The impeachment coup ....because all the other coup attempts failed

[reason10]

English Lesson:

impeachment is a constitutional process.

It is therefore, by definition, NOT a coup.

No charge.

It IS a coup attempt if (a) the president has done nothing wrong and (b) its only purpose is to overturn the 2016 elections.

 

[reason10]

It is being carried out exactly as prescribed by the Constitution.

No it is NOT. There's NOTHING in the Constitution that calls for impeachment to be used as a campaign tool.

 

[reason10]

Nope.

English.

Definitions.

Something that is constitutionally prescribed cannot, BY DEFINITION, be a coup.

Definitions and logic.

Something that is legal cannot be illegal.

This coup attempt is neither legal nor constitutional.

 

[FakeName]

Nixon quit. No articles of impeachment, though there were actual laws he broke that could have been used against him. Clinton committed perjury. That is an impeachable offense. There was no "could have" committed perjury. He did it and everyone knew it. In the end, it was decided that his perjury wasn't to the level that should throw him out of office. It was the right choice to make.

But your post says this................


"Could be impeachable" is NOT grounds enough to bring on impeachment. For both Nixon and Clinton they had more than just a "could be".

That's what makes this impeachment nothing but silliness, stupidity, and vacant wishes for Democrats. It will hurt them more than it helps them.

Facts matter:

Nixon:

Three articles were approved by the Committee, each one premised on abuse of the powers of the presidency, although the first Article also involved a criminal allegation.[101][142]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

Clinton:

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice..[21] Two other articles of impeachment failed –

So yes such things are impeachable.

I said 'could be' because it is up to the house to decide in this case, just like it was up to the house to decide in the Nixon and Clinton cases.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

The president is trying desperately to prevent them from "squealing".

Preventing them from testifying could be, in and of itself, obstruction of Justice and abuse of power. I am not saying it is, but it very well could be, and both of those are impeachable.

Translation: Look Boca, I know this bribery and extortion thing is going nowhere. I need to start hedging my bets and dredge up some other BS charges to keep going after Trump. I'm obsessed. I can't help myself. Somebody help me PLEASE!!!!

 

[Boca]

What is the difference in unemployment between January 2017 and now? What, exactly, has Trump contributed to those great numbers? Is it .8%?

You should be thinking about Black, Hispanic, Asian, and women's unemployment. But you don't think do you?

 

[georgephillip]

Well, well, I can see from your last two posts you're just a disturbed individual out for a rant. Enjoy yourself

Do you believe Trump is more or less corrupt than Hillary?

 

[FakeName]

It IS a coup attempt if (a) the president has done nothing wrong and (b) its only purpose is to overturn the 2016 elections.

It is up to a vote in the house, and then the Senate, to decide if the president did anything wrong. As per the Constitution. That is the process we are in. Nothing illegal about it.

if they decide that the president did something wrong then it wasn't only to overturn the election.

If they decide what he did was ok then nothing happens.

No matter how you look at it it is NOT a coup.

 

[FakeName]

Translation: Look Boca, I know this bribery and extortion thing is going nowhere. I need to start hedging my bets and dredge up some other BS charges to keep going after Trump. I'm obsessed. I can't help myself. Somebody help me PLEASE!!!!

Utter nonsense.

 

[georgephillip]

People who read SLATE are ignorant, brain dead welfare cheating asssssholes.

Corruption fighters?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/ukraine-depositions-trump-republican-corruption-lies.html

"According to Republican senators, President Donald Trump had a very good reason to press Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats.

"The president’s reason, they explain, was his deep concern about corruption.

"Republicans think they can get away with this preposterous lie because there’s no way to disprove it.

"But there is.

"Text messages released last month showed that Trump’s pressure on Ukraine was never about corruption.

"And this week, Congress unveiled additional evidence to debunk the 'corruption' defense: more than 1,000 pages of testimony from the three men at the center of Trump’s extortion campaign."

Will you SOB like a SNOWFLAKE when Don the Con dies in prison?

 

[Jen]

It is up to a vote in the house, and then the Senate, to decide if the president did anything wrong. As per the Constitution. That is the process we are in. Nothing illegal about it.

if they decide that the president did something wrong then it wasn't only to overturn the election.

If they decide what he did was ok then nothing happens.

No matter how you look at it it is NOT a coup.

That's all it is...............an attempted coup. Another in a long list of attempted coups that began before Trump was even inaugurated.

Disgusting.

 

[FakeName]

This coup attempt is neither legal nor constitutional.

Of course it is both.

But just for fun how about you name specifically what you think is illegal about it and how specifically it is unco situational.

 

[FakeName]

That's all it is...............an attempted coup. Another in a long list of attempted coups that began before Trump was even inaugurated.

Disgusting.

It is constitutional.

I just demonstrated that.

Do you have a refutation or are you joining St going to stick your fingers in your ears?

 

[georgephillip]

They are NOT. Only a fcking IDIOT would think this attempted coup has ANYTHING to do with the Clinton impeachment. Starr found REAL CRIMES the LIAR/RAPIST committed.

Trump has done nothing wrong.

Only a fcking idiot thinks otherwise.

Learn to read.

 

[georgephillip]

Translation: Look Boca, I know this bribery and extortion thing is going nowhere. I need to start hedging my bets and dredge up some other BS charges to keep going after Trump. I'm obsessed. I can't help myself. Somebody help me PLEASE!!!!

Never Underestimate Trump.

He will split your party into at least two factions before Labor Day, imho.

 

[middleview]

Nixon quit. No articles of impeachment, though there were actual laws he broke that could have been used against him. Clinton committed perjury. That is an impeachable offense. There was no "could have" committed perjury. He did it and everyone knew it. In the end, it was decided that his perjury wasn't to the level that should throw him out of office. It was the right choice to make.

But your post says this................


"Could be impeachable" is NOT grounds enough to bring on impeachment. For both Nixon and Clinton they had more than just a "could be".

That's what makes this impeachment nothing but silliness, stupidity, and vacant wishes for Democrats. It will hurt them more than it helps them.

Clinton did not commit perjury.

 

[Jen]

It is constitutional.

I just demonstrated that.

Do you have a refutation or are you joining St going to stick your fingers in your ears?

No. You demonstrated what the Democrats are doing.................. trying to find some way to prove something/ anything..........that has NOT been substantiated at this point.

If it were fine to impeach because something illegal "may have been done"........then Obama would have been impeached for several of those assumptions (giving a plane load of cash to Iran being one of them). The Republicans were not that rabid about impeaching Obama that they would impeach on something that may possibly have been done if we can just find someone willing to testify under oath (perjure themselves) to say it happened.

The Democrats ARE that rabid about it so they are searching everywhere for that person just like they searched and found that Ford lady to testify against Kavanaugh.

That sort of scurrilous thing is NOT what the Constitutional grounds for impeachment are. I submit that YOU are the one with fingers stuck in your ears.

 

[FakeName]

No. You demonstrated what the Democrats are doing.................. trying to find some way to prove something/ anything..........that has NOT been substantiated at this point.

If it were fine to impeach because something illegal "may have been done"........then Obama would have been impeached for several of those assumptions (giving a plane load of cash to Iran being one of them). The Republicans were not that rabid about impeaching Obama that they would impeach on something that may possibly have been done if we can just find someone willing to testify under oath (perjure themselves) to say it happened.

The Democrats ARE that rabid about it so they are searching everywhere for that person just like they searched and found that Ford lady to testify against Kavanaugh.

That sort of scurrilous thing is NOT what the Constitutional grounds for impeachment are. I submit that YOU are the one with fingers stuck in your ears.

How about you refute what I said and explain specifically how it is "illegal". what laws are being violated? And specifically how it is unconstitutional ......what clause of the Constitution is being ignored or contradicted?

You are just blowing smoke.

I don't expect an answer because you obviously don't have one.

 

[Jen]

How about you refute what I said and explain specifically how it is "illegal". what laws are being violated? And specifically how it is unconstitutional ......what clause of the Constitution is being ignored or contradicted?

You are just blowing smoke.

I don't expect an answer because you obviously don't have one.

Already refuted.
You just refuse to admit it. And THIS is why I don't think it's worth it to discuss anything with you................ you demand what's already been given and cry that you haven't been answered when you have been.........more than once. We're done here.

 

[FakeName]

No. You demonstrated what the Democrats are doing.................. trying to find some way to prove something/ anything..........that has NOT been substantiated at this point.

By the way. Of course it "has not been substantiated at this point".

We have had one day of hearings out of many to come.

At the end, NOT THE BEGINNING, they vote on whether or not the allegations have been substantiated.

Genuinely curious, Why do Trump supporters keep insisting that we have to have iron clad proof that crimes were committed BEFORE we can investigate.....That accusations need to be substantiated before we can hear witness testimony. Do you all really not understand how things work? Is it mental retardation?

I really don't get it.