House to vote on impeachment

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We no longer have co-equal branches of government? Corruption in opposition to POTUS is less important than corruption of POTUS? Corruption is not important if it is "not as"?

Are you the judge of what is not as important?

Corruption in our political leaders, whether they are Presidents, Senators, Vice Presidents, judges, bureaucrats, is important to root out and eliminate. President is a temporary office. Career politicians and bureaucrats and judges are here far longer and have a far greater cumulative effect in terms of corruption or otherwise.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We no longer have co-equal branches of government? Corruption in opposition to POTUS is less important than corruption of POTUS? Corruption is not important if it is "not as"?

Are you the judge of what is not as important?

Corruption in our political leaders, whether they are Presidents, Senators, Vice Presidents, judges, bureaucrats, is important to root out and eliminate. President is a temporary office. Career politicians and bureaucrats and judges are here far longer and have a far greater cumulative effect in terms of corruption or otherwise.

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is not undoing an election.

What would the result be if the election was "undone"?

What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment is not undoing an election.

What would the result be if the election was "undone"?

What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?

"Impeachment is not undoing an election"

It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.

"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.

"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"

Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Impeachment is not undoing an election"

It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.

"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.

There is nothing in the Constitution about how an election is undone, so what are you talking about?

"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"

Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

You have forgotten the last President and the efforts to impeach him.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that the clear majority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, while a majority of Republicans were in favor; for example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported these efforts while about two thirds of adult Americans in general disagreed with them.


he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is for Presidents who are "such an idiot", incompetent or otherwise unfit.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More conspiracy theories.

Next phase from Republicans it was quid pro quo. But not an impeachable offense.. as if theres an actual list
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

More conspiracy theories.

Next phase from Republicans it was quid pro quo. But not an impeachable offense.. as if theres an actual list
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

quid pro quo, that’s not what biden did though. withholding aid until
ukraine did what he wanted. that’s not quit pro quo? have fun.

conspiracy theory? amazing you know that, yet neither Durham nor the IG have released a single detail yet. so how do you know it’s an unfounded, baseless theory?

answer- all you care about is politics. facts o key matter when they serve your agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

quid pro quo, that’s not what biden did though. withholding aid until
ukraine did what he wanted. that’s not quit pro quo? have fun.

conspiracy theory? amazing you know that, yet neither Durham nor the IG have released a single detail yet. so how do you know it’s an unfounded, baseless theory?

answer- all you care about is politics. facts o key matter when they serve your agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do keep posting lies and revisionist history... on what biden did and why and who sanctioned it.( but a no appointed or elected lawyer doing Trumps bidding is ok with you. What an odd sense of right and wrong...is its all about reversing the election...or removing an unfit POTUS

So the attempt to impeach Clinton was which . Removing an unfit Potus or reversing an election

You speak about moving the goal post maybe you should ask trump supporters. To stop changing their stories [goalpost]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why do keep posting lies and revisionist history... on what biden did and why and who sanctioned it.( but a no appointed or elected lawyer doing Trumps bidding is ok with you. What an odd sense of right and wrong...is its all about reversing the election...or removing an unfit POTUS

So the attempt to impeach Clinton was which . Removing an unfit Potus or reversing an election

You speak about moving the goal post maybe you should ask trump supporters. To stop changing their stories [goalpost]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What lie, specifically, am I telling, with the examples I cite? Please be specific. It's very easy to do lobe baseless insults. How about backing it up?

"but a no appointed or elected lawyer doing Trumps bidding is ok with you"

Ummm, it's pretty common for the executive branch to make policy decisions that are carried out be people not elected. Rahm Emmanuel never carried out orders for Obama when he was chief of staff? What are you even saying? That presidents can only delegate work to people who are elected?

"So the attempt to impeach Clinton was which '

He lied under oath, there is no question, we have DNA evidence. The bar association, probably the sleaziest group of pep[le you can ever find, decided he was too dirty to be a member, and he was disbarred.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What lie, specifically, am I telling, with the examples I cite? Please be specific. It's very easy to do lobe baseless insults. How about backing it up?

"but a no appointed or elected lawyer doing Trumps bidding is ok with you"

Ummm, it's pretty common for the executive branch to make policy decisions that are carried out be people not elected. Rahm Emmanuel never carried out orders for Obama when he was chief of staff? What are you even saying? That presidents can only delegate work to people who are elected?

"So the attempt to impeach Clinton was which '

He lied under oath, there is no question, we have DNA evidence. The bar association, probably the sleaziest group of pep[le you can ever find, decided he was too dirty to be a member, and he was disbarred.

No answer

A unfit to be Potus

B undo an election

Its not that hard
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device