Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


No Excuses

Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

one version of the american dream for me is to see all elected gopers and the entire trump party devoting 100% of everything they are to providing the most personal, basic, and direct support possible to the american hog farmer

 

usa! usa! usa!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

How do yall feel about the Dems pretty much ignoring the guy who doesn't agree with them? 

 

not saying its wrong or right. Just soliciting opinions 

 

I would like them to ask him questions. Get him talking about what constitutes an impeachable offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

How do yall feel about the Dems pretty much ignoring the guy who doesn't agree with them? 

 

not saying its wrong or right. Just soliciting opinions 

 

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

I would like them to ask him questions. Get him talking about what constitutes an impeachable offense. 

Meh. I feel like Turley will get a lot of questioning from GOP counsel and Dem Reps. There's like 41 members of the Judiciary. GOP counsel will probably call on Turley like 95% of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Meh. I feel like Turley will get a lot of questioning from GOP counsel and Dem Reps. There's like 41 members of the Judiciary. GOP counsel will probably call on Turley like 95% of the time.

 

I agree. I think the Dems will ultimately ask him questions. I'd love to see the reaction of Turley's colleagues to his testimony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I would like them to ask him questions. Get him talking about what constitutes an impeachable offense. 

 

They should ask him to describe why he so vigorously supported Bill Clinton's impeachment, stating:

 

Quote

In my view, President Clinton’s conduct demands an open and deliberative review under the conditions created for that purpose by the Framers. By his own admission, President Clinton has engaged in reprehensible conduct in office. Allegations of criminal acts in office by a president are perhaps the greatest threat to the perceived legitimacy of a government. When there is compelling evidence of criminal acts in the Chief Executive, an entire system of laws is undermined and demands some form corrective action. Justice Brandeis stressed this danger in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (quoted in Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960), when he warned:

 

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

 

The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.

 

But now opposes the same standard. 

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of dip**** Collins complaining that information is being withhold is totally lost on him. 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

They should ask him to describe why he so vigorously supported Bill Clinton's impeachment, stating:

 

 

But now opposes the same standard. 

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/

 

I'm going to be pissed if none of the Dems use exactly what you have here and force him to explain it. It would be glorious if it happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turley's argument is so full of crap. I disagree with the Supreme Court's position in the Nixon obstruction case therefore let's pretend the ruling didn't happen.

Just now, NoCalMike said:

Not sure the argument Turley is trying to make when he says you can't impeach based on "hypothetical bribery?"  It wasn't hypothetical.  It was "do this or you don't get that" plain and simple. 

All his arguments are weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...