waltmoreno

Ok, permi. That's it. I've had it with you. Now I'm gonna give you the scholarly explanation of why even the reasons that Trump was impeached for, were constitutionally invalid.

There is a valid constitutional argument that the Senate cannot hold this impeachment trial. The reason? The Articles of Impeachment drafted by Frodo Nadler and the House Judiciary Democrats are legally invalid.

Aside from being false, impeachment Article I against President Trump is an invalid legal argument. That’s the “abuse of power” article that claims that Trump used his office to solicit an investigation of the Bidens, by withholding foreign aid from Ukraine. We know this is false due to the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukraine president. But it’s also a ludicrously invalid legal argument to claim that withholding aid from Ukraine is a crime.
Imagine that Congress approves a billion dollars in foreign aid to another country. Pick any country. The president signs the bill approving the aid. The aid is intended to build orphanages, pay for food and economic development programs, transgender bathrooms or whatever. And then the leadership of that foreign country announces, “Woohoo! We get a billion dollars from those stupid sucker Americans! We’re spending it all on strippers and cocaine and throwing a party until the money runs out!”
Even though the money has been approved and signed into law and appropriated, we would have to be insane to still send that foreign aid to the corrupt foreign regime. It seems like some person – perhaps with a role similar to a “chief executive” – should still have discretionary authority to say, “You know what? Nope.”
The point is that it is legally absurd to claim that a president does not have discretion to withhold foreign aid under any circumstance. Article I in the Trump impeachment is therefore invalid.

Article II is even worse. It states that Trump is guilty of “obstruction of Congress” because he told Executive branch agencies and employees to refuse to comply with subpoenas related to the Ukraine phone call.
This is another one of those constitutional contrary-to-popular-belief scenarios, but a president is immune from criminal indictment. Impeachment is the sole constitutional remedy for removing a president if he actually commits a crime. Subpoenas from Congress are an area where there has always been a legal back-and-forth over whether a subpoena is legitimate.
This is because Congress is not the prosecutorial branch of government. It’s the legislative branch, so any subpoena that it issues has to have a valid legislative purpose. If Democrats had any smarts, they would have announced that, “Well, gosh, all of a sudden, we’re going to conduct some oversight into the disbursement of aid to Ukraine for no particular reason. Oh, look here! In the midst of all of this responsible oversight of foreign aid that we do all the time, we’ve discovered a potential crime by President Trump!” If they had done that originally, without mentioning impeachment, Article II would maybe have some validity to it.
Instead, from the moment that Americans found out that Trump even had a phone call with the Ukraine president, Democrats have been howling, “Hallelujah! It’s impeachment time!”
Because the Ukraine subpoenas had a prosecutorial bent from the get-go, and served no legislative purpose, the subpoenas were invalid. Not only that, Trump sought guidance from the courts in whether he was required to comply with the facially invalid subpoenas. Therefore, Article II is invalid for two reasons.

The constitutional question now becomes whether the Senate can even hold a trial based on the invalid nature of these shoddy, childish and poorly-thought-out Articles of Impeachment. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “No legislative act… contrary to the constitution, can be valid.” If the Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional to begin with, it doesn’t matter if the House passes them. Legally, the Senate can’t hold a trial on them.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is supposed to oversee an impeachment trial in the Senate if we get that far. The question is whether he will throw the case out entirely, based on the invalid nature of the impeachment articles. Well, we’re about to find out. And that’s the discussion that’s taking place in DC right now.

Nancy's already rueing the day she listened to AOC and the squad and started these stupid impeachment proceedings. She knows there's no way to extricate herself from the mess she's created without seriously damaging her party.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

President Obama was the real deal.. while he did or did not do some things which I did not favor, that is normal.. he had the interest of the nation and its people first in mind..

Your orange abysmal lump has only himself as an interest.

what, pray tell inspires you to believe he was not impeached?????

do you live in some other world perhaps...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

That's it exactly.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Strange as it may seem, son, I sorta share the opinion and fear of lowering the value of Impeachment.
without doubt, we should have been able to simply throw the orange clod in jail..

What?? You see a connection between the Noble Peace Prize and being impeached???

Call trump, his envy of the Peace Prize has near driven him nuts..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

HA HA HA,, walt, you better rush around and let the congress know how wrong they have been nothing they did was lawful.. LOL.. they will be so surprised to find that out..

Which fish wrap press did you glean that bit of secret information from... Lordy Lordy.. what a finding..

Seth

LOL! So we held Clinton to a higher ethics and moral standard, did we? You no doubt overlooked his long history of rape, date rapes and sexual harrassment due to the (D) after his name.

The double standards and hypocrisy of the left know no bounds.

As for the meme, everything on there about Trump is the same unproven BS the Pelosevites used for their kangaroo court "impeachment."

son of witless

I have read various accounts of what the Founders were thinking when they put Impeachment into the Constitution. The thinking was that Impeachment should be very hard, but it had to be in there because you could have a President betray his country. An example would be if Benedict Arnold had become President and then tried to give West Point to the British, instead of during the Revolution.

The Founders were also very aware of the various warring factions that would control parts of the government from time to time, and that one of these factions for political reasons might Impeach a President. For that reason again they made it very hard. There has to be a general agreement within the country to Impeach. A majority in the House and then a 2/3 Super Majority in the Senate is required.

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were saved because the Super Majority could not be reached. With Donald Trump you do not even get a simple majority in the Senate, so it is not even a question. With the country evenly divided the consensus is not there to Impeach.

" You see a connection between the Noble Peace Prize and being impeached??? " Yes I see it. A great award or a great disgrace are mirror images. If either is given too cheaply their worth is devalued. An example is divorce. When I was a child a divorce had a stigma. Now it is so common that there is no disgrace. In fact it is hard to find anyone in their 50s who has not been divorced at least once.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Oh my gosh Seth,,,, you who supports the endless line of sex predictors and child molesters put in office by republicans think it has some merit to attack an male democrat for having a poor choice with some willing young gal pursuing him..

It is less than a joke and has nothing to do with the current cleaning of the oval office..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Impeachment is very hard, while it has been proposed 62 times trump is only the 3rd president to be impeached..

Your remark on the prizes is a good one.. well to point it out..

son of witless

" an male democrat for having a poor choice with some willing young gal pursuing him.. "

son of witless

So what ? You are one of those who thinks that is relevant. Lets us consider the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. He was Impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act by firing his Secretary of War. Modern historians do not consider his Impeachment a Black Mark. It is considered a travesty. My point is that Impeachment by itself is not a Black Mark.

Seth

Your meme, there, doesn't seem to mention that, as we later learned, the Iranians continued their nuclear weapons development on the sly anyway, nor that all the money Obama put in their hands was used to finance terrorism all over the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, thus destabilizing an entire region while providing tangos with ambitions to attack soft targets in CONUS with the funds they need to do so.

But that's okay, from your (the left's) perspective, attacks on U.S. soil would only add to the chaos your lot sees as necessary to the cause of "fundamentally transforming" America to the model you prefer.

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

You seem to have a bad time with the truth, lol. Rosie is fat!
Megyn Kelly does bleed at times. lol. I wonder if you have to use a rag at times.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Gibberish!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

They have written Articles of impeachment against Trump seven times before these latest two. LOL! What a joke!!