Inquiries and Impeachment of Trump

9500- I also agree - a wall is a boondoggle - and poorly effective at the objective -securing our borders from illegal immigration.

Money better spend on border patrol personnel, equipment, and technology.


Of course The socialist state of kalifornia Gov. Gruesome wants all that money to waste on "free stuff" for all his illegals who are being indoctrinated in Fascist DPST re-education camps to read enough English to Vote DPST!!!!

9500- I also agree - a wall is a boondoggle - and poorly effective at the objective -securing our borders from illegal immigration.

Money better spend on border patrol personnel, equipment, and technology. Originally Posted by oeb11

Personnel, equipment, and technology .... break down, need repairs and medical care, and are vastly more expensive in the short and long term. They are not an argument against a barrier. They supplement the effectiveness of the barrier in a multifaceted solution. The Israelis know. And do.

Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus legal arguments on impeachment

The president’s lawyers have made the sweeping assertion that the articles of impeachment against President Trump must be dismissed because they fail to allege that he committed a crime — and are, therefore, as they said in a filing with the Senate, “constitutionally invalid on their face.”

Another of his lawyers, my former Harvard Law School colleague Alan Dershowitz, claiming to represent the Constitution rather than the president as such, makes the backup argument that the articles must be dismissed because neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress can count as impeachable offenses.

Both of these arguments are baseless. Senators weighing the articles of impeachment shouldn’t think that they offer an excuse for not performing their constitutional duty.

The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable. Moreover, on July 20, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Virginia’s governor, urged the inclusion of an impeachment power specifically because the “Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power.” Even more famously, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 defined “high crimes and misdemeanors” as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Any number of such violations of the public trust — such as working with foreign governments in ways that make the president beholden to their leaders, or cooperating with those governments to bolster the president’s reelection — clearly must be impeachable even though they might violate no criminal law and indeed no federal statute at all.

The related suggestion that, even if some noncriminal offenses might be impeachable, “abuse of power” is not among them is particularly strange. No serious constitutional scholar has ever agreed with it. The suggestion turns the impeachment power on its head.

The logic of impeachment as applied to the presidency is that the president has unique authority conferred by Article II. If he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political, he injures the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed, waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...s-impeachment/

The fact is the fat lying bastard did violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine and once again sought outside interference for an edge. But their isn’t enough Senators still loyal to the country to remove him from office, their more concerned about their bank accounts and self preservation.

The fact is the fat lying bastard did violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine and once again sought outside interference for an edge. But their isn’t enough Senators still loyal to the country to remove him from office, their more concerned about their bank accounts and self preservation. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

if you say so.

Poor j666 - taking a page from Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi.

ANY argument Trump makes to defend himself against the fabricated, bogus Impeachment - is "bogus" to the Fascist DPST's.

you would happily remove all of the standard Constitutional protections for those accused from the POTUS.

Unless, of course, the POTUS is a fascist DPST - in which case the POTUS would not have been impeached by the fascist DPST House.
Face it - j666 - you are a Marxist totalitarian. Loves Mrax, Engles, Lenin, Stalin and their precepts of authoritarian government.

TDS and Marxist religioisity - 'Bad way to grow up, son - " to borrow from Dean Wormer.

if you say so. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, if you say so.

awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions". Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Poor j666 - taking a page from Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi.

ANY argument Trump makes to defend himself against the fabricated, bogus Impeachment - is "bogus" to the Fascist DPST's.

you would happily remove all of the standard Constitutional protections for those accused from the POTUS.

Unless, of course, the POTUS is a fascist DPST - in which case the POTUS would not have been impeached by the fascist DPST House.
Face it - j666 - you are a Marxist totalitarian. Loves Mrax, Engles, Lenin, Stalin and their precepts of authoritarian government.

TDS and Marxist religioisity - 'Bad way to grow up, son - " to borrow from Dean Wormer. Originally Posted by oeb11

Yeah, whatever. Making personal attacks via internet isn’t much of a defense of your fuhrer. It’s really all you have left and when the fat lying bastard is gone, you’ll wallow in pity for years. It’s gonna suck to be you.

Yeah, whatever. Making personal attacks via internet isn’t much of a defense of your fuhrer. It’s really all you have left and when the fat lying bastard is gone, you’ll wallow in pity for years. It’s gonna suck to be you. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

not half as much as it sucks to be you, now.


BAHHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

not half as much as it sucks to be you, ......


BAHHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Especially on this day in 2021! He would be pathetic if it were genetics.

The fact is the fat lying bastard did violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine and once again sought outside interference for an edge. But their isn’t enough Senators still loyal to the country to remove him from office, their more concerned about their bank accounts and self preservation. [/QUOTE]


Come on man, don’t be mad that the fat bastard has balls, drained the swamp and fucks better looking hookers than us. Join the party, get a ho and fuck away

Come on man, don’t be mad that the fat bastard has balls, drained the swamp and fucks better looking hookers than us. Join the party, get a ho and fuck away Originally Posted by 500sl

JacksOn doesn't know whether he has balls are not without a hand mirror .... with the magnifying side on it. Too much beer guzzling while sitting in a lawn chair at the firehouse! Like most of the mouthy SocialistLiberalGovernmentTitA ntiTrumpers around he PROJECTS his own shortcomings (pun intended) on the President of the United States that beat the shit out of his favorite candidate HillariousNoMorePredatorFacili tatorAdmirer!!!!!

If he didn't LIE and FABRICATE shit on here, he'd be Postless!

Yeah, whatever. Making personal attacks via internet isn’t much of .... Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Strategy in support of your candidate ....

.... oh yea! You don't have one. I keep forgetting. Are you qualified to vote?

Are you going to decide after the Fall Elections?

Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus legal arguments on impeachment

The president’s lawyers have made the sweeping assertion that the articles of impeachment against President Trump must be dismissed because they fail to allege that he committed a crime — and are, therefore, as they said in a filing with the Senate, “constitutionally invalid on their face.”

Another of his lawyers, my former Harvard Law School colleague Alan Dershowitz, claiming to represent the Constitution rather than the president as such, makes the backup argument that the articles must be dismissed because neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress can count as impeachable offenses.

Both of these arguments are baseless. Senators weighing the articles of impeachment shouldn’t think that they offer an excuse for not performing their constitutional duty.

The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable. Moreover, on July 20, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Virginia’s governor, urged the inclusion of an impeachment power specifically because the “Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power.” Even more famously, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 defined “high crimes and misdemeanors” as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Any number of such violations of the public trust — such as working with foreign governments in ways that make the president beholden to their leaders, or cooperating with those governments to bolster the president’s reelection — clearly must be impeachable even though they might violate no criminal law and indeed no federal statute at all.

The related suggestion that, even if some noncriminal offenses might be impeachable, “abuse of power” is not among them is particularly strange. No serious constitutional scholar has ever agreed with it. The suggestion turns the impeachment power on its head.

The logic of impeachment as applied to the presidency is that the president has unique authority conferred by Article II. If he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political, he injures the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed, waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...s-impeachment/

The fact is the fat lying bastard did violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine and once again sought outside interference for an edge. But their isn’t enough Senators still loyal to the country to remove him from office, their more concerned about their bank accounts and self preservation. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

This is really getting old Jax. You obviously aren't able to construct an opinion for yourself without parroting the WAPO opinion pieces, which BTW are opinion pieces. You take them far to much as gospel and repost with any reason or vetting of them.

Thnk you - for the usual nonsense postings j666
Remember - the rtm button is your little friend.

JacksOn doesn't know whether he has balls are not without a hand mirror .... with the magnifying side on it. Too much beer guzzling while sitting in a lawn chair at the firehouse! Like most of the mouthy SocialistLiberalGovernmentTitA ntiTrumpers around he PROJECTS his own shortcomings (pun intended) on the President of the United States that beat the shit out of his favorite candidate HillariousNoMorePredatorFacili tatorAdmirer!!!!!

If he didn't LIE and FABRICATE shit on here, he'd be Postless! Originally Posted by LexusLover

As of Dec. 10, the fat lying bastards 1,055th day in office, Trump had made 15,413 false or misleading claims, according to the Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement he has uttered. That’s an average of more than 32 lies a day.

I’m guessing it’s a requirement to be a hypocrite to join the cult.