinions are, and no matter what your thoughts and opinions are.

Trump is an idiot, and I've known that since the 70's. I don't lose any sleep or suffer anxiety over things I cannot control.

 

[Ikari]

Very true sir! But I would offer that some sort of formal censure of POTUS by Congress would have taken far less time and money, and still have delivered what you mention.

It is still much ado about what is essentially typical behavior, a partisan ploy.

Given the futility of impeachment and that we knew that no matter what was uncovered, the GOP would block anything in the Senate, censure would have been the path of least resistance. It would have amounted to the same thing in the end, because Trump wouldn't give two ****s about being censured by the House nor would his supporters.

I think that the Impeachment Inquiry was also warranted because there was legitimate concern about actions being taken by the Executive. Further, the inquiry provided consistent testimony that the President was seeking political favors from a foreign government and withholding funds for that purpose. That too is disconcerting, and not a proper or authorized power of the President. Equally disconcerting is then the level of obstruction that the Trump Administration engaged in to keep any and all information and other individuals from testifying. That's not the actions of an innocent man.

So while the Senate will of course stone wall, I think the Inquiry did more than a censure could do. It highlighted that there was significant concern that the President was extorting a foreign government for political reasons and interference in an election, that the administration would go so far as to blanket obstruct at every turn to prevent America and the People from learning the truth, and that the GOP will blindly defend all of this to the determent of the Republic.

The stonewalling and obstruction are clearly partisan ploys. For the GOP, this was never about finding the truth or holding the Executive branch accountable and constrained to proper power. It was about deflections and plausible deniability to excuse the overreach of the Executive because the Executive happens to wear their brand. Excessively partisan, and also damaging to the Republic.

 

[Marco Montana]

Thats what the Left does, Agree with me/us or VIOLENCE!

 

[Thoreau72]

Given the futility of impeachment and that we knew that no matter what was uncovered, the GOP would block anything in the Senate, censure would have been the path of least resistance. It would have amounted to the same thing in the end, because Trump wouldn't give two ****s about being censured by the House nor would his supporters.

I think that the Impeachment Inquiry was also warranted because there was legitimate concern about actions being taken by the Executive. Further, the inquiry provided consistent testimony that the President was seeking political favors from a foreign government and withholding funds for that purpose. That too is disconcerting, and not a proper or authorized power of the President. Equally disconcerting is then the level of obstruction that the Trump Administration engaged in to keep any and all information and other individuals from testifying. That's not the actions of an innocent man.

So while the Senate will of course stone wall, I think the Inquiry did more than a censure could do. It highlighted that there was significant concern that the President was extorting a foreign government for political reasons and interference in an election, that the administration would go so far as to blanket obstruct at every turn to prevent America and the People from learning the truth, and that the GOP will blindly defend all of this to the determent of the Republic.

The stonewalling and obstruction are clearly partisan ploys. For the GOP, this was never about finding the truth or holding the Executive branch accountable and constrained to proper power. It was about deflections and plausible deniability to excuse the overreach of the Executive because the Executive happens to wear their brand. Excessively partisan, and also damaging to the Republic.

Reasonable points all, but since the Unitary Executive, sophistry concocted and delivered by the Neocons and the Bush administration, the Executive Branch has not been and never will be held accountable or constrained. It does not make me happy, but it appears to be reality.

 

[Ikari]

Reasonable points all, but since the Unitary Executive, sophistry concocted and delivered by the Neocons and the Bush administration, the Executive Branch has not been and never will be held accountable or constrained. It does not make me happy, but it appears to be reality.

Well Bush is the reason I no longer vote Republican, and I agree that they took this idea of Unitary Executive to a whole new level. But I think that it was the wrong move for a Republic and I do think we need to act in a way to constrain the Executive branch to its properly ascribed and granted powers. With Trump, we're seeing how far one can push this, and it appears to be outside the proper powers of the office. The President wasn't meant to be King. In fact, I would say that the most powerful branch of the Federal Government had always been meant to be Congress. They've ceded quite a bit of authority and that authority has aggregated into the Executive branch, and the overall result has been damaging to the Republic overall.

While this impeachment will be stonewalled in the Senate, I think it's a necessary step to highlight the issues we are facing with the power that has been seized and usurped by the Executive branch. It's imperative, if we wish to keep the Republic, to reign in the power of one. I have long maintained that Trump is the status quo without brakes or filter, and he is running everything to the wall as quickly as possible. I just wish the Republicans could put aside their petty partisanship long enough to reaffirm the proper separation of powers and checks & balances between the branches to ensure a constrained government. It's clear that won't happen, but that's what would be best for the Republic.

 

[Thoreau72]

Well Bush is the reason I no longer vote Republican, and I agree that they took this idea of Unitary Executive to a whole new level. But I think that it was the wrong move for a Republic and I do think we need to act in a way to constrain the Executive branch to its properly ascribed and granted powers. With Trump, we're seeing how far one can push this, and it appears to be outside the proper powers of the office. The President wasn't meant to be King. In fact, I would say that the most powerful branch of the Federal Government had always been meant to be Congress. They've ceded quite a bit of authority and that authority has aggregated into the Executive branch, and the overall result has been damaging to the Republic overall.

While this impeachment will be stonewalled in the Senate, I think it's a necessary step to highlight the issues we are facing with the power that has been seized and usurped by the Executive branch. It's imperative, if we wish to keep the Republic, to reign in the power of one. I have long maintained that Trump is the status quo without brakes or filter, and he is running everything to the wall as quickly as possible. I just wish the Republicans could put aside their petty partisanship long enough to reaffirm the proper separation of powers and checks & balances between the branches to ensure a constrained government. It's clear that won't happen, but that's what would be best for the Republic.

Power usurped by the government will never be returned. It's human nature. Power corrupts.....