Politics Public Impeachment Hearings

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Exactly, thats why they investigate him, and thats why they have hearings. If they have something to back it up then they impeach him.
Click to expand...

That is a very modern Democrat position. No way that is the original intent of the Constitution. It is illogical to even think of taking the voters out of the selection process.
In my view, anyone that supports this bullshit, is in favor of making a mockery of our election system for the President. No way can anything good come from this sort of shit.
 
MarAzul said:
That is a very modern Democrat position. No way that is the original intent of the Constitution. It is illogical to even think of taking the voters out of the selection process.
In my view, anyone that supports this bullshit, is in favor of making a mockery of our election system for the President. No way can anything good come from this sort of shit.
Click to expand...
Wait so if they believe they have evidence of a president failing to uphold his oath they should ignore it?
 
MarAzul said:
That is a very modern Democrat position. No way that is the original intent of the Constitution. It is illogical to even think of taking the voters out of the selection process.
In my view, anyone that supports this bullshit, is in favor of making a mockery of our election system for the President. No way can anything good come from this sort of shit.
Click to expand...

Its not modern or Democrat at all. It was the position of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution. They included separation of power in the government so there are checks and balances. They did this for people like Trump who think they can get elected and do whatever they want regardless of the law, be called King.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
evidence of a president failing to uphold his oath they should ignore it?
Click to expand...

Hell they can't even articulate exactly what the fail is. It well might be best to ignore what you can't say! The Republican when they impeached Clinton at least had a crime they could say and point out in the code.
But as they learned the hard way, they should have ignored it and let the voters deal with it. A great many of those Republicans lost their seat and the Speaker was out when the voters did get a chance to speak not long after.

I am surprise the Dems can't see that same folly coming their way as they have even a less of a case.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Oh, horseshit! This a level of folly has not been done before, it has been warned against. Do you know where?
Click to expand...

Not horeshit at all. It is in the constitution. Go back and read articles 1, 2, and 3.
 
MarAzul said:
Hell they can't even articulate exactly what the fail is. It well might be best to ignore what you can't say! The Republican when they impeached Clinton at least had a crime they could say and point out in the code.
But as they learned the hard way, they should have ignored it and let the voters deal with it. A great many of those Republicans lost their seat and the Speaker was out when the voters did get a chance to speak not long after.

I am surprise the Dems can't see that same folly coming their way as they have even a less of a case.
Click to expand...

Uh, bribery, obstruction of justice, abuse of power only to name a few. My only question is how do you breathe with your head so far up your a..!
 
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president


"The “high crimes and misdemeanors” language remains controversial today. In two essays in our Interactive Constitution, Neil J. Kinkopf and Keith E. Whittington looked at the Founder’s vision.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.

>>> The highlighted is where we are today.

“When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

>>> the highlighted is where we should be.


If we continue with this folly, the we are likely to go here;

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...

Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
MarAzul said:
I take it you have a different version of history than I do.
I hear he resigned because the word was, he was going down and I mean, impeached. Non partisan like.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my post. I was proposing a hypothetical.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president


"The “high crimes and misdemeanors” language remains controversial today. In two essays in our Interactive Constitution, Neil J. Kinkopf and Keith E. Whittington looked at the Founder’s vision.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.

>>> The highlighted is where we are today.

“When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”
Click to expand...

All of that is irrelevant, since Bribery is explicitly mentioned.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Hell they can't even articulate exactly what the fail is. It well might be best to ignore what you can't say! The Republican when they impeached Clinton at least had a crime they could say and point out in the code.
But as they learned the hard way, they should have ignored it and let the voters deal with it. A great many of those Republicans lost their seat and the Speaker was out when the voters did get a chance to speak not long after.

I am surprise the Dems can't see that same folly coming their way as they have even a less of a case.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on those accusing him, Schiff and all of that... group. It is not on me to prove anything. However, if they believe there is cause for a hearing, or an investigation, because of a failure to follow his oath of office then to me it is also their job to follow through with an investigation, a hearing and impeachment if it is proven.

I understand your perspective at least to the extent that impeachment and removing a president from office should not be purely partisan.
 
barfo said:
I think you misunderstood my post. I was proposing a hypothetical.

barfo
Click to expand...

Perhaps I did.
I reread it and I suppose, you mean the following statement?
"No matter what the crimes, if the President's party sticks with him, his crimes are not impeachable."

Yes I expect this is close to truth. Especially when you have no statute crime. Then you would indeed be specifically in a politically dispute, and the voters are by design the natural decision makers.
They will be, in any case as was seen as the result of the wrongful impeachment of Bill Clinton. The voters corrected the injustice, Speaker out, majority gone.

But to continue this tit for tat with no lessons learned, can not produce any good.
 
MarAzul said:
"No matter what the crimes, if the President's party sticks with him, his crimes are not impeachable."

Yes I expect this is close to truth.
Click to expand...

Party over country, right? Nothing matters as long as your side "wins".

barfo
 
yankeesince59 said:
It wouldn't partisan if the GOP grew a backbone.
Click to expand...
In the terms of impeachment, I sort of agree. In terms of in general right I dont see much “across” the isle type stuff going on. It seems like theirs a bit of, “you’re a traitor” mentality if a D agrees with an R or vice versa. We have forgotten that though the ideologies may vary, that in regards to politics we should be working on what we believe is best for our country, not what is best for our party.
 
barfo said:
Party over country, right? Nothing matters as long as your side "wins".

barfo
Click to expand...

It depends on the subject, doesn't it. In this case, it is like a code of ethics, we both follow the same rules, we both win. It might even permit next to come up.
 
MarAzul said:
It depends on the subject, doesn't it. In this case, it is like a code of ethics, we both follow the same rules, we both win. It might even permit next to come up.
Click to expand...

Hard to understand an ethical code that says 'if one of our team commits a crime, it should be ignored'.

barfo
 
Actually, I can't even understand what the fuck the Democrats have to complain about. The only way a Republican ever wins a Presidential election is because the the Dems run a turkey!
But geez, impeachment is not a fix for that fail!
 
barfo said:
commits a crime
Click to expand...

Well Bill Clinton committed a crime. I thought the Reps ought to ignore it and let the voters handle. They did not, but the voters did handle.
Now this time, you can point me at the statute defining the crime and I will reconsider.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Well Bill Clinton committed a crime. I thought the Reps ought to ignore it and let the voters handle. They did not, but the voters did handle.
Now this time, you can point me at the statute defining the crime and I will reconsider.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if you google 'bribery' something will come up.

barfo
 
crandc said:
Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin said by trying to bully Ambassador Yovanovich, Trump guaranteed 100,000 women will crawl over ground glass if necessary to vote him out. She underestimated.
Click to expand...

I hope that is true, but there are a lot of stepford wives out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top