VaultingChemist said:

---

Ruh roh......

---

Not Dick Durbin!!!!!

/not shocked face

Reposting here. GCF supports impeachment. Shocking...

Zemira said:

---

I was flipping channels earlier and stopped on Foxnews for a few minutes (normally avoid the cable news channels).

I'm not sure who the woman was but she was talking about Trump's reality TV experience. She implied that giving Trump the stage for impeachment with the MSM documenting every move of one of the people who excelled in reality TV is absolutely stupid. Basically her gist was giving a free reality TV show to one of the largest reality TV stars is suicide by the Democrats.

---

would love for Trump to tell nancy on election night "You're Fired" after winning reelection and taking back the house

BenFiasco14 said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

jblaschke said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

oysterbayAG said:

---

If the Dems in the House vote to start an Impeachment Inquiry, I think Trump will immediately file a law suit to stop it based on the Constitution not allowing impeachment for political reasons. There must be a real crime !

---

No. The premise is wrong because impeachment is a political not a legal process. No court should and hopefully would not even entertain such a suit.

---

OK, this is something I don't understand. Doesn't impeachment have to be based on high crimes and misdemeanors?

---

That is the language used in the Constitution but there is no definition of those terms within the Constitution. It is a term of art, not a defined legal term. Thus, nothing for a court of law to parse nor render judgment.

Consequently, which types of behavior constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever a majority of the House says they are. It is then incumbent upon the Senate to decide whether such behavior warrants removal from office and in a separate determination, whether a ban from any future federal office should be imposed.

---

There was a good argument concerning this on Ingram's show between Saul Weismann(??? Not sure of the name/spelling) and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz argued there had to be a crime and cited a case concerning President Alexander Hamilton. Not sure what is correct, above my pay grade.

---

---

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/15/alexander-hamilton-the-federalist-and-the-power-of-impeachment/

Quote:

---

Because impeachment is "a NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men," Hamilton continues, it was a power proper to vest in "the representatives of the nation themselves." The "model from which the idea of this institution has institution has been borrowed pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it." Hamilton noted that several state constitutions followed that same model of dividing the impeachment power between the two houses of the legislature. He then explicitly linked institutional arrangement to constitutional function: the power of impeachment is to serve "as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government." Hamilton cinches the point with a rhetorical question, to which he assumes the answer is obvious: "Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?" Hamilton reiterated the point for emphasis in The Federalist No. 66, referring to "the powers relating to impeachments" being, "as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that [legislative] body upon the encroachments of the executive."

---

The argument is if impeachment becomes a political procedure then the US Government becomes more a parliamentary form form of government. Example is ongoing in the UK with Boris needing votes of confidence, similar to Australia etc,

Again above my pay grade.

ETA: Dershowitz brought up adultery involving Hamilton which was a crime. It was not considered a high crime but a low crime. I didn't fully understand Dershowitz's point.

richardag said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

jblaschke said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

oysterbayAG said:

---

If the Dems in the House vote to start an Impeachment Inquiry, I think Trump will immediately file a law suit to stop it based on the Constitution not allowing impeachment for political reasons. There must be a real crime !

---

No. The premise is wrong because impeachment is a political not a legal process. No court should and hopefully would not even entertain such a suit.

---

OK, this is something I don't understand. Doesn't impeachment have to be based on high crimes and misdemeanors?

---

That is the language used in the Constitution but there is no definition of those terms within the Constitution. It is a term of art, not a defined legal term. Thus, nothing for a court of law to parse nor render judgment.

Consequently, which types of behavior constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever a majority of the House says they are. It is then incumbent upon the Senate to decide whether such behavior warrants removal from office and in a separate determination, whether a ban from any future federal office should be imposed.

---

There was a good argument concerning this on Ingram's show between Saul Weismann(??? Not sure of the name/spelling) and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz argued there had to be a crime and cited a case concerning President Alexander Hamilton. Not sure what is correct, above my pay grade.

---

---

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/15/alexander-hamilton-the-federalist-and-the-power-of-impeachment/

Quote:

---

Because impeachment is "a NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men," Hamilton continues, it was a power proper to vest in "the representatives of the nation themselves." The "model from which the idea of this institution has institution has been borrowed pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it." Hamilton noted that several state constitutions followed that same model of dividing the impeachment power between the two houses of the legislature. He then explicitly linked institutional arrangement to constitutional function: the power of impeachment is to serve "as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government." Hamilton cinches the point with a rhetorical question, to which he assumes the answer is obvious: "Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?" Hamilton reiterated the point for emphasis in The Federalist No. 66, referring to "the powers relating to impeachments" being, "as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that [legislative] body upon the encroachments of the executive."

---

The argument is if impeachment becomes a political procedure then the US Government becomes more a parliamentary form form of government. Example is ongoing in the UK with Boris needing votes of confidence, similar to Australia etc,

Again above my pay grade.

ETA: Dershowitz brought up adultery involving Hamilton which was a crime. It was not considered a high crime but a low crime. I didn't fully understand Dershowitz's point.

---

You DO realize he wasn't question the claim about a crime being needed.

He was wondering when the **** Alexander Hamilton was ever President...

TruckGuy said:

---

---

Good. Give them 5 more. I beg them.

Quote:

---

You DO realize he wasn't question the claim about a crime being needed.

He was wondering when the **** Alexander Hamilton was ever President...

---

LOL. Thanks for the assist here.

Quote:

---

Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.

---

They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.

Impeachment on this is gonna tear the country apart worse than the Kavanaugh stuff. Ugh. Just when you think it couldn't get any uglier

And re the Alexander Hamilton thing, richardag or whoever posted that, I wasn't disputing what Hamilton was talking about, I was just wondering where the President part came from, as he wasn't a potus

Gonna take bunch of perp walks to balance out an impeachment.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Impeachment on this is gonna tear the country apart worse than the Kavanaugh stuff. Ugh. Just when you think it couldn't get any uglier

And re the Alexander Hamilton thing, richardag or whoever posted that, I wasn't disputing what Hamilton was talking about, I was just wondering where the President part came from, as he wasn't a potus

---

The behavior of politicians and idiots on social media is not, in my opinion, indicative of the "the country". If that behavior was, Trump wouldn't be president and the liberals would hold both the House and the Senate and Kavanaugh wouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

I love the taste of a big ol nothing burger

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.

---

They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.

---

It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.

Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.

Rapier108 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.

---

They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.

---

It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.

Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.

---

Who needs facts when 47% of the country will support you unquestionably.

Rapier108 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.

---

They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.

---

It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.

Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.

---

While I have more than a few things against Tulsi, I appreciate her staying out of this one as well going crazy and saying maybe third trimester abortions were a step to far.

c-jags said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.

---

They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.

---

It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.

Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.

---

While I have more than a few things against Tulsi, I appreciate her staying out of this one as well going crazy and saying maybe third trimester abortions were a step to far.

---

Tulsi is the most centrist of them all right now and that is pretty ****ing scary.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Impeachment on this is gonna tear the country apart worse than the Kavanaugh stuff. Ugh. Just when you think it couldn't get any uglier

---

Should we just civil war this mofo and get it over with?

Prognightmare said:

---

---

They want to isolate Trump again - luckily I think Barr won't do it

bmks270 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Reports saying 213 House Democrats now support impeachment--5 short of number required for passage.

---

They are on board....as long as they don't have to go on the record supporting it.

---

It just shows the level Democrats have sunk to that they will vote to impeach without any hearings, investigations, etc. It is 100% Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEEE! at this point.

Looks like Tulsi Gabbard is still opposed to it.

---

Who needs facts when 47% of the country will support you unquestionably.

---

Actually impeachment doesn't even poll that well. The only group where it gets over 50% is among Democrats and not by much. It is the Democrats who describe themselves as socialist, very liberal, or progressive who are all in and that is not the entire Democrat Party, but it is the base.

El Hombre Mas Guapo said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

They want to isolate Trump again - luckily I think Barr won't do it

---

No reason for Barr to recuse himself. The ICIG made the referral, not Trump.

Is it possible that the "Whistle Blower" was actually a planned thing that was released to find a mole or to make the Dems look bad? Then the administration has the transcript ready to release the next day that vindicates him. It just fortifies the Witch Hunt comments.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

Somebody help me with the ((( )))

I thought I read long ago that alt right types used it as a derogatory reference to Jews. Why is Nadler doing it?

BTHOB-98 said:

---

Is it possible that the "Whistle Blower" was actually a planned thing that was released to find a mole or to make the Dems look bad? Then the administration has the transcript ready to release the next day that vindicates him. It just fortifies the Witch Hunt comments.

---

I believe it was planned but not to find a mole. It was to use the mole to have the press focus on Ukraine and Trump, but the script was written to flip the attention to Biden, Hillary and the dems. JMO

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

Somebody help me with the ((( )))

I thought I read long ago that alt right types used it as a derogatory reference to Jews. Why is Nadler doing it?

---

Because Nadler is derogatory to Jews.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

Somebody help me with the ((( )))

I thought I read long ago that alt right types used it as a derogatory reference to Jews. Why is Nadler doing it?

---

I assumed it was to emphasize his fatness.