Trump lost moving on with new year go Biden
- Thread starter Allforthewifey
- Start date
I would be real careful Mr. Facts Man with aiming TREASON on our President because for one thing the squad is committing openly Treasonous acts and statements, they should be replaced, arrested convicted and executed as terrorists.
I remember this well,
Iran-Contra Affair - Definition, Timeline, President | HISTORY
The Iran-Contra Affair was a deal made by the Ronald Reagan administration which sent arms to Iran to secure the release of hostages and fund Nicaraguan rebels.www.history.com
there are a lot dancing around the subject and it has been mentioned....but when you sell out your own country for personal gain....
The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to ******* the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms:
treachery · lese-majesty · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · perfidy · perfidiousness · duplicity · infidelity · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · Punic faith
- the action of betraying someone or something.
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms:
treachery · lese-majesty · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · perfidy · perfidiousness · duplicity · infidelity · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · Punic faith
keep your blind eye all you want...facts are.....and more coming out....even some on the right....following their conscience instead of putting party over country...….which seems to be something a lot of republican's are willing to do....even those on here
Guilty until proven innocent.....unless you have a D after your name.....as evidenced by MacNLies double standards
Minor and most just the right doing what they can to get rid of him....the right is so hateful they sign a pleadge to block anything he wants to do...even if it is to help the country....as for our commander and thief.....
Who was the man who got Republicans to sign a pledge ...
Republicans-to-sign-a-pledge-against...
Sep 06, 2015 · As another commenter noted, there was no official "sign on the dotted line" pledge. But as Republican stalwart Newt Gingrich has verified, there was a secret meeting of key Republicans not long after President Obama's election, where they vowed t...
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism By The ...
https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism By The Numbers "Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner's move was unprecedented." A month before Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s popular jobs bill, that’s how the New York Times described Speaker …
Trump: The Most Corrupt President in US History
trump-most-corrupt-president-us-history
BILL BLACK: Trump’s corruption is, I think, in many ways the heart of the issue. He is the most corrupt president in the history of the United States and it’s not even close. Harding and Grant …
Corruption in the Trump Administration Is Spreading
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/wilbur-ross-navigator-trump...
Jun 22, 2018 · Corruption in the Trump Administration Is Spreading While petty scandals like Scott Pruitt’s grab attention, there are more egregious and profitable conflicts …
Republicans are retreating into a fantasyland as Trump’s ...
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/republicans-are-retreating-into-a-fantasyland-as...
Oct 03, 2019 · President Donald Trump’s impeachable conduct in the Ukraine scandal is an open and shut case. It is unacceptable for the president to pressure another foreign country, especially one …
Trump’s brazen criminality has proven the corruption of ...
https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/trumps-brazen-criminality-has-proven-the-corruption...
Oct 11, 2019 · Trump’s brazen criminality has proven the corruption of the Republican Party beyond a shadow of a doubt Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour by Robert Edwards October 11, 2019
To which investigation(s) are you referring ... Benghazi? How many Republican committee investigations were there on Benghazi ... 9 or 10? And did not Hillary Clinton comply with their requests to testify under oath and for 11 straight hours? The Democrat House investigation didn't take even a third of the time the Republicans took examining and cross-examining Clinton. And that is ALL they got done in 6 years ... trying to tarnish Clinton's reputation to the voters. And after the election, the Republicans on those committees were bragging that they accomplisherd what they wanted to accomplish ... to help the Trumptard win. No mistake, there, as to the purpose of NINE Benghazi investigations.
Oh but you're so wrong Einstein. Supreme Court does recognize Congress' power to issue AND inforce subpoenas. The deputy Sergent-At-Arms usually enforce an ignored subpoena OR Congress could elect to pursue a civil lawsuit. The REASON the House pursued and impeached President Trumptard is because EVEN as the congressional investigation has been going on, President Trumptard and his minions have been pursuing more help from foreign countries for the 2020 election. Of course you'll deny that Trumptard and Giuliani and others have been doing that, but that is just now coming out with documentation that I'm sure the Senate will NOT accept as evidence.
H-H, you've wasted 30 minutes of MY PERSONAL TIME responding to your usual Bull *******. Fuck off ... I have NO TIME for you, asshole.
Have you given up on your job hunt? No one probably wants to hire an "old" arrogant piece of crap as you. Understandable!
Of course I don't expect you to read anything I post that proves a point.
squad hasn't got anything to do with any of this....you are just looking for an excuse to cry in your beer...…..
how the right can support a crook who is destroying the country and trying to make himself king...or Czar....just makes me wonder about their support for the country....pretty obvious they don't have any
Pelosi - Schiff - Nadler - such flaming phonies - watching them preach their devotion to the Constitution makes me wanna puke
I agree watching the right trying to support a crook makes me feel the same way
wrong he is guilty because the facts and several people who were there say so
I think it is really funny seeing the right say they have no evidence......when they have at least 3 witness....and they have emails and etc.....must have someone like hottobe representing them....has no idea which way is up...….but firmly believe the way he THINKS is it
Has Trump violated his oath of office and committed treason?
After his joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, President Donald Trump was barraged with criticism from both friends and foes.
Standing next to Putin, Trump repudiated U.S. intelligence that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. Some have since questioned the legitimacy of his presidency, forsing Trump on Tuesday to backtrack several of his statements.
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, claimed on Monday that Trump’s interactions with Putin were a violation of the president’s oath of office.
In a tweet, former CIA Director John Brennan reacted by claiming that the president’s performance “rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”
Do these claims involving the presidential oath, treason or — by inference — impeachment have any legal validity?
Here are four important questions for readers to consider on these important concepts.
What is the presidential oath of office?
The presidential oath of office comes from the U.S. Constitution. It requires that the president recite the following statement upon taking office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Some legal observers believe that the presidential oath reflects a unique personal duty to shield the Constitution from external and internal threats to its integrity and sustainability.
It could be argued that this presidential duty extends beyond preserving the Constitution itself to preserving the constitutional governmental order that it creates, the liberties it protects and the nation and people it serves.
Can violations of the presidential oath be prosecuted or legally enforced?
The Constitution may impose a duty on a particular governmental officer, in this case the president, but that doesn’t mean the president’s failure to fulfill that duty can be punished or remedied by a court.
The sheriff, in other words, can’t go arrest the president for not following his oath, nor could the president be indicted for failure to uphold the oath. This isn’t an isolated instance: There’s no legal remedy through court action available for a perceived violation of a number of constitutional provisions.
For example, the Constitution’s republican form of government clause requires that the “United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and … against domestic Violence.”
Yet the Supreme Court has held, in a 19th century case involving a rebellion against the existing Rhode Island government, that the courts have no authority to require the U.S. government to comply with the Constitution’s republican form of government clause. The court ruled that the question whether a state government is “republican” in nature and thus valid under the Constitution is a political choice to be made by Congress, the representative body of the states.
This “political question doctrine” has also emerged as a defense to recent lawsuits claiming that President Trump violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign officials at Trump businesses. That clause prohibits government officers from accepting presents from foreign heads of state without congressional consent. According to this argument — made in motions to dismiss the lawsuits against Trump — enforcement of the emoluments clause is vested in the political branches, perhaps through impeachment, rather than in a court.
The same analysis would apply to alleged violations of the presidential oath of office. The oath contains vague obligations to protect or preserve the Constitution and appears to apply those duties to the president’s honorable discretion. It seems unlikely, just as with the republican form of government clause, that a court would be the place that alleged violations would be tried. Rather, it would more properly be considered a political question to be solved by the legislature. In other words, if people feel that Trump has violated the oath of office, they can encourage the House to impeach him.
Are violations of the oath grounds for impeachment?
Similarly, the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution’s impeachment clause likely is a political question insulated from review by the courts.
Thus whether perceived violations of the oath could come to constitute grounds for impeachment depends on what members of the House of Representatives think rather than on how the courts would define “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Court decisions support that idea.
For example, a federal judge can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. In 1993 the Supreme Court refused to address a federal judge’s claim that the Senate followed improper impeachment trial procedures by having a small committee first hear the charges against him rather than by holding the entire trial before the full Senate.
Because the Constitution provides that the “Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments,” the court ruled that questions about the conduct of the impeachment trial process were political questions that were the Senate’s choice, not the court’s job, to resolve.
According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall have the “sole power of Impeachment.” Scholars have thus concluded that the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is at the discretion of the House as a political — rather than a legal — matter.
And when the framers debated the language and ultimately the definition of those terms at the constitutional convention in 1787, they came to no clear conclusion.
One of the most active participants in those debates, Alexander Hamilton, argued that impeachable offenses were those that involved abuse or violation of the public trust. That’s an ambiguous category that doesn’t necessarily require violation of any criminal statute, but rather depends on the judgment of the electorate and its representatives.
As Hamilton noted, impeachable offenses “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they chiefly related to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
The current environment is highly charged politically, with divided loyalties and extreme polarization. In this context, the question whether the president violated his oath of office and whether his actions constitute grounds for impeachment will be resolved — as Hamilton expected — not by a legal process in the courts. Instead, it will be resolved through the political judgment of the people’s representatives in Congress.
Are allegations of treason reasonable or relevant?
The Constitution says “treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Under the current circumstances, a charge of treason could not lead to prosecution of this president. The charge has only been applied to betrayal of the United States during a time of war.
Indeed, because of the clause’s stringent requirements, only about 30 indictments for treason have been brought since the nation’s founding. The most recent was the 2006 indictment of an American involved in terrorism activities connected to al-Qaida.
Thus to be valid, charges of treason against President Trump would have to overcome a very high legal bar — with evidence involving aid and comfort to a battlefield enemy — a very unlikely outcome.
www.chicagotribune.com
My vote is still Treason...or close...….look at what he has given Putin since being in office......his biz deals with other countries.....tring to blackmail another country to help with his election....on and On
After his joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, President Donald Trump was barraged with criticism from both friends and foes.
Standing next to Putin, Trump repudiated U.S. intelligence that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. Some have since questioned the legitimacy of his presidency, forsing Trump on Tuesday to backtrack several of his statements.
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, claimed on Monday that Trump’s interactions with Putin were a violation of the president’s oath of office.
In a tweet, former CIA Director John Brennan reacted by claiming that the president’s performance “rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”
Do these claims involving the presidential oath, treason or — by inference — impeachment have any legal validity?
Here are four important questions for readers to consider on these important concepts.
What is the presidential oath of office?
The presidential oath of office comes from the U.S. Constitution. It requires that the president recite the following statement upon taking office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Some legal observers believe that the presidential oath reflects a unique personal duty to shield the Constitution from external and internal threats to its integrity and sustainability.
It could be argued that this presidential duty extends beyond preserving the Constitution itself to preserving the constitutional governmental order that it creates, the liberties it protects and the nation and people it serves.
Can violations of the presidential oath be prosecuted or legally enforced?
The Constitution may impose a duty on a particular governmental officer, in this case the president, but that doesn’t mean the president’s failure to fulfill that duty can be punished or remedied by a court.
The sheriff, in other words, can’t go arrest the president for not following his oath, nor could the president be indicted for failure to uphold the oath. This isn’t an isolated instance: There’s no legal remedy through court action available for a perceived violation of a number of constitutional provisions.
For example, the Constitution’s republican form of government clause requires that the “United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and … against domestic Violence.”
Yet the Supreme Court has held, in a 19th century case involving a rebellion against the existing Rhode Island government, that the courts have no authority to require the U.S. government to comply with the Constitution’s republican form of government clause. The court ruled that the question whether a state government is “republican” in nature and thus valid under the Constitution is a political choice to be made by Congress, the representative body of the states.
This “political question doctrine” has also emerged as a defense to recent lawsuits claiming that President Trump violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign officials at Trump businesses. That clause prohibits government officers from accepting presents from foreign heads of state without congressional consent. According to this argument — made in motions to dismiss the lawsuits against Trump — enforcement of the emoluments clause is vested in the political branches, perhaps through impeachment, rather than in a court.
The same analysis would apply to alleged violations of the presidential oath of office. The oath contains vague obligations to protect or preserve the Constitution and appears to apply those duties to the president’s honorable discretion. It seems unlikely, just as with the republican form of government clause, that a court would be the place that alleged violations would be tried. Rather, it would more properly be considered a political question to be solved by the legislature. In other words, if people feel that Trump has violated the oath of office, they can encourage the House to impeach him.
Are violations of the oath grounds for impeachment?
Similarly, the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution’s impeachment clause likely is a political question insulated from review by the courts.
Thus whether perceived violations of the oath could come to constitute grounds for impeachment depends on what members of the House of Representatives think rather than on how the courts would define “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Court decisions support that idea.
For example, a federal judge can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. In 1993 the Supreme Court refused to address a federal judge’s claim that the Senate followed improper impeachment trial procedures by having a small committee first hear the charges against him rather than by holding the entire trial before the full Senate.
Because the Constitution provides that the “Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments,” the court ruled that questions about the conduct of the impeachment trial process were political questions that were the Senate’s choice, not the court’s job, to resolve.
According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall have the “sole power of Impeachment.” Scholars have thus concluded that the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is at the discretion of the House as a political — rather than a legal — matter.
And when the framers debated the language and ultimately the definition of those terms at the constitutional convention in 1787, they came to no clear conclusion.
One of the most active participants in those debates, Alexander Hamilton, argued that impeachable offenses were those that involved abuse or violation of the public trust. That’s an ambiguous category that doesn’t necessarily require violation of any criminal statute, but rather depends on the judgment of the electorate and its representatives.
As Hamilton noted, impeachable offenses “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they chiefly related to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
The current environment is highly charged politically, with divided loyalties and extreme polarization. In this context, the question whether the president violated his oath of office and whether his actions constitute grounds for impeachment will be resolved — as Hamilton expected — not by a legal process in the courts. Instead, it will be resolved through the political judgment of the people’s representatives in Congress.
Are allegations of treason reasonable or relevant?
The Constitution says “treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Under the current circumstances, a charge of treason could not lead to prosecution of this president. The charge has only been applied to betrayal of the United States during a time of war.
Indeed, because of the clause’s stringent requirements, only about 30 indictments for treason have been brought since the nation’s founding. The most recent was the 2006 indictment of an American involved in terrorism activities connected to al-Qaida.
Thus to be valid, charges of treason against President Trump would have to overcome a very high legal bar — with evidence involving aid and comfort to a battlefield enemy — a very unlikely outcome.
Has Trump violated his oath of office and committed treason?
After his joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, President Donald Trump was barraged with criticism from both friends and foes. Standing next to Putin, Trump repu…
www.chicagotribune.com
My vote is still Treason...or close...….look at what he has given Putin since being in office......his biz deals with other countries.....tring to blackmail another country to help with his election....on and On
Polls mean nothing to me, here in Maine, Augusta has a radio station supporting Trump and the Republican Party, never have I been aware of one in this Democratic state before. Go Trump 2020
Deflection plain and simple
I’ll answer - the Squad is a bunch o spoiled brat unpatriotic commies that SHOULD be an embarrassment to your party and I cannot imagine how any of them even got elected - except for the fact that your party is comprised of BOZOS!!!!!!!!
A shooting Squad would be the appropriate result for the Treasonous leftest squad. If the real truth was brought out and acted correctly. Bill and Hillary should be right beside them because they have without any doubt a trail of ******* and ******* along their political path.
Written by a dear friend. A testament to what intelligent people rightly know of today's democrat party, enjoy I did.
I have really stopped paying any attention to any Democrat, or this impeachment farce, These Democrats are nothing more relevant than cartoonist characters, and clowns. The Democratic Party of today is a total waste of human resources. And not worthy of my time or respect. I have come to conclude that anyone who is a Democrat is just not worth my time. As they offer nothing of any conversational value, Or have any Ideas other than hate and pure delusion, I believe there all bordering on mental disorder. And, so I totally reject any Democrat as simply Irrelevant.
I have really stopped paying any attention to any Democrat, or this impeachment farce, These Democrats are nothing more relevant than cartoonist characters, and clowns. The Democratic Party of today is a total waste of human resources. And not worthy of my time or respect. I have come to conclude that anyone who is a Democrat is just not worth my time. As they offer nothing of any conversational value, Or have any Ideas other than hate and pure delusion, I believe there all bordering on mental disorder. And, so I totally reject any Democrat as simply Irrelevant.
polls mean nothing yet the radio station tells you what you want to hear so that one is ok
again ...the squad has nothing to do with impeachment.....just the closer it gets to justice beineg done....the more whinning you hear from the cult cave.....that is the facts!
