There were 58 Democrats who voted to move forward with debate on articles of impeachment of President Trump on the grounds that he is an uncouth oaf. Nevada Rep. Dina Titus was one of them.
Although Texas Rep. Al Green’s House Resolution for impeachment contains no text, Politico has linked to what it calls the articles of impeachment, nothing more than a recitation of Trump’s faux pas.
“Donald John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office,” Politico quoted Green as saying on the House floor.
Among the agregious deeds listed by Green are Trump’s attempt to block immigration from certain majority Muslim nations, banning transgender persons from military service, denigrating football players for kneeling during the national anthem and calling a Florida representative wacky.
Titus thought these worthy of debating whether to remove the president from office. All other Nevada representatives voted against moving forward.
“All it takes for tyranny to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
And that’s what every republican decided to do yesterday.
Bad manners = tyranny?
Sorry to see Dina throwing reason out the window and voting for political pique. If we are to go down this road of advocating impeachment simply because we do not like or disagree with the policies of public official, we accomplish little except to make our government and our nation even more divided and dysfunctional.
Thomas, if the only takeaway you get from the first year of Trump’s presidency is that he is guilty of bad manners, you either aren’t paying attention, or you’re not the devotee of the principles i thought you were. Not that my opinion holds any sway here, but, just to point out a single act, which for a prior president was considered a violation of his oath of office; doesn’t the fact that Trump instructed the IRS not to impose the penalty required under the ACA, even though that is the law, mean that the executive is not executing the laws, as “conservatives” claimed President Obama failed to do in numerous instances specifically relating to our immigration laws?
Is it merely “bad manners” that Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women, and in lots of cases or does this rise to the level of the “misdemeanors” that the Constitution specifically identifies as the basis for impeachment? Does the fact that Trump has used government instrumentalities (State Department website for one) to hawk his daughters cheap wares constitute a misdemeanor? How about his acceptance of money from the heads of state in arguable at least, violation of the Emmoluments Clause? The fact that Trump first denied knowing Putin, but admits he has has met Putin, or the gang surrounding Trump who is at this moment being investigated and some indicted for his administrations actions; does amount to nothing more than “bad manners” to you? Is it merely bad manners to suggest that private employers, and most specifically the press, fire people who disagree with Trumps perspective? Doesn’t the action of the government, which Trump unfortunately represents, against the press, constitute a violation of the First Amendment to the extent that it may be an impeachable offense, and not merely “bad manners”?
Why mock a group of representatives who, in the face of a president who has acted consistently in a contrary fashion to the principles this country was established, supposedly to protect, rather than applaud them?
My opinion of course means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but my opinion of you was that you had some integrity, and actually were a man of some principle, but to suggest that the only thing Trump is guilty of is “bad manners” is forcing me to change my opinion.
Jan. 20 executive order: “It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the “Act”). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.”
“Is it merely bad manners to suggest that private employers, and most specifically the press, fire people who disagree with Trumps perspective? ”
The main reason these people want Trump impeached is because he beat Hillary.
They won’t except the majority of voters that elected him and they don’t even try to understand why anyone would reject Pinocchios third term.
This highlights the war for the soul of our country.
When the president speaks, that speech is the speech of the country and that makes it subject to not only the First Amendment, but the 14th and others. The Presidents speech, functioning under color of law, may be sufficient to deny others the equal protection of the law, and thus that speech may be an unconstitutional act.
““Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
And someone i would have previously put in the “good men” category, who just happens to have a history in the industry, stands by and talks about “bad manners”.
Athos, Hillary is the one who lost the election. Trump didn’t win it, the Democrats actively chose to NOT campaign in swing states, thereby losing the election all by themselves.
Of course, this is really a good thing for the country because, why would anyone want people who intentionally choose to lose be in charge of running the country?
Like it or not, our system worked and put in place those who want to win.
Hillary chose to lose? There’s a lot of people that didn’t get that memo, Steve!
Of course it’s a good thing for all the coloring book manufactures, isn’t it?
The Constitution on impeachment:
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.”
The Constitution strongly implies that the burden of proof is less than that of a criminal court because it says a President is subject to trial after impeachment and conviction. Simply put, if 2/3 of the Senate wants a President out, he’s out as long as there is some evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. This also means there is no prayer of impeachment since, as Trump correctly pointed out, he could shoot someone and his supporters would still follow him – and Congress has a majority of Trump henchmen, err…supporters.
Even putting aside the Russia connection, the proven harassment, the emolluments, etc. prolific serial liars do not deserve to be President. There’s little question that Trump deserves to be impeached, unless you’re a right winger rooting for your teammate.
Athos, “Democrats actively chose to NOT campaign in swing states”
Stop imitating Rincon.
Dina is a hick from the sticks every time she opens her mouth ignorance spews forth. That guttural drawl is embarrassing to say the least
Rinny stated “prolific serial liars do not deserve to be President”
After enduring 8 years of Pinocchio, I can appreciate the laugh! But the hypocrisy is too much.
How about that Al Franken speech yesterday?
Athos, perhaps Rinny called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, who was found guilty of perjury and disbarred from practice of law.