It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Kutnupe14]

Also, I read from you I believe, it doesn’t have to be illegal to be impeachable, so it seems he is saying the “standard” for impeachment can be met, but should not result in impeachment. Just because something IS impeachable, doesn’t mean someone should be impeached for it.

Of course, when you’re critical of everything the POTUS does, EVERYTHING should mean impeachment.

I would agree, If the person who is to be potentially impeached understands that they did something wrong. A lack of such an admission, should lead to impeachment. There are members here that have said they believe the president's actions were wrong, or inappropriate, but that they didn't think he should be impeached for it. However, the president has no such remorse in his actions, nor does he think he did anything wrong. If one believes the presidents' actions were wrong, his lack of candor on the subject (assuming he isn't stupid) should lead to impeachment.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Great Trump can make history as being the first President impeached twice in his first term and * times in his second.

That would be awesome.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ecessarily-mean-a-president-should-be-removed

I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

I did not see this comment in the link you provided. Also, I’m not sure what he said that’s so incriminating of trumps actions, he’s basically saying what I already stated... just because something IS impeachable, does not mean a president SHOULD BE impeached for it. You yourself have said the same, so if your opinion is he should be impeached because of his lack of acknowledgement, I disagree.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I think it would be a good idea for Trump to find some reason to fire people in his administration. He can't fire Caramelmarshmellow, but there are plenty of other people to fire.

True he can't be fired, but he can be reassigned.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I haven’t heard that, but their only hope in removing him would be after November, if they’re able to keep their seats and gain a couple (unlikely). I only say that because, if they try again before November that just shows the country that THIS impeachment was nothing more than an attempt to remove the POTUS because they don’t like him. Any chance they may have of keeping their seat in November would surely be lost if they made another attempt before then, and would show without a doubt they’re suffering TDS and attempting anything to remove him from office.

Part of me wishes they would.

If they try again period, it shows it's nothing more than an attempt to remove a duly elected president.

 

[Libertarian01]

In fairness to the democrats in the House, I don't necessarily know that they truly wanted to go forward with this. But in this modern world of instant media coverage, and the blathering of the talking heads, the base became riled up.

So, story gets free into the media and internet. Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, other hardcore liberals start railing against this unholy abuse of power. He must be removed, blah blah blah. In the meantime the House democrats are getting annoyed at being stonewalled, they're now getting pressure from constituents, the media, and their own internal consternation. They probably know deep down they shouldn't move forward but the tail is now wagging the dog. They feel they have to go forward, if they want to have any hope of surviving being primaried.

They try a Hail Mary and pressure the Senate to somehow squeeze out more witnesses. They know it's unlikely but it's all they've got. They fail. Now here we are.

As I see it this is a large part of the problem on BOTH sides of the media aisle. Once a story gets loose - BOOM! Some faction (ti could be us, or them) gets PO'ed and before all the facts come out pressure is placed on our elected officials to take steps that are not prudent. In the olde days the nightly news, newspapers, and radio moved much more slowly. People in charge were given time to pause and consider what was before them. Not any more. Once a story leaks or is released if the public grabs hold of it and runs with it the officials will be drug along whether they want to or not.

What I believe we have is a systemic flaw that cannot be fixed, it can only be understood and acclimated to. Regrettably I don't think the majority of the public are willing to pause and consider when something tugs at their emotions.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Doug]

If they try again period, it shows it's nothing more than an attempt to remove a duly elected president.

Oh, I didn't think there was any doubt about that. They DID start this on November 9, 2016.

Maxine Waters promised they would perpetually investigate Trump until they removed him from office.

I'd like to see another impeachment brought before November.

 

[Dead Duck]

Great Trump can make history as being the first President impeached twice in his first term and * times in his second.

And don't forget about Trump's 3rd Term.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, that goes without mentioning.

 

[Ingomike]

A Utah legislator is filing a bill that would be the first step to recall Romney, they would have to pass a law first, and he claims it is not targeted at Romney.

Orin Hatch vouched for Romney and he likely lied to Trump to get Trumps endorsement. He could have run in Michigan where he could have fought to gain his party another seat, but he selfishly took a certain seat from the pols that had earned the right with his name recognition and star power. Better watch him he may flip parties. I hate carpetbaggers...

 

[KG1]

There should be a higher threshold for something as serious as an impeachment and removal from office. Something so serious that there can only be bipartisan support. Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes are all serious charges. Therefore a "misdemeanor" without a crime should also be something so proportional in nature as to set the bar high enough for bipartisan support.

The Democrats fell short of that bar with their articles they settled on of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" of which many others have acknowledged was an inappropriate act at best in the first article and an exertion of Executive privilege in the latter that neither one warrants a removal from office.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

There should be a higher threshold for something as serious as an impeachment and removal from office. Something so serious that there can only be bipartisan support. Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes are all serious charges. Therefore a "misdemeanor" without a crime should too be something so proportional in nature as to set the bar high enough for bipartisan support.

The Democrats fell short of that bar with their articles they settled on of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" of which many others have acknowledged was an inappropriate act at best in the first article and an exertion of Executive privilege in the latter that either one warrants a removal from office.

Perhaps raising the required vote % to something like 75%... which guarantees bipartisanship.

If it's there as a protection against corrupt Presidents... then it should be put in motion when it's so obvious that something bad has happened, that both sides agree it needs to be done. This would remove the idea of using it as a political tool, because it would absolutely be a waste of time and an obvious ploy.

 

[Mikey1911]

Perhaps raising the required vote % to something like 75%... which guarantees bipartisanship.

If it's there as a protection against corrupt Presidents... then it should be put in motion when it's so obvious that something bad has happened, that both sides agree it needs to be done. This would remove the idea of using it as a political tool, because it would absolutely be a waste of time and an obvious ploy.

I have to wonder why the Founders didn’t write into the Constitution a requirement for a supermajority vote in the House for impeachment, as they did for conviction in the Senate ( . . . And no person shall be impeached without the consent of two-thirds of the Members present).

Obviously they couldn’t have anticipated the incomparable idiocy of the Schiff/Nadler Axis.

 

[2A_Tom]

Someone smarter than me needs to research and find out if there were any of the founders the likes of these current imbeciles.

 

[KG1]

I have to wonder why the Founders didn’t write into the Constitution a requirement for a supermajority vote in the House for impeachment, as they did for conviction in the Senate ( . . . And no person shall be impeached without the consent of two-thirds of the Members present).

Obviously they couldn’t have anticipated the incomparable idiocy of the Schiff/Nadler Axis.

Hamilton voiced a concern about an impeachment at the hands of a majority party.

He warned of the greatest danger that the decision to move forward with impeachment will be "regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstration of guilt or innocence"

He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the ‘most cunning or most numerous factions’ and lack the ‘requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.’”

The Democrats have never exhibited that they would be capable of having a "requisite neutrality" toward Trump ever since he took office and it's that exact prior conduct that would almost guarantee a partisan impeachment of which they have opined for as their partisan political solution of choice to rid themselves of what they saw as an "illegitimate interloper" that "stole" the election from them.

They have been seeking to change the outcome of the 2016 election that they have never accepted and are now trying to remove Trump from office before the 2020 election. This impeachment was all a partisan effort from the get go.

 

[Mikey1911]

Someone smarter than me needs to research and find out if there were any of the founders the likes of these current imbeciles.

Aaron Burr, perhaps?

 

[2A_Tom]

Hamilton voiced a concern about an impeachment at the hands of a majority party.

He warned of the greatest danger that the decision to move forward with impeachment will be "regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstration of guilt or innocence"

He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the ‘most cunning or most numerous factions’ and lack the ‘requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.’”

The Democrats have never exhibited that they would be capable of having a "requisite neutrality" toward Trump ever since he took office and it's that exact prior conduct that would almost guarantee a partisan impeachment of which they have opined for as their partisan political solution of choice to rid themselves of what they saw as an "illegitimate interloper" that "stole" the election from them.

They have been seeking to change the outcome of the 2016 election and are now trying to remove Trump from office before the 2020 election. This impeachment was all a partisan effort from the get go.

But the left hates Hamilton.

 

[ultra...good]

Aaron Burr, perhaps?

If only we could go back to those times.
You want to run your mouth? Better be ready to back it up.

 

[jamil]

There should be a higher threshold for something as serious as an impeachment and removal from office. Something so serious that there can only be bipartisan support. Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes are all serious charges. Therefore a "misdemeanor" without a crime should also be something so proportional in nature as to set the bar high enough for bipartisan support.

The Democrats fell short of that bar with their articles they settled on of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" of which many others have acknowledged was an inappropriate act at best in the first article and an exertion of Executive privilege in the latter that neither one warrants a removal from office.

Yep.

[video=youtube_share;NyN9R_MCWSA]http://youtu.be/NyN9R_MCWSA[/video]

 

[Phase2]