Why didn't Congress write up articles of impeachment when President Obama violated the War Powers Act and waged an unlawful war against Libya ? Oh wait...
US Navy haved more combat boats some in Coast Guard then Marines but Marines can not win war with America number two > Iran Military power(strong military units USA and Iran).
US Marines are 100,000 + 120,000 in western and eastern coast. Navy are bigger now than before last summer. In personnal force.
Here is an interesting question. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Congress gets its hands on substantative proof of criminal collusion between Putin and Trump to manipulate the election using hacked or fraudulent emails. by this I mean the 'smoking gun' emails between these two 'leaders'. We can even assume that Congress has evidence that Putin had threatened Trump with damaging information if he did not cooperate with a pro Putin agenda. Can Congress lawfully impeach and remove a president for acts committed before he took the oath? Can you impeach a President for high crimes or misdemeanors committed by businessman/ candidate or what the President might do if blackmailed? I am not sure the constitution gives a rats ass how you get into that office, if you keep your nose relatively clean once you take your oath.
You have no ability to impeach. The Democrats are about as important as the Greens at the moment. Where are you going to get 67 Senate votes to convict? People like you are acting as if Trump is some sort of Hitler figure. He's just another President. They're all scum, you just give your side a pass. Imagine for instance if it was a Republican orchestrating Obama's foreign policy. Heads would have exploded. But no, Obama is chic.
Actually only the first choice is possible, as he can't do the others by himself, which means the others are impossible unless he is acting in illegal defiance of the law and, if the orders he is giving are still being obeyed, the USA is pretty much over. That might have flown in 1835 but it won't now, too many people are too aware of how illegal that is.
trump, as president, is a nightmare for America and the world. But impeaching the idiot would require congressional republicans to grow a backbone, and we all know THAT is not going to happen. But, donnie boy has been a rich spoiled brat all his stinking life, and he thinks he can so anything he wants, and get away with it. So, there has to be evidence of some really dirty, awful, criminal acts that this clown has committed along the way. Hopefully, evidence that he committed multiple felonies will be discovered and this piece of trash will then be moved out of the White House and into the Big House.
We know you won't impeach him if he has an affair in the oval office, with an intern, on public time, and lies about it under oath. That would make Clinton worshipers look like total hypocrites. If he flashes his junk and gets sued for $800,000, he'll be safe too. As long as he don't say "grab women by the ****", that's what makes you people mad.
No need to impeach...He is starting to realize that he is in way over his head...He already hates that he will not automatically get his way...He will resign sooner than you think...
Maybe we should have him impeached after he has about a million radical, America-hating Democrats and illegal aliens lined up and shot! After all... that would be SO naughty....
So, in your opinion, we shouldn't just follow the wording and instruction of the Constitution, we should also consider whether or not it is "in the national interest to pursue a trial"...?! Oh, really.... So, even if "we" decided to add this supplemental consideration to what is in the Constitution, exactly WHO would decide what this "national interest" is...?! The Left might decide that they subjectively think that removing Trump is in the national interest. The Right may well have decided that removing Obama would have been in the national interest (especially in view of the fact that he broke the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing law no less than three times while he was in office). So, who actually decides...? . Isn't it great that this crackpot idea WASN'T put into the wording of the Constitution of the United States?
Obviously the Congress of the United States is who decides. You don't get the point behind that reference. All the conditions may be ripe to begin the process - a year or 9 months before a national election that would be a referendum on the same set of issues. If you recall, there was some interest by progressives in the House when Pelosi took over as Speaker to start impeachment hearings against Bush for assorted constitutional transgressions. Pelosi killed the idea chiefly because it would have taken at least a year for the House committees to fully investigate and recommend and then vote on the articles , and another 6 months for the Senate to prepare for a trial. In that time, he would have been out anyway. Practically speaking, the purpose served for those impeachment hearings would only be to embarrass the President. Then again one of the arguments against impeaching and trying Clinton in the Senate was there was virtually no chance of success when he had such high popularityin spite of the Lewinsky escape that it would have been silly to think 2/3 rds of the Senate would vote to convict and remove him. It was also true that voters knowing about the alleged perjury RE-ELECTED Him! that means you would be annulling the will of informed voters, not voters who were caught unaware by the scandal. If there is virtually no chance to succeed, or if the voters can remove him themselves soon enough, it is a terrible waste of the time of all three branches of Govt to be preoccupied by a lengthy committee process and trial. it is only in the national interest if there is a serious risk of delay, and there is political momentum sufficient to provide the votes. the constitution rests the power to impeach and remove in the hands of the only two bodies who directly elected, that means political considerartions are presumed to enter into it. With Nixon, the Watergate scandal was barely a blip when he won by a landslide, in 1972, so those voters who voted for him, could not know or foresee then scope and breadth. by the time the impeachment happened, he still had over a year in office to consolidate power. There it was in the national interest as well as constitutionally valid.
I think I see more clearly what you were trying to illustrate. Yours is probably a more practical and pragmatic view of the "mechanics" of impeachment and removal. Surely, that is part of the reality of the actual scope of the thing. I suppose I'm simply much more hyper-sensitive about the exact wording of the Constitution since that whole scandalous, illegal imposition of Obamacare (as wholly re-written by the Supreme Court in 2011). Even an incandescent twit like Pelosi knew there was no chance that even a Congress packed with increasingly radical Democrats was going to impeach "W" Bush. And, it was beyond imagination that even a Congress with more and more Republicans in it would ever impeach and remove a "Black" president -- even though he broke the War Powers Resolution with an illegal overthrow of the legitimate government of Libya, made recess appointments so callously illegal that not even his lick-spittle appointees on the SCOTUS would support him, and broke a law that he, Obama, signed into law, regarding exchange of prisoners from GITMO. There is indeed a difference between "possibility" and "truth", as I'm sure St. Francis of Assisi and Pontius Pilate would agree....
The purpose of the impeachment process is to remove potential tyrants and despots that may endanger the republic by corrupting its institutions or to remove an executive so ensnared in scandals, there is no capacity to govern. It is not supposed to be a punishment for wrongdoing. Insofar as voters have spoken or will speak on matters of character alone, their decision ought to be anulled. Unless the voters did not know the dangers before they voted, or the the threat cannot be thwarted in time via another election. That is when Congress needs to step in. Impeachment is a political and legal process involving all three of the branches, designed for a fairly narrow scope of time in the election cycles and it requires a fairly a serious threat.
I can see your point, and it reminds me of some of my own feelings when I was an ardent believer in a parliamentary form of government -- one in which "we the people" could very rapidly get rid of criminals and/or inept, stupid people from high positions of public trust. A vote of "no confidence" is very powerful, indeed. The attraction of the parliamentary form of government is still strong, and perhaps growing stronger among all of us -- Left, and Right. Perhaps "W" Bush should have been removed from the presidency when it became clear by 2004 that we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for no good, valid reasons at all -- and then compounded that horrific error by staying in both of those places (to this day!) for a protracted, VERY expensive bout of "nation-building".... Perhaps Obama should have been removed from the presidency for breaking the law on any one of the three occasions I've mentioned, or simply for the obvious, idiotic fraud of "Obamacare". What's sad to realize is how often citizens who become increasingly weary of all this kind of nonsense turn in desperation to some kind of perceived "benevolent despot" to cut through the 'Gordian Knot" of our own form of government in order to get something good to happen without having to endure years of so many things continuing going from bad to worse.... . "I'm your huckleberry!" .... -- "Yeah, whatever...."
the only impeachment call I ever supported was Watergate. I did not support the call to remove Reagan over iran/contra, or Clinton over Lewinski perjury or Bush for Iraq ( the torture memos and policy might have given me pause but it did not time right)
The court isn't asking him to comply. It's telling those he ordered that the order is not legitimate. It's up to the TSA to comply or face legal action. The Russia thing ... maybe.
I supported impeachment for Nixon also. Bill Clinton, according to a precise, denotative interpretation of the Constitution, should have been impeached and removed from office, for his was, indeed, a "high crime and misdemeanor". Porking Ms. Lewinsky wasn't a crime, IMHO, but lying about it under oath definitely was.... Iran/Contra? There's been controversy about that for many years (and I lived through all of them). At the time, though, every Democrat in D. C. was drooling with enthusiasm that they could destroy Ronald Reagan with such an odd assortment of assumptions, coincidences, and applications of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Very few people even remotely connected to the 'scandal' were even charged, charges against most broke down under examination, and fewer were punished. Of those who were punished, the punishment really amounted to very little... the phrase, "tempest in a teapot" comes to mind. Too bad the concept of "fake news" hadn't come into being back then.... I've enjoyed your posts, bt, and I will look for more of them in future. Cheers!
If the people do not use the laws of the constitution that make them "the rightful masters of the Congress and the court" they will wish their existence is an illusion. http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html
Trump has proven himself to be such a liar that he should be impeached right now: Fact check: Trump's messy case that he inherited a mess Donald Trump on Thursday made a messy case that he "inherited a mess" from his predecessor. Economic stats and territorial losses of Islamic State insurgents don't support his assertions about the problems handed to him on those fronts. A look at some of his claims in a news conference Thursday and how they compare with the facts: TRUMP: "To be honest I inherited a mess. It's a mess. At home and abroad, a mess." THE FACTS: A mess is in the eye of the beholder. But by almost every economic measure, President Barack Obama inherited a far worse situation when he became president in 2009 than he left for Trump. He had to deal with the worst downturn since the Depression. Unemployment was spiking, the stock market crashing, the auto industry failing and millions of Americans risked losing their homes to foreclosure when Obama took the oath of office. None of those statistics is as dire for Trump. Unemployment is 4.8 percent, compared with a peak of 10 percent during Obama's first year as president. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was cratering until March 2009, only to rebound roughly 200 percent over the rest of Obama's term gains that have continued under Trump on the promise of tax and regulatory cuts. When Trump assumed office last month, a greater percentage of the country had health insurance, incomes were rising and the country was adding jobs. The Trump administration has noted that a smaller proportion of the population is working or looking for jobs. But even this measure began to turn around toward the end of the Obama era. Yet it's true that jobs at factories and coal mines have been disappearing for more than three decades, while many Americans with only a high school diploma have seen their incomes fall after adjusting for inflation. The home ownership rate has slipped even as the economy has improved, leaving many pockets of the country feeling left out of a recovery that technically began more than seven years ago. TRUMP: "ISIS has spread like cancer, another mess I inherited." THE FACTS: The Islamic State group began to lose ground before Trump took office, not just in Iraq and Syria but also in Libya. The gradual military progress achieved in Iraq during Obama's final two years has pushed IS to the point of collapse in Mosul, its main Iraqi stronghold. It remains a potent danger beyond its shrunken territory, encouraging adherents to stage acts of terrorism. The analogy with cancer is an echo of Obama's last defense secretary, Ash Carter, who repeatedly cast Obama's counter-IS campaign as an effort to reverse the extremists' "metastasis" beyond the "parent tumor" in Iraq and Syria. TRUMP: "I see stories of chaos. Chaos. Yet it is the exact opposite. This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, despite the fact that I can't get my Cabinet approved. THE FACTS: Did he just say a "fine-tuned machine"? Trump's first month has been consumed by a series of missteps and firestorms, and produced far less significant legislation than Obama enacted during his first month. ' Republican-led congressional committees will investigate the Trump team's relations with Russians before he took office and the flood of leaks that altogether forced out his national security adviser in record time. His pick for labor secretary withdrew because he didn't have enough Republican support. By many measures, the administration is in near paralysis in its earliest days, leaving allies unsettled and many in Congress anxious about what Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called the "constant disruption." To many Republicans never mind Democrats the "fine-tuned machine" seems in danger of its wheels coming off. In his first month, Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus package into law, as well as a law expanding health care for children and the Lilly Ledbetter bill on equal pay for women. Trump has vigorously produced executive orders, which don't require congressional approval and typically have narrow effect. The one with far-reaching consequences banning entry by refugees and by visitors from seven countries has been blocked by courts. Trump's biggest initiatives, such as tax cuts and a replacement for Obama's health care law, have not emerged. On Thursday he was signing into law a rollback of Obama-era regulations on mining near streams. Congress has sent him little else. TRUMP, bragging again about his Electoral College vote total: "We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before, so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan." THE FACTS: Not even close. Three other presidents since Reagan won a larger Electoral College majority: Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in his re-election. Trump's win was only the sixth largest, out of eight elections, since Reagan. Trump won 57 percent of the electoral vote. The only post-Reagan president he bested was George W. Bush, who got 50 percent and 53 percent in his two elections. Reagan got 97 percent in 1984. When a reporter pointed out that Trump was overstating his winning margin, the president said: "Well, I don't know, I was given that information." He then called it "a very substantial victory." Trump actually ended up with 304 electoral votes because of the defection of two electors in December, but he had won enough states in November to get to 306. TRUMP, saying the appeals court that blocked his selective travel ban "has been overturned at a record number." THE FACTS: Other appeals courts have seen their decisions overturned at a higher rate than the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit that froze his action on immigration. In the most recent full term, the Supreme Court reversed 8 of the 11 cases from the 9th Circuit. But the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit went 0 for 3 that is, the Supreme Court reversed all three cases it heard from that circuit. And over the past five years, five federal appeals courts were reversed at a higher rate than the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit is by far the largest of the 13 federal courts of appeals. In raw numbers, more cases are heard and reversed from the 9th Circuit year in and year out. But as a percentage of cases the Supreme Court hears, the liberal-leaning circuit fares somewhat better, according to statistical compilations by Scotusblog. Most cases decided by appeals courts aren't appealed to the Supreme Court, and the high court only accepts a small percentage of those for review. But the very act of the Supreme Court's agreeing to hear a case means the odds are it will be overturned; the court reverses about two-thirds of the cases it hears. Trump = liar
Libs would impeach Trump for being alive but Barry could slit their kids throats and they would offer sex acts hahhaaa. Libs!
