[stylin19a]

It does not rise and cannot rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors

HC&M not defined in the constitution. So it basically is whatever the House says it is.
Would the public stand for it ? probably not, but in a country that's this divided ? 50-50 would be enough for the House to take a shot.

I agree with Cletus...and I understand what you are saying, but there is no normal anymore.And I don't trust RATS. No honor anymore.

Look to Nixon for guidelines... cause the RATs will.
SCOTUS forced Nixon to give up documents.
Three articles of Impeachment
- obstruction of justice - (any stretch of the imagination that may come out of the Mueller report details ?)
- abuse of power - (calling for a National Emergency on the border ?)
- contempt of Congress - (anything they can think of ?)

It could go sideways quick if MSM bails on the RATs for this effort.
Bottom line ? The RATs will not stop the persecution of this President.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Remember, we are dealing with Dhimmicrats.
They are the Cheshire Cats of Constitutional Law.

Ultimately, they will drum up charges and file them, strategically EXPECTING Trump to resign like Nixon. They know the Senate will not convict.

[Kalam]

...HC&M not defined in the constitution. So it basically is whatever the House says it is.
Would the public stand for it ? probably not, but in a country that’s this divided ? 50-50 would be enough for the House to take a shot.

I agree with Cletus...and I understand what you are saying, but there is no normal anymore.And I don’t trust RATS. No honor anymore.

Look to Nixon for guidelines... cause the RATs will.
SCOTUS forced Nixon to give up documents.
Three articles of Impeachment
- obstruction of justice - (any stretch of the imagination that may come out of the Mueller report details ?)
- abuse of power - (calling for a National Emergency on the border ?)
- contempt of Congress - (anything they can think of ?)

It could go sideways quick if MSM bails on the RATs for this effort.
Bottom line ? The RATs will not stop the persecution of this President.

---

I understand what you are saying. However, the HC&M has become a standard. Even in your response you are using examples that would rise to the level of HC&M. Regardless, what I was pointing out is that there must be some grounds for the House to try and impeach the President.

Those grounds may be entirely fictional and whether true or false will be determined by the Senate. I also think if the case brought forward is totally frivolous, it can be rejected outright. I’m not as certain about that one, but the House trying to use anything like jaywalking or traffic tickets wouldn’t fly.

[bitt]