Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible or significant way. Unlike you, you’re quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
I don’t know if he is or not. I don’t really care. I do know he won’t be removed from office and I also know the impact on me is minimal.
I mostly enjoy your daily anger and rage. It’s as if someone replaced your Jesus with a Jesus you don’t like. Oh wait, that’s what happened. When the state is your religion, you tend to defend it with religious fervor. The state is your religion. Just look at your avatar. You literally worship government and state.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
I don’t know if he is or not. I don’t really care. I do know he won’t be removed from office and I also know the impact on me is minimal.
I mostly enjoy your daily anger and rage. It’s as if someone replaced your Jesus with a Jesus you don’t like. Oh wait, that’s what happened. When the state is your religion, you tend to defend it with religious fervor. The state is your religion. Just look at your avatar. You literally worship government and state.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
I don’t know if he is or not. I don’t really care. I do know he won’t be removed from office and I also know the impact on me is minimal.
I mostly enjoy your daily anger and rage. It’s as if someone replaced your Jesus with a Jesus you don’t like. Oh wait, that’s what happened. When the state is your religion, you tend to defend it with religious fervor. The state is your religion. Just look at your avatar. You literally worship government and state.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
Of course there’s going to be a house call for impeachment. Then there will be a trial. And now the rest of the story that CD likes to leave out. There’s not a chance in hell 2/3 of the Senate vote to impeach and, take note, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court resides. As Uncle Race says, bring it.
Clause 6: Trial of Impeachment The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine what constitutes an adequate impeachment trial.[41] Of the nineteen federal officials formally impeached by the House of Representatives, eleven were acquitted and seven were convicted by the Senate. On one occasion (in the case of Senator William Blount) the Senate declined to hold a trial, asserting that it had no jurisdiction over its own members.[42]
The constitution's framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed Senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than Members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions. Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65).[43]
There are three Constitutionally mandated requirements for impeachment trials. The provision that Senators must sit on oath or affirmation was designed to impress upon them the extreme seriousness of the occasion. The stipulation that the Chief Justice is to preside over presidential impeachment trials underscores the solemnity of the occasion and aims to avoid the conflict of interest of a Vice President's presiding over the proceeding for the removal of the one official standing between him (or her) and the presidency. The latter consideration was regarded to be quite important in the eighteenth century - political parties had not yet formed when the Constitution was adopted, and with the original method of electing the President and Vice President it was presumed that the two men elected to those offices would frequently be political rivals. The specification that a two-thirds super-majority vote of those Senators present in order to convict was also thought necessary to facilitate serious deliberation and to make removal possible only through a consensus that cuts across factional divisions.[43]
Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
If any officer is convicted on impeachment, he or she is immediately removed from office, and may be barred from holding any public office in the future. No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.[44]
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
Of course there’s going to be a house call for impeachment. Then there will be a trial. And now the rest of the story that CD likes to leave out. There’s not a chance in hell 2/3 of the Senate vote to impeach and, take note, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court resides. As Uncle Race says, bring it.
Clause 6: Trial of Impeachment The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine what constitutes an adequate impeachment trial.[41] Of the nineteen federal officials formally impeached by the House of Representatives, eleven were acquitted and seven were convicted by the Senate. On one occasion (in the case of Senator William Blount) the Senate declined to hold a trial, asserting that it had no jurisdiction over its own members.[42]
The constitution's framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed Senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than Members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions. Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65).[43]
There are three Constitutionally mandated requirements for impeachment trials. The provision that Senators must sit on oath or affirmation was designed to impress upon them the extreme seriousness of the occasion. The stipulation that the Chief Justice is to preside over presidential impeachment trials underscores the solemnity of the occasion and aims to avoid the conflict of interest of a Vice President's presiding over the proceeding for the removal of the one official standing between him (or her) and the presidency. The latter consideration was regarded to be quite important in the eighteenth century - political parties had not yet formed when the Constitution was adopted, and with the original method of electing the President and Vice President it was presumed that the two men elected to those offices would frequently be political rivals. The specification that a two-thirds super-majority vote of those Senators present in order to convict was also thought necessary to facilitate serious deliberation and to make removal possible only through a consensus that cuts across factional divisions.[43]
Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
If any officer is convicted on impeachment, he or she is immediately removed from office, and may be barred from holding any public office in the future. No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.[44]
Shush. Let CD have his moment and wallow in ignorance. It’s all he had these days.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
I don’t know if he is or not. I don’t really care. I do know he won’t be removed from office and I also know the impact on me is minimal.
I mostly enjoy your daily anger and rage. It’s as if someone replaced your Jesus with a Jesus you don’t like. Oh wait, that’s what happened. When the state is your religion, you tend to defend it with religious fervor. The state is your religion. Just look at your avatar. You literally worship government and state.
JFC.
We know. It’s now Jesus F California in El Monte. Kneel to your pulpit Bear!
"Impeaching Trump Voters It’s revenge for 2016, and nervousness about Democratic prospects for 2020.
By William McGurn Oct. 7, 2019 6:36 pm ET
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Donald Trump is everything Democrats say he is: a president who abuses his national-security powers by siccing a foreign government on his political rival, a racist/bigot/nativist constantly using “dog whistles” to stoke division, a man uniquely unfit to sit in the Oval Office.
Assume Mr. Trump is all these things. With an election scarcely a year away, the question then becomes: Why impeach him now? Surely a president as abominable as this ought to be easy to defeat at the polls. Mr. Trump would appear to be especially vulnerable, given that last time he lost the national popular vote and won several battleground states by razor-thin margins.
The answer speaks as much to what Democrats think of Trump voters—they don’t trust them—as it does to what they think of Mr. Trump. In this sense, the push for impeachment now may reflect a lack of Democratic confidence that they can persuade enough of the voters who went for Mr. Trump last time to give them the margins they need for victory come November 2020.
The lack of confidence extends to doubts about each of their leading candidates. It’s no secret that many Democrats worry Joe Biden isn’t up to the job of taking on Mr. Trump. So long as Ukraine is in the news, stories about Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with a Ukrainian gas company will be in the news as well. Other Democrats, meanwhile, worry that Elizabeth Warren is too far left to win. And Bernie Sanders’s heart attack probably spells the end of any chance he might have had at the nomination.
A year ago, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told Roll Call that before using impeachment to overturn the results of the last election, Democrats would have to answer this question: “Do you think that the case is so stark, that the offenses are so terrible and the proof so clear, that once you’ve laid it all out you will have convinced an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for Trump, who like him, that you had no choice? That you had to do it?”
We are nowhere close to meeting the Nadler standard. True, public support for impeachment is up since news of Mr. Trump’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart broke. A FiveThirtyEight.com average of all the impeachment polls finds 46.5% for and 44.8% against. More telling is the divide the numbers show when they are broken down by party. While 79.1% of Democrats want impeachment, the number drops to 41.3% for independents and only 12.5% for Republicans.
So why the rush? Maybe because in addition to concerns about 2020, there’s an itch to punish Trump voters for what they did in 2016. In other words, it isn’t enough that Mr. Trump be defeated. His whole presidency must be delegitimized—along with the people who voted him in.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton famously expressed this contempt for Trump voters when she told wealthy donors at a Manhattan fundraiser “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
She went on. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
In “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling,” reporter Amy Chozick confirms this was no one-off gaffe. Mrs. Clinton, she reports, used the line repeatedly to Democratic audiences she knew would appreciate the sentiment.
“The Deplorables always got a laugh, over living-room chats in the Hamptons, at dinner parties under the stars on Martha’s Vineyard, over passed hors d’oeuvres in Beverly Hills, and during sunset cocktails in Silicon Valley,” wrote Ms. Chozick. The unspoken corollary is that only a morally debased citizenry could have freely chosen Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.
Today few publicly call Trump voters “deplorable.” But the assumption remains. Remember that high-school kid from Covington, Ky., who was accosted by a Native American activist? Simply because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, the 16-year-old was instantly transformed into the face of white supremacy by a good part of the American media.
When the facts finally emerged, of course, they told a much different story. But what happened to that Covington student could not have happened without many in positions of influence unthinkingly sharing the view that people who wear MAGA hats are what Mrs. Clinton says they are. Trump voters get this, while it doesn’t seem to occur to Democrats that the president’s supporters stick with him in part because they appreciate that the Trump hatred is directed at them as well.
In a poem written after East German workers rose up against their communist overlords in 1953, the playwright Bertolt Brecht suggested that if the government was dissatisfied with the lack of appreciation from its countrymen, perhaps it ought to “dissolve the people and elect another.” He meant it as irony. Some of those pushing hardest for impeachment appear to be taking it more literally.
Trump is going to be impeached. Libertarian apologists notwithstanding.
I hope he gets impeached. Won’t matter to me. Who the president is doesn’t affect me in any perceptible way. Unlike you, your quite invested in this. That must be a hell of a burden.
He’s going to impeached. We all agree. Why does this take dozens of posts with trumptrash claiming it’s not going to happen? Or that the WBer is hearsay? Or that the ic ig didn’t claim the complaint credible? There’s only one conclusion: WTGWT. As always.
I don’t know if he is or not. I don’t really care. I do know he won’t be removed from office and I also know the impact on me is minimal.
I mostly enjoy your daily anger and rage. It’s as if someone replaced your Jesus with a Jesus you don’t like. Oh wait, that’s what happened. When the state is your religion, you tend to defend it with religious fervor. The state is your religion. Just look at your avatar. You literally worship government and state.
Comments
So it must be true.
Just do it
I mostly enjoy your daily anger and rage. It’s as if someone replaced your Jesus with a Jesus you don’t like. Oh wait, that’s what happened. When the state is your religion, you tend to defend it with religious fervor. The state is your religion. Just look at your avatar. You literally worship government and state.
Clause 6: Trial of Impeachment
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine what constitutes an adequate impeachment trial.[41] Of the nineteen federal officials formally impeached by the House of Representatives, eleven were acquitted and seven were convicted by the Senate. On one occasion (in the case of Senator William Blount) the Senate declined to hold a trial, asserting that it had no jurisdiction over its own members.[42]
The constitution's framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed Senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than Members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions. Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65).[43]
There are three Constitutionally mandated requirements for impeachment trials. The provision that Senators must sit on oath or affirmation was designed to impress upon them the extreme seriousness of the occasion. The stipulation that the Chief Justice is to preside over presidential impeachment trials underscores the solemnity of the occasion and aims to avoid the conflict of interest of a Vice President's presiding over the proceeding for the removal of the one official standing between him (or her) and the presidency. The latter consideration was regarded to be quite important in the eighteenth century - political parties had not yet formed when the Constitution was adopted, and with the original method of electing the President and Vice President it was presumed that the two men elected to those offices would frequently be political rivals. The specification that a two-thirds super-majority vote of those Senators present in order to convict was also thought necessary to facilitate serious deliberation and to make removal possible only through a consensus that cuts across factional divisions.[43]
Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
If any officer is convicted on impeachment, he or she is immediately removed from office, and may be barred from holding any public office in the future. No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.[44]
"Impeaching Trump Voters
It’s revenge for 2016, and nervousness about Democratic prospects for 2020.
By William McGurn
Oct. 7, 2019 6:36 pm ET
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Donald Trump is everything Democrats say he is: a president who abuses his national-security powers by siccing a foreign government on his political rival, a racist/bigot/nativist constantly using “dog whistles” to stoke division, a man uniquely unfit to sit in the Oval Office.
Assume Mr. Trump is all these things. With an election scarcely a year away, the question then becomes: Why impeach him now? Surely a president as abominable as this ought to be easy to defeat at the polls. Mr. Trump would appear to be especially vulnerable, given that last time he lost the national popular vote and won several battleground states by razor-thin margins.
The answer speaks as much to what Democrats think of Trump voters—they don’t trust them—as it does to what they think of Mr. Trump. In this sense, the push for impeachment now may reflect a lack of Democratic confidence that they can persuade enough of the voters who went for Mr. Trump last time to give them the margins they need for victory come November 2020.
The lack of confidence extends to doubts about each of their leading candidates. It’s no secret that many Democrats worry Joe Biden isn’t up to the job of taking on Mr. Trump. So long as Ukraine is in the news, stories about Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with a Ukrainian gas company will be in the news as well. Other Democrats, meanwhile, worry that Elizabeth Warren is too far left to win. And Bernie Sanders’s heart attack probably spells the end of any chance he might have had at the nomination.
A year ago, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told Roll Call that before using impeachment to overturn the results of the last election, Democrats would have to answer this question: “Do you think that the case is so stark, that the offenses are so terrible and the proof so clear, that once you’ve laid it all out you will have convinced an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for Trump, who like him, that you had no choice? That you had to do it?”
We are nowhere close to meeting the Nadler standard. True, public support for impeachment is up since news of Mr. Trump’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart broke. A FiveThirtyEight.com average of all the impeachment polls finds 46.5% for and 44.8% against. More telling is the divide the numbers show when they are broken down by party. While 79.1% of Democrats want impeachment, the number drops to 41.3% for independents and only 12.5% for Republicans.
So why the rush? Maybe because in addition to concerns about 2020, there’s an itch to punish Trump voters for what they did in 2016. In other words, it isn’t enough that Mr. Trump be defeated. His whole presidency must be delegitimized—along with the people who voted him in.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton famously expressed this contempt for Trump voters when she told wealthy donors at a Manhattan fundraiser “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
She went on. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
In “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling,” reporter Amy Chozick confirms this was no one-off gaffe. Mrs. Clinton, she reports, used the line repeatedly to Democratic audiences she knew would appreciate the sentiment.
“The Deplorables always got a laugh, over living-room chats in the Hamptons, at dinner parties under the stars on Martha’s Vineyard, over passed hors d’oeuvres in Beverly Hills, and during sunset cocktails in Silicon Valley,” wrote Ms. Chozick. The unspoken corollary is that only a morally debased citizenry could have freely chosen Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.
Today few publicly call Trump voters “deplorable.” But the assumption remains. Remember that high-school kid from Covington, Ky., who was accosted by a Native American activist? Simply because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, the 16-year-old was instantly transformed into the face of white supremacy by a good part of the American media.
When the facts finally emerged, of course, they told a much different story. But what happened to that Covington student could not have happened without many in positions of influence unthinkingly sharing the view that people who wear MAGA hats are what Mrs. Clinton says they are. Trump voters get this, while it doesn’t seem to occur to Democrats that the president’s supporters stick with him in part because they appreciate that the Trump hatred is directed at them as well.
In a poem written after East German workers rose up against their communist overlords in 1953, the playwright Bertolt Brecht suggested that if the government was dissatisfied with the lack of appreciation from its countrymen, perhaps it ought to “dissolve the people and elect another.” He meant it as irony. Some of those pushing hardest for impeachment appear to be taking it more literally.
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com."
Still butthurt after 3 years. Poor little guy.
If true, the white trash meltdown underway makes no sense at all.
That’s good, because your pigeon on a chess board act had grown past tiresome.