President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Winning_Stroke

Boggles wrote: »

Again for those at the back, the is the party of law and order, the Republican party removing Impeachment from the constitution and giving America a King.

Oh no! :eek: This is outrageous. Imagine a King of the USA *shudder* Yeah you know, the King who's running in the election in a few months... *cough*

notobtuse

campo wrote: »

The parts highlighted above are exactly as you outlined, obstruction of congress which is an impeachable offence

No it isn't! It's a separation of powers... and the job of the judicial branch to remedy it.

If the Democrats were smart they'd drop the Obstruction of Congress charge if they had any brains whatsoever... realizing it will come back to bite them in the butt in the future.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

No it isn't! It's a separation of powers... and the job of the judicial branch to remedy it.

If the Democrats were smart they'd drop the Obstruction of Congress charge if they had any brains whatsoever... realizing it will come back to bite them in the butt in the future.

Trump made his own bed by refusing to comply with any discovery for impeachment proceedings, no other president has done so before. So if the senate find Trump not guilty of obstruction of justice then the whole impeachement process is not fit for purpose, for any president going forward, republican and democrat. So Republicans ar$e is equally edible in the future

manual_man

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The only reason that there is a need for new witnesses, is the very obstruction of Congress, most notably from the WH. It would have been far preferable if material witnesses offered material evidence to the charge.

The precedent for every future president not to co-operate has been set, thus undermining the Impeachment process.

If this was a perfect call, why not co-operate with enthusiasm to clear his name, and Implicitly knock political opponents out the door.

By definition, Trump is guilty of obstruction, he has said as much and his excuse doesn't address the charge.

Obstruction of Congress is a bogus charge invented out of thin air. Democrats declined to issue a subpoena and challenge through the courts if necessary. That is on them. Trump is not King. Though neither is the House of Representatives. That is the genius of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. There are checks and balances in place to ensure neither abuses their power. Democrats abandoned such checks and balances, and screamed "obstruction"! It is all so old at this stage. Relentless accusations and rhetoric, never-ending investigation. Blah Blah Blah. I've never seen such worse losers in my whole life. Democrats had the choice, post 2016, to do some serious introspection and determine to address the issues that led to so many voting for Trump, OR to go down the never-ending road of 'resistance' and rage and resentment, and constantly throwing their toys out of the pram. It is this decision that, ironically, will likely lead to Trump's re-election in 281 days time.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

Trump made his own bed by refusing to comply with any discovery for impeachment proceedings, no other president has done so before. So if the senate find Trump not guilty of obstruction of justice then the whole impeachement process is not fit for purpose, for any president going forward, republican and democrat. So Republicans ar$e is equally edible in the future

Why should Trump, or any president for that matter, aid in a farce based on no crime or misdemeanor? Other impeachment proceedings were based on actual crimes.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Going forward if a president fails to cooperate with Congress, they'll just impeachment him/her for Obstruction of Congress. That is the precedent the Democrats have now set. Sad state of affairs!

Trump has set his own precedents, if he is allowed away with what he has done, you could have a even worse person coming down the line who will push it more etc etc

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Why should Trump, or any president for that matter, aid in a farce based on no crime or misdemeanor? Other impeachment proceedings were based on actual crimes.

Seriously???:rolleyes:

campo

notobtuse wrote: »

Why should Trump, or any president for that matter, aid in a farce based on no crime or misdemeanor? Other impeachment proceedings were based on actual crimes.

According to Lindsay Graham no crime needs to happen for a POTUS to be impeached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoDKXGdi1xg

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Why should Trump, or any president for that matter, aid in a farce based on no crime or misdemeanor? Other impeachment proceedings were based on actual crimes.

So by that theory, no president is impeachable? And thus answers to no one and can do whatever they want? Also you've already been put in your place about your 'there has to be a crime for a president to be impeached' bull

notobtuse

manual_man wrote: »

Obstruction of Congress is a bogus charge invented out of thin air. Democrats declined to issue a subpoena and challenge through the courts if necessary. That is on them. Trump is not King. Though neither is the House of Representatives. That is the genius of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. There are checks and balances in place to ensure neither abuses their power. Democrats abandoned such checks and balances, and screamed "obstruction"! It is all so old at this stage. Relentless accusations and rhetoric, never-ending investigation. Blah Blah Blah. I've never seen such worse losers in my whole life. Democrats had the choice, post 2016, to do some serious introspection and determine to address the issues that led to so many voting for Trump, OR to go down the never-ending road of 'resistance' and rage and resentment, and constantly throwing their toys out of the pram. It is this decision that, ironically, will likely lead to Trump's re-election in 281 days time.

Not just Trump’s reelection but potentially overturning the House. The democrats were sitting pretty even with a Trump win. History usually shows that when a president wins by an overwhelming amount (which appears to be the track for Trump) the people are reluctant to turn over the House. But Democrat control of the House has done NOTHING for the people in three years. They’ve only focused on investigations based on lies and hatred and this impeachment witch hunt has become the straw that broke the camel's back. The people see the democrat controlled House has become worthless, even with Democrat media minions giving Trump over 90% negative coverage since being elected. The people notice Trump is the only one doing positive things for the people and I think they’ve had enough of Pelosi’s nonsense.

Get use to saying Speaker Liz Cheney.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

So by that theory, no president is impeachable? And thus answers to no one and can do whatever they want? Also you've already been put in your place about your 'there has to be a crime for a president to be impeached' bull

You obviously forgot the third executive branch of the government... the Judiciary. It's their job to reconcile Separation of Power issues.

If there doesn't need to be a crime for a president to be impeached I can't wait until Democrats impeach him again because they think his tie is too long.

campo

notobtuse wrote: »

You obviously forgot the third executive branch of the government... the Judiciary. It's their job to reconcile Separation of Power issues.

If there doesn't need to be a crime for a president to be impeached I can't wait until Democrats impeach him again because they think his tie is too long.

So was Lindsay Graham talking waffle when he said no crime was needed ?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

You obviously forgot the third executive branch of the government... the Judiciary. It's their job to reconcile Separation of Power issues.

If there doesn't need to be a crime for a president to be impeached I can't wait until Democrats impeach him again because they think his tie is too long.

campo wrote: »

So was Lindsay Graham talking waffle when he said no crime was needed ?

He wasnt. Impeachment of a president does not have to be for a criminal offence. Even the lowest of intellects would know this.

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

But Democrat control of the House has done NOTHING for the people in three years.

Shows how much you know. Democrats only took over the house in November 2018, meaning that they started in January 2019.

notobtuse wrote: »

They’ve only focused on investigations based on lies and hatred and this impeachment witch hunt has become the straw that broke the camel's back.

They also passed over 300 bills, mostly bipartisan by the way, that are now just sitting on McConnell's desk.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

Not just Trump’s reelection but potentially overturning the House. The democrats were sitting pretty even with a Trump win. History usually shows that when a president wins by an overwhelming amount (which appears to be the track for Trump) the people are reluctant to turn over

As Trump's trailing in the polls behind all the Democratic frontrunners, you sure about this victory on track? He didn't have an 'overwhelming victory' last time, for example

the House. But Democrat control of the House has done NOTHING for the people in three years. They’ve only focused on investigations based on lies

Check your calendar -it's been 1 year and a bit since there was a Democratic majority in the House. And do remember, the Mueller investigation was started by the Trump administration..

and hatred and this impeachment witch hunt has become the straw that broke the camel's back.

Then, why do a Majority of Americans want witnesses allowed?

The people see the democrat controlled House has become worthless, even with Democrat media minions giving Trump over 90% negative coverage since being elected. The people notice Trump is the only one doing positive things for the people and I think they’ve had enough of Pelosi’s nonsense.

Eh. Time will tell, you're spouting nonsense.

Get use to saying Speaker Liz Cheney.

Only if she gets elected into a House with a GOP majority.

notobtuse

campo wrote: »

So was Lindsay Graham talking waffle when he said no crime was needed ?

I was merely responding to how ridiculous the poster's comment was in the eyes of the voters.

notobtuse

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Shows how much you know. Democrats only took over the house in November 2018, meaning that they started in January 2019.

They may have only took over the house in 2019 but they focused almost all their efforts on Trump's impeachment since the day he was sworn in.

They also passed over 300 bills, mostly bipartisan by the way, that are now just sitting on McConnell's desk.

If they were worthwhile and helped the country as a whole, rather than mostly just progressive ideals, they would have been voted on.

campo

notobtuse wrote: »

I was merely responding to how ridiculous the poster's comment was in the eyes of the voters.

For me it is pretty simple, does a crime have to be committed to be impeached ? No

Is abuse of power an impeachable offence ?

Yes

So I believe the house have certainly proved that there was enough evidence provided to bring an impeachment case to the senate.

Now will the senate convict, of course they won't and as it stands there is not enough evidence to convict however if witness and documents were allowed the outcome could and probably would be very different and the POTUS knows this.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

They may have only took over the house in 2019 but they focused almost all their efforts on Trump's impeachment since the day he was sworn in.

So, you agree you were wrong in saying the Democratic House representatives have done nothing for 3 years but this? Bills were getting passed, some bipartisan (e.g., justice reform.) No need to be picky in your answer - yes or no, 3 years or not

If they were worthwhile and helped the country as a whole, rather than mostly just progressive ideals, they would have been voted on.

How would we know if they've not been debated in the Senate? Should McConnell be the ultimate arbiter? There are gun control bills there, for example, around universal background checks that enjoy bipartisan support - but not NRA support, which though the organization is withering still has McConnell et al in the GOP hierarchy by the short and curlies (and perhaps the Russians do as well due to their well-placed spy in the NRA).

notobtuse

campo wrote: »

For me it is pretty simple, does a crime have to be committed to be impeached ? No

Is abuse of power an impeachable offence ?

Yes

So I believe the house have certainly proved that there was enough evidence provided to bring an impeachment case to the senate.

Now will the senate convict, of course they won't and as it stands there is not enough evidence to convict however if witness and documents were allowed the outcome could and probably would be very different and the POTUS knows this.

With that thinking I'm guessing Impeachment would become a badge of honor for a president doing his job rather than a black mark on his presidency. Thank you democrats for making a farce out of the entire process.

notobtuse

Igotadose wrote: »

So, you agree you were wrong in saying the Democratic House representatives have done nothing for 3 years but this? Bills were getting passed, some bipartisan (e.g., justice reform.) No need to be picky in your answer - yes or no, 3 years or not

Okay I'll amend it... Democrats have done nothing good or effective for three years.

How would we know if they've not been debated in the Senate?

We can read them.

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

They may have only took over the house in 2019 but they focused almost all their efforts on Trump's impeachment since the day he was sworn in.


If they were worthwhile and helped the country as a whole, rather than mostly just progressive ideals, they would have been voted on.

Yes, none of these seem to benefit the country at all:

For the People Act "...to help secure elections from foreign interference and make them more accessible to voters."

The Equality Act "seeks to provide comprehensive anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans in employment, education, federal funding, housing, public accommodations and more"

The Paycheck Fairness Act "includes provisions that would prohibit employers from asking about prospective employees’ salaries, forbid retaliation against employees who compare wages and mandate employers show that pay discrepancies are based on legitimate factors."

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act "seeks to expand background check requirements on private sales, including those at gun shows, on the internet or through classified ads."

The Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act "seeks to lower prescription drug prices, bolster the Affordable Care Act and protect care for those with pre-existing conditions."

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act "provides funding and grants for several programs that tackle domestic abuse, to lapse in February when it was left out of a spending bill ending a partial government shutdown. The reauthorization includes everything in the original act and includes an expansion of a prohibition against firearm purchases for spouses or formerly married partners convicted of abuse or under a restraining order to include dating partners who were never legally married."

That's just to name a few that are waiting. Nothing important, nothing beneficial, I'm sure.

notobtuse

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Yes, none of these seem to benefit the country at all:

For the People Act "...to help secure elections from foreign interference and make them more accessible to voters."

The Equality Act "seeks to provide comprehensive anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans in employment, education, federal funding, housing, public accommodations and more"

The Paycheck Fairness Act "includes provisions that would prohibit employers from asking about prospective employees’ salaries, forbid retaliation against employees who compare wages and mandate employers show that pay discrepancies are based on legitimate factors."

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act "seeks to expand background check requirements on private sales, including those at gun shows, on the internet or through classified ads."

The Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act "seeks to lower prescription drug prices, bolster the Affordable Care Act and protect care for those with pre-existing conditions."

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act "provides funding and grants for several programs that tackle domestic abuse, to lapse in February when it was left out of a spending bill ending a partial government shutdown. The reauthorization includes everything in the original act and includes an expansion of a prohibition against firearm purchases for spouses or formerly married partners convicted of abuse or under a restraining order to include dating partners who were never legally married."

That's just to name a few that are waiting. Nothing important, nothing beneficial, I'm sure.

For the People Act
You forgot to note ‘The package aims to require states to provide an online option for voter registration and allow voters to register the same day they go to the polls. It would also require states to automatically register citizens who don’t register themselves.’ It opens the door for horrendous voting abuses.

The Paycheck Fairness Act
You forgot to note it is an infringement of religious liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution, and it legalizes discrimination.

I think you get the point... No need to go on.

campo

notobtuse wrote: »

For the People Act
You forgot to note ‘The package aims to require states to provide an online option for voter registration and allow voters to register the same day they go to the polls. It would also require states to automatically register citizens who don’t register themselves.’ It opens the door for horrendous voting abuses.

The Paycheck Fairness Act
You forgot to note it is an infringement of religious liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution, and it legalizes discrimination.

I think you get the point... No need to go on.

Ah great to see these articles actually get debated, be nicer to see it happen in the actual senate

I think you get the point... No need to go on.

notobtuse

campo wrote: »

Ah great to see these articles actually get debated, be nicer to see it happen in the actual senate

I think you get the point... No need to go on.

You don't think they were debated in the House? How did the votes go in the House for them by political party?

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

For the People Act
You forgot to note ‘The package aims to require states to provide an online option for voter registration and allow voters to register the same day they go to the polls. It would also require states to automatically register citizens who don’t register themselves.’ It opens the door for horrendous voting abuses.

The Paycheck Fairness Act
You forgot to note it is an infringement of religious liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution, and it legalizes discrimination.

I think you get the point... No need to go on.

Then vote vs the bills or make amendments to pass. But that's not what Mitch is doing, he's just sitting on them.

kilns

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Then vote vs the bills or make amendments to pass. But that's not what Mitch is doing, he's just sitting on them.

I always laugh when Americans declare their country the greatest democracy in the world when one man can stop laws being passed because he doesnt like them

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

For the People Act
You forgot to note ‘The package aims to require states to provide an online option for voter registration and allow voters to register the same day they go to the polls. It would also require states to automatically register citizens who don’t register themselves.’ It opens the door for horrendous voting abuses.

The Paycheck Fairness Act
You forgot to note it is an infringement of religious liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution, and it legalizes discrimination.

I think you get the point... No need to go on.

So that gives Mitch the right to block these and 300 other bills from going to the Senate? It doesn't automatically mean that they get approved, you know.

Don't be moaning here that the dems focus on nothing but the impeachment since they took over the house when there are literally hundreds of bills passed by Congress on Mitch's desk.

notobtuse

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Then vote vs the bills or make amendments to pass. But that's not what Mitch is doing, he's just sitting on them.

As with any Senate I think it is more important to focus on things that will pass and help the majority of people… not things that will fall to a presidential veto, and not having 2/3 Senate vote to overturn it.

I actually would be in favor of The Bipartisan Background Checks Act, with an amendment. We all know it is just a step in the progressive push for total gun control. Enact it with a 5 year limit... Then if it is determined it does almost nothing to curb crime, put a 20 year moratorium on any bill like it from being presented again. Show it for what it really is.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

As with any Senate I think it is more important to focus on things that will pass and help the majority of people… not things that will fall to a presidential veto, and not having 2/3 Senate vote to overturn it.

I actually would be in favor of The Bipartisan Background Checks Act, with an amendment. We all know it is just a step in the progressive push for total gun control. Enact it with a 5 year limit... Then if it is determined it does almost nothing to curb crime, put a 20 year moratorium on any bill like it from being presented again. Show it for what it really is.

So you agree one man not allowing any bills to be voted on in the Senate is undemocratic?