• 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!

Our Timidity is Killing the Constitution

NWRatCon

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
26,066
Reaction score
23,687
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The United States Constitution has been operational for 230 years. It has been the inspiration for hundreds of other constitutions the world over, and helped spread the concept of democratic representation since its inception. Yet, it is under its worst assault since the Civil War. That is not hyperbole. Our timidity in defending the principles and structure of the Constitution is allowing it to be killed by unscrupulous operators.

Consider: The current Senate Majority Leader refused for over a year to allow the Senate to execute its responsibility of "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" over a Supreme Court Justice, as called for in Article II, Section 2, cl. 2; Congress is given the authority "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, cl 1.), yet the President is usurping that authority to pay for a wall Congress will not appropriate funds for; the current occupant of the White House has committed repeated felonies while in office (and to get there), yet the House has yet to initiate a hearing about that (Article I, Section 3, cl. 5); previous Congresses and Presidents have created agencies to administer laws duly enacted through the Constitutional process, yet the President has appointed opponents of those agencies to head them and dismantle the legal apparatuses they are charged with enforcing (Article I, Section I, cl. 1; Article II, Section 2, cl 2.); the President, abetted by corrupt Attorneys General, has prohibited current - and even former - federal officers from appearing before Congress and inhibited their investigatory functions under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, cl. 18); and the President has failed to abide by his oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." having left a full third of the inferior offices created by Congress vacant. (Article II, Section 3.)

In each of those instances, the people have not, as a body, risen up to raise holy hell about these malfeasances in office (there are so many more I can cite). As citizens and denizens of the United States it is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable - and not just through elections. It is not just a right, but an obligation to " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People of the United States" and if we don't take responsibility to ensure that it is faithfully executed, who will?
 
NWRatCon said:
The United States Constitution has been operational for 230 years. It has been the inspiration for hundreds of other constitutions the world over, and helped spread the concept of democratic representation since its inception. Yet, it is under its worst assault since the Civil War. That is not hyperbole. Our timidity in defending the principles and structure of the Constitution is allowing it to be killed by unscrupulous operators.

Consider: The current Senate Majority Leader refused for over a year to allow the Senate to execute its responsibility of "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" over a Supreme Court Justice, as called for in Article II, Section 2, cl. 2; Congress is given the authority "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, cl 1.), yet the President is usurping that authority to pay for a wall Congress will not appropriate funds for; the current occupant of the White House has committed repeated felonies while in office (and to get there), yet the House has yet to initiate a hearing about that (Article I, Section 3, cl. 5); previous Congresses and Presidents have created agencies to administer laws duly enacted through the Constitutional process, yet the President has appointed opponents of those agencies to head them and dismantle the legal apparatuses they are charged with enforcing (Article I, Section I, cl. 1; Article II, Section 2, cl 2.); the President, abetted by corrupt Attorneys General, has prohibited current - and even former - federal officers from appearing before Congress and inhibited their investigatory functions under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, cl. 18); and the President has failed to abide by his oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." having left a full third of the inferior offices created by Congress vacant. (Article II, Section 3.)

In each of those instances, the people have not, as a body, risen up to raise holy hell about these malfeasances in office (there are so many more I can cite). As citizens and denizens of the United States it is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable - and not just through elections. It is not just a right, but an obligation to " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People of the United States" and if we don't take responsibility to ensure that it is faithfully executed, who will?
Click to expand...

And even with the Mueller interview with Congress behind us and the dire warning Mueller gave the US about ongoing Russian interference, Mitch McConnell refuses to allow any new election-security legislation. I'm telling you, they're all hooked up with the Russians.

The democrats are making a huge mistake not beginning the process of an impeachment inquiry. They wasted time issuing subpoenas then wasted time issuing contempt citations, which are meaningless anyway. Now those cases are collecting mold and mildew in the court dockets while time is passing by. The only thing that forced Richard Nixon to turn over his Watergate tapes was the initiation of a formal impeachment inquiry and that's the only thing that will force these reluctant witnesses to testify before Congress. I've emailed and tweeted to members of Congress that have been reluctant to commit to proceeding with an impeachment inquiry to let them know how I feel about it. If enough people pressure their own congressman, they'll start listening.
 
HumblePi said:
And even with the Mueller interview with Congress behind us and the dire warning Mueller gave the US about ongoing Russian interference, Mitch McConnell refuses to allow any new election-security legislation. I'm telling you, they're all hooked up with the Russians.

The democrats are making a huge mistake not beginning the process of an impeachment inquiry. They wasted time issuing subpoenas then wasted time issuing contempt citations, which are meaningless anyway. Now those cases are collecting mold and mildew in the court dockets while time is passing by. The only thing that forced Richard Nixon to turn over his Watergate tapes was the initiation of a formal impeachment inquiry and that's the only thing that will force these reluctant witnesses to testify before Congress. I've emailed and tweeted to members of Congress that have been reluctant to commit to proceeding with an impeachment inquiry to let them know how I feel about it. If enough people pressure their own congressman, they'll start listening.
Click to expand...

Please, help me to understand what we can hope to get from an impeachment inquiry.

The result of the impeachment itself is a forgone conclusion, which is a pretty different situation than Nixon's.

Trump's people know that as well. Why would he not just stonewall and play the victim until the Senate vote?

Seem like the best we can hope for would be to reveal publicly more of Trump's shady dealings, but they will resist this bitterly.

These revelations would have to be pretty nasty indeed, in order to overcome the downside of simultaneously handing Dem voters a defeat and re-energizing Trump's base right in the middle of election season.
 
WillyPete said:
Please, help me to understand what we can hope to get from an impeachment inquiry.

The result of the impeachment itself is a forgone conclusion, which is a pretty different situation than Nixon's.

Trump's people know that as well. Why would he not just stonewall and play the victim until the Senate vote?

Seem like the best we can hope for would be to reveal publicly more of Trump's shady dealings, but they will resist this bitterly.

These revelations would have to be pretty nasty indeed, in order to overcome the downside of simultaneously handing Dem voters a defeat and re-energizing Trump's base right in the middle of election season.
Click to expand...

Actually, impeachment of Nixon was expected to fail until the very end when the tapes came out.

We should impeach and use it as an investigation in to every wrong doing by every single member of the administration. Subpoena anything and everything. If Republicans don't want to impeach the felon currently in the whitehouse, that's their problem. But we should let all the facts come out.
 
WillyPete said:
Please, help me to understand what we can hope to get from an impeachment inquiry.

The result of the impeachment itself is a forgone conclusion, which is a pretty different situation than Nixon's.

Trump's people know that as well. Why would he not just stonewall and play the victim until the Senate vote?

Seem like the best we can hope for would be to reveal publicly more of Trump's shady dealings, but they will resist this bitterly.

These revelations would have to be pretty nasty indeed, in order to overcome the downside of simultaneously handing Dem voters a defeat and re-energizing Trump's base right in the middle of election season.
Click to expand...

Here's the #1 thing we can expect from an impeachment inquiry. The stonewalling of documents and witnesses will end. Courts will be pressured to expedite lawsuits brought by Congress in objections to the refusals of people like Hope Hicks and Don McGahn to testify. A court will judge in favor of Congress and their claim of 'executive privilege' is no longer valid because it is now an open investigation, they will HAVE to testify, no more choice about it. And documents requested will HAVE to be provided to Congress.

Open hearings of the testimonies of both McGahn and Hicks would be extremely damaging to Trump. Legally, they will no longer be able to refuse to testify. Unless of course they want to go to jail.
 
NWRatCon said:
The United States Constitution has been operational for 230 years. It has been the inspiration for hundreds of other constitutions the world over, and helped spread the concept of democratic representation since its inception. Yet, it is under its worst assault since the Civil War. That is not hyperbole. Our timidity in defending the principles and structure of the Constitution is allowing it to be killed by unscrupulous operators.

Consider: The current Senate Majority Leader refused for over a year to allow the Senate to execute its responsibility of "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" over a Supreme Court Justice, as called for in Article II, Section 2, cl. 2; Congress is given the authority "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, cl 1.), yet the President is usurping that authority to pay for a wall Congress will not appropriate funds for; the current occupant of the White House has committed repeated felonies while in office (and to get there), yet the House has yet to initiate a hearing about that (Article I, Section 3, cl. 5); previous Congresses and Presidents have created agencies to administer laws duly enacted through the Constitutional process, yet the President has appointed opponents of those agencies to head them and dismantle the legal apparatuses they are charged with enforcing (Article I, Section I, cl. 1; Article II, Section 2, cl 2.); the President, abetted by corrupt Attorneys General, has prohibited current - and even former - federal officers from appearing before Congress and inhibited their investigatory functions under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, cl. 18); and the President has failed to abide by his oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." having left a full third of the inferior offices created by Congress vacant. (Article II, Section 3.)

In each of those instances, the people have not, as a body, risen up to raise holy hell about these malfeasances in office (there are so many more I can cite). As citizens and denizens of the United States it is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable - and not just through elections. It is not just a right, but an obligation to " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People of the United States" and if we don't take responsibility to ensure that it is faithfully executed, who will?
Click to expand...



Sadly, unless "constituents" (whatever that means) lights fire under the ass of those supposedly elected to represent them, those cowardly representatives, as is consistently shown, will not. The Dems are a bunch of pusillanimous ******s bullied by the bully master Himself, Trump, who 100% bullies the Reps. Sad, but true.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Actually, impeachment of Nixon was expected to fail until the very end when the tapes came out.

We should impeach and use it as an investigation in to every wrong doing by every single member of the administration. Subpoena anything and everything. If Republicans don't want to impeach the felon currently in the whitehouse, that's their problem. But we should let all the facts come out.
Click to expand...

HumblePi said:
Here's the #1 thing we can expect from an impeachment inquiry. The stonewalling of documents and witnesses will end. Courts will be pressured to expedite lawsuits brought by Congress in objections to the refusals of people like Hope Hicks and Don McGahn to testify. A court will judge in favor of Congress and their claim of 'executive privilege' is no longer valid because it is now an open investigation, they will HAVE to testify, no more choice about it. And documents requested will HAVE to be provided to Congress.

Open hearings of the testimonies of both McGahn and Hicks would be extremely damaging to Trump. Legally, they will no longer be able to refuse to testify. Unless of course they want to go to jail.
Click to expand...

Ok, thank you both.

I guess I get it, I just don't see Trump resigning under any circumstance, and I lack the imagination to think up the evidence that would sway the Senate or Trump supporters.

Edited to add:

At the end of the process, if we end up with a pile of good evidence, and the senate fails to convict, and we lose the election because we're being painted to the public like a bunch of finger wagging hysterics and forgot to nominate a worthwhile candidate, will that have been energy well spent?
 
Last edited:
There are only so many rounds in the chamber......


......and every round expended, so far has only emboldened the target.

My advice is to let this latest mis-fire slip into the past and concentrate on NOV20.
 
WillyPete said:
Ok, thank you both.

I guess I get it, I just don't see Trump resigning under any circumstance, and I lack the imagination to think up the evidence that would sway the Senate or Trump supporters.

Edited to add:

At the end of the process, if we end up with a pile of good evidence, and the senate fails to convict, and we lose the election because we're being painted to the public like a bunch of finger wagging hysterics and forgot to nominate a worthwhile candidate, will that have been energy well spent?
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that impeachment will cause the dems to lose the election. Clinton was more popular and the impeachment proceedings were for very different reasons. The republicans did amazing in the house and the senate while impeaching Clinton. The idea that the impeachment hurt them is simply false. They just didn't get enough momentum to overcome Clintons campaigning ability and popularity.
 
I'm by nature a very cautious person. I consider and weigh all the options. I tend to be meticulous in planning (to a fault, ask my wife) before I embark on any endeavor. But, there are principles at stake here - big, important ones. I do worry that the partisan divide is so entrenched at this point that it won't or can't be overcome, but how far do we have to go before enough really is enough. This is not a matter of norms, but laws, standards, and constitutional requirements. If not now, when?

Donald Trump is the most flagrant liar to occupy the office; the most corrupt and obvious criminal. He ****s on the Constitution and the citizenry daily. A hearing would bring that out. As Kennedy once said, "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." If the constitutional order is not worth fighting for, what is?

Yes, I know that it may not be "political", but it is right, and isn't that more important? But, I think it would inspire so much more good citizenry - and likely more voting and other participation - that should overcome the complacency for larceny and malfeasance - and maybe even actually vote enough of the bums out of office to actually make change. We arrived at the tipping point and I've tipped. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. We shouldn't either.
 
roughdraft274 said:
There's no evidence that impeachment will cause the dems to lose the election. Clinton was more popular and the impeachment proceedings were for very different reasons. The republicans did amazing in the house and the senate while impeaching Clinton. The idea that the impeachment hurt them is simply false. They just didn't get enough momentum to overcome Clintons campaigning ability and popularity.
Click to expand...

Certainly it's not guaranteed. I wasn't thinking of Clinton much, since he was in his second term already in '98.

Let us be clear, my goal is to remove Trump. I'm hanging my position on two points:

1. The Senate will not convict Trump under any realistic circumstances.

2. The optics of pursuing the impeachment and failing to get a conviction will exhaust the Dem voters (like Comey's last minute "revelation" on Clinton) and energize Trump supporters.

Toss in a weak Dem candidate (and I don't see any with appeal to the middle so far) and Dems are setting themselves up for failure, which is a shame because 2020 is their election to lose.
 
HumblePi said:
And even with the Mueller interview with Congress behind us and the dire warning Mueller gave the US about ongoing Russian interference, Mitch McConnell refuses to allow any new election-security legislation. I'm telling you, they're all hooked up with the Russians.

The democrats are making a huge mistake not beginning the process of an impeachment inquiry. They wasted time issuing subpoenas then wasted time issuing contempt citations, which are meaningless anyway. Now those cases are collecting mold and mildew in the court dockets while time is passing by. The only thing that forced Richard Nixon to turn over his Watergate tapes was the initiation of a formal impeachment inquiry and that's the only thing that will force these reluctant witnesses to testify before Congress. I've emailed and tweeted to members of Congress that have been reluctant to commit to proceeding with an impeachment inquiry to let them know how I feel about it. If enough people pressure their own congressman, they'll start listening.
Click to expand...

I agree and an inquiry does not mean we will send an impeachment bill to the Senate where spineless Republicans will affirm that a criminal should remain in the Whitehouse. That would be pointless and stupid.
 
WillyPete said:
Certainly it's not guaranteed. I wasn't thinking of Clinton much, since he was in his second term already in '98.

Let us be clear, my goal is to remove Trump. I'm hanging my position on two points:

1. The Senate will not convict Trump under any realistic circumstances.

2. The optics of pursuing the impeachment and failing to get a conviction will exhaust the Dem voters (like Comey's last minute "revelation" on Clinton) and energize Trump supporters.

Toss in a weak Dem candidate (and I don't see any with appeal to the middle so far) and Dems are setting themselves up for failure, which is a shame because 2020 is their election to lose.
Click to expand...

So just do the inquiry and skip sending it to the Senate. The Dems will be penalized for allowing the myth of "exoneration" to go unanswered. The House is charged with oversight and if they do not perform it will allow the lie of Trumps innocence to propagate.
 
WillyPete said:
Ok, thank you both.

I guess I get it, I just don't see Trump resigning under any circumstance, and I lack the imagination to think up the evidence that would sway the Senate or Trump supporters.

Edited to add:

At the end of the process, if we end up with a pile of good evidence, and the senate fails to convict, and we lose the election because we're being painted to the public like a bunch of finger wagging hysterics and forgot to nominate a worthwhile candidate, will that have been energy well spent?
Click to expand...

Obstruction of justice is a big one and there's clear evidence of this with Don McGahn. An impeachment investigation would compel Don McGahn to appear before Congress in a live session so everyone can hear his words confirm what the Mueller investigation has already confirmed. Trump suborned perjury and attempted to obstruct justice and yes, for those who will argue that he didn't do it so it's not a crime is wrong. As Mueller confirmed yesterday the attempt is a felony, not just a misdemeanor, but a felony, a crime. That's only one instance of obstruction of justice, there's at least 9 others. Then there's the cooperation with a foreign adversary. He knew what the Russians were doing, and turned a blind eye when any American presidential candidate would have gone straight to the FBI. But he knew it was benefiting him, so he accepted their help. There's a very thin line between conspiracy and treason.

Since Donald Trump has no care for the Constitution or rule of law, even if he's impeached, he's not going anywhere. So good, let him run in 2020 with the cloud of impeachment over his head and all the damning testimony given by witnesses and all the documents he's been hiding out in public. Let's see what his chances will be then.
 
HumblePi said:
Obstruction of justice is a big one and there's clear evidence of this with Don McGahn. An impeachment investigation would compel Don McGahn to appear before Congress in a live session so everyone can hear his words confirm what the Mueller investigation has already confirmed. Trump suborned perjury and attempted to obstruct justice and yes, for those who will argue that he didn't do it so it's not a crime is wrong. As Mueller confirmed yesterday the attempt is a felony, not just a misdemeanor, but a felony, a crime. That's only one instance of obstruction of justice, there's at least 9 others. Then there's the cooperation with a foreign adversary. He knew what the Russians were doing, and turned a blind eye when any American presidential candidate would have gone straight to the FBI. But he knew it was benefiting him, so he accepted their help. There's a very thin line between conspiracy and treason.
Click to expand...

Folks who have been keeping score know that little of that is new information. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, or how good it is, unless it matters in the Senate.

Anyone who today thinks there's a chance Trump isn't as corrupted as a human can be either isn't interested to know or is a Trump supporter.

Yes, it's a shame, yes it's incredibly wrong and demonstrably illegal. It seems to me that none of that matters matters in the present context.


Since Donald Trump has no care for the Constitution or rule of law, even if he's impeached, he's not going anywhere. So good, let him run in 2020 with the cloud of impeachment over his head and all the damning testimony given by witnesses and all the documents he's been hiding out in public. Let's see what his chances will be then.
Click to expand...

In this, it's not just him, but his supporters and those in the GOP that don't like Trump, but would rather die than vote Dem. A failed impeachment will harden their positions and weaken the Dem voters' at a critical time.

You presume that testimony would be damning, even as the people giving it are actively resisting that. You presume that overwhelming evidence will change minds. When have those assumptions worked out with Trump?

I don't think you've answered my earlier question. If we go through all that, and he wins because we p*ssed off the electorate with our principled flailings and ran a weak candidate that lived up to all the negative stereotypes the GOP campaigns on, will it have been worthwhile?
 
WillyPete said:
Folks who have been keeping score know that little of that is new information. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, or how good it is, unless it matters in the Senate.

Anyone who today thinks there's a chance Trump isn't as corrupted as a human can be either isn't interested to know or is a Trump supporter.

Yes, it's a shame, yes it's incredibly wrong and demonstrably illegal. It seems to me that none of that matters matters in the present context.




In this, it's not just him, but his supporters and those in the GOP that don't like Trump, but would rather die than vote Dem. A failed impeachment will harden their positions and weaken the Dem voters' at a critical time.

You presume that testimony would be damning, even as the people giving it are actively resisting that. You presume that overwhelming evidence will change minds. When have those assumptions worked out with Trump?

I don't think you've answered my earlier question. If we go through all that, and he wins because we p*ssed off the electorate with our principled flailings and ran a weak candidate that lived up to all the negative stereotypes the GOP campaigns on, will it have been worthwhile?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, the bottom line. There's evidence against Trump, that's clear. If the democrats do nothing, they are literally derelict in their duty. They aren't doing what they took an oath to do, oversight of the Executive Branch. That's their job. Even if every republican votes against impeachment, which is a pretty sure thing, at least there will be even more evidence exposed justifying impeachment. After that, it's the republicans turn to deal with the blow-back if they turn a blind eye to "high crimes and misdemeanors", which is what obstruction of justice is. There will be a document that will be preserved throughout history.

To answer your question, if democrats do nothing, he wins for sure.
 
Last edited:
WillyPete said:
Folks who have been keeping score know that little of that is new information. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, or how good it is, unless it matters in the Senate.

Anyone who today thinks there's a chance Trump isn't as corrupted as a human can be either isn't interested to know or is a Trump supporter.

Yes, it's a shame, yes it's incredibly wrong and demonstrably illegal. It seems to me that none of that matters matters in the present context.




In this, it's not just him, but his supporters and those in the GOP that don't like Trump, but would rather die than vote Dem. A failed impeachment will harden their positions and weaken the Dem voters' at a critical time.

You presume that testimony would be damning, even as the people giving it are actively resisting that. You presume that overwhelming evidence will change minds. When have those assumptions worked out with Trump?

I don't think you've answered my earlier question. If we go through all that, and he wins because we p*ssed off the electorate with our principled flailings and ran a weak candidate that lived up to all the negative stereotypes the GOP campaigns on, will it have been worthwhile?
Click to expand...

It also bears mentioning: If he survives impeachment and gets reelected, he will be the only president in history to have been reelected for a second term after being impeached in his first. This would be a permanent historical legacy for Trump and a testament to the political division of our time in which the Democratic Party will appear to be the ones that were not representing the will of the people.
 
WillyPete said:
Folks who have been keeping score know that little of that is new information. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, or how good it is, unless it matters in the Senate.

Anyone who today thinks there's a chance Trump isn't as corrupted as a human can be either isn't interested to know or is a Trump supporter.

Yes, it's a shame, yes it's incredibly wrong and demonstrably illegal. It seems to me that none of that matters matters in the present context.




In this, it's not just him, but his supporters and those in the GOP that don't like Trump, but would rather die than vote Dem. A failed impeachment will harden their positions and weaken the Dem voters' at a critical time.

You presume that testimony would be damning, even as the people giving it are actively resisting that. You presume that overwhelming evidence will change minds. When have those assumptions worked out with Trump?

I don't think you've answered my earlier question. If we go through all that, and he wins because we p*ssed off the electorate with our principled flailings and ran a weak candidate that lived up to all the negative stereotypes the GOP campaigns on, will it have been worthwhile?
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Trump narrowly won three states. His margins were razor thin. A total of 107,000 votes combined in 3 states effectively decided the election. Pennsylvania, by 68,236 votes, Michigan by 11,837 votes and Wisconsin by 27,257 votes. Now, these were not Trump supporters that swung those states, they were HRC haters and Bernie Sanders supporters. Independent voters will most likely not vote for Trump in 2020.

If he enters the 2020 race with an impeachment hanging over his head even if not passed by the Senate, it's going to make an impact.
 
Hero Medal of The Russian Federation inaugurated by President Vladimir Putin.


s-l300.jpg
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm by nature a very cautious person. I consider and weigh all the options. I tend to be meticulous in planning (to a fault, ask my wife) before I embark on any endeavor. But, there are principles at stake here - big, important ones. I do worry that the partisan divide is so entrenched at this point that it won't or can't be overcome, but how far do we have to go before enough really is enough. This is not a matter of norms, but laws, standards, and constitutional requirements. If not now, when?

Donald Trump is the most flagrant liar to occupy the office; the most corrupt and obvious criminal. He ****s on the Constitution and the citizenry daily. A hearing would bring that out. As Kennedy once said, "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." If the constitutional order is not worth fighting for, what is?

Yes, I know that it may not be "political", but it is right, and isn't that more important? But, I think it would inspire so much more good citizenry - and likely more voting and other participation - that should overcome the complacency for larceny and malfeasance - and maybe even actually vote enough of the bums out of office to actually make change. We arrived at the tipping point and I've tipped. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. We shouldn't either.
Click to expand...

Help a brutha out here, since you're the smarter brother...
An IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY is SEPARATE from an actual impeachment PROCESS, is that true or not true?
It is totally possible to open an impeachment inquiry without being forced into launching an actual impeachment, yes or no?

I may be mistaken but I likened it to putting the key in the ignition and turning the car to ACCESSORY or ON to roll windows up or down or listen to the radio, but not actually turning the key to START and cranking the engine.

Is that a misconception on my part? Because if my comparison is accurate, then in my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with triggering an impeachment inquiry at all, we can do it till the cows come home if we like, the more information we get, the better.

Tell me if I am on the right track here, Northwest guy!
 
It's basically what happens when you have the good guys playing by the rules and the bad guys cheating and no playing by the rules. Evil will win
 
HumblePi said:
I have to disagree. Trump narrowly won three states. His margins were razor thin. A total of 107,000 votes combined in 3 states effectively decided the election. Pennsylvania, by 68,236 votes, Michigan by 11,837 votes and Wisconsin by 27,257 votes. Now, these were not Trump supporters that swung those states, they were HRC haters and Bernie Sanders supporters. Independent voters will most likely not vote for Trump in 2020.

If he enters the 2020 race with an impeachment hanging over his head even if not passed by the Senate, it's going to make an impact.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. I think this is the Democrat's election to lose, but they seem set on doing whatever they can to lose their advantage.
 
NWRatCon said:
The United States Constitution has been operational for 230 years. It has been the inspiration for hundreds of other constitutions the world over, and helped spread the concept of democratic representation since its inception. Yet, it is under its worst assault since the Civil War. That is not hyperbole. Our timidity in defending the principles and structure of the Constitution is allowing it to be killed by unscrupulous operators.

Consider: The current Senate Majority Leader refused for over a year to allow the Senate to execute its responsibility of "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" over a Supreme Court Justice, as called for in Article II, Section 2, cl. 2; Congress is given the authority "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, cl 1.), yet the President is usurping that authority to pay for a wall Congress will not appropriate funds for; the current occupant of the White House has committed repeated felonies while in office (and to get there), yet the House has yet to initiate a hearing about that (Article I, Section 3, cl. 5); previous Congresses and Presidents have created agencies to administer laws duly enacted through the Constitutional process, yet the President has appointed opponents of those agencies to head them and dismantle the legal apparatuses they are charged with enforcing (Article I, Section I, cl. 1; Article II, Section 2, cl 2.); the President, abetted by corrupt Attorneys General, has prohibited current - and even former - federal officers from appearing before Congress and inhibited their investigatory functions under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, cl. 18); and the President has failed to abide by his oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." having left a full third of the inferior offices created by Congress vacant. (Article II, Section 3.)

In each of those instances, the people have not, as a body, risen up to raise holy hell about these malfeasances in office (there are so many more I can cite). As citizens and denizens of the United States it is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable - and not just through elections. It is not just a right, but an obligation to " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People of the United States" and if we don't take responsibility to ensure that it is faithfully executed, who will?
Click to expand...

By Washington's successful advocacy as president of the Constitutional Convention the armed forces are required by law and under the Law of the Land to affirm an oath to defend and preserve the Constitution against the possibility of a tyrant ruler.

Enter the armed forces when comes the time, situation and circumstance and exit the tyrant ruler.

This is for certain since 4th March 1789 when the Constitution took effect.

Be assured.

Much hell and high water continues to occur as the undeniable nature of the Putin-Trump presidency supported by their Rowers in the USA. The tipping point for the armed forces will come however if the need occurs. The armed forces will never act to destroy democracy. The armed forces led by their commanders will act to restore the republic stipulated in the Constitution. It is predictable this will occur due to matters of national security, national defense and national sovereignty.

Guaranteed, if necessary and if needed. For certain.
 
WillyPete said:
Folks who have been keeping score know that little of that is new information. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, or how good it is, unless it matters in the Senate.

Anyone who today thinks there's a chance Trump isn't as corrupted as a human can be either isn't interested to know or is a Trump supporter.

Yes, it's a shame, yes it's incredibly wrong and demonstrably illegal. It seems to me that none of that matters matters in the present context.




In this, it's not just him, but his supporters and those in the GOP that don't like Trump, but would rather die than vote Dem. A failed impeachment will harden their positions and weaken the Dem voters' at a critical time.

You presume that testimony would be damning, even as the people giving it are actively resisting that. You presume that overwhelming evidence will change minds. When have those assumptions worked out with Trump?

I don't think you've answered my earlier question. If we go through all that, and he wins because we p*ssed off the electorate with our principled flailings and ran a weak candidate that lived up to all the negative stereotypes the GOP campaigns on, will it have been worthwhile?
Click to expand...

If McGahn is compelled to testify in a public hearing, it will force an impeachment vote. If Republicans don't fulfill their obligation to impeach him after proof of obstruction of justice, then it's going to hurt them in the voting booth on election day. That's all they care about, re-election. But we're talking about just one appearance before Congress, Don McGahn. But what about the testimonies of others like Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks, Don Jr.? What about all the documents that will now become a matter of public record, his income tax returns for example? Yeah, in an investigation, those will be handed over for scrutiny. Can he really get away with all of it? Maybe so, but if he does, it's going to be pretty harmful to his election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom