TheCid

Impeachment AND Conviction, 25th Amendment or Censure

385 posts in this topic

The only thing this will accomplish is to maybe scare a few Republican representatives and senators, just maybe.

Trump will never be impeached, much less convicted.

 

While I agree with you,  I don't believe you will convince many of the Dem\liberals\Trump haters.    When one's actions are based mostly on emotions,  logic and reasoning are rendered useless.

 

So I say release those emotions by having these protest.   The only area were I believe these impeachment protests hurt the cause is they are a distraction.    E.g. the House bills on immigration that were passed last week and the change made to charge sponsors of illegal immigration.

 

While I support these measures,  I know that most Dems\liberals do NOT;  so instead of what I view as meaningless impeachment protest,   it would have been more useful (as in maybe flipping a GOP member in the Senate)  to have targeted protested about those immigration bills.  

 

But hey,  I'm using logic and reasoning,  and like I said that falls flat when the emotions are as high as they are now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here Are the 4 Lawsuits That Could Force Trump to Release His Taxes-

 

 

 

Let’s see if “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

 

 

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/4-lawsuits-force-trump-release-taxes/

 

 

 

......“When this president goes to make a decision, is he making that decision out of concern for the public interest, or is he doing it because somebody has been able to curry favor with him and he’s thinking there may be some benefit to my business, my family, my brand?” Sarbanes says. “It’s not academic. This is real.”

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Are the 4 Lawsuits That Could Force Trump to Release His Taxes-

 

Let’s see if “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/4-lawsuits-force-trump-release-taxes/

 

......“When this president goes to make a decision, is he making that decision out of concern for the public interest, or is he doing it because somebody has been able to curry favor with him and he’s thinking there may be some benefit to my business, my family, my brand?” Sarbanes says. “It’s not academic. This is real.”

 

I don't think Trump gives it that much thought.  He just does whatever on the spur of the moment.  His main consideration is whether or not it will make him look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the legal pundits on television yesterday were quick to say Donny Junior's collusion with the Russians was NOT an act of treason because for it to be treason the U.S. would have to be at war or under attack (think Pearl Harbour) by the foreign country in question.

But at least one lawyer pointed out that the Russian cyber attack on the U.S. election was an act of war.

Junior might be making new law with this case.  Good one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congressman Takes First Formal Step To Impeach Trump-
 
Democratic California Rep. Brad Sherman believes the president obstructed justice.
 
 

 

On Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced an article of impeachment in the House, seeking to remove President Donald Trump from office for obstruction of justice. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) co-sponsored the article......

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sherman-impeach-trump-article-obstruction_us_59666d71e4b0a0c6f1e5517f?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen very much in the media about the possibility of

impeaching Trump, but then again Ramirez is pretty wingnutty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen very much in the media about the possibility of

impeaching Trump, but then again Ramirez is pretty wingnutty.

 

I agree that the media,  even all-thing-Trump consumed CNN,  doesn't discuss the possibility of impeachment 'very much'.

 

Instead it is mostly just wingnuts like Maxine Waters that brings this up   (and I heard her latest rant about impeachment on Fox,  since Fox likes to show the most out-there Dems as a way to discredit the party).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the media,  even all-thing-Trump consumed CNN,  doesn't discuss the possibility of impeachment 'very much'.

 

Instead it is mostly just wingnuts like Maxine Waters that brings this up   (and I heard her latest rant about impeachment on Fox,  since Fox likes to show the most out-there Dems as a way to discredit the party).

Waters is not a right wing nut job, but she is often out there on the

fringes. I'm sure Fox would like to believe that the future of the Democratic

party rises or falls on what Waters says, but I doubt that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waters is not a right wing nut job, but she is often out there on the

fringes. I'm sure Fox would like to believe that the future of the Democratic

party rises or falls on what Waters says, but I doubt that.

 

Birds have two wings,  a left and right one.    Waters is clearly a left wing nut job.

 

As for Fox;  Yea,  you stated why they like to feature Dem politicians like Waters when in reality pols like Waters have little power or influence.   They talk touch but have nothing to back up their BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds have two wings,  a left and right one.    Waters is clearly a left wing nut job.

 

As for Fox;  Yea,  you stated why they like to feature Dem politicians like Waters when in reality pols like Waters have little power or influence.   They talk touch but have nothing to back up their BS.

 

Interesting analogy, if a bird was political, couldn't fly because one wing wants to go up, the other down. :huh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arpaio Pardon: The First Verifiable Impeachable Offense?

 

 

"To issue a pardon for Arpaio would be “an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself,” Noah Feldman, a constitutional and international law professor at Harvard University, wrote for Bloomberg before the pardon announcement:

 

"It’s one thing to pardon a criminal out of a sense of mercy or on the belief that he has paid his debt to society......

 

But it would be an altogether different matter if Trump pardoned Arpaio for willfully refusing to follow the Constitution and violating the rights of people inside the US.

Impeachment is the only constitutional remedy for dealing with a president, writes Feldman, “who abuses the pardon power to break the system itself.”

 

Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, gives several reasons why the Arpaio pardon is the president’s first verifiable impeachable offense:

  • It is an impeachable offense precisely because it involves the exercise of a constitutionally created presidential power.
  • The use of the pardon power in this case is a direct assault on core constitutional rights, statutory civil rights laws of the United States, and the authority of courts to enforce those laws.
  • It therefore threatens constitutional civil liberties generally, as well as the viability of congressionally authorized statutory law, and it is a direct attack on the constitutional powers of the judiciary as a coordinate branch of government.
  • Accordingly, this pardon threatens to undercut one of the indispensable, foundational norms of American constitutional order: the rule of law.....

http://billmoyers.com/story/president-piker/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds have two wings,  a left and right one.    Waters is clearly a left wing nut job.

 

As for Fox;  Yea,  you stated why they like to feature Dem politicians like Waters when in reality pols like Waters have little power or influence.   They talk touch but have nothing to back up their BS.

Wingnut was originally shorthand for right wing nut job. Then it was applied to

left wingers too. I never agreed with that change, so people will have to come up

with another word, in my opinion. Except for people who are very interested in

politics, Waters' name would draw a blank. Heck, a lot of people can't even

name their own Representative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wingnut was originally shorthand for right wing nut job. Then it was applied to

left wingers too. I never agreed with that change, so people will have to come up

with another word, in my opinion. Except for people who are very interested in

politics, Waters' name would draw a blank. Heck, a lot of people can't even

name their own Representative. 

 

To me use of wingnut for both left and right 'nut jobs' is more fair;  why?   Well the right likes to use the term liberal as representing "nut jobs" by default.   I.e. all 'liberals' are socialist,  and maybe even commies with no morals etc... 

 

The right does this to demonize the term liberal and has been generally successful.   So to me by NOT using wingnut for BOTH sides one is doing what the right wants them to do in that:   there are conservatives and they are all reasonable,  but far, far right cons are wingnuts and of course all liberals are far left nut jobs (i.e. no non derogatory term for a reasonable person that leans left). 

 

Yes,  Waters is really just a nobody,  but she has become a punching bag for Fox as well as a 'go-to' spokesperson for black anger towards all-thing Trump.     My point stands;  Fox is using her because she is a horrible spokesperson and she is so full of herself she took the bait. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me use of wingnut for both left and right 'nut jobs' is more fair;  why?   Well the right likes to use the term liberal as representing "nut jobs" by default.   I.e. all 'liberals' are socialist,  and maybe even commies with no morals etc... 

 

The right does this to demonize the term liberal and has been generally successful.   So to me by NOT using wingnut for BOTH sides one is doing what the right wants them to do in that:   there are conservatives and they are all reasonable,  but far, far right cons are wingnuts and of course all liberals are far left nut jobs (i.e. no non derogatory term for a reasonable person that leans left). 

 

Yes,  Waters is really just a nobody,  but she has become a punching bag for Fox as well as a 'go-to' spokesperson for black anger towards all-thing Trump.     My point stands;  Fox is using her because she is a horrible spokesperson and she is so full of herself she took the bait. 

I say let the conservatives come up with their own denigrating term. 

Sure, Fox has her on in an attempt to damage Democrats, but I doubt

it does much harm. How many Fox viewers would vote Democratic anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say let the conservatives come up with their own denigrating term. 

Sure, Fox has her on in an attempt to damage Democrats, but I doubt

it does much harm. How many Fox viewers would vote Democratic anyway?

 

 Conservatives have come up with their own denigrating term for those that lean left; it is the term LIBERAL and the media has mostly bought into this as well.    Note that polling data supports this since the data shows that while there are more members of the Dem party than GOP party more people wish to define themselves as conservative than liberal.  That means that there are Dems that do NOT wish to label themselves as liberal because liberal has the sigma of being 'far left'.     (and progressive is even more radical as far as the mainstream media is concerned).

 

As for Waters and what Fox is doing;  Fox has people like Waters on to show that Trump isn't so out-there as the so called mainstream media (really mostly just CNN),  is implying.   It isn't to get GOP viewers to vote for Dems (DUH!)  but instead to get GOP viewers to continue to support Trump as the lesser of the evils between conservatives and liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say let the conservatives come up with their own denigrating term.

Sure, Fox has her on in an attempt to damage Democrats, but I doubt

it does much harm. How many Fox viewers would vote Democratic anyway?

--Plus a Democrat with a black face. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Conservatives have come up with their own denigrating term for those that lean left; it is the term LIBERAL and the media has mostly bought into this as well.    Note that polling data supports this since the data shows that while there are more members of the Dem party than GOP party more people wish to define themselves as conservative than liberal.  That means that there are Dems that do NOT wish to label themselves as liberal because liberal has the sigma of being 'far left'.     (and progressive is even more radical as far as the mainstream media is concerned).

 

As for Waters and what Fox is doing;  Fox has people like Waters on to show that Trump isn't so out-there as the so called mainstream media (really mostly just CNN),  is implying.   It isn't to get GOP viewers to vote for Dems (DUH!)  but instead to get GOP viewers to continue to support Trump as the lesser of the evils between conservatives and liberals.

Liberal is a bit different, as for a long time it wasn't a term of derision, but

the GOP gradually made it one, especially when it was preceded by the words

tax and spend. I think the use of progressive was partly to find a new word

that didn't have the bad rap of the word liberal. I think Trump would have the

same level of support whether Waters is on the tube or not. She's pretty much

a non factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--Plus a Democrat with a black face. LOL

And one who isn't intimidated. And is pretty

up front for a politician. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal is a bit different, as for a long time it wasn't a term of derision, but

the GOP gradually made it one, especially when it was preceded by the words

tax and spend. I think the use of progressive was partly to find a new word

that didn't have the bad rap of the word liberal. I think Trump would have the

same level of support whether Waters is on the tube or not. She's pretty much

a non factor.

 

Wow, you still don't get it.   Waters is used by Fox as just an EXAMPLE of a type of Dem.    In most areas of the country (e.g. non-coastal),  that type of Dem,  doesn't play well and this is how Fox helps push the GOP agenda.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you still don't get it.   Waters is used by Fox as just an EXAMPLE of a type of Dem.    In most areas of the country (e.g. non-coastal),  that type of Dem,  doesn't play well and this is how Fox helps push the GOP agenda.

I'll bet maxine plays well in des moines.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you still don't get it.   Waters is used by Fox as just an EXAMPLE of a type of Dem.    In most areas of the country (e.g. non-coastal),  that type of Dem,  doesn't play well and this is how Fox helps push the GOP agenda.

I think I get it. It's a symbiotic relationship. Waters enjoys going on

TV and Fox likes to spotlight her as a far left Dem who says outrageous

things on occasion. My point is that Waters has about zero impact on how

people vote, especially Fox News viewers. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet maxine plays well in des moines.  :lol:

Probably about 90% of people in Des Moines

don't even recognize the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us