The Impeachment of Donald Trump: Be careful what you wish for..........
Dec 13, 2019 21:20:45 #
The Democrats, even in their history, have a tendency of putting the cart before the horse.
If we examine the right of impeachment, we really have to look at it seriously. For impeachment is like declaring war. The Constitution of the United States defines reasons for impeachment, "Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." In the cases of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, their crimes were already judged upon in the Third branch of government the Judicial Branch.
As was demonstrated in the administrations of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and various other presidents afterword, when there is a conflict from one branch of government to another, the third branch makes the decision. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison agree that under this constitutional republic, that if there is a time when the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch come to an impasse, then the matter is taken up in the Judicial Branch. Hamilton and Madison described the three branches of government as this:
The Legislative branch has the power of the purse.
The Executive branch has the power of the sword.
The Judicial branch has the power of judgment.
I agreed with impeachment inquiry because there was no investigator to figure out what happened. I disagreed with removal of office because no crime was found. Suspected crimes have been found, however hearsay is no evidence at all. Bill Clinton committed perjury. This was proven in a court of law. But is it a high crime or high misdemeanor? The answer to that question was it was a high misdemeanor, however, he was protecting his family and Bill Clinton apologized for his acts. That form of remorse rendered forgiveness from the Senate. He was not removed from office, however his law license was revoked.
Per special counsel, Richard Nixon was not guilty of the burglary at Watergate, but rather guilty of covering up the crime. In this case, like the case stated above with Bill Clinton, this case was thoroughly investigated and criminal charges were charged in a court of law, as well as writing articles of impeachment against Nixon. Thus, Nixon resigned. Ford becomes president and pardons Nixon, therefore the cover up never entered into court.
I do believe I set the foundation for the next part of this topic. Accusation, rumor, innuendo, hearsay, and gossip is not evidence against an accused. This is Federal rules of evidence. The Mueller Report and the Ukraine impeachment h**x, provides no evidence of the guillotine-Impeachment.
Now folks, I know there are many passionate people on the OPP. So let's look at the evidence, or so called evidence for what it is.
If you follow these rules that I will set forward, keep in mind the rights that are afforded to the president of the United States, by being the head of a branch of government that is co-equal with the other branches. To be obstruction of Congress, one has to refuse both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Look at this, if there is co-equal branches of government then one has to read Article 1. and Article 2 of the constitution.
If we read the constitution then we see, that the legislative branch is divided into two branches, the Senate and the House. Together they are Congress or the Legislative branch. By the constitution, the president as head of the executive branch has more power than the president of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House. But the vice president(president of the Senate) together with the Speaker of the House, has more power than the president. Hamilton and Madison explained this in the Federalist papers. So the President under executive privilege can refuse requests from one House of Congress(Senate or House) but not both houses. If he refuses in both houses then he is guilty of contempt of Congress and obstruction of Congress. But this charge can only be taken up by the Judicial Branch the third co-equal branch of government.
Now it is important that impeachment is done in a manner similar to a court of law. The Chairman of the Judiciary committee during both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments were fair. They held true to the legal standard of a court of law. But this Chairman of the Judiciary we have now, and the Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Committee--who is it? oh Adam Schiff---were unfair towards the president. What is the recourse? Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof?
Not to mention the right of the accused to confront the accuser. How about the right for the defense to call witnesses. As I recall the minority had a list of witnesses that was denied by the majority. Not only did they violate the rule of right to call witnesses but they even obstructed and trampled over the minority rights.
Okay folks, let set a rule, there must be a minimum of three people in a discussion. One person takes one side, the second person takes the opposite side, and the third remains independent. The third person can be considered the jury in the discussion. Both sides state their case and a decision is found, the decision that is found is usually, if the process is done right, is usually a wise decision. What I saw in both the Intelligence Oversight Committee and in the Judiciary Committee was the same, tyrannical process as the founders were afraid of. They were afraid that one branch of government would be come a tyrant. If we fairly look at what has t***spired over the past three years, the House of Representatives, after the midterm e******ns when the Democrats got the majority, has become a tyrant. What makes it worse, is that the Democrats that engage in that tyranny, are blaming the Executive of the very tyranny they are currently engaged in.
The sad part of this exercise is this, and this is a great fear for all future generations: Now if a political party does not agree with the President of the United States, they can just impeach him. They can impeach him because they disagree with him on policy issues. Not only does this exercise weaken the power of impeachment, but it also weakens the power of the president.
Personal Note: I argued the impeachment of Barack Obama, on the grounds of treason for B******i, Fast and Furious, and the trade for an American Deserter for Terrorists. At the time, I had more evidence to convict Obama in the Senate, then the Democrats do in convicting Trump. Now the manner in which Trump does what he does, we may not agree with. But 62 Million Americans almost 63 million (62,984,828 according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_p**********l_e******n#General_e******n)) I believe that these 63 million people will be very upset about this impeachment sham.
To my fellow Democrat friends, after the v**e, probably next week, you can bet that the next Democrat president that is elected by the people will be impeached based upon this partisan precedence set by this House of Representatives. Be careful what you wish for, if the v**e in the House next week is in favor of impeachment, that would mean that the factions in this country rule and the American people do not. I was told to back off, with my charges against Obama. What happens now when the shoe is on the other foot. Fairness where is fairness?
If we examine the right of impeachment, we really have to look at it seriously. For impeachment is like declaring war. The Constitution of the United States defines reasons for impeachment, "Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." In the cases of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, their crimes were already judged upon in the Third branch of government the Judicial Branch.
As was demonstrated in the administrations of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and various other presidents afterword, when there is a conflict from one branch of government to another, the third branch makes the decision. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison agree that under this constitutional republic, that if there is a time when the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch come to an impasse, then the matter is taken up in the Judicial Branch. Hamilton and Madison described the three branches of government as this:
The Legislative branch has the power of the purse.
The Executive branch has the power of the sword.
The Judicial branch has the power of judgment.
I agreed with impeachment inquiry because there was no investigator to figure out what happened. I disagreed with removal of office because no crime was found. Suspected crimes have been found, however hearsay is no evidence at all. Bill Clinton committed perjury. This was proven in a court of law. But is it a high crime or high misdemeanor? The answer to that question was it was a high misdemeanor, however, he was protecting his family and Bill Clinton apologized for his acts. That form of remorse rendered forgiveness from the Senate. He was not removed from office, however his law license was revoked.
Per special counsel, Richard Nixon was not guilty of the burglary at Watergate, but rather guilty of covering up the crime. In this case, like the case stated above with Bill Clinton, this case was thoroughly investigated and criminal charges were charged in a court of law, as well as writing articles of impeachment against Nixon. Thus, Nixon resigned. Ford becomes president and pardons Nixon, therefore the cover up never entered into court.
I do believe I set the foundation for the next part of this topic. Accusation, rumor, innuendo, hearsay, and gossip is not evidence against an accused. This is Federal rules of evidence. The Mueller Report and the Ukraine impeachment h**x, provides no evidence of the guillotine-Impeachment.
Now folks, I know there are many passionate people on the OPP. So let's look at the evidence, or so called evidence for what it is.
If you follow these rules that I will set forward, keep in mind the rights that are afforded to the president of the United States, by being the head of a branch of government that is co-equal with the other branches. To be obstruction of Congress, one has to refuse both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Look at this, if there is co-equal branches of government then one has to read Article 1. and Article 2 of the constitution.
If we read the constitution then we see, that the legislative branch is divided into two branches, the Senate and the House. Together they are Congress or the Legislative branch. By the constitution, the president as head of the executive branch has more power than the president of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House. But the vice president(president of the Senate) together with the Speaker of the House, has more power than the president. Hamilton and Madison explained this in the Federalist papers. So the President under executive privilege can refuse requests from one House of Congress(Senate or House) but not both houses. If he refuses in both houses then he is guilty of contempt of Congress and obstruction of Congress. But this charge can only be taken up by the Judicial Branch the third co-equal branch of government.
Now it is important that impeachment is done in a manner similar to a court of law. The Chairman of the Judiciary committee during both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments were fair. They held true to the legal standard of a court of law. But this Chairman of the Judiciary we have now, and the Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Committee--who is it? oh Adam Schiff---were unfair towards the president. What is the recourse? Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof?
Not to mention the right of the accused to confront the accuser. How about the right for the defense to call witnesses. As I recall the minority had a list of witnesses that was denied by the majority. Not only did they violate the rule of right to call witnesses but they even obstructed and trampled over the minority rights.
Okay folks, let set a rule, there must be a minimum of three people in a discussion. One person takes one side, the second person takes the opposite side, and the third remains independent. The third person can be considered the jury in the discussion. Both sides state their case and a decision is found, the decision that is found is usually, if the process is done right, is usually a wise decision. What I saw in both the Intelligence Oversight Committee and in the Judiciary Committee was the same, tyrannical process as the founders were afraid of. They were afraid that one branch of government would be come a tyrant. If we fairly look at what has t***spired over the past three years, the House of Representatives, after the midterm e******ns when the Democrats got the majority, has become a tyrant. What makes it worse, is that the Democrats that engage in that tyranny, are blaming the Executive of the very tyranny they are currently engaged in.
The sad part of this exercise is this, and this is a great fear for all future generations: Now if a political party does not agree with the President of the United States, they can just impeach him. They can impeach him because they disagree with him on policy issues. Not only does this exercise weaken the power of impeachment, but it also weakens the power of the president.
Personal Note: I argued the impeachment of Barack Obama, on the grounds of treason for B******i, Fast and Furious, and the trade for an American Deserter for Terrorists. At the time, I had more evidence to convict Obama in the Senate, then the Democrats do in convicting Trump. Now the manner in which Trump does what he does, we may not agree with. But 62 Million Americans almost 63 million (62,984,828 according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_p**********l_e******n#General_e******n)) I believe that these 63 million people will be very upset about this impeachment sham.
To my fellow Democrat friends, after the v**e, probably next week, you can bet that the next Democrat president that is elected by the people will be impeached based upon this partisan precedence set by this House of Representatives. Be careful what you wish for, if the v**e in the House next week is in favor of impeachment, that would mean that the factions in this country rule and the American people do not. I was told to back off, with my charges against Obama. What happens now when the shoe is on the other foot. Fairness where is fairness?
Dec 13, 2019 21:37:08 #
Dec 13, 2019 21:56:51 #
Dec 13, 2019 22:35:22 #
Abuse of the impeachment process means open season on the next Democratic president. And the press will answer for their hypocrisy.
Dec 14, 2019 00:00:41 #
Ranger7374 wrote:
The Democrats, even in their history, have a tende... (show quote)
You gotta’ wonder what the founders would think about the level of intellect displayed by the current House Judiciary Committee. (The Republicans seemed a little better.) Or, by the whole House for that matter.
One must realize: those people are “right off the streets”.....nothing special. Ex: a twit bartender? Moslem apostates? Gay Native American kick boxer? The list goes on....and on.
We ain’t too “woke”......we’re getting what we v**ed for. Or maybe: we got what would run?
Dec 14, 2019 00:43:47 #
Ranger7374 wrote:
The Democrats, even in their history, have a tendency of putting the cart before the horse.
Dec 14, 2019 06:04:28 #
Ranger7374 wrote:
The Democrats, even in their history, have a tende... (show quote)
EXCELLENT post. And I've been thinking a lot lately that what the DNC and the Obama administration, using partisan sectors of the FBI, did to Donald Trump's campaign is EXACTLY what was done to the Democrats by the Nixon administration. Actually, what the Nixon administration did was LESS intrusive and egregious than what was done by the DNC and the Obama administration. Does no one see this????
Dec 14, 2019 06:05:28 #
steve66613 wrote:
You gotta’ wonder what the founders would think ab... (show quote)
Interesting perspective- and right on
Dec 14, 2019 09:27:27 #
debeda wrote:
Interesting perspective- and right on
And Debeda:
Paybacks a beyotch!
Dec 14, 2019 09:54:49 #
debeda wrote:
EXCELLENT post. And I've been thinking a lot lately that what the DNC and the Obama administration, using partisan sectors of the FBI, did to Donald Trump's campaign is EXACTLY what was done to the Democrats by the Nixon administration. Actually, what the Nixon administration did was LESS intrusive and egregious than what was done by the DNC and the Obama administration. Does no one see this????
What Nixon did was similar, but less egregious, until the cover-up. The lying, cover-up and deletion of 28 minutes of tape did him in. The break-in was not an issue in his impeachment. The big difference for Nixon was Congress which was Democrat in both chambers; Nixon didn't stand a chance and resigned. The other big difference was the deep state; they were caused Nixon's troubles rather than conspire with him as they did with Democrats undermining Trump. Nixon was paranoid for good reason; the deep state was nipping at him from the day he took office. So Nixon was desperate to get information on his opponents.
Dec 14, 2019 11:55:11 #
Guess or founders were not as smart as we have given them credit for!
I do believe our founders would of dumped trump in a matter of weeks !
I do believe our founders would of dumped trump in a matter of weeks !
Dec 14, 2019 12:15:36 #
Dec 14, 2019 12:32:18 #
Ranger7374 wrote:
The Democrats, even in their history, have a tende... (show quote)
That settles it. Where has the Judicial branch been? I’m one of those v**ers who is already angry.
Dec 14, 2019 12:52:44 #
EconomistDon wrote:
What Nixon did was similar, but less egregious, un... (show quote)
It was similar, and they're finding cover ups, deletions, etc. In the FBIs actions to spy on the President's campaign. I find it eerily similar, and amazing (d********g) that this is happening.
Dec 14, 2019 14:04:36 #
steve66613 wrote:
You gotta’ wonder what the founders would think ab... (show quote)
the lib-progs once again must face the undeniable t***h...E******NS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.