Will Speaker Pelosi withhold articles of impeachment from Senate until guaranteed a fair trial?

[Lakhota]

President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, but he remains impeached - FOREVER. The Constitution grants the House the sole authority to impeach.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Well, no, actually. This one is a president job approval graph. It started after he became president. So no, it wouldn't be the same one.

yeah same one. He’ll be your president in 2024 with those same numbers.

Repeating the same wrong statement doesn't make it any more true.

So, for the sake of clarity, you are saying that Donald Trump will not win a second term?

No I'm not saying that. I don't know what's going to happen. I assume it will be a close election.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP: Millions Of Voices Cry Out In Terror As Liberals Wake Up And Realize Trump Is Still President.

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

 

[Zorro!]

It’s a wonderful holiday surprise that she devised this method to invalidate the witch hunt and Remove the opportunity for the “impeachment” smear to stain Trump

The Left is very very foolish. They are so frustrated that they cannot impose their will on us, because they are restrained from violating our rights by the Rule of Law, that they are no longer committed to The Rule of Law, foolishly ignoring the slaughter that results when the national fabric devolves to open war, when who prevails comes down to who is more ruthless, determined and has better weapons or can get in foreign mercenaries with better weapons? Not: who can govern best under the law of the land.

The Democrats sang as they forced the Civil War by firing on Ft Sumpter, assured of a short glorious war, 4 years late 30% of the Democrat military aged males were rotting in graves, untold more shattered and maimed.

The Center must hold. Except for those 4 unfortunate years, the Center has always held, and the Rule of Law held order.

Our Constitutional Republic is a success, not a failure, it's only the wannabe totalitarian Left that is a failure, in America the Rule of Law holds. The Social Fabric prevails.

Impatience is not a civic virtue. Typically we Americans are slow to war. We’re a people of law. Also we’re hell's own bastards when the war starts, so it’s well that we delay.

Yes, the current abuses are egregious. But not the most egregious, but the most nakedly so.

The idiots and their shampeachment and their socialism-gargling candidates are nakedly, in the full light of day, trying to destroy everything we are and everything we believe.

Understand they’re doing that, because they’re desperate. They’re insane with anger. Baffled that what they’ve always done is suddenly not working.

And they’re losing. They’re losing at pretty much everything and showing themselves as incompetent ass clowns in the bargain.

Taking this thing hot now is to give them a dignity they don’t deserve. Do you remember the end of Princess Bride? Let them stay alive and listen to the laughter of derision, and know the Republic lives past them, and that we’re still Americans. Let them know they failed.

Anger

 

[WEATHER53]

He Is IMPEACHED scream the emotetard libs in caps

 

[Zorro!]

yeah same one. He’ll be your president in 2024 with those same numbers.

Repeating the same wrong statement doesn't make it any more true.

So, for the sake of clarity, you are saying that Donald Trump will not win a second term?

No I'm not saying that. I don't know what's going to happen. I assume it will be a close election.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP: Millions Of Voices Cry Out In Terror As Liberals Wake Up And Realize Trump Is Still President.

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

 

[WEATHER53]

He Is IMPEACHED scream the emotetard libs in caps[/QUOT
Everybody stamp their feet.
Impeach! Impeach!
Every body stomp their feet

The make pretent continues on and now that this died just as quick as Mueller did-what happens next????

 

[XponentialChaos]

Repeating the same wrong statement doesn't make it any more true.

So, for the sake of clarity, you are saying that Donald Trump will not win a second term?

No I'm not saying that. I don't know what's going to happen. I assume it will be a close election.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP: Millions Of Voices Cry Out In Terror As Liberals Wake Up And Realize Trump Is Still President.

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

 

[Lakhota]

Per MSNBC: The White House is debating whether Trump was actually impeached. So funny...

 

[whitehall]

As usual the crazy angry left has it ass-backwards. The defendant is guaranteed a fair trial not the prosecution.

 

[Zorro!]

So, for the sake of clarity, you are saying that Donald Trump will not win a second term?

No I'm not saying that. I don't know what's going to happen. I assume it will be a close election.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP: Millions Of Voices Cry Out In Terror As Liberals Wake Up And Realize Trump Is Still President.

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

At some point they will likely file the articles, so, it's not worth a lot of energy. In fact, the entire thing is a rather meaningless farce, which is why the nation has largely tuned it out.

Impeachment is a powerful political remedy, a precondition for which is the making of a political case that persuades the public that the president should be removed; and unless the public is strongly persuaded, such that two-thirds of the Senate is moved to convict, it's a mistake for the House to impeach in the first place. If Pelosi follows through with filing charges in the Senate, we will have impeached two of the last 4 Presidents when it was clear that the case for removal had not been made.

This current circus was a bipolar misadventure. On the one hand, we have an abstract legal understanding of what an impeachable offense is, on the other hand, we have a practical political understanding that an impeachable offense must be so egregious that it justifies going through the upheaval that removing a president necessarily entails. Impeachment is committed to the Senate rather than a court because it should be decided by a numerous tribunal of statesmen exercising sound judgment, free from the legal constraints that bind prosecutors and judges.

So one could have a hundred impeachable offenses in the abstract legal sense, but you don’t truly have any impeachable offense absent abominable executive excess that galvanizes the public, and thus the Senate.

We are currently struggling with, in our Republic, the erosion of restraints on executive power.

The Framers decided, with reluctance, to include impeachment in the Constitution because it was “indispensable”. The presidency needed to be powerful, but that gave it a unique potential to damage, or even destroy, the republic and its new constitutional order. The sophisticated men who designed our system knew there would be plenty of executive overreach and error. This “maladministration” would be bad, but not bad enough to warrant removal. The Framers assumed that Congress’s principal check on the president would be the power of the purse: Control of funding could gut a president’s dubious initiatives and incentivize a president to behave lawfully. The Senate would also have the power to deny confirmation of officials the president would need to carry out programs.

Unfortunately, after a century of progressive governance, these no longer work. The federal government and its administrative state have grown monstrously big. Federal money is now as much tied to social welfare as to traditional government functions. Budgeting is slap-dash and dysfunctional. To threaten to deny funds or leave agencies leaderless is to be seen, not as reining in executive excess, but as heartlessly harming this or that interest group. Lawmakers would rather run up tens of trillions in debt than be portrayed that way.

The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and until very recently has atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn’t make it any less indispensable.

The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved foolhardy. Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to regard impeachment as obsolete. Clinton’s impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct, though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior, strongly opposed Clinton’s removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for grave misconduct that involves the president’s essential Article II duties; and that because impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public consensus that transcends partisan lines.

House investigations should not be partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries, and it must respect the lawful and essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.

A failed impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion would be counterproductive.

Impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency’s core powers, not behavior that is intemperate or gauche. The People, not the pundits, are sovereign, and we elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he is as president exactly what he represented himself to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching him.

For the House to take the drastic step of being just short, filing the charges in the Senate, of impeaching the president is abusive of The Nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book

 

[XponentialChaos]

No I'm not saying that. I don't know what's going to happen. I assume it will be a close election.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP: Millions Of Voices Cry Out In Terror As Liberals Wake Up And Realize Trump Is Still President.

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

At some point they will likely file the articles, so, it's not worth a lot of energy. In fact, the entire thing is a rather meaningless farce, which is why the nation has largely tuned it out.

Impeachment is a powerful political remedy, a precondition for which is the making of a political case that persuades the public that the president should be removed; and unless the public is strongly persuaded, such that two-thirds of the Senate is moved to convict, it's a mistake for the House to impeach in the first place. If Pelosi follows through with filing charges in the Senate, we will have impeached two of the last 4 Presidents when it was clear that the case for removal had not been made.

This current circus was a bipolar misadventure. On the one hand, we have an abstract legal understanding of what an impeachable offense is, on the other hand, we have a practical political understanding that an impeachable offense must be so egregious that it justifies going through the upheaval that removing a president necessarily entails. Impeachment is committed to the Senate rather than a court because it should be decided by a numerous tribunal of statesmen exercising sound judgment, free from the legal constraints that bind prosecutors and judges.

So one could have a hundred impeachable offenses in the abstract legal sense, but you don’t truly have any impeachable offense absent abominable executive excess that galvanizes the public, and thus the Senate.

We are currently struggling with, in our Republic, the erosion of restraints on executive power.

The Framers decided, with reluctance, to include impeachment in the Constitution because it was “indispensable”. The presidency needed to be powerful, but that gave it a unique potential to damage, or even destroy, the republic and its new constitutional order. The sophisticated men who designed our system knew there would be plenty of executive overreach and error. This “maladministration” would be bad, but not bad enough to warrant removal. The Framers assumed that Congress’s principal check on the president would be the power of the purse: Control of funding could gut a president’s dubious initiatives and incentivize a president to behave lawfully. The Senate would also have the power to deny confirmation of officials the president would need to carry out programs.

Unfortunately, after a century of progressive governance, these no longer work. The federal government and its administrative state have grown monstrously big. Federal money is now as much tied to social welfare as to traditional government functions. Budgeting is slap-dash and dysfunctional. To threaten to deny funds or leave agencies leaderless is to be seen, not as reining in executive excess, but as heartlessly harming this or that interest group. Lawmakers would rather run up tens of trillions in debt than be portrayed that way.

The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and until very recently has atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn’t make it any less indispensable.

The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved foolhardy. Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to regard impeachment as obsolete. Clinton’s impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct, though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior, strongly opposed Clinton’s removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for grave misconduct that involves the president’s essential Article II duties; and that because impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public consensus that transcends partisan lines.

House investigations should not be partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries, and it must respect the lawful and essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.

A failed impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion would be counterproductive.

Impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency’s core powers, not behavior that is intemperate or gauche. The People, not the pundits, are sovereign, and we elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he is as president exactly what he represented himself to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching him.

For the House to take the drastic step of being just short, filing the charges in the Senate, of impeaching the president is abusive of The Nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book

I don't think anything is going to come of the impeachment either.

 

[basquebromance]

Pelosi wants the Senate to clean up the House’s work

 

[Zorro!]

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP: Millions Of Voices Cry Out In Terror As Liberals Wake Up And Realize Trump Is Still President.

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

At some point they will likely file the articles, so, it's not worth a lot of energy. In fact, the entire thing is a rather meaningless farce, which is why the nation has largely tuned it out.

Impeachment is a powerful political remedy, a precondition for which is the making of a political case that persuades the public that the president should be removed; and unless the public is strongly persuaded, such that two-thirds of the Senate is moved to convict, it's a mistake for the House to impeach in the first place. If Pelosi follows through with filing charges in the Senate, we will have impeached two of the last 4 Presidents when it was clear that the case for removal had not been made.

This current circus was a bipolar misadventure. On the one hand, we have an abstract legal understanding of what an impeachable offense is, on the other hand, we have a practical political understanding that an impeachable offense must be so egregious that it justifies going through the upheaval that removing a president necessarily entails. Impeachment is committed to the Senate rather than a court because it should be decided by a numerous tribunal of statesmen exercising sound judgment, free from the legal constraints that bind prosecutors and judges.

So one could have a hundred impeachable offenses in the abstract legal sense, but you don’t truly have any impeachable offense absent abominable executive excess that galvanizes the public, and thus the Senate.

We are currently struggling with, in our Republic, the erosion of restraints on executive power.

The Framers decided, with reluctance, to include impeachment in the Constitution because it was “indispensable”. The presidency needed to be powerful, but that gave it a unique potential to damage, or even destroy, the republic and its new constitutional order. The sophisticated men who designed our system knew there would be plenty of executive overreach and error. This “maladministration” would be bad, but not bad enough to warrant removal. The Framers assumed that Congress’s principal check on the president would be the power of the purse: Control of funding could gut a president’s dubious initiatives and incentivize a president to behave lawfully. The Senate would also have the power to deny confirmation of officials the president would need to carry out programs.

Unfortunately, after a century of progressive governance, these no longer work. The federal government and its administrative state have grown monstrously big. Federal money is now as much tied to social welfare as to traditional government functions. Budgeting is slap-dash and dysfunctional. To threaten to deny funds or leave agencies leaderless is to be seen, not as reining in executive excess, but as heartlessly harming this or that interest group. Lawmakers would rather run up tens of trillions in debt than be portrayed that way.

The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and until very recently has atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn’t make it any less indispensable.

The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved foolhardy. Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to regard impeachment as obsolete. Clinton’s impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct, though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior, strongly opposed Clinton’s removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for grave misconduct that involves the president’s essential Article II duties; and that because impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public consensus that transcends partisan lines.

House investigations should not be partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries, and it must respect the lawful and essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.

A failed impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion would be counterproductive.

Impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency’s core powers, not behavior that is intemperate or gauche. The People, not the pundits, are sovereign, and we elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he is as president exactly what he represented himself to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching him.

For the House to take the drastic step of being just short, filing the charges in the Senate, of impeaching the president is abusive of The Nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book

I don't think anything is going to come of the impeachment either.

So, what did Democrats accomplish in their first year in the majority in 8 years?

 

[basquebromance]

heads need to roll, or else nothing changes, my friends!

 

[Lakhota]

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

At some point they will likely file the articles, so, it's not worth a lot of energy. In fact, the entire thing is a rather meaningless farce, which is why the nation has largely tuned it out.

Impeachment is a powerful political remedy, a precondition for which is the making of a political case that persuades the public that the president should be removed; and unless the public is strongly persuaded, such that two-thirds of the Senate is moved to convict, it's a mistake for the House to impeach in the first place. If Pelosi follows through with filing charges in the Senate, we will have impeached two of the last 4 Presidents when it was clear that the case for removal had not been made.

This current circus was a bipolar misadventure. On the one hand, we have an abstract legal understanding of what an impeachable offense is, on the other hand, we have a practical political understanding that an impeachable offense must be so egregious that it justifies going through the upheaval that removing a president necessarily entails. Impeachment is committed to the Senate rather than a court because it should be decided by a numerous tribunal of statesmen exercising sound judgment, free from the legal constraints that bind prosecutors and judges.

So one could have a hundred impeachable offenses in the abstract legal sense, but you don’t truly have any impeachable offense absent abominable executive excess that galvanizes the public, and thus the Senate.

We are currently struggling with, in our Republic, the erosion of restraints on executive power.

The Framers decided, with reluctance, to include impeachment in the Constitution because it was “indispensable”. The presidency needed to be powerful, but that gave it a unique potential to damage, or even destroy, the republic and its new constitutional order. The sophisticated men who designed our system knew there would be plenty of executive overreach and error. This “maladministration” would be bad, but not bad enough to warrant removal. The Framers assumed that Congress’s principal check on the president would be the power of the purse: Control of funding could gut a president’s dubious initiatives and incentivize a president to behave lawfully. The Senate would also have the power to deny confirmation of officials the president would need to carry out programs.

Unfortunately, after a century of progressive governance, these no longer work. The federal government and its administrative state have grown monstrously big. Federal money is now as much tied to social welfare as to traditional government functions. Budgeting is slap-dash and dysfunctional. To threaten to deny funds or leave agencies leaderless is to be seen, not as reining in executive excess, but as heartlessly harming this or that interest group. Lawmakers would rather run up tens of trillions in debt than be portrayed that way.

The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and until very recently has atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn’t make it any less indispensable.

The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved foolhardy. Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to regard impeachment as obsolete. Clinton’s impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct, though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior, strongly opposed Clinton’s removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for grave misconduct that involves the president’s essential Article II duties; and that because impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public consensus that transcends partisan lines.

House investigations should not be partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries, and it must respect the lawful and essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.

A failed impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion would be counterproductive.

Impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency’s core powers, not behavior that is intemperate or gauche. The People, not the pundits, are sovereign, and we elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he is as president exactly what he represented himself to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching him.

For the House to take the drastic step of being just short, filing the charges in the Senate, of impeaching the president is abusive of The Nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book

I don't think anything is going to come of the impeachment either.

So, what did Democrats accomplish in their first year in the majority in 8 years?

275 bipartisan House bills stacked on McConnell's desk - that he refuses to vote on. Oh, and the House IMPEACHED Trump.

The pile of more than 275 bipartisan bills that stymie on Senator Mitch McConnell's desk is photographed on December 18, 2019 in the U.S. Capitol. SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE TWITTER

Democratic Senators are tweeting photos of the giant pile of "dead" House-passed bills on Mitch McConnell's desk

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don't know why so many Trump supporters do this. You don't seem to know how to distinguish between what you think will happen and what you want to happen.

I couldn't care less about what you want to happen. If you have any supporting reasoning behind what you think will happen, then we can discuss that.

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

At some point they will likely file the articles, so, it's not worth a lot of energy. In fact, the entire thing is a rather meaningless farce, which is why the nation has largely tuned it out.

Impeachment is a powerful political remedy, a precondition for which is the making of a political case that persuades the public that the president should be removed; and unless the public is strongly persuaded, such that two-thirds of the Senate is moved to convict, it's a mistake for the House to impeach in the first place. If Pelosi follows through with filing charges in the Senate, we will have impeached two of the last 4 Presidents when it was clear that the case for removal had not been made.

This current circus was a bipolar misadventure. On the one hand, we have an abstract legal understanding of what an impeachable offense is, on the other hand, we have a practical political understanding that an impeachable offense must be so egregious that it justifies going through the upheaval that removing a president necessarily entails. Impeachment is committed to the Senate rather than a court because it should be decided by a numerous tribunal of statesmen exercising sound judgment, free from the legal constraints that bind prosecutors and judges.

So one could have a hundred impeachable offenses in the abstract legal sense, but you don’t truly have any impeachable offense absent abominable executive excess that galvanizes the public, and thus the Senate.

We are currently struggling with, in our Republic, the erosion of restraints on executive power.

The Framers decided, with reluctance, to include impeachment in the Constitution because it was “indispensable”. The presidency needed to be powerful, but that gave it a unique potential to damage, or even destroy, the republic and its new constitutional order. The sophisticated men who designed our system knew there would be plenty of executive overreach and error. This “maladministration” would be bad, but not bad enough to warrant removal. The Framers assumed that Congress’s principal check on the president would be the power of the purse: Control of funding could gut a president’s dubious initiatives and incentivize a president to behave lawfully. The Senate would also have the power to deny confirmation of officials the president would need to carry out programs.

Unfortunately, after a century of progressive governance, these no longer work. The federal government and its administrative state have grown monstrously big. Federal money is now as much tied to social welfare as to traditional government functions. Budgeting is slap-dash and dysfunctional. To threaten to deny funds or leave agencies leaderless is to be seen, not as reining in executive excess, but as heartlessly harming this or that interest group. Lawmakers would rather run up tens of trillions in debt than be portrayed that way.

The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and until very recently has atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn’t make it any less indispensable.

The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved foolhardy. Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to regard impeachment as obsolete. Clinton’s impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct, though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior, strongly opposed Clinton’s removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for grave misconduct that involves the president’s essential Article II duties; and that because impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public consensus that transcends partisan lines.

House investigations should not be partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries, and it must respect the lawful and essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.

A failed impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion would be counterproductive.

Impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency’s core powers, not behavior that is intemperate or gauche. The People, not the pundits, are sovereign, and we elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he is as president exactly what he represented himself to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching him.

For the House to take the drastic step of being just short, filing the charges in the Senate, of impeaching the president is abusive of The Nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book

I don't think anything is going to come of the impeachment either.

So, what did Democrats accomplish in their first year in the majority in 8 years?

What meaningful legislation can they pass with one branch of congress?

If you like what the president is doing, then you're going to be against Democrats stopping his agenda.

If you don't like what the president is doing, then you're going to be in favor of Democrats stopping his agenda.

 

[WEATHER53]

Per MSNBC: The White House is debating whether Trump was actually impeached. So funny...

No debate necessary
Answer is no. Process not completed

 

[WEATHER53]

And man was she pausing, restarting, stammering, repeating and stuttering when she announced shes not sending the farce to the senate.

 

[Zorro!]

Trump will likely add 5 states to his previous 30 State sweep, winning 35 States to 15, or, 70% of the States.

I don't know why so many Lefties do this. They don't seem to know how to distinguish between what they think was said and what was actually said.

Not a substantive argument.

At some point they will likely file the articles, so, it's not worth a lot of energy. In fact, the entire thing is a rather meaningless farce, which is why the nation has largely tuned it out.

Impeachment is a powerful political remedy, a precondition for which is the making of a political case that persuades the public that the president should be removed; and unless the public is strongly persuaded, such that two-thirds of the Senate is moved to convict, it's a mistake for the House to impeach in the first place. If Pelosi follows through with filing charges in the Senate, we will have impeached two of the last 4 Presidents when it was clear that the case for removal had not been made.

This current circus was a bipolar misadventure. On the one hand, we have an abstract legal understanding of what an impeachable offense is, on the other hand, we have a practical political understanding that an impeachable offense must be so egregious that it justifies going through the upheaval that removing a president necessarily entails. Impeachment is committed to the Senate rather than a court because it should be decided by a numerous tribunal of statesmen exercising sound judgment, free from the legal constraints that bind prosecutors and judges.

So one could have a hundred impeachable offenses in the abstract legal sense, but you don’t truly have any impeachable offense absent abominable executive excess that galvanizes the public, and thus the Senate.

We are currently struggling with, in our Republic, the erosion of restraints on executive power.

The Framers decided, with reluctance, to include impeachment in the Constitution because it was “indispensable”. The presidency needed to be powerful, but that gave it a unique potential to damage, or even destroy, the republic and its new constitutional order. The sophisticated men who designed our system knew there would be plenty of executive overreach and error. This “maladministration” would be bad, but not bad enough to warrant removal. The Framers assumed that Congress’s principal check on the president would be the power of the purse: Control of funding could gut a president’s dubious initiatives and incentivize a president to behave lawfully. The Senate would also have the power to deny confirmation of officials the president would need to carry out programs.

Unfortunately, after a century of progressive governance, these no longer work. The federal government and its administrative state have grown monstrously big. Federal money is now as much tied to social welfare as to traditional government functions. Budgeting is slap-dash and dysfunctional. To threaten to deny funds or leave agencies leaderless is to be seen, not as reining in executive excess, but as heartlessly harming this or that interest group. Lawmakers would rather run up tens of trillions in debt than be portrayed that way.

The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and until very recently has atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn’t make it any less indispensable.

The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved foolhardy. Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to regard impeachment as obsolete. Clinton’s impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct, though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior, strongly opposed Clinton’s removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for grave misconduct that involves the president’s essential Article II duties; and that because impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public consensus that transcends partisan lines.

House investigations should not be partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries, and it must respect the lawful and essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.

A failed impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion would be counterproductive.

Impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency’s core powers, not behavior that is intemperate or gauche. The People, not the pundits, are sovereign, and we elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he is as president exactly what he represented himself to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching him.

For the House to take the drastic step of being just short, filing the charges in the Senate, of impeaching the president is abusive of The Nation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book

I don't think anything is going to come of the impeachment either.

So, what did Democrats accomplish in their first year in the majority in 8 years?

275 bipartisan House bills stacked on McConnell's desk - that he refuses to vote on. Oh, and the House IMPEACHED Trump.

The pile of more than 275 bipartisan bills that stymie on Senator Mitch McConnell's desk is photographed on December 18, 2019 in the U.S. Capitol. SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE TWITTER

Democratic Senators are tweeting photos of the giant pile of "dead" House-passed bills on Mitch McConnell's desk

Gross exaggeration:

Pelosi's Bipartisanship Boast

It’s not unusual, either, for the Senate not to act on hundreds of House bills, regardless of party control.

There’s no question that it is tougher for House Democrats to enact legislation in a divided Congress and with a White House controlled by the opposite party. But the Democrats exaggerate when they claim the House has passed “bipartisan bills” on such major issues as health care, net neutrality, minimum wage and climate control.

And Democrats have a year to complete the process of impeaching Trump by officially filing charges in the US Senate. They seem to have developed cold feet, it will be interesting to see if they actually follow through.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

now, don't you worry your uneducated little head, Lakhota. I'm sure the Senate trial will be JUST as fair as the one just conducted by the Stalinists.