New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Shouldn't Pelosi be recusing herself?

Boltlady

Mayor
Many Dems are complaining that POTUS shouldn't be investigating Biden because he's a candidate for Prez. and is therefore a competitor. Pelosi as Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to be Prez. Doesn't that make her an even bigger competitor?
 

Jen

Trump 2020
Well, yes...............but again.........Democrats are not subject to ethics concerns.
 
Many Dems are complaining that POTUS shouldn't be investigating Biden because he's a candidate for Prez. and is therefore a competitor. Pelosi as Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to be Prez. Doesn't that make her an even bigger competitor?
The Constitution gives the oversight role and the power to impeach to the House. The speaker is in charge of the house. The speaker is also third in line of succession.

By your logic no speaker could ever be 8n charge of any impeachment.

Should Newt Gingrich have recused himself during the Clinton impeachment?

Should Carl Albert have recused himself during the Nixon impeachment?

Niether did.

Don't you think if the founders thought that was a problem they would have put it in the consituation?

Or were they just stupid?
 

Boltlady

Mayor
The Constitution gives the oversight role and the power to impeach to the House. The speaker is in charge of the house. The speaker is also third in line of succession.

By your logic no speaker could ever be 8n charge of any impeachment.

Should Newt Gingrich have recused himself during the Clinton impeachment?

Should Carl Albert have recused himself during the Nixon impeachment?

Niether did.

Don't you think if the founders thought that was a problem they would have put it in the consituation?

Or were they just stupid?
Perhaps the founders just didn't realize how corrupt the gov't would actually get. They may have thought that the public would keep it from getting that way.

At any rate they weren't stupid.
 
Perhaps the founders just didn't realize how corrupt the gov't would actually get. They may have thought that the public would keep it from getting that way.

At any rate they weren't stupid.
Right.

No speaker has ever recused themselves from an impeachment.

It isn't necessary.

The founders certainly didn't think it was necessary.
 

Caroljo

Senator
The democrats have tried to impeach the last 5 Republican Presidents. They may not have gotten far enough for everyone to know this, but they wanted it! It isn't going to matter...….they'll fail at this one too. Even if they don't, we'll have Pence, and it won't be so easy to find sh*t on him! :)
 

llovejim

Current Champion
The Constitution gives the oversight role and the power to impeach to the House. The speaker is in charge of the house. The speaker is also third in line of succession.

By your logic no speaker could ever be 8n charge of any impeachment.

Should Newt Gingrich have recused himself during the Clinton impeachment?

Should Carl Albert have recused himself during the Nixon impeachment?

Niether did.

Don't you think if the founders thought that was a problem they would have put it in the consituation?

Or were they just stupid?
was the original post satire? the Constitution laid out the line of succession, making the Speaker of the House 3rd in line. the Constitution also said the power of impeachment belongs to the House. period. it does not specify how the House decides to carry that out. According to the silly first post that some clowns apparently thought was serious, no impeachment could ever occur because of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST!! and some people believed it!!
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Perhaps the founders just didn't realize how corrupt the gov't would actually get. They may have thought that the public would keep it from getting that way.

At any rate they weren't stupid.
no, they were not..just those that believe the Speaker of the House has to recuse herself in any impeachment of the President!!
 

llovejim

Current Champion
The democrats have tried to impeach the last 5 Republican Presidents. They may not have gotten far enough for everyone to know this, but they wanted it! It isn't going to matter...….they'll fail at this one too. Even if they don't, we'll have Pence, and it won't be so easy to find sh*t on him! :)
actually, you are lying. they should have impeached bush, but did not, even though he lied us into a useless war that got 4500 soldiers killed, another 35,000 wounded and resulted in the deaths of about 200,000 Iraqi civilians. And he authorized torture, which is a war crime. They did not impeach GW Bush, they did not impeach Reagan, despite his breaking international and domestic law when he sold banned weapons to the Iranians and took that money to arm right wing terrorists called the Contras despite laws specifically banning that.
 

Caroljo

Senator
actually, you are lying. they should have impeached bush, but did not, even though he lied us into a useless war that got 4500 soldiers killed, another 35,000 wounded and resulted in the deaths of about 200,000 Iraqi civilians. And he authorized torture, which is a war crime. They did not impeach GW Bush, they did not impeach Reagan, despite his breaking international and domestic law when he sold banned weapons to the Iranians and took that money to arm right wing terrorists called the Contras despite laws specifically banning that.
Lol - no, I did not lie. They have actually STARTED proceeding on the last 5 republican presidents. I didn't say it got far, but they tried. I thought you were smarter than this. Why didn't you search and see if it's true before calling me a liar? They introduced Articles of Impeachment against 5 of the last 6 presidents. Catch up......
 

JuliefromOhio

Senator
Supporting Member
Many Dems are complaining that POTUS shouldn't be investigating Biden because he's a candidate for Prez. and is therefore a competitor. Pelosi as Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to be Prez. Doesn't that make her an even bigger competitor?
Let's be clear. Trump asked a foreign country to investigate/dig dirt up on a political opponent. That's illegal and an impeachable offense.

Speaker Pelosi is directing the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry considering all the abuse of power and obstruction of justice Trump has committed in plain sight already. Impeachment is the explicit purview of congress....according to our Constitution.

I supported Pelosi being elected speaker, not just because she was the best to lead the House, but because she would be in line for the presidency when Donald the Destroyer Trump and Father Pence fall. We could use a calm, rational and smart woman leading America.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
The Constitution gives the oversight role and the power to impeach to the House. The speaker is in charge of the house. The speaker is also third in line of succession.

By your logic no speaker could ever be 8n charge of any impeachment.

Should Newt Gingrich have recused himself during the Clinton impeachment?

Should Carl Albert have recused himself during the Nixon impeachment?

Niether did.

Don't you think if the founders thought that was a problem they would have put it in the consituation?

Or were they just stupid?
Um ... she's pointing out how ridiculous your standard is that no one running for President can be investigated, she wasn't arguing for it. Do you have any reading comprehension at all?

And of course in your typical partisan fashion, that rule of course only applies to Democrat candidates. Republicans can be endlessly investigated
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Let's be clear. Trump asked a foreign country to investigate/dig dirt up on a political opponent. That's illegal and an impeachable offense
On the other hand, when Obama tried to get countries to provide dirt on Trump, when Hillary bought dirt from the Russians, when the Democrat party is owned by Soros, then suddenly foreign influence is fine.

If you didn't have double standards, you'd have no standards at all
 

JuliefromOhio

Senator
Supporting Member
Perhaps the founders just didn't realize how corrupt the gov't would actually get. They may have thought that the public would keep it from getting that way.

At any rate they weren't stupid.
The Founders were especially worried that a president might behave like a monarch and considered corruption and abuse of power by a president the greatest threat. They must've known that some time in the future, America would debase itself by falling for a corrupt con man who only knows how to abuse power.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Let's be clear. Trump asked a foreign country to investigate/dig dirt up on a political opponent. That's illegal and an impeachable offense.

Where did he use the term ' dig up dirt' ?

Wait, that was Schiff who said that.:eek:

What Trump actually asked was to find out why an investigation STOPPED.

Maybe stop reading democratunderground. It's leading you astray.
 
Top