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.
What happens if the majority of the public doesn't see it that way? (that is the point of his article)Henchman and Jerry Nadler shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
Pelosi did everything she could to stave off impeachment. Daycare Donnie forced her hand by being so stupid as to brazenly attempt to influence the 2020 elections.
As I have said before, if Righties would have yanked Trump's chain with a motion of censure they'd have been doing themselves a giant favor. Instead the public sees that they are going to run a sham trial, and they'll be left with a swaggering bully in the White House who will feel even more emboldened.
What happens if the majority of the public doesn't see it that way? (that is the point of his article)
There's only one poll that matters, and it's actually called an election7/10 Americans want to hear more witnesses and more evidence presented.
7/10 Americans want to hear more witnesses and more evidence presented.
7/10 Americans want to hear more witnesses and more evidence presented.
Wasn’t that suppose to happen in Congress?
The Senate IS Congress. And, it's their Constitutional job.
The Senate IS Congress. And, it's their Constitutional job.
As it was in the House.
Shouldn’t they of called all of the witnesses?
How were they supposed to do that? They deposed everyone they could. Trump prevented everyone close to him from appearing before the committee. Parnas wasn’t able to appear.As it was in the House.
Damn, the FOXNews brainwashing is powerful, isn’t it?They tried. That's why Obstruction is on the list of Articles.
The House DID their job.
They issued subpoenas for witnesses which were ignored.
That is obstruction.
If any of those witnesses would exonerate the President, they'd be front and center.
Use.Your.Brain
How were they supposed to do that? They deposed everyone they could. Trump prevented everyone close to him from appearing before the committee. Parnas wasn’t able to appear.
Trump blocked disclosure of key documents or just ignored the committee’s request.
What more could the House have done but wait indefinitely?
Damn, the FOXNews brainwashing is powerful, isn’t it?
Clearly there are a lot of people who don’t read and don’t use logic and common sense. And may not be all that knowledgeable to begin with.
That’s what the courts were for.
Do you realize who you are responding to?The House DID their job.
They issued subpoenas for witnesses which were ignored.
That is obstruction.
If any of those witnesses would exonerate the President, they'd be front and center.
Use.Your.Brain
No; that's what Congress' investigative powers are for.
It would have been preferable to have courts rule on these subpoenas. Unfortunately, it would’ve taken months (or more) so I think the House took a reasonable approach.See my response to Joes Place.
It would have been preferable to have courts rule on these subpoenas. Unfortunately, it would’ve taken months (or more) so I think the House took a reasonable approach.
If I was a US Senator I’d find Trump guilty on abuse of power and (even though I believe he obstructed the House inquiry) I’d let the obstruction slide.
No; that's what Congress' investigative powers are for.
Real questions about the blanket assertion of executive privilege, especially in the context of impeachment. How can Congress exercise its impeachment powers if the Executive branch can prevent the gathering and consideration of information?That’s the head scratcher for me. The POTUS has the right to invoke Executive privilege. That is not obstruction of Congress. Had Congress gone to court and won, and he still refused, then that is obstruction
The inappropriate use of the word "extremism" is a good clue that the speaker can't be taken seriously and should probably just be avoided.
But the majority of the public does see it that way. They may be more evenly divided over whether to remove him from office on the specific charges that have been brought against him, but a fairly strong majority recognizes that he is not a good person and not a trustworthy president.What happens if the majority of the public doesn't see it that way? (that is the point of his article)
Real questions about the blanket assertion of executive privilege, especially in the context of impeachment. How can Congress exercise its impeachment powers if the Executive branch can prevent the gathering and consideration of information?
Impeachment process
HoR = Grand Jury...brings charges
Senate = Jury/Judges...they conduct the trial, not the House
The HoR did their job, they called witnesses (someone which didn't appear) and indicted (impeached) the accused. The actual trial begins this week.
The courts don't move that swiftly, but you already knew that.That’s what the courts were for. The House decided to forgo the courts and push forward because of National Security and the threat POTUS imposed on the country. Then they impeach, and then hold the articles for a month or more for political reasons.
That’s why there are three branches of the government. If the Executive branch claims Executive privilege to avoid testifying, then the House goes to the Judicial branch and make a case on why Executive privilege should not apply.
The House made the decision not to go to the courts. They claimed a clear and present danger, then rushed it through the House in order to sit on the articles for a month or more.
The courts don't move that swiftly, but you already knew that.
Things would more than likely have been held up in the courts until after the election this year. The Trump administration would have used a run-out-the-clock strategy.
The Court has already ruled that the type of thing Trump did is obstruction. Even Turley said so, and he was a Trump witness.They can’t without the help of the Judicial Branch. That’s what they’re there for.
If the House tried the courts and failed, then they have to make do with what they have
Yeah you keep saying that, but as I said above, there is only one poll that matters- its called an election.But the majority of the public does see it that way. They may be more evenly divided over whether to remove him from office on the specific charges that have been brought against him, but a fairly strong majority recognizes that he is not a good person and not a trustworthy president.
They are doing it right. They impeached him on what they had.And?
If you’re going to do it, do it right. Or beat him in November
We've learned twice in this millennium that our elections system is broken. How long will the people be content to watch their elections stolen? (Probably forever, I'm sorry to say.)Yeah you keep saying that, but as I said above, there is only one poll that matters- its called an election.
Just out of curiosity, WTH makes you think Trump would pay any more heed to a judicial order? Here's what his lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, is arguing:That’s what the courts were for. The House decided to forgo the courts and push forward because of National Security and the threat POTUS imposed on the country. Then they impeach, and then hold the articles for a month or more for political reasons.
That’s why there are three branches of the government. If the Executive branch claims Executive privilege to avoid testifying, then the House goes to the Judicial branch and make a case on why Executive privilege should not apply.
The House made the decision not to go to the courts. They claimed a clear and present danger, then rushed it through the House in order to sit on the articles for a month or more.
That's so unbelievable that I had to google it. Apparently he really did say that.“Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution.”