Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Vox. Enough said.In anticipation of the reflexive "Vox, ha ha" response from Trumpists I'll say what I always say, disparaging the source of information loses all credibility if you can't factually refute what they report.
..................................................................................................................................
Republicans’ vote against Trump’s impeachment reveals a broken system — and a democracy at real risk of failure.
The Constitution was not built for this
"President Donald Trump deserved to be impeached over his conduct in the Ukraine affair. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did the right thing by pushing for an impeachment vote, and Democrats (all but a handful of them) did the right thing by voting to impeach.
But not a single Republican did. And the GOP’s willingness to back the president to the hilt, in spite of clear and obvious evidence of abuses of power, speaks to an urgent threat to American democracy: Our constitutional system is ill-equipped to withstand extreme polarization.
The framers designed impeachment to be a check on a president who twists the office’s powers for public gain. The system only works, however, under the assumption that members of Congress — particularly in the Senate, which has the power to remove the president — will be capable of separating their interests from those of the president’s.
“Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65. “What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?”
The highly partisan House vote, and the universal assessment in Washington that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump on party lines, reveals that Hamilton’s assumptions about our institutions no longer hold true. Under conditions of extreme polarization, where at least one party cares more about defeating its political opponents than safeguarding against abuses of power, the impeachment power is neutered unless the president’s opposition has the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate (an extremely unlikely set of circumstances)."
.............................................................................................................................
Clearly the founders did not consider the possibility of Faux........an infotainment network dedicated to disinformation. Nor did they consider the possibility an entire congressional caucus would abdicate their responsibility to their oath of office, to the Constitution, and to their country by ignoring the overwhelming evidence of a prez's impeachable wrongdoing in order to protect their seat in government. IOW, they never contemplated the cowardice and duplicity of the POT.........party of Trump.
ROFL! You're joking, right? Who decides what's "pertinent?" You've already shown why you're a fool and a douchebag.Rule #1, witnesses with information pertinent to the charges the prez is facing should be allowed to testify. House Dems were willing to abide by such a rule, McTreason is apparently not.It is time to pass laws governing both Impeachment in the House and Trial in the Senate.
Establishing pre-defined procedures for each that will satisfy the American insistence upon True Justice.
That way, partisan hacks in both House and Senate will be obliged to follow a prescribed set of rules.
What witnesses would you like to see in this trial partisan?Tell your bitch to hand over the Articles, let's get the trial going.
The Constitution was not built for this
Such is the reprehensible, misogynist right.“The framers designed impeachment to be a check on a president who twists the office’s powers for public gain. The system only works, however, under the assumption that members of Congress — particularly in the Senate, which has the power to remove the president — will be capable of separating their interests from those of the president’s.” ibid
True.
The Framers also intended the impeachment process to be used to safeguard the people from imperious dullards such as Trump – from their arrogance and abuse of power.
Tell your bitch to hand over the Articles, let's get the trial going.
Trump has only himself to blame for the disgrace of impeachment.
And it’s incumbent upon the Speaker to make an effort to ensure the Articles of Impeachment are given a fair hearing in a fair trial, however futile those efforts might be in a Senate controlled by blind partisan Republicans.
In anticipation of the reflexive "Vox, ha ha" response from Trumpists I'll say what I always say, disparaging the source of information loses all credibility if you can't factually refute what they report.
..................................................................................................................................
Republicans’ vote against Trump’s impeachment reveals a broken system — and a democracy at real risk of failure.
The Constitution was not built for this
"President Donald Trump deserved to be impeached over his conduct in the Ukraine affair. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did the right thing by pushing for an impeachment vote, and Democrats (all but a handful of them) did the right thing by voting to impeach.
But not a single Republican did. And the GOP’s willingness to back the president to the hilt, in spite of clear and obvious evidence of abuses of power, speaks to an urgent threat to American democracy: Our constitutional system is ill-equipped to withstand extreme polarization.
The framers designed impeachment to be a check on a president who twists the office’s powers for public gain. The system only works, however, under the assumption that members of Congress — particularly in the Senate, which has the power to remove the president — will be capable of separating their interests from those of the president’s.
“Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65. “What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?”
The highly partisan House vote, and the universal assessment in Washington that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump on party lines, reveals that Hamilton’s assumptions about our institutions no longer hold true. Under conditions of extreme polarization, where at least one party cares more about defeating its political opponents than safeguarding against abuses of power, the impeachment power is neutered unless the president’s opposition has the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate (an extremely unlikely set of circumstances)."
.............................................................................................................................
Clearly the founders did not consider the possibility of Faux........an infotainment network dedicated to disinformation. Nor did they consider the possibility an entire congressional caucus would abdicate their responsibility to their oath of office, to the Constitution, and to their country by ignoring the overwhelming evidence of a prez's impeachable wrongdoing in order to protect their seat in government. IOW, they never contemplated the cowardice and duplicity of the POT.........party of Trump.
Please do. Present them.Two can play at that game, Marc! Would you like me to show you, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler's "opinions" on impeachment during the Clinton era?
Please do. Present them.Two can play at that game, Marc! Would you like me to show you, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler's "opinions" on impeachment during the Clinton era?
Such is the reprehensible, misogynist right.“The framers designed impeachment to be a check on a president who twists the office’s powers for public gain. The system only works, however, under the assumption that members of Congress — particularly in the Senate, which has the power to remove the president — will be capable of separating their interests from those of the president’s.” ibid
True.
The Framers also intended the impeachment process to be used to safeguard the people from imperious dullards such as Trump – from their arrogance and abuse of power.
Tell your bitch to hand over the Articles, let's get the trial going.
Trump has only himself to blame for the disgrace of impeachment.
And it’s incumbent upon the Speaker to make an effort to ensure the Articles of Impeachment are given a fair hearing in a fair trial, however futile those efforts might be in a Senate controlled by blind partisan Republicans.
The Speaker has no authority in the Senate. She gets to sit on her hands on watch. You are inferring that the House was in no way "Partisan". LOL, what a joke.
Please do. Present them.Two can play at that game, Marc! Would you like me to show you, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler's "opinions" on impeachment during the Clinton era?
on a side note:
Seems they have no intention of stopping their investigation til Trump is removed from office.
"Lawyers for the House of Representatives suggested the lower chamber could take up new articles of impeachment against President Trump if new evidence of the president's conduct emerges."
House lawyers leave door open to new articles of impeachment
What good would it do if Moscow Mitch is just gonna dismiss them?It is so fucking urgent Pelosi is refusing to send articles to the Senate and instead broke for Christmas. Any more fucking lies?
Clearly the founders did not consider the possibility of Faux........an infotainment network dedicated to disinformation. Nor did they consider the possibility an entire congressional caucus would abdicate their responsibility to their oath of office, to the Constitution, and to their country by ignoring the overwhelming evidence of a prez's impeachable wrongdoing in order to protect their seat in government. IOW, they never contemplated the cowardice and duplicity of the POT.........party of Trump.
What good would it do if Moscow Mitch is just gonna dismiss them?It is so fucking urgent Pelosi is refusing to send articles to the Senate and instead broke for Christmas. Any more fucking lies?
Please do. Present them.Two can play at that game, Marc! Would you like me to show you, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler's "opinions" on impeachment during the Clinton era?
Please do. Present them.Two can play at that game, Marc! Would you like me to show you, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler's "opinions" on impeachment during the Clinton era?
Thank you for saving me the time of finding those, Will! Want to bet that Clayton won't admit he was dead wrong?
Yes. It's called a directed verdict. It happens when, as here, the prosecution fails to present a caseA trial w/o a witness?No witnesses, just a directed verdict as the prosecution failed to present a case
The "prosecution" presented an iron-clad case, that you're in a fantasy land that has nothing to do w/reality means nothing.
#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC
