LMAO wrote:jayramfootball wrote:LMAO wrote:jayramfootball wrote:DiamondGooner wrote:LMAO wrote:Liz Cheney will vote to impeach Trump tomorrow, becoming the highest ranking (#3) House Republican so far to come out in favor and the second House Republican after John Katko. Like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
Saw somewhere that said: "The first impeachment was an indictment of Trump. The second impeachment is an indictment of the Republican Party."
Had the GOP voted to impeach (other than Amash before he jumped ship and joined the Libertarians) and convict (other than Romney) Trump last year, most of this could've been prevented.
Need to also throw Section 3 of the 14th Amendment at the 139 Representatives and 8 Senators who went along with this massive voter fraud charade by voting against the presidential certification.
Couldn't impeach him while he was in power so now they just want to give him a kick out the door .......... he already lost the election, they're only doing this now because his power base has fallen out from under him.
He's out the door whenever you guys get round eventually to crowning Biden.
See how nonsense your system is, how can a guy win an election but the other guy stays in power for months? what if Trump tried to push through loads of last orders because he knew he wasn't coming back?
Ridiculous system, just like your country.
It is a terrible system. Over 2 months from an election to the winner taking office.
As we saw in 2016, all kinds of havoc can be set up to 'welcome' the new administration.
It'll probably be the same this time around.
As for Democrats and Republicans pushing impeachment with literally 7 days left of the term, it's not only stupid it also sets an amazingly bad precedent. Now impeachment is apparently for the actions of your supporters - bizarre.
I bet not one of them - and very few in this thread - actually understand what impeachment is supposed to be for.
And another idiotic statement from our esteemed enlightened centrist.
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors."
If they don't impeach Trump, then it just signals that this type of behavior (i.e., inciting an insurrection) is okay. But again, I wouldn't expect a terrorist sympathizer to understand.
Your response shows that you are ignorant of any understanding of impeachment - as I suspected.
In this situation (as was the case with the Ukraine impeachment) there is no treason., there is no bribery, there is no high crime.
Which leaves misdemeanors.
For those of us who actually understand that term and it's context as discussed at the time of it's writing - we know that it is also not relevant.
Democrats - some of them have even said this - seem to believe that impeachment is whatever the House decides is relevant. Procedurally that is true, but it is also entirely unconstitutional.
Leave it to jayram to lack self-awareness lol
The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and their contemporaries disagree with you about the definition of "other high crimes and misdemeanors", but if you want to believe you know more about what they wrote than they did, then well, I can't help that level of delusion
I'll give you a hint though: "other high crimes and misdemeanors" aren't tied to criminal law or statutes and are closer to breaching or eroding public trust in the office and the president's ability to maintain that public trust, thus the House has wide latitude for deciding an impeachable offense, thus your whole unconstitutional angle is meaningless.
You're ignorant of the entire debate to get to the wording. Not surprised. I love the irony, though.
The founding fathers wanted to explicitly move away from any term that was too vague and would lead to a situation where - as stated by Madison, "So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate."
Their intent that Congress would not have such power was clear - and fully documented.
The original term proposed was "maladministration" and it was not accepted precisely because it was too broad a term.
That is where the language of 'high crimes & misdemeanors' came from. It was taken from the British and was not intended at all to be a broad brush that could be used so easily.
The Democrats set an awful precedent with the last impeachment and now they are making it even worse.
Fools - and the uneducated on the subject (like yourself) will just go along with it because it suits your ideological extremism in the here and now - but it is utterly without thought to the intent of the impeachment criteria.
It's correct to say it is not a legal standard, but there is clearly a standard and, frankly, I will leave it to the lunatic left to try and explain how questioning an election result is an impeachable offence.
Founders would be rolling over in their graves if they could hear the word salads and mental gymnastics the lunatic left use to justify their actions.