Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's an abuse of his oath of office to ask Ukraine to investigate a political opponent. Full stop. Thus, the impeachment inquiry.
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
I do not see abuse of the oath of office in there.
How is this inquiry that will go nowhere regardless, anything but a waste of the time and resources of our government. It looks like games to me. Just a bunch of childish snerts politically posturing. Why have we heard nothing about an infrastructure bill, or an opiod addiction proposal, or a limitation on pharmaceutical prices, or anything that actually matters to the American people for that matter? We have major issues that need to be dealt with and our representatives in Washington are playing around like a bunch of angsty children on the playground. All of them. Lets kick them all out and hire only non party obsessive people (meaning not belonging to any party) who can get the job done.
Recall, there is no Constitutional requirement that the House hold a vote concerning whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. The fact that for Nixon and Clinton there was such a vote, does not mandate that there be such a vote now.
Let us review the language from Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment."
Now, who chooses the speaker and other officers? Well, the Majority Party in power chooses the Speaker. The Minority Party does not have a say.
However, I say that Pelosi should allow the House vote, with some rules appended; for instance: upon passage, the minority party does not obtain the right to subpoena (which it is obvious the Republicans will abuse).
"But that's unfair" some will cry.
So? It was not 'fair' that Obama's Supreme Court nominee as not even given the courtesy of a confirmation hearing (followed by a no vote). The party in power makes the rules, as we have learned.
It is time for the House Democrats to play hardball. The Republicans certainly have no qualms about that.
Recall, there is no Constitutional requirement that the House hold a vote concerning whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. The fact that for Nixon and Clinton there was such a vote, does not mandate that there be such a vote now.
Let us review the language from Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment."
Now, who chooses the speaker and other officers? Well, the Majority Party in power chooses the Speaker. The Minority Party does not have a say.
However, I say that Pelosi should allow the House vote, with some rules appended; for instance: upon passage, the minority party does not obtain the right to subpoena (which it is obvious the Republicans will abuse).
"But that's unfair" some will cry.
So? It was not 'fair' that Obama's Supreme Court nominee as not even given the courtesy of a confirmation hearing (followed by a no vote). The party in power makes the rules, as we have learned.
It is time for the House Democrats to play hardball. The Republicans certainly have no qualms about that.
Great idea. Give Republicans subpoena power as well
I believe Trump loves the United States of America, and it's Constitution.
So do I.
Nancy is skating that document.
See you in Court....damn, sorry for the repetition.
Trump loves money and nothing else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.