Pardon: trump pardons Dinesh D’Souza

If it happens any time between now and the end of August, I won't be participating. Too effin' hot! Unless maybe we get up early to riot and we can be done before 9 am.

Impeachment should not at all be an expression of the will of the people. Its not a recall vote. Its a trial. The will of the people can be expressed in 2020.

 

anything the house does is an expression of the will of the people. It is how the framers envisioned our voice to be heard.

 

Sure that's not how it should be, but that's often how it is. If things were handled honestly, Bill Clinton would have been removed from office due to obstruction of justice and perjury.....but it's just politics. You weren't going to get a Democrat to vote to remove Clinton and you won't get Republicans to vote to remove Trump and that's just how it is.

 

In theory. In practice, Unfortunately no. The senate is closer to the will of the people, and that’s already a stretch.

Even assuming the system is perfect today... All congressmen take an oath to uphold the Constitution. If the will of the people is women shouldn’t allow to vote, congress isn’t going to support that.

Did the founder envisioned that the president should be above the law? Given the history of how this nation came to be, limited central government and the system of check and balance, no way.

 

The founders envisioned the House as the power in the government but the presidents since FDR have taken power after power away from them and put it in a bloated bureaucracy.

Your arguments are basically ridiculous.

 

there are a lot of suburban soccer moms, pissed off old white guys and phony christians in this country.

 

I expect this type of response from bobby. Surprised and Disappointed.

1/2 of one branch that is coequal to the other two branch is somehow the power center?

 

I'd love to take this quote and compare it to some of the past insults you've slung my way. If I recall it included some real gems. It's too late to pull some high road "I'm disappoint" tactic now. Your post was nonsensical and sort of rambling.

 

I did? I do pick and choose my insults and I honestly don’t recall throwing any your way. Not at all high horse. I get low and I do it to certain posters.

The part that surprise me is ... ridiculous. That is usually an end. I didn’t take it as any attack, just that once you l see that,
I’m not interested anymore.

 

again nonsensical

 

Like a kid with a new toy...

 

Disagree on the vision of framers and the role of the House. Well, we agree mostly -- the House is supposed to be the voice closest to the people -- very local and frequent elections that should result in this Chamber reflecting the mood of the day. However, I don't believe the framers saw this as a lawless chamber where Representatives would evince whatever opinion was popular. They have a basic duty to the Constitution and to do what is morally right that holds a higher priority than representing the interests of their district. The Constitution requires that some high crimes and misdemeanors be committed for an impeachment to be warranted. It is up to Congress to decide what that is, but to make up some BS -- like "I consider it a crime the way Trump is always embarrassing the country with what he says on Twitter" -- would be an unreasonable interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors and would essentially be an extrajudicial application of their authority, totally unwarranted and not really acceptable (to the framers, as I understand them) even if the great majority of one's district might accept it. That would be a sort of dictatorship of another kind.

Likewise, I do not believe that it is acceptable for a Representative to withhold his vote for impeachment when he is presented with compelling evidence of a real high crime. So, if some day Mueller submits a report that finds Trump personally conspired with foreign governments to take power, that he laundered money, that he took inappropriate financial benefits in exchange for policy decisions, or whatever, backed up with testimony and evidence, it is not okay for a red state Rep to say "my duty is to my own constituents, and they do not support impeachment." It will be true for some Reps that their constituents, despite mountains of evidence, will still want Trump to remain president. But, that Rep's duty is first to his conscience, to the Constitution he swore to uphold, to his nation he swore to serve, and then to his constituents he was elected to represent. To make this a 'will of the people' thing throws the rule of law into the toilet. If you go there, you're wrong, and you put our democracy in danger.

 

I disagree here at least a little bid, I think the framers realized that a body of government as local as the house would be filled with crazies who couldn't really be trusted to be impartial....and that's why they don't have the ability to remove a sitting president. They instead left that up to the Senate that has more job security and there are fewer of them so in theory they will be of higher quality than the rabble down in the House.....now that was a great theory anyway, but what it comes down to is politicians are politicians first so that system sort of fails too.

So you are on record then saying that the Senate was wrong to not remove Bill Clinton from office and that move put our democracy in danger.....or do we ignore that and only focus on your hypothetical example with Trump? I mean we have a real world fairly recent example of Senators withholding their vote for removal despite being presented with compelling evidence of real high crimes. Did those Senators, in your opinion, put democracy in danger in order to say "my duty is to my own constituents, and they do not support this"?

 

The bbs record doesn't go this far back, but at the time I wanted Clinton to be convicted and removed. So I guess you can put me "on record." I think there is an intellectually honest argument to be made that his crime was not a "high" crime and therefore doesn't warrant such a severe remedy. If it was only perjury, I'd probably have preferred a censure, but the obstruction of justice made me lean more to impeachment. I don't really like Presidents abusing the office. I do think it is unfortunate that the vote was so partisan when it should not be. My ideal is probably never going to happen.

 

That's fair, I was just seeing if you'd be consistent about it. I was very much for the removal of Clinton for obstruction of justice, and if they ever prove that charge against Trump (and firing Comey isn't obstruction of justice IMO given the MANY legit reasons to do so) then I'd be all for removing him from office too.

Now that said, realistically, it's not going to happen because politicians are politicians first and they'll largely vote along party lines so as to not end their careers.

 

How many voted for Trump? Yes, I'm surprised that there are so many leftists and SJWs on this site. Everyone of those, who live in Houston, must be commenting on this website. That's the only way I can figure it.

 

I think it's become a generic term for "soft" (in several respects) at this point.

 

And that difference was just the sate of California. Eliminate California and Trump won the popular vote by over a million. It's the reason why some of those on the left want to move away from the electoral college system to a system that only cares about the votes of those in just a few states and ignores the rest of the county.

 

What a **** argument.
Remove Texas, and the Democrats have even a more signficant popular vote lead .