House to vote on impeachment

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device