Democrats plan to introduce articles of impeachment as early as Monday

#1,177
#1,177
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Any sources of Democrats talking about Clinton impeachment?
Click to expand...


Nancy didn’t agree with it then and didn’t think Trump should’ve been until she started feeling the pressure within her own party.

Flashback: Nadler's Clinton impeachment comments from 1998 surface as he leads Trump efforts

Cant forget Nads. He’s a model of consistency. Yeah, right.

Look at the Dems here on VN. They brought it up so do you really think people in DC don’t have similar thoughts?

Edits: Let’s try that CNN link again.


Ok, just Google Pelosi on Clinton impeachment. You’ll find it.
 
#1,179
#1,179
Rand Paul warns ONE THIRD of Republicans will Leave The Party if McConnell allows Trump to be convicted in impeachment trial as president plans revenge on 10 GOP lawmakers who voted against him

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) declared that roughly 'a third' of all Republicans would leave the party if GOP senators team up with Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump as the lame duck president seeks to punish the 10 Republican representatives that voted for impeachment.

'I didn't agree with the fight that happened last week, and I voted against overturning the election,' Paul said.

'But at the same time, the impeachment is a wrongheaded, partisan notion. But if Republicans go along with it, it will destroy the party. A third of the Republicans will leave the party.'

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues President Trump's impeachment trial will be a 'vote of conscience' – an absence of pressure that effectively allows them to vote guilty.

38087654-9154943-image-a-13_1610823430931.jpg


Rand Paul warns one third of Republican lawmakers will leave the party | Daily Mail Online
 
#1,180
#1,180
Franklin Pierce said:
Rand Paul warns ONE THIRD of Republicans will Leave The Party if McConnell allows Trump to be convicted in impeachment trial as president plans revenge on 10 GOP lawmakers who voted against him

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) declared that roughly 'a third' of all Republicans would leave the party if GOP senators team up with Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump as the lame duck president seeks to punish the 10 Republican representatives that voted for impeachment.

'I didn't agree with the fight that happened last week, and I voted against overturning the election,' Paul said.

'But at the same time, the impeachment is a wrongheaded, partisan notion. But if Republicans go along with it, it will destroy the party. A third of the Republicans will leave the party.'

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues President Trump's impeachment trial will be a 'vote of conscience' – an absence of pressure that effectively allows them to vote guilty.

38087654-9154943-image-a-13_1610823430931.jpg


Rand Paul warns one third of Republican lawmakers will leave the party | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
One third of the party is gone regardless.
We now have 3 parties: D's, R's, and Q's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler Durden, BartW and VFFL@THE BEACH
#1,185
#1,185
Velo Vol said:
Go on . . .



Click to expand...


McConnell says nothing without purpose. Permission granted on votes and to draw a line between Republican and Trumpism.

Personally drew that line years ago, so a little ******* late. But definitely a case of better late than never.
 
#1,191
#1,191
tnmarktx said:
It seems weird to me. I thought it was the chief justices job. A lot of weirdness going on right now.
Click to expand...

The chief justice is only required to preside over the trial if the president is being impeached. Maybe he's parsing that to say the "former" president is being impeached so he's not the presiding officer.
 
#1,192
#1,192
clarksvol00 said:
The chief justice is only required to preside over the trial if the president is being impeached. Maybe he's parsing that to say the "former" president is being impeached so he's not the presiding officer.
Click to expand...
That or he doesn't want to be part of another sham impeachment. You have a link to the law or rule that refers to this situation?
 
#1,193
#1,193
"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."

US Const., Art. I, Sec 3, Clause 6.

I assume the presiding officer of the Senate (technically VP) presides over any other impeachment trials.

@tnmarktx
 
#1,194
#1,194
clarksvol00 said:
The chief justice is only required to preside over the trial if the president is being impeached. Maybe he's parsing that to say the "former" president is being impeached so he's not the presiding officer.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has to rule on the legality of the impeachment since there is not really any precedent in the matter. There's that Secretary of War thing back in Grant's Presidency, but I'm not sure that's "precedent."

Regardless, it's stupid to push forward with this.
 
#1,195
#1,195
Grand Vol said:
The SCOTUS has to rule on the legality of the impeachment since there is not really any precedent in the matter. There's that Secretary of War thing back in Grant's Presidency, but I'm not sure that's "precedent."

Regardless, it's stupid to push forward with this.
Click to expand...

The validity of a post-presidency impeachment is not something I've had time to read about, but I'm interested in it. Grant's secretary of war seems like as good a place as any. I know there is a lawyer named Turley from GWU or somewhere like that who is arguing its not possible, but he may also have a law review article from the Clinton era saying otherwise.
 
#1,196
#1,196
clarksvol00 said:
The validity of a post-presidency impeachment is not something I've had time to read about, but I'm interested in it. Grant's secretary of war seems like as good a place as any. I know there is a lawyer named Turley from GWU or somewhere like that who is arguing its not possible, but he may also have a law review article from the Clinton era saying otherwise.
Click to expand...

Oh, you wouldn't like Turley. He tends to lean conservative and is an originalist.

Point being, no former President has ever been impeached so the SCOTUS has to rule on the legality of it. Impeachment is, and always will be, a method of removing someone from office per the Constitution. If he's already gone, what's the point? Because I don't buy this "so he can't run again" nonsense.

This is nothing more than a continuation of the same BS we've dealt with for the last four years. He's gone after tomorrow, let him go and be done with it. Doing this impeachment will not help heal any wounds or "unite" us in any way. Quite the opposite actually.
 
#1,197
#1,197
Grand Vol said:
Oh, you wouldn't like Turley. He tends to lean conservative and is an originalist.

Point being, no former President has ever been impeached so the SCOTUS has to rule on the legality of it. Impeachment is, and always will be, a method of removing someone from office per the Constitution. If he's already gone, what's the point? Because I don't buy this "so he can't run again" nonsense.

This is nothing more than a continuation of the same BS we've dealt with for the last four years. He's gone after tomorrow, let him go and be done with it. Doing this impeachment will not help heal any wounds or "unite" us in any way. Quite the opposite actually.
Click to expand...

Well at least he wouldn't get a travel budget?
 
#1,198
#1,198
clarksvol00 said:
Well at least he wouldn't get a travel budget?
Click to expand...

I recognize the tongue in cheek reply, but even as a left leaning person you have to start asking yourself the question of "why" this is being forced through.

The thing is, had this happened six months ago or longer, I might even have gone along with it and let the facts come out as they may. But two weeks left in his term?

There isn't a good reason you or anyone else on here can come up with.
 
#1,200
#1,200
Grand Vol said:
I recognize the tongue in cheek reply, but even as a left leaning person you have to start asking yourself the question of "why" this is being forced through.

The thing is, had this happened six months ago or longer, I might even have gone along with it and let the facts come out as they may. But two weeks left in his term?

There isn't a good reason you or anyone else on here can come up with.
Click to expand...

What happened last week was a possible attempt to threaten the peaceful transition of power and it warrants scrutiny. However, I don't think it will be successful and for that reason I don't think it's a good idea. Not even six months, but six weeks ago I'd have said go for it. I'm sure McConnell wants him barred from running again, but he'll vote no if he can't get the votes.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top