Posted on 12/09/2019 1:07:20 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Debating the grounds for impeachment, Republicans said there's nothing here. Democrats said it's a slam dunk.
Weighty questions about a president's alleged malfeasance and whether that merits the extraordinary step of impeachment drew some too-simple answers at a House hearing Monday aimed at laying the foundation for charges that Donald Trump abused his power on Ukraine.
A sampling of rhetoric from the House Judiciary Committee:
Rep. DOUG COLLINS, top Republican on the committee: “We don’t have a crime.”
THE FACTS: That's an opinion, not an established fact. But while Democrats do allege Trump engaged in some criminal acts, the constitutional grounds for impeachment do not require any crime to have been committed.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
That is not an opinion that is a statement of fact AP. That YOU don’t like the fact does not change it to an opinion.
Sorry the AP is wrong. Hurt feelings over a lost election are not grounds for impeachment. Which is basically what the Democrats’ case against Trump amount to.
You can impeach a President without a Crime ? maybe in Russia and China
The AP "corrects" this fact without actually naming the crime in their "correction". Interesting.
No, it's not really. It's just typical.
“the constitutional grounds for impeachment do not require any crime to have been committed.”
then what in the hell is “high crimes & misdemeanors”????
And that's a fact!
“High crimes and misdemeanors” does not mean committing a crime? Too bad Hamilton and Madison aren’t around to “fact check” that whopper.
Would it be proper for a president to be impeached for abuse of the pardon power?
Fact checking is just a way of putting fingers in ears and yammering.
They have two binders full of evidence... Johnathan Turley said they would need a semi-trailer to hall in the evidence they had on Clinton.
Yes you may indict a ham sandwich.
Impeachment = indictment.
Problem with indicting a ham sandwich is explaining to the judge why you’re wasting his time prosecuting a ham sandwich.
Senate = judge.
There being no charges to bring against a ham sandwich, the judge may censure you.
I suggest the Senate prepare to pass articles of censure against House Democrats for indicting a ham sandwich.
...You can impeach a President without a Crime...
Democrats are just at their usual underhanded tricks,but at an unheard of level this time. Impeach is one thing. Conviction in the Senate is another.
The level of “displeasure” of half of the United States for a Democrat ramrodded Senate conviction would be unequaled in US history.
Well said.
But, there was a thought crime. /s
“You can impeach a President without a Crime ? maybe in Russia and China.”
Where do you think the Dems got their playbook?
“AP Fact Check”
Meanwhile, Pablo Escobar will be holding classes warning kids about drugs.
As a kid I always indicted my step mother’s ham sandwiches...she ALWAYS put the mustard on the cheese side of the sandwich. Dad’s sandwiches were always made with the mustard on the meat side.
My argument was always...”would you make a cheese only sandwich for yourself with mustard?”
Her response was always...”NO, I would use mayo”
True story...
Don’t be such hypocrites Dems...make your ham sandwich the way you would want to swallow it. Or be forced to eat a cheese sandwich with mustard in the future.
“while Democrats do allege Trump engaged in some criminal acts, the constitutional grounds for impeachment do not require any crime to have been committed.”
This is an interpretation and interpretations are very rarely objective. A subjective interpretation is an opinion. It is the Democrats’ opinion that the Constitutional grounds for impeachment do not require any crime to have benn committed.
What is fact is the wording in the Constitution that says “”The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
These are all crimes and it even says “crimes” in the clause. So it is the opinion of the dems that they should ignore, like they always do, they should ignore, for the umpteenth time, to ignore the Constitution of the United States.
Whatever the House and Senate agree it is. The academics argue both sides so there is no conclusive answer there.
Same with "shall not be infringed" means whatever the courts decide it means. 20 years ago the courts held that it means there was no constitutional violation to be banned from possessing a firearm.
And whatever "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, can be changed depending on the perp. We recently had a few court cases where the action was found constitutional if any other president did it, but unconstitutional because Trump did it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.