President Donald J. Trump Impeached for Abuse of Power in Historic Vote

With the vote still ongoing, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump on the first article for abuse of power. This followed weeks of testimony related to his dealings with Ukraine and hours of fiery debate over the process.

Should the articles pass, as expected, in the Democratic-controlled House, it would make Trump only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. The hearing is expected to begin at 9 a.m. Follow us here for all of the latest breaking news and analysis from NBC News' political reporters, as well as our teams on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/live-updates-house-votes-impeachment-president-trump-n1103576

This is a mark on his record that, much like Bill Clinton, Trump will never be rid of. And it's well-deserved.

Ben Reilly wrote:

With the vote still ongoing, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump on the first article for abuse of power. This followed weeks of testimony related to his dealings with Ukraine and hours of fiery debate over the process.

Should the articles pass, as expected, in the Democratic-controlled House, it would make Trump only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. The hearing is expected to begin at 9 a.m. Follow us here for all of the latest breaking news and analysis from NBC News' political reporters, as well as our teams on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/live-updates-house-votes-impeachment-president-trump-n1103576

This is a mark on his record that, much like Bill Clinton, Trump will never be rid of. And it's well-deserved.

Yes it is.

Really is a common sense verdict. He even admitted to it. It is staggering that anyone is able to defend Trump over this.

Between this an BoJo's big win, we really are in a post-truth era. Very worrying.

As expected,  the criminal fatheaded slimeball will most likely be impeached on each count...

And the impeachment will most likely be blocked in the Senate --  unless a couple of dozen Repub's grow a conscience at the 11th hour, and decide to cross the floor..

And his mindless "MAGA" supporters keep on laughing and cheer him on --  "he might  be a criminal slimeball,  but he's 'our' criminal slimeball !"

Eilzel wrote:Really is a common sense verdict. He even admitted to it. It is staggering that anyone is able to defend Trump over this.

Between this an BoJo's big win, we really are in a post-truth era. Very worrying.

What era were we in during the previous two impeachments?

In a statement, Gabbard said that Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, but that she could not endorse a "purely partisan process."

"When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not become a partisan endeavor," said Gabbard. "Tragically, that's what it has been."

Gabbard characterized her actions as a "stand for the center"—a center that neither excuses Trump's wrongdoing, nor supports his ousting mere months before a presidential election.

Regardless of whether you agree with Gabbard's stance, it's quite refreshing to see a politician who is willing to go against her own party. The same goes for Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who left the Republican Party and voted for Trump's impeachment because he puts his limited government principles before partisanship. In these incredibly tribal times, such independent thinking is incredibly rare. Most members of Congress seem obligated to either defend Trump at all costs—no matter how contemptible his behavior—or advocate his immediate removal from office by any means necessary.


https://reason.com/2019/12/18/tulsi-gabbard-impeachment-present-vote-trump/

Les, even more worrying if Corbyn had won, but sanity won the day !

Let’s see what happens, if anything...

eddie wrote:Let’s see what happens, if anything...

Let's see what happens while everyone is watching this.

Maddog wrote:In a statement, Gabbard said that Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, but that she could not endorse a "purely partisan process."

"When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not become a partisan endeavor," said Gabbard. "Tragically, that's what it has been."

Gabbard characterized her actions as a "stand for the center"—a center that neither excuses Trump's wrongdoing, nor supports his ousting mere months before a presidential election.

Regardless of whether you agree with Gabbard's stance, it's quite refreshing to see a politician who is willing to go against her own party. The same goes for Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who left the Republican Party and voted for Trump's impeachment because he puts his limited government principles before partisanship. In these incredibly tribal times, such independent thinking is incredibly rare. Most members of Congress seem obligated to either defend Trump at all costs—no matter how contemptible his behavior—or advocate his immediate removal from office by any means necessary.


https://reason.com/2019/12/18/tulsi-gabbard-impeachment-present-vote-trump/

She's the one Hillary Clinton called a Russian stooge, right?

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Let’s see what happens, if anything...

Let's see what happens while everyone is watching this.  

What do you mean?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Let's see what happens while everyone is watching this.  

What do you mean?

Things get done while people are watching something else.

Along the vein of "wag the dog".

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Really is a common sense verdict. He even admitted to it. It is staggering that anyone is able to defend Trump over this.

Between this an BoJo's big win, we really are in a post-truth era. Very worrying.

What era were we in during the previous two impeachments?

When I say post truth, I refer to the fact the President openly admits to asking a foreign leader for assistance in a US election AND threatens to withhold aid unless he does.

This is clearly criminal, yet those facts don't matter for loose chin McConnell and the GOP.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:


What era were we in during the previous two impeachments?

When I say post truth, I refer to the fact the President openly admits to asking a foreign leader for assistance in a US election AND threatens to withhold aid unless he does.

This is clearly criminal, yet those facts don't matter for loose chin McConnell and the GOP.

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:


What era were we in during the previous two impeachments?

When I say post truth, I refer to the fact the President openly admits to asking a foreign leader for assistance in a US election AND threatens to withhold aid unless he does.

This is clearly criminal, yet those facts don't matter for loose chin McConnell and the GOP.

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.  

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.  

The difference between Clinton and Trump's impeachments is that one stemmed from a sleazy but personal affair, while the latter is a direct attempt to have foreign interference in US politics. One is far more dangerous to American democracy than the other.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.  

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.  

The difference between Clinton and Trump's impeachments is that one stemmed from a sleazy but personal affair, while the latter is a direct attempt to have foreign interference in US politics. One is far more dangerous to American democracy than the other.

That's true. But Trump didn't ask the Ukrainians to plant evidence or anything like that. He just asked them to take a look into a situation that was already pretty fishy.

I mean I think we both know why Biden's kid was on that board in the Ukraine. It wasn't his expertise in the oil biz.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.  

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.  

The difference between Clinton and Trump's impeachments is that one stemmed from a sleazy but personal affair, while the latter is a direct attempt to have foreign interference in US politics. One is far more dangerous to American democracy than the other.

That's true. But Trump didn't ask the Ukrainians to plant evidence or anything like that. He just asked them to take a look into a situation that was already pretty fishy.  

I mean I think we both know why Biden's kid was on that board in the Ukraine. It wasn't his expertise in the oil biz.

If Obama had asked another nation's leader to look into a situation on Cruz, Rubio, McCain or Romney, or any other Republican figure - how do you think the Republicans would've reacted? With more restraint or less?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's true. But Trump didn't ask the Ukrainians to plant evidence or anything like that. He just asked them to take a look into a situation that was already pretty fishy.  

I mean I think we both know why Biden's kid was on that board in the Ukraine. It wasn't his expertise in the oil biz.

If Obama had asked another nation's leader to look into a situation on Cruz, Rubio, McCain or Romney, or any other Republican figure - how do you think the Republicans would've reacted? With more restraint or less?

Less. That's how this Mickey Mouse show works. But he wanted the Ukrainians to look into Biden's son. No doubt to use it against Joe in an election, but he wasn't looking into Joe personally. And Hunter wasn't actually in office. He was a board member on a shady company. I mean the US did investigate that company. That's why Hunter was put on the board. To get the US to back off a little.

It's not like Trump asked them to look into an orphanage run by some nuns.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's true. But Trump didn't ask the Ukrainians to plant evidence or anything like that. He just asked them to take a look into a situation that was already pretty fishy.  

I mean I think we both know why Biden's kid was on that board in the Ukraine. It wasn't his expertise in the oil biz.

If Obama had asked another nation's leader to look into a situation on Cruz, Rubio, McCain or Romney, or any other Republican figure - how do you think the Republicans would've reacted? With more restraint or less?

Less. That's how this Mickey Mouse show works. But he wanted the Ukrainians to look into Biden's son. No doubt to use it against Joe in an election, but he wasn't looking into Joe personally. And Hunter wasn't actually in office. He was a board member on a shady company. I mean the US did investigate that company. That's why Hunter was put on the board. To get the US to back off a little.  

It's not like Trump asked them to look into an orphanage run by some nuns.  

The fact they'd have been less restrained shows how much of hypocrites they are. It isn't like impeachments are common things. And in my life time there was only one other and that was brought about by Republicans. I've no doubt that there'd be roarings of 'traitor' 'enemy of the state' and so on had Obama done anything remotely like this. The Republicans, far more than the Democrats, play political games. The problem is the Dems don't make enough fuss when they do (the lack of appointment of judges in Obama's last year being a key example) and Trump has debased the office so much that people are densensitised to GOP BS anyway.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:


What era were we in during the previous two impeachments?

When I say post truth, I refer to the fact the President openly admits to asking a foreign leader for assistance in a US election AND threatens to withhold aid unless he does.

This is clearly criminal, yet those facts don't matter for loose chin McConnell and the GOP.

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.  

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.  

What Trump did was at least as craven as what Nixon did, except Nixon was decent enough not to involve foreign governments.

I know you think voters are criminals, but in the real world, fucking with an election is a high crime.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Less. That's how this Mickey Mouse show works. But he wanted the Ukrainians to look into Biden's son. No doubt to use it against Joe in an election, but he wasn't looking into Joe personally. And Hunter wasn't actually in office. He was a board member on a shady company. I mean the US did investigate that company. That's why Hunter was put on the board. To get the US to back off a little.  

It's not like Trump asked them to look into an orphanage run by some nuns.  

The fact they'd have been less restrained shows how much of hypocrites they are. It isn't like impeachments are common things. And in my life time there was only one other and that was brought about by Republicans. I've no doubt that there'd be roarings of 'traitor' 'enemy of the state' and so on had Obama done anything remotely like this. The Republicans, far more than the Democrats, play political games. The problem is the Dems don't make enough fuss when they do (the lack of appointment of judges in Obama's last year being a key example) and Trump has debased the office so much that people are densensitised to GOP BS anyway.

Most of them are hypocrites. That's why Clinton finished his term and Trump will too.

Of course the hypocrites supporting each party will see it differently.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.  

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.  

What Trump did was at least as craven as what Nixon did, except Nixon was decent enough not to involve foreign governments.

I know you think voters are criminals, but in the real world, fucking with an election is a high crime.

Voters are not criminals. They are usually idiotic dumb asses.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Clinton eventually admitted that he committed perjury.

He was no doubt far more contrite.

I think most people in the GOP know that Trump shouldn't have tied foreign aid to snooping around Biden's kid's affairs in the Ukraine.

They just don't think it rises to a level worthy of kicking him out of office.

Same as Dems felt about perjury with Clinton.  

Had they just gone for a some type of censure, this would probably already be over with. However, this isn't about removing Trump. There's not a Dem in DC that thinks he's going anywhere. This is just part of the 2020 campaign being played out in Congress.  

What Trump did was at least as craven as what Nixon did, except Nixon was decent enough not to involve foreign governments.

I know you think voters are criminals, but in the real world, fucking with an election is a high crime.

Voters are not criminals. They are usually idiotic dumb asses.  

Number one thing politicians probably wish they could say and get away with

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Voters are not criminals. They are usually idiotic dumb asses.  

Number one thing politicians probably wish they could say and get away with

Useful idiots has been mentioned in the past.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:


What era were we in during the previous two impeachments?

When I say post truth, I refer to the fact the President openly admits to asking a foreign leader for assistance in a US election AND threatens to withhold aid unless he does.

This is clearly criminal, yet those facts don't matter for loose chin McConnell and the GOP.

He is quite likely to get away with this and he will probably complete a 2nd term.

Nevertheless, it's good to see him experiencing how it feels to be hounded. As this is exactly what he did to Obama.
He spent his own money on exhaustive attempts to discredit Obama, he was relentless.

Let's cut to the chase, Trump is plain mean. Stickingly MEAN. Insults everyone.

Bush was very pleasant, he had the common touch and socially he had good 'people skills'.

Cass wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/live-updates-house-votes-impeachment-president-trump-n1103576

This is a mark on his record that, much like Bill Clinton, Trump will never be rid of. And it's well-deserved.

Yes it is.

True.
And the history books will record this indelible stain on his legacy.

JulesV wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

When I say post truth, I refer to the fact the President openly admits to asking a foreign leader for assistance in a US election AND threatens to withhold aid unless he does.

This is clearly criminal, yet those facts don't matter for loose chin McConnell and the GOP.

He is quite likely to get away with this and he will probably complete a 2nd term.

Nevertheless, it's good to see him experiencing how it feels to be hounded. As this is exactly what he did to Obama.
He spent his own money on exhaustive attempts to discredit Obama, he was relentless.

Let's cut to the chase, Trump is plain mean. Stickingly MEAN. Insults everyone.

Bush was very pleasant, he had the common touch and socially he had good 'people skills'.

And yet Bush was hounded too. Kind of goes with the territory I guess. Folks can be downright nasty to politicians they don't agree with.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The difference between Clinton and Trump's impeachments is that one stemmed from a sleazy but personal affair, while the latter is a direct attempt to have foreign interference in US politics. One is far more dangerous to American democracy than the other.

That's true. But Trump didn't ask the Ukrainians to plant evidence or anything like that. He just asked them to take a look into a situation that was already pretty fishy.  

Interesting choice of words here: pretty fishy.  In other words, Red has abandoned following the narrative and just limited himself to adjectives that confuse and detract from clarity.

The Trump game wasn't a "plant evidence" ploy.  It was a manufacture evidence ploy.  VP Biden was doing above-board things on behalf of anti-corruption forces, while Trump was seeking to join the corruption by generating foreign interference in US elections.  There is no equivalency between anti-corruption and corruption.  Red's use of "pretty fishy" means he avoids a direct lie, while appearing to suggest a false equivalency by muddy waters.  Shame on him.

Maddog wrote:I mean I think we both know why Biden's kid was on that board in the Ukraine. It wasn't his expertise in the oil biz.

Burisma is an oil and gas company.  Hunter Biden is a corporate lawyer specializing in 'Oil & Gas' law.  Oil and gas law is the area of law that governs oil and gas production. ‘Oil and gas laws determine who owns the right to mine for oil and gas. It determines what conditions miners have to follow when they harvest oil and gas.’  Law, just like medicine, has divided into specialist divisions.  https://legalcareerpath.com/oil-gas-law/ Does anyone want a dermatologist to perform a coronary by-pass, or a podiatrist to perform brain surgery?  

Any petroleum company wants specialist attorneys (and engineers) on its board.  Check out Exxon/Mobile or BP, and see if their boards don’t have oil and gas attorneys sitting on them.

Ben Reilly wrote:

With the vote still ongoing, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump on the first article for abuse of power. This followed weeks of testimony related to his dealings with Ukraine and hours of fiery debate over the process.

Should the articles pass, as expected, in the Democratic-controlled House, it would make Trump only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. The hearing is expected to begin at 9 a.m. Follow us here for all of the latest breaking news and analysis from NBC News' political reporters, as well as our teams on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/live-updates-house-votes-impeachment-president-trump-n1103576

This is a mark on his record that, much like Bill Clinton, Trump will never be rid of. And it's well-deserved.

and what will happen if it ever gets to the senate for the vote?

is it true if a president is impeached and he is cleared he can stand for a 3rd term.

How funny would that be.

The Devil, You Know wrote:is it true if a president is impeached and he is cleared he can stand for a 3rd term.

How funny would that be.

No, that's been going around the interwebs. It's nonsense.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/live-updates-house-votes-impeachment-president-trump-n1103576

This is a mark on his record that, much like Bill Clinton, Trump will never be rid of. And it's well-deserved.

and what will happen if it ever gets to the senate for the vote?

It won't get to the Senate unless Republicans clean up their act and design a real trial as required by the Constitution. If Republicans do not mend their ways, it will be simply be left as Impeached President Donald Trump.

He will have to continue into the election year as, not the incumbent, but the impeached incumbent. In the eyes of the public, he will be the disgraced candidate, supported by Republicans acting disgracefully. I think Nancy Pelosi has pretty much snookered the Republicans.

But it was inevitable. The guy writes his own story.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
and what will happen if it ever gets to the senate for the vote?

It won't get to the Senate unless Republicans clean up their act and design a real trial as required by the Constitution.  If Republicans do not mend their ways, it will be simply be left as Impeached President Donald Trump.

He will have to continue into the election year as, not the incumbent, but the impeached incumbent.  In the eyes of the public, he will be the disgraced candidate, supported by Republicans acting disgracefully.  I think Nancy Pelosi has pretty much snookered the Republicans.

But it was inevitable.  The guy writes his own story.

it wont get to the senate because they will quite rightly throw this partisan con trick out. Clinton was impeached by a cross party consensus. this is just the culmination of 3 years of snowflakery by people who refuse to accept they lost the election.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
and what will happen if it ever gets to the senate for the vote?

It won't get to the Senate unless Republicans clean up their act and design a real trial as required by the Constitution.  If Republicans do not mend their ways, it will be simply be left as Impeached President Donald Trump.

He will have to continue into the election year as, not the incumbent, but the impeached incumbent.  In the eyes of the public, he will be the disgraced candidate, supported by Republicans acting disgracefully.  I think Nancy Pelosi has pretty much snookered the Republicans.

But it was inevitable.  The guy writes his own story.

Pelosi and the bad losers have just helped him to the win

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It won't get to the Senate unless Republicans clean up their act and design a real trial as required by the Constitution.  If Republicans do not mend their ways, it will be simply be left as Impeached President Donald Trump.

He will have to continue into the election year as, not the incumbent, but the impeached incumbent.  In the eyes of the public, he will be the disgraced candidate, supported by Republicans acting disgracefully.  I think Nancy Pelosi has pretty much snookered the Republicans.

But it was inevitable.  The guy writes his own story.

Pelosi and the bad losers have just helped him to the win

We'll see.  So far Pelosi has been a genius.  Look what she did in 2018.  Now, she has engineered one of the most brilliant 'didn't wanna do it' impeachment campaigns...where 71% of American voters are for his removal.

She keeps the anger poised by waiting to deliver the articles to the Senate, and like I say, this is an election year.  What's to lose?  She sends it forthwith to the Senate, where it receives a kangaroo-rigged trial??  'Waiting for the other' shoe to drop can be much more effective.  She's got more to gain by holding on until either (1) she gets a fair set of rules in the Senate; or (2) she goes into election season with Trump's crimes on everyone's mind.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Pelosi and the bad losers have just helped him to the win

We'll see.  So far,Pelosi has been a genius.  Look what she did in 2018.  Now, she has engineered one of the most brilliant 'didn't wanna do it' impeachment campaign...where 71% of American voters are for his removal.

She keeps the anger poised by waiting to deliver the articles to the Senate, and like I say, this is an election year.  What's to lose?  She sends it forthwith to the Senate, where it receives a kangaroo-rigged trial??  She's got more to gain by holding until (1) she gets a fair set of rules; or (2) she goes into election season with Trump's crimes on everyone's mind.

there in lies trumps brilliance, he makes snowflakes think they are directing things

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We'll see.  So far,Pelosi has been a genius.  Look what she did in 2018.  Now, she has engineered one of the most brilliant 'didn't wanna do it' impeachment campaign...where 71% of American voters are for his removal.

She keeps the anger poised by waiting to deliver the articles to the Senate, and like I say, this is an election year.  What's to lose?  She sends it forthwith to the Senate, where it receives a kangaroo-rigged trial??  She's got more to gain by holding until (1) she gets a fair set of rules; or (2) she goes into election season with Trump's crimes on everyone's mind.

there in lies trumps brilliance, he makes snowflakes think they are directing things

Yeah, like Putin and Kim Jong-un or Erdogan. Lol. I'll keep my money on Pelosi.

I've got a luvverly bridge for sale in sydney harbour. Just send me your bank details and it is yours

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
there in lies trumps brilliance, he makes snowflakes think they are directing things

Yeah, like Putin and Kim Jong-un or Erdogan.  Lol.  I'll keep my money on Pelosi.  

can you tell me who is going to impeach the president when it requires the articles to go to the senate first

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah, like Putin and Kim Jong-un or Erdogan.  Lol.  I'll keep my money on Pelosi.  

can you tell me who is going to impeach the president when it requires the articles to go to the senate first

Nothing in the Constitution says there has to be a trial; only, if there is a trial, it goes to the Senate. If the House doesn't send it on to the Senate, it sits there like a pregnant cow: Impeached President Trump...table for two. The House can hold it in abeyance until Trump is out of office, and then transform the impeachment into a criminal indictment ... perhaps with added counts.

Then, of course, the State of New York has some indictments of its own, to be brought in state court. California next? Some child endangerment charges in New Mexico, perhaps? And on it goes.

The Devil You Know wrote:can you tell me who is going to impeach the president when it requires the articles to go to the senate first

Trump has already been impeached.  We are at the precise point where someone must perform the ritual of carrying the Articles of Impeachment down to the Senate desk and record them. Impeachment is the indictment stage, not the removal.  The removal happens after conviction at the trial.

It's a good point to pause, because it shines the spotlight on the Republican bad faith in the Senate, and their recalcitrance to follow the Constitution. The more the issue arises, the more the people see what is holding things up.

Don't you see that this is the point?  Republican members of the Senate openly threaten to hold a trial in bad faith. They intend to call no witnesses, or introduce other evidence; what is a trial without evidence or witnesses?  The House cannot simply turn the question over to slackers and grifters.  To participate in that kind of lawlessness would be aiding and abetting.

Thus, according to Pelosi, the Articles of Impeachment will not be delivered to the Senate until Majority Leader Mitch McConnell passes a set of rules that assure good faith.  Meanwhile, during an election year, the voters get to see the Republican Party acting in lawless disgrace and bad faith until November.

Then it will be up to the voters:  Hmmm...who should I vote for?  Those lawless swindlers, or the good guys who reject embezzlement, extortion and bribery?  Not a tough choice.  

The Devil, You Know wrote:is it true if a president is impeached and he is cleared he can stand for a 3rd term.

How funny would that be.

You're a fucking idiot...

And you keep on presenting yourself as Newsfix's know-it-all political and economics expert..

Keep them coming DYKnose  --  you're a laugh a minute, these days.

Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after she said that she would delay delivering House-passed impeachment articles against President Trump in an effort to ensure a fair trial in the Senate.

“I was surprised to hear that,” Gabbard told Hill.TV on Thursday, breaking with fellow Democrats who have rallied behind Pelosi over the move.

“You can’t kind of just shift and change and make up the rules as you go along," she said. "If you’re going to pursue this process, you’ve got to let it play out the whole way through.”

Gabbard said the delaying their delivery perpetuates a sense of hyperpartisanship, adding that both parties are to blame.

“This is not just on part of the Democrats — you see on those who are defending Donald Trump, you see a blind loyalty to their party’s leader,” she said.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/475305-gabbard-rips-pelosi-for-delay-of-impeachment-articles?fbclid=IwAR0jaKHvKInX5NOeuVU5Mbbq8fUgyUCfPZpA3HjtNKipzWZmpGVK5tsUOXw

She's showing that people like her and Justin Amash are the only grown ups in the room.

Maddog wrote: Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after she said that she would delay delivering House-passed impeachment articles against President Trump in an effort to ensure a fair trial in the Senate.

“I was surprised to hear that,” Gabbard told Hill.TV on Thursday, breaking with fellow Democrats who have rallied behind Pelosi over the move.

“You can’t kind of just shift and change and make up the rules as you go along," she said. "If you’re going to pursue this process, you’ve got to let it play out the whole way through.”

Gabbard said the delaying their delivery perpetuates a sense of hyperpartisanship, adding that both parties are to blame.

“This is not just on part of the Democrats — you see on those who are defending Donald Trump, you see a blind loyalty to their party’s leader,” she said.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/475305-gabbard-rips-pelosi-for-delay-of-impeachment-articles?fbclid=IwAR0jaKHvKInX5NOeuVU5Mbbq8fUgyUCfPZpA3HjtNKipzWZmpGVK5tsUOXw

She's showing that people like her and Justin Amash are the only grown ups in the room.

Yes, it is what it is.  As Gabbard noted, it started with the Republicans.  Indeed, it started with Dick Cheney and Republican lawlessness.  It certainly was spun forward with Mitch McConnell and the failure of the appointment confirmation of Merritt Garland.

By now, we are four years down the road.  We've had children in cages, abandonment of allies, and extortion of emerging nations. Republicans have a lot to make up for...four year's worth, to be exact.  The longer they wait, the longer any reunion takes.  I would say it would take eight years of genuflecting to the American public, just to convince people that Republicans are serious.  Trust isn't bought, you know.  And one can't snap his fingers and say, I got the trust back.

  It takes years of hard work.

My bet: I don't think the nation of the United States is going to survive.  But I've had my plans percolating for almost two decades.  Long live the Pacific States of America.

 

'Wolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:is it true if a president is impeached and he is cleared he can stand for a 3rd term.

How funny would that be.

You're a fucking idiot...

And you keep on presenting yourself as Newsfix's know-it-all political and economics expert..

Keep them coming DYKnose --  you're a laugh a minute, these days.

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

Amendment XXII Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Donald Trump has already been elected/appointed (by the electoral college) once.  Your sources, Dean, are confusing the issue of impeachment with the issue of succession.

The problem arises when a president dies in office with less than two years remaining in his term.  The Vice President takes over, not ever having been elected or serving more than two years as the replacement president.  So, he could conceivably finish out the term of the deceased president, and then have two terms himself.

This happened with Lyndon Johnson, but he decided not to run in 1968.

There is an even more remote theory that has to do with the definition of “elected”.  The theory goes: since Trump was appointed (by the electoral college), and not popularly elected (he lost by nearly 3-million votes), he still has two terms under the 22nd Amendment to which he could be "elected".  But that has nothing to do with impeachment, so I assume that is not your question.

'Wolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:is it true if a president is impeached and he is cleared he can stand for a 3rd term.

How funny would that be.

You're a fucking idiot...

And you keep on presenting yourself as Newsfix's know-it-all political and economics expert..

Keep them coming DYKnose  --  you're a laugh a minute, these days.

A reasonable question which Quill appears to have answered from a knowledgeable standpoint.

It is, however, clearly "gin o'clock" Down Under".......

Original Quill wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


You're a fucking idiot...

And you keep on presenting yourself as Newsfix's know-it-all political and economics expert..

Keep them coming DYKnose --  you're a laugh a minute, these days.

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

Amendment XXII Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Donald Trump has already been elected/appointed (by the electoral college) once.  Your sources, Dean, are confusing the issue of impeachment with the issue of succession.

The problem arises when a president dies in office with less than two years remaining in his term.  The Vice President takes over, not ever having been elected or serving more than two years as the replacement president.  So, he could conceivably finish out the term of the deceased president, and then have two terms himself.

This happened with Lyndon Johnson, but he decided not to run in 1968.

There is an even more remote theory that has to do with the definition of “elected”.  The theory goes: since Trump was appointed (by the electoral college), and not popularly elected (he lost by nearly 3-million votes), he still has two terms under the 22nd Amendment to which he could be "elected".  But that has nothing to do with impeachment, so I assume that is not your question.

At the risk of attracting yet another of Wolfie's incoherent and probably inebriated comments, could I ask you, Quill: According to press, radio and TV reports over here, the President has been impeached by the House of Representatives. Does that mean that he has been found guilty of the allegations of abuse of power, etc.?

Or does it mean that the House of Representatives have found that there is a case to be answered - much like the preliminary procedure in a British Magistrates' court where serious and indictable crimes are involved, and that only your Upper House, the Senate, can determine the outcome?

Also, could your Supreme Court overrule the decision of the Senate?

Here, the actual finding of guilt or innocence would be the responsibility of a higher Crown court, with the possibility of appeals to the Court of Appeal and even, in major constitutionally-related cases, to the Supreme Court which sits as our ultimate appellant court, our House of Lords.

Sorry if this is causing glazed eyes among some of you, but it is of genuine interest to me as I have a couple of (very old and outdated) professional qualifications in the law and constitution of the UK, but I have absolutely no knowledge of the US political and constitutional systems.

I read that Pelosi ? Has not sent Articles to the Senate, so impeachment cannot be started until she does, is that correct ?

nicko wrote: I read that Pelosi ? Has not sent Articles to the Senate, so impeachment cannot be started until she does, is that correct ?

Impeachment has been completed. Professor Laurence Tribe, of Harvard University, School of Law, who has written a new book on impeachment--Tribe & Maltz, To End a Presidency (2019)--has noted that since the Republican Senate will vote to acquit Trump no matter what, Pelosi should treat the Senate side of the process as a farce and dispense with it, holding her own “trial” in the House:

Huff Post wrote:“They have made it very clear in the evidence that we have heard from first-hand witnesses like Mr. (David) Holmes (political counsel at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine), who actually heard the president’s voice, and then the president’s words himself and the readout from the call, that the president was engaged in bribery, extortion, the usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse, an abuse of his office, a violation of his oath. These are all impeachable offenses,” Tribe explained.

Professor Tribe says that impeachment is complete with the vote of the House. Arguing that it lacks the ritual of 'delivery', is like saying Mom didn't cook Christmas dinner because Cousin Jimmy wouldn't eat it.

Trump, who is so intensely conscious of branding, is forever marked as a disgraced and 'impeached' president. Everyone knows it. We all can talk openly about it. Delivery of the Articles is a mere ritual, better suited for military parades and 21-gun salutes.

It is done.

Thanks for that, I don't know much about American legal procedure, only what I read in our Media !