Why I oppose Impeachment

[Tehon]

“While Congress and the Mueller Report seem to believe a sitting President is above the law…”

Disagree.

That the House elects to not pursue impeachment doesn’t mean it believes a president is above the law, just as a prosecutor who decides to not prosecute a criminal defendant because he knows he can’t win a conviction isn’t placing that criminal defendant above the law.

Likewise, Mueller may believe in good faith that there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against Trump, regardless Justice’s policy with regard to indicting a sitting president; but that doesn’t mean Mueller believes a president is above the law, either.

Rather, Mueller believes that Trump’s guilt should be addressed by the political – not legal – process; where the people determine Trump’s guilt via impeachment or at the ballot box.

And Speaker Pelosi wisely rejects impeachment because she knows she’d not win a conviction in the Senate for the reasons correctly noted in the OP.

The responsibility will therefore fall to the American people to remove Trump from office the consequence of his crimes and misdemeanors.

Justice is not the sole purview of the judiciary; the people are capable of exacting justice when they vote, to hold accountable a president who has violated his oath of office and proven himself to be unfit to hold office, to remove from office a president such as Trump who has violated the law and the trust of the people, a president who is indeed not above the law.

According to Mueller and the DOJ, they cannot indict a sitting President. That means POTUS is above the law.

And what law did Trump break?

Irrelevant to the point.

 

[jknowgood]

“While Congress and the Mueller Report seem to believe a sitting President is above the law…”

Disagree.

That the House elects to not pursue impeachment doesn’t mean it believes a president is above the law, just as a prosecutor who decides to not prosecute a criminal defendant because he knows he can’t win a conviction isn’t placing that criminal defendant above the law.

Likewise, Mueller may believe in good faith that there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against Trump, regardless Justice’s policy with regard to indicting a sitting president; but that doesn’t mean Mueller believes a president is above the law, either.

Rather, Mueller believes that Trump’s guilt should be addressed by the political – not legal – process; where the people determine Trump’s guilt via impeachment or at the ballot box.

And Speaker Pelosi wisely rejects impeachment because she knows she’d not win a conviction in the Senate for the reasons correctly noted in the OP.

The responsibility will therefore fall to the American people to remove Trump from office the consequence of his crimes and misdemeanors.

Justice is not the sole purview of the judiciary; the people are capable of exacting justice when they vote, to hold accountable a president who has violated his oath of office and proven himself to be unfit to hold office, to remove from office a president such as Trump who has violated the law and the trust of the people, a president who is indeed not above the law.

According to Mueller and the DOJ, they cannot indict a sitting President. That means POTUS is above the law.

And what law did Trump break?

Irrelevant to the point.

In other words, you got nothing.

 

[Tehon]

“While Congress and the Mueller Report seem to believe a sitting President is above the law…”

Disagree.

That the House elects to not pursue impeachment doesn’t mean it believes a president is above the law, just as a prosecutor who decides to not prosecute a criminal defendant because he knows he can’t win a conviction isn’t placing that criminal defendant above the law.

Likewise, Mueller may believe in good faith that there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against Trump, regardless Justice’s policy with regard to indicting a sitting president; but that doesn’t mean Mueller believes a president is above the law, either.

Rather, Mueller believes that Trump’s guilt should be addressed by the political – not legal – process; where the people determine Trump’s guilt via impeachment or at the ballot box.

And Speaker Pelosi wisely rejects impeachment because she knows she’d not win a conviction in the Senate for the reasons correctly noted in the OP.

The responsibility will therefore fall to the American people to remove Trump from office the consequence of his crimes and misdemeanors.

Justice is not the sole purview of the judiciary; the people are capable of exacting justice when they vote, to hold accountable a president who has violated his oath of office and proven himself to be unfit to hold office, to remove from office a president such as Trump who has violated the law and the trust of the people, a president who is indeed not above the law.

According to Mueller and the DOJ, they cannot indict a sitting President. That means POTUS is above the law.

And what law did Trump break?

Irrelevant to the point.

In other words, you got nothing.

In other words, I'm not making a case against Trump. According to government policy, any POTUS is above the law.

 

[Hellokitty]

Obama was spying on TRUMP for at least 2 years, probably more, and Mueller investigated TRUMP for 2 years. What do you think congress will be able to find that Obama's intelligence and justice department couldn't find?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The thread is about addressing Trump’s crimes and removing him from office, not Obama.

If democrats already have evidence of crimes committed by TRUMP why don't they impeach?
The excuse about Mitch is and pretty much gives away the fact democrats have nothing on TRUMP.

 

[regent]

If a sitting president cannot be indicted, found guilty and removed from office, why did the founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution?

 

[Hellokitty]

“While Congress and the Mueller Report seem to believe a sitting President is above the law…”

Disagree.

That the House elects to not pursue impeachment doesn’t mean it believes a president is above the law, just as a prosecutor who decides to not prosecute a criminal defendant because he knows he can’t win a conviction isn’t placing that criminal defendant above the law.

Likewise, Mueller may believe in good faith that there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against Trump, regardless Justice’s policy with regard to indicting a sitting president; but that doesn’t mean Mueller believes a president is above the law, either.

Rather, Mueller believes that Trump’s guilt should be addressed by the political – not legal – process; where the people determine Trump’s guilt via impeachment or at the ballot box.

And Speaker Pelosi wisely rejects impeachment because she knows she’d not win a conviction in the Senate for the reasons correctly noted in the OP.

The responsibility will therefore fall to the American people to remove Trump from office the consequence of his crimes and misdemeanors.

Justice is not the sole purview of the judiciary; the people are capable of exacting justice when they vote, to hold accountable a president who has violated his oath of office and proven himself to be unfit to hold office, to remove from office a president such as Trump who has violated the law and the trust of the people, a president who is indeed not above the law.

According to Mueller and the DOJ, they cannot indict a sitting President. That means POTUS is above the law.

And what law did Trump break?

Irrelevant to the point.

In other words, you got nothing.

In other words, I'm not making a case against Trump. According to government policy, any POTUS is above the law.

If Mueller had found anything he could have challenged policy.

https://www.google.com/search?clien.....gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0j0i24.dR_YMiqWDXQ#

 

[Tehon]

If a sitting president cannot be indicted, found guilty and removed from office, why did the founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution?

I think the distinction between a political process and a legal process has already been made in this thread. When one is found to have broken the law they are usually deprived of life, liberty or property as a consequence. The impeachment process only denies one the ability to hold public office.

 

[Oddball]

If a sitting president cannot be indicted, found guilty and removed from office, why did the founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution?

I think the distinction between a political process and a legal process has already been made in this thread. When one is found to have broken the law they are usually deprived of life, liberty or property as a consequence. The impeachment process only denies one the ability to hold public office.

After which one can be tried and convicted of any criminal acts.....No double jeopardy as impeachment and removal are political processes, not criminal.

 

[Tehon]

If a sitting president cannot be indicted, found guilty and removed from office, why did the founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution?

I think the distinction between a political process and a legal process has already been made in this thread. When one is found to have broken the law they are usually deprived of life, liberty or property as a consequence. The impeachment process only denies one the ability to hold public office.

After which one can be tried and convicted of any criminal acts.....No double jeopardy as impeachment and removal are political processes, not criminal.

I get that. But the office holder cannot be tried legally. Meaning that POTUS is above the law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don't mind Congress if they witch hunt on their own time, but I will not let up criticism of them until they have fixed healthcare liked they promised at the 2018 mid terms. I don't care if they have to kiss Trump's ass, they opened their mouths, now they can pucker!

Obama was spying on TRUMP for at least 2 years, probably more, and Mueller investigated TRUMP for 2 years. What do you think congress will be able to find that Obama's intelligence and justice department couldn't find?

Until they do (investigate trump) we won't know, will we?

What evidence do you have to prove to me and the other readers that President Obama Spied on Trump? Limbaugh? Hannity? Trump, himself?

 

[Jitss617]

Angry white democrats

 

[regent]

Obama was spying on TRUMP for at least 2 years, probably more, and Mueller investigated TRUMP for 2 years. What do you think congress will be able to find that Obama's intelligence and justice department couldn't find?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The thread is about addressing Trump’s crimes and removing him from office, not Obama.

If democrats already have evidence of crimes committed by TRUMP why don't they impeach?
The excuse about Mitch is and pretty much gives away the fact democrats have nothing on TRUMP.

No legal crime need be committed to impeach.

 

[Third Party]

Don't mind Congress if they witch hunt on their own time, but I will not let up criticism of them until they have fixed healthcare liked they promised at the 2018 mid terms. I don't care if they have to kiss Trump's ass, they opened their mouths, now they can pucker!

Obama was spying on TRUMP for at least 2 years, probably more, and Mueller investigated TRUMP for 2 years. What do you think congress will be able to find that Obama's intelligence and justice department couldn't find?

Until they do (investigate trump) we won't know, will we?

What evidence do you have to prove to me and the other readers that President Obama Spied on Trump? Limbaugh? Hannity? Trump, himself?

Who said anything about THAT? I want them to work for ME! They can work for themselves(investigations) AFTER they fix healthcare. The investigations are not that important to me. And don't give me that walk and chew gum bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I agree with Speaker Pelosi, impeachment will be seen as Political Theater, based on the fact that the Republican Party is in the Majority, and McConnell has proved, by Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance he will prevent Trump's conviction.

I support allowing the various committees in the H. of Rep. to go forward with subpoenas, punish those who fail to appear with what powers they may have, and collect evidence of wrong doing by the President.

Then release this evidence to the public, and to each state with an on going investigation can then, investigate:

• on his tax records,
• on his culpability of violating Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 8,
• on his abuse of power,
• on his obstruction of justice.

And upon finding he did commit violations of his oath of office, indict and bring him to trial.

While Congress and the Mueller Report seem to believe a sitting President is above the law, the fact is a policy within the DOJ does not have the authority of the law.

In fact since this policy is not mentioned in COTUS, the 10th Amendment provides us the answer:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Why are you against impeachment? Can we be honest here and say that if the House Democrats attempt to impeach Trump, it will all but guarantee his reelection? That is what you are afraid of. You want impeachment without impeachment.

LOL, why do you echo others? Have you no ability to think for yourself?

I stated what I believe is the most pragmatic policy for the Dems. In fact I stated that very thing when the DNC sent me a survey.

 

[rightwinger]

I oppose impeachment because it opens the door to impeach every president on perceived flaws

Save it for serious transgressions

 

[basquebromance]

the dems are in disarray over impeaching Trump. grow a spine dems! check it out!

Why Pro-impeachment Democrats Are Still Siding With Pelosi

"Even the members who have been the most ardent public supporters of impeachment, such as Green and Representative Maxine Waters, haven’t been privately organizing against leadership or lobbying Pelosi on the issue, according to The Washington Post. “There’s impassioned debate among members,” one Democratic House aide, whose boss has called for an inquiry and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press, told me. But “it does not seem like there is a breakdown happening.”


It could be the case that Pelosi’s stance has offered some lawmakers a way to appease their constituents and express their personal views without having to actually act on them. “It probably gives us a little bit of cover,” the staffer acknowledged, adding that “there’s no sense here that she’s gonna come down on you if you” come out in support of an inquiry. (Pelosi’s office did not return requests for comment.)

“These people are historically not comfortable going up against Nancy Pelosi in the arena and squaring off,” said another House Democratic staffer, whose boss has also backed impeachment proceedings and who was similarly granted anonymity. “They like to pick fights with the administration and with the pundits, which is fine, but they are not the people who square up against leadership.”

 

[Hellokitty]

Don't mind Congress if they witch hunt on their own time, but I will not let up criticism of them until they have fixed healthcare liked they promised at the 2018 mid terms. I don't care if they have to kiss Trump's ass, they opened their mouths, now they can pucker!

Obama was spying on TRUMP for at least 2 years, probably more, and Mueller investigated TRUMP for 2 years. What do you think congress will be able to find that Obama's intelligence and justice department couldn't find?

Until they do (investigate trump) we won't know, will we?

What evidence do you have to prove to me and the other readers that President Obama Spied on Trump? Limbaugh? Hannity? Trump, himself?

Um it's no longer being disputed the Obama intelligence department spies on TRUMP. Both Brennen and Comey have acknowledged as much.

 

[Hellokitty]

Obama was spying on TRUMP for at least 2 years, probably more, and Mueller investigated TRUMP for 2 years. What do you think congress will be able to find that Obama's intelligence and justice department couldn't find?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The thread is about addressing Trump’s crimes and removing him from office, not Obama.

If democrats already have evidence of crimes committed by TRUMP why don't they impeach?
The excuse about Mitch is and pretty much gives away the fact democrats have nothing on TRUMP.

No legal crime need be committed to impeach.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Don't mind Congress if they witch hunt on their own time, but I will not let up criticism of them until they have fixed healthcare liked they promised at the 2018 mid terms. I don't care if they have to kiss Trump's ass, they opened their mouths, now they can pucker!

They can't fix health care. Trump has a plan he wants and he won't be satisfied with anything less or more. Of course, he promised he had one before he was elected. Now that that time has passed, now he says he will present it right after he is reelected. Sorry, no more free passes. So he gets what he deserves now. You don't like it, stop giving him free passes and insist he does his friggin job.

 

[Third Party]

Don't mind Congress if they witch hunt on their own time, but I will not let up criticism of them until they have fixed healthcare liked they promised at the 2018 mid terms. I don't care if they have to kiss Trump's ass, they opened their mouths, now they can pucker!

They can't fix health care. Trump has a plan he wants and he won't be satisfied with anything less or more. Of course, he promised he had one before he was elected. Now that that time has passed, now he says he will present it right after he is reelected. Sorry, no more free passes. So he gets what he deserves now. You don't like it, stop giving him free passes and insist he does his friggin job.

Congress passes laws like healthcare-did not Pelosi get credit for ACA? Now she and her minions can fix it. If Trump vetoes it, then you can blame him-but not until. And I am not a Trump supporter, but the Democrats have been the bad actors over these last two years so I take more shots at them than at Republicans, who yes, did have 2 years to pass it and Ryan and McCain buried that effort. Do yourself a favor-turn off CNN, take 5 minutes and look at whose job it is to do what. You will say what I did-I want my tax dollars I paid you back.