Impeachment? Really?

[jwoodie]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

 

[Hellbilly]

It’s what trump wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zorro!]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Pelosi doesn't speak for the House, a House VOTE speaks for the House. This is yet another Democrat Fake up job.

NEW YORK SUN: Democracy Dies in Darkness, Indeed

“Talk about Democracy dying in darkness. It’s looking more and more as if the Democrats really are going to try to overturn the 2016 election based on testimony from an unnamed individual they won’t let the Americans see. That’s what we take from a bombshell report that House Democrats are considering masking the whistleblower when he testifies before the impeachment caucus.”​

They’ve learned from the Christine Blasey Ford debacle — don’t tell a story that can be checked.

 

[Zorro!]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

The Electorate Is Not Fooled By The Democrats Silly Antics. They are misusing their constitutional power as an election strategy.

 

[occupied]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

 

[Zorro!]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

 

[occupied]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

The unitary executive philosophy is alive and well. Either embrace it or admit that most of Trump's problems are on account of him bumping up against already ridiculously broad limits of presidential powers. Either admit you think America needs a king or drop the partisan bullshit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the DOJ didn’t have a memorandum that forces them not to indict a sitting president, the fucker would be in jail by now.

You whiny shits should be happy that he’ll just get the impeachment asterisk next to his name.

You’re all such great patriots that you just sit there and smile when the President self deals in between rounds of self dealing golf.

 

[Zorro!]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

The unitary executive philosophy is alive and well...

The Unitary Executive Constitutional Doctrine is simply Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America​

ALL the power of the Executive Branch is held by The President. He alone has stood before the voters. There is no Executive Branch Authority that is not held by the President. All Executive Power is derived from The President's Constitutional Authority. We have no Lord's or Ladies, there is NO Federal Power that is not derived from someone who stood before the voters. The Federal Government has no inherent authority, it only has derived authority, from us, which we grant temporary office holders.

We are not discussing the President's inherent constitutional authority, we are discussing his additional powers, granted him by the Legislative Branch through statute.

The vast executive bureaucracy that now sprawls out from DC is largely possible because of all the endless grants of authority Congress has given to the President. Far too much, but here we are, with Congress complaining about it rather than writing new legislation to take it back. And yes, it doesn't matter which side controls congress, they both take the easy way out and grant Legislative power to Executive Agencies.

... Either embrace it or admit that most of Trump's problems are on account of him bumping up against already ridiculously broad limits of presidential powers. Either admit you think America needs a king or drop the partisan bullshit.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative. I wish Congress would take their power back, but they won't. They won't do a number of things that most want. They won't end the endless wars, they won't reduce our incredible global military footprint. They won't reduce spending. They grant vast powers to the Executive and then whine that their hands are tied, hoping that we won't notice that they tied them.

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows the majority of the State Legislatures, after passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature. Once Congress isn't the only game in town, perhaps they will begin to respond to us again, and if they refuse, we work through the State Legislatures.

 

[occupied]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

The unitary executive philosophy is alive and well...

The Unitary Executive Constitutional Doctrine is simply Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America​

ALL the power of the Executive Branch is held by The President. He alone has stood before the voters. There is no Executive Branch Authority that is not held by the President. All Executive Power is derived from The President's Constitutional Authority. We have no Lord's or Ladies, there is NO Federal Power that is not derived from someone who stood before the voters. The Federal Government has no inherent authority, it only has derived authority, from us, which we grant temporary office holders.

We are not discussing the President's inherent constitutional authority, we are discussing his additional powers, granted him by the Legislative Branch through statute.

The vast executive bureaucracy that now sprawls out from DC is largely possible because of all the endless grants of authority Congress has given to the President. Far too much, but here we are, with Congress complaining about it rather than writing new legislation to take it back. And yes, it doesn't matter which side controls congress, they both take the easy way out and grant Legislative power to Executive Agencies.

... Either embrace it or admit that most of Trump's problems are on account of him bumping up against already ridiculously broad limits of presidential powers. Either admit you think America needs a king or drop the partisan bullshit.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative. I wish Congress would take their power back, but they won't. They won't do a number of things that most want. They won't end the endless wars, they won't reduce our incredible global military footprint. They won't reduce spending. They grant vast powers to the Executive and then whine that their hands are tied, hoping that we won't notice that they tied them.

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows the majority of the State Legislatures, after passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature. Once Congress isn't the only game in town, perhaps they will begin to respond to us again, and if they refuse, we work through the State Legislatures.

You keep saying the same thing but Trump refuses to even recognize congress' responsibility of executive oversight. You will back him to the hilt in his fight against congress. You will refuse to acknowledge his crimes and so the band plays on.

 

[Zorro!]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

The unitary executive philosophy is alive and well...

The Unitary Executive Constitutional Doctrine is simply Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America​

ALL the power of the Executive Branch is held by The President. He alone has stood before the voters. There is no Executive Branch Authority that is not held by the President. All Executive Power is derived from The President's Constitutional Authority. We have no Lord's or Ladies, there is NO Federal Power that is not derived from someone who stood before the voters. The Federal Government has no inherent authority, it only has derived authority, from us, which we grant temporary office holders.

We are not discussing the President's inherent constitutional authority, we are discussing his additional powers, granted him by the Legislative Branch through statute.

The vast executive bureaucracy that now sprawls out from DC is largely possible because of all the endless grants of authority Congress has given to the President. Far too much, but here we are, with Congress complaining about it rather than writing new legislation to take it back. And yes, it doesn't matter which side controls congress, they both take the easy way out and grant Legislative power to Executive Agencies.

... Either embrace it or admit that most of Trump's problems are on account of him bumping up against already ridiculously broad limits of presidential powers. Either admit you think America needs a king or drop the partisan bullshit.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative. I wish Congress would take their power back, but they won't. They won't do a number of things that most want. They won't end the endless wars, they won't reduce our incredible global military footprint. They won't reduce spending. They grant vast powers to the Executive and then whine that their hands are tied, hoping that we won't notice that they tied them.

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows the majority of the State Legislatures, after passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature. Once Congress isn't the only game in town, perhaps they will begin to respond to us again, and if they refuse, we work through the State Legislatures.

You keep saying the same thing but Trump refuses to even recognize congress' responsibility of executive oversight...

No he doesn't.

You will back him to the hilt in his fight against congress....

With their phony impeachment query? Of Course. It's ill advised and damages our Liberty.

 

[occupied]

There is but one remedy for a lawless president. His disregard for constitutional checks on his power cannot be allowed to become the new normal. Since at least Reagan republican presidents have sought to expand executive power followed by bitter complaining when democratic presidents use those expanded powers. Make up your minds. Is the president an absolute ruler or is he merely the top ranking public servant? If Trump manages to make the supreme court say the president is above the law you people deserve what happens next. The rest of us will continue to fight to restore the presidency to what the founders intended.

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

The unitary executive philosophy is alive and well...

The Unitary Executive Constitutional Doctrine is simply Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America​

ALL the power of the Executive Branch is held by The President. He alone has stood before the voters. There is no Executive Branch Authority that is not held by the President. All Executive Power is derived from The President's Constitutional Authority. We have no Lord's or Ladies, there is NO Federal Power that is not derived from someone who stood before the voters. The Federal Government has no inherent authority, it only has derived authority, from us, which we grant temporary office holders.

We are not discussing the President's inherent constitutional authority, we are discussing his additional powers, granted him by the Legislative Branch through statute.

The vast executive bureaucracy that now sprawls out from DC is largely possible because of all the endless grants of authority Congress has given to the President. Far too much, but here we are, with Congress complaining about it rather than writing new legislation to take it back. And yes, it doesn't matter which side controls congress, they both take the easy way out and grant Legislative power to Executive Agencies.

... Either embrace it or admit that most of Trump's problems are on account of him bumping up against already ridiculously broad limits of presidential powers. Either admit you think America needs a king or drop the partisan bullshit.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative. I wish Congress would take their power back, but they won't. They won't do a number of things that most want. They won't end the endless wars, they won't reduce our incredible global military footprint. They won't reduce spending. They grant vast powers to the Executive and then whine that their hands are tied, hoping that we won't notice that they tied them.

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows the majority of the State Legislatures, after passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature. Once Congress isn't the only game in town, perhaps they will begin to respond to us again, and if they refuse, we work through the State Legislatures.

You keep saying the same thing but Trump refuses to even recognize congress' responsibility of executive oversight...

No he doesn't.

You will back him to the hilt in his fight against congress....

With their phony impeachment query? Of Course. It's ill advised and damages our Liberty.

Phony? Trump has openly admitted what he is trouble for. Seeking foreign assistance in an election fundamentally damages our electoral process. It's very likely that politicians will seek foreign assistance from now on unless we all slam the door on that shit.

 

[Zorro!]

What a pile of crap. Give a link to where you shrieked hysterically over Obama's use of his "pen and his phone."

Actually you do have a glimmer of a point but you misaddress it. CONGRESS cedes WAY TOO much power to the executive branch, but this has been the case for a half century and both parties are guilty.

I'll never forget watching Obama pledge to circumvent congress by rewriting immigration law through executive power and Harry Reid wildly demonstrating his approval. So take your sanctimonious self-righteousness and shove it. You guys FOOL NO ONE!

If this is really a concern, where are all the House Bills written without the constant "The Secretary Shall" as common as commas - everyone a grant of Legislative Power to the Executive Branch, being passed by the House?

There aren't any. They don't want to undo the Legislatively Expanded Executive, they just want at the controls.

The unitary executive philosophy is alive and well...

The Unitary Executive Constitutional Doctrine is simply Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America​

ALL the power of the Executive Branch is held by The President. He alone has stood before the voters. There is no Executive Branch Authority that is not held by the President. All Executive Power is derived from The President's Constitutional Authority. We have no Lord's or Ladies, there is NO Federal Power that is not derived from someone who stood before the voters. The Federal Government has no inherent authority, it only has derived authority, from us, which we grant temporary office holders.

We are not discussing the President's inherent constitutional authority, we are discussing his additional powers, granted him by the Legislative Branch through statute.

The vast executive bureaucracy that now sprawls out from DC is largely possible because of all the endless grants of authority Congress has given to the President. Far too much, but here we are, with Congress complaining about it rather than writing new legislation to take it back. And yes, it doesn't matter which side controls congress, they both take the easy way out and grant Legislative power to Executive Agencies.

... Either embrace it or admit that most of Trump's problems are on account of him bumping up against already ridiculously broad limits of presidential powers. Either admit you think America needs a king or drop the partisan bullshit.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative. I wish Congress would take their power back, but they won't. They won't do a number of things that most want. They won't end the endless wars, they won't reduce our incredible global military footprint. They won't reduce spending. They grant vast powers to the Executive and then whine that their hands are tied, hoping that we won't notice that they tied them.

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows the majority of the State Legislatures, after passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature. Once Congress isn't the only game in town, perhaps they will begin to respond to us again, and if they refuse, we work through the State Legislatures.

You keep saying the same thing but Trump refuses to even recognize congress' responsibility of executive oversight...

No he doesn't.

You will back him to the hilt in his fight against congress....

With their phony impeachment query? Of Course. It's ill advised and damages our Liberty.

Phony?...

Phony. The HOUSE has impeachment power NOT Pelosi.

... Trump has openly admitted what he is trouble for...

We have an open investigation into foreign influence into the 2016 election and have for nearly 3 years. Getting to the bottom on this is very important. It is perfectly proper for Trump to request Ukraine's assistance, as Democrats have previously when it was Trump being investigated.

... Seeking foreign assistance in an election...

Whether it hurts him or helps him, Trump can't let that stop him from pursuing the National Interests of The united States, and getting to the bottom of foreign interference in the 2016 election IS in our National Interest and under several very active investigations.

I have to be honest with you, some wonder if Dems are freaking out because they know what's under this foreign influence of the 2016 election is Democrats arranging for it. Are Democrats trying to misuse their impeachment authority to OBSTRUCT an Active Investigation into foreign influence in the 2016 campaign?

... slam the door on that shit.

Nope. We are going to get to the very bottom of ALL OF THAT SHIT, and Democrats will not be able to stop these lawful investigations.

On a brighter note, you guys have some amazingly fresh voices coming forward with a message worth hearing:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Trump and his reprehensible supporters should welcome impeachment.

It would all but guarantee Trump re-election.

Impeachment would backfire on Democrats.

And Trump could crow and strut and boast about how he wasn't convicted.

But Trump and his moronic sycophants are too stupid and arrogant to realize any of that.

 

[Thinker101]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Trump and his reprehensible supporters should welcome impeachment.

It would all but guarantee Trump re-election.

Impeachment would backfire on Democrats.

And Trump could crow and strut and boast about how he wasn't convicted.

But Trump and his moronic sycophants are too stupid and arrogant to realize any of that.

It's deplorables champ, try to get something right for once.

 

[HenryBHough]

Democrats are fools to believe that just refusing to vote will shield them from the wrath of the public. It alienates some of their base, too. Not enough, mind ye, that they'll vote to re-elect President Trump. Just de-facto do that by staying home in Disgust (a small city once called "Detroit").

 

[Zorro!]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Trump and his reprehensible supporters should welcome impeachment.

It would all but guarantee Trump re-election.

Impeachment would backfire on Democrats.

And Trump could crow and strut and boast about how he wasn't convicted.

But Trump and his moronic sycophants are too stupid and arrogant to realize any of that.

We triple dog dare you to Impeach The President.

 

[occupied]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Trump and his reprehensible supporters should welcome impeachment.

It would all but guarantee Trump re-election.

Impeachment would backfire on Democrats.

And Trump could crow and strut and boast about how he wasn't convicted.

But Trump and his moronic sycophants are too stupid and arrogant to realize any of that.

We triple dog dare you to Impeach The President.

We are faced with a president openly violating his oath of office. For those who still think we ought to be a free nation under the rule of law there is no choice.

 

[Zorro!]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Trump and his reprehensible supporters should welcome impeachment.

It would all but guarantee Trump re-election.

Impeachment would backfire on Democrats.

And Trump could crow and strut and boast about how he wasn't convicted.

But Trump and his moronic sycophants are too stupid and arrogant to realize any of that.

We triple dog dare you to Impeach The President.

We are faced with a president openly violating his oath of office...

No we don't.

... there is no choice.

Yes there is. Make your choice.

If you chose to impeach the President because you refuse to accept the Electorate's Choice in 2016, uhhh.... the Electorate is not going to be too happy with you in 2020.

You shouldn't be working to overturn the election, you should be using your brief time as House majority to work for the American People and you guys haven't done squat.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Impeachment 13 months before the next Presidential election? With zero probability that the current Senate would vote to convict?

Setting aside the questionable merits, do you think that pursuing this extraordinary procedure (for obvious political reasons) at this time is a worthy endeavor that will not set a terrible precedent?

Remember the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid to confirm federal judges? Didn't that set the stage for confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple majority?

Are you OK with abusing these procedures as long as it benefits your side? What about after future elections when your side loses? Will you take to the streets again?

Trump and his reprehensible supporters should welcome impeachment.

It would all but guarantee Trump re-election.

Impeachment would backfire on Democrats.

And Trump could crow and strut and boast about how he wasn't convicted.

But Trump and his moronic sycophants are too stupid and arrogant to realize any of that.

We triple dog dare you to Impeach The President.

We are faced with a president openly violating his oath of office...

No we don't.

... there is no choice.

Yes there is. Make your choice.

If you chose to impeach the President because you refuse to accept the Electorate's Choice in 2016, uhhh.... the Electorate is not going to be too happy with you in 2020.

You shouldn't be working to overturn the election, you should be using your brief time as House majority to work for the American People and you guys haven't done squat.

There is no shame left for these fuckers.

We accepted the fucking election, asshole. And the guy who won WITH 3 MILLION FEWER VOTES proceeded to shit on the fucking norms and the rule of law. You rolled over and asked for more.

Campaign managers indicted and jailed.
Personal lawyer indicted and jailed.
Lied to your face about Stormy.
Lied to your face about tax return release.
Put his kid in the Oval Office.
Kid’s husband in Oval Office.
Golfs every fucking weekend.
No career military advisors.
No Sec Def.
No COS.
No HSD.
Self dealing.

Fuck off. Moron.