I want to share one strongly argued case for impeachment, from a leading constitutional scholar, that I stumbled across the other day.
"[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting."
“The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law."
“It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word."
“We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot…"
“….But if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just a lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not."

I want to share one strongly argued case for impeachment, from a leading constitutional scholar, that I stumbled across the other day.
"[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting."
“The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law."
“It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word."
“We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot…"
“….But if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just a lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not."

Another leading constitutional scholar, hard-core-liberal liberal Alan Dershowitz, thinks it's all a sham.

It's a matter of opinion.

Not Dersh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't matter rule of law is gone in the republican party . Lie alternative facts and pandering to their base endless conspiracy driven world view.. from immigrants to pizza shops to not believing what the hear or see the orangeman do or say..

Ps North Korea fires off 2 ballistic missile. Republicans were winning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't matter rule of law is gone in the republican party .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can't all be as obsessed with rule of law, as liberals are.

It doesn't matter rule of law is gone in the republican party . Lie alternative facts and pandering to their base endless conspiracy driven world view.. from immigrants to pizza shops to not believing what the hear or see the orangeman do or say..

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is pretty deep for a monday

Ps North Korea fires off 2 ballistic missile.

Maybe the quid pro quo wasn't attractive enough for Kim. Uh, oh, must be an impeachable offense somewhere in there.

Republicans were winning

Did that make you happy?

I want to share one strongly argued case for impeachment, from a leading constitutional scholar, that I stumbled across the other day.
"[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting."
“The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law."
“It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word."
“We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot…"
“….But if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just a lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not."

Doesn't sound like a strong argument for impeachment. Actually, it's a silly and very dangerous argument--impeachment based on conjecture.

It doesn't matter rule of law is gone in the republican party . Lie alternative facts and pandering to their base endless conspiracy driven world view.. from immigrants to pizza shops to not believing what the hear or see the orangeman do or say..

Ps North Korea fires off 2 ballistic missile. Republicans were winning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every time I think you can’t post anything more stupid, you hit the keyboard and surprise me again :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't sound like a strong argument for impeachment. Actually, it's a silly and very dangerous argument--impeachment based on conjecture.
Maybe that’s why Bork didn’t make it on the Supreme Court
It was his comment on the Clinton impeachment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe that’s why Bork didn’t make it on the Supreme Court
It was his comment on the Clinton impeachment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was obviously wrong. As was Lindsey Graham about his nebulous reason for impeaching Clinton. Clinton was impeached for a specific crime. As is constitutionally mandated.

I understand, though, that you're big on innuendo, and conjecture. I think we would have constant and stupid, as well as unconstitutional impeachments if your standards were applied.

Every time I think you can’t post anything more stupid, you hit the keyboard and surprise me again :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spit my beer everywhere
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every time I think you can’t post anything more stupid, you hit the keyboard and surprise me again :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry you find your truths Stupid ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device