Impeachment proceedings against Trump

It is interesting that the democrat contenders who are not senators have not suspended their campaigning while Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar and last but not least Bennet, a favorite son, are tied up in the Senate because of the impeachment rules. Inquiring minds are wondering whether Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment for 30 days to benefit one of the other candidates. Joe Biden, anyone?

The fact that these articles of impeachment haven't been dismissed out of hand for failing to cite a crime is an assault on our entire system.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Bringing articles with NO CRIME cited is tantamount to saying "We don't like him so we want him removed." It is anathema to our Republic and the fact that it is backed by so many shows that the Republic is dead. We didn't hold it. Ben Franklin would shed a tear I think.

I have read if you want to make your case, use one simple, declarative, statement. The more you pile on and add to your arguments they more it looks like you don't trust your original case.

Right now the Democrats have been piling evidence since 2015, and they still only have 51% of Americans believing Trump needs to be removed. Not even the 2/3's the Senate needs to convict.

towermonkey wrote: The fact that these articles of impeachment haven't been dismissed out of hand for failing to cite a crime is an assault on our entire system.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Bringing articles with NO CRIME cited is tantamount to saying "We don't like him so we want him removed." It is anathema to our Republic and the fact that it is backed by so many shows that the Republic is dead. We didn't hold it. Ben Franklin would shed a tear I think.

The idiot Dems have also set a new precedent. Under their new low bar, Obama could have been impeached several times.

For those who find CNN truthful, I offer the following tweets from Joe Lockhart, a CNN political analyst:

Joe Lockhart
✔
@joelockhart
· 21h
Overheard convo between two Republican Senators who only watch Fox News. "is this stuff real? I haven't heard any of this before. I thought it was all about a server. If half the stuff Schiff is saying is true, we're up shit's creek. Hope the White House has exculpatory evidence

Joe Lockhart
✔
@joelockhart
Ok maybe I made up the convo, but you know that's exactly what they're thinking.

Evidently Diane Feinstein has had enough. According to Wash Post reporter, Paul Kane, Feinstein exited the Senate at 8:45 PM, still an hour to go in the democrat presentation. said, "Good night" and got into a waiting automobile.

FredHayek wrote: I have read if you want to make your case, use one simple, declarative, statement. The more you pile on and add to your arguments they more it looks like you don't trust your original case.

Right now the Democrats have been piling evidence since 2015, and they still only have 51% of Americans believing Trump needs to be removed. Not even the 2/3's the Senate needs to convict.

bolded REALLY.....then I guess the king isn't on solid ground.......

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/202...g-office/4551815002/

51% of Americans want Trump removed. Do you think this should be the new precedent we set for invalidating an election? Should it be like a parliamentary system where if the President is disliked by a simple majority, that is enough to remove him from office? I wonder if Lincoln and other presidents who had served in difficult times would have survived this new standard.

Or should it remain that a 2/3 vote of the Senate is the standard?

thefederalist.com/2020/01/23/breaking-sp...page-were-not-valid/


"The FISA court's top judge wrote in a secret ruling on January 7 that at least two of the four spy warrants against Carter Page were invalid and not lawfully authorized.
JANUARY 23, 2020 By Sean Davis
Authority granted to the federal government to secretly wiretap and spy on former Trump affiliate Carter Page was “not valid,” the nation’s top spy court noted in a secret ruling penned earlier this month. "...

I find it deeply disturbing to see these bureaucrats willing to cheat to take down a political opponent. Everyone is talking about the Houston Astros cheating and stealing signs, but it is much more disturbing to see government break the rules for political reasons. For MLK day, the FBI tweeted a quote of his. Someone had to respond, the FBI can be trusted to get these quotes right because they wiretapped the man illegally for decades. Along with blackmailing him and hassling him. I just don't want an FBI that refuses to play by the rules.

Blazer Bob wrote: thefederalist.com/2020/01/23/breaking-sp...page-were-not-valid/


"The FISA court's top judge wrote in a secret ruling on January 7 that at least two of the four spy warrants against Carter Page were invalid and not lawfully authorized.
JANUARY 23, 2020 By Sean Davis
Authority granted to the federal government to secretly wiretap and spy on former Trump affiliate Carter Page was “not valid,” the nation’s top spy court noted in a secret ruling penned earlier this month. "...