• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pot, Meet Kettle

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
So after failing to make "collusion" stick, Congress is now accusing the president of "abuse of power." And has supposedly "impeached" him without any backup from the Senate (how does that work).

However, let's look at the real facts:

-Congress expects to be able to impeach without the Senate, while refusing to do the bare minimum of having actual articles for impeachment. In other words, somehow they are not abusing power by being like "Here he is, impeach him!" Yeah, that's kangaroo court, sorry.
- Congress has repeatedly refused term limits, allowing these people to get elected again and again (meanwhile, eight years is the limit of consecutive office for a president).
- Apparently, Congress has also been involved in some sexual misconduct and yet has largely swept it under the rug.
- There's also the fact that Congress is able to levy (and raise) taxes, with no oversight from the other branches. Until the 16th amendment, we didn't even have income taxes, all taxes were from other sources.
- Congress also does not have the power to force investigation into a private citizen's information (even if that citizen is president). Yet nobody calls them on it.
- Or trying to vote for abolishing Electoral College. Because that's not overstepping authority at all!
- Further, the president does not even have the authority to take a pen to a law and scratch out portions they don't like (called a line item veto) and can barely veto a law without Congress trying to stop them, yet Congress can propose laws without anyone stopping them.

So who is Congress accusing of abuse of power?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/queen_pelosis_abuse_of_power.html

If George Washington had been told he could be impeached over a conversation with a foreign leader in which no bribes were offered or accepted, he might have retired to Mt. Vernon a little early, telling us to forget the whole thing.

George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, and all the others believed in full due process, and the rights of the accused, including the right to confront one's accusers, call witnesses in defense of the charge, and cross-examine hostile witnesses in fair and open proceedings. They did not believe in star chamber proceedings in the basement of the House of Representatives. They expected that the defendant would know the crime, and it had to be a real crime — not a tweet being witness intimidation being a high crime and misdemeanor. They did not expect the "crime" to be based on hearsay and presumptions, defined by whatever term did the best when trotted out before focus groups.

They established three branches of government, not two, as token defense witness Prof. Jonathan Turley so eloquently put it. Disputes between the Legislative and Executive Branches were to be settled by the courts, but Nancy Pelosi has no time for the courts. If Congress wants documents and testimony and the White House refuses, take it to court. This is no more obstruction of Congress than a presidential veto of a bill is. It is not grounds for impeachment.

Pelosi says America doesn't need a king. It doesn't need a queen, either — a queen of hearts who lives in a Wonderland where she pronounces the sentence first and holds the trial later.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
(how does that work).
DJT has been impeached. Done deal.

Impeachment - Wikipedia
  • "it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law."
  • "conviction during the second stage requires "the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senate] members present""
    • Article One of the United States Constitution gives ... the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. federal government.
    • "Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where they were removed."
  • "Three United States presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019.[30][31] Johnson and Clinton were both acquitted and not removed from office by the Senate. Trump has not yet stood trial in the Senate. An impeachment process was commenced against Richard Nixon, but he resigned in 1974 to avoid likely impeachment."
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
So after failing to make "collusion" stick, Congress is now accusing the president of "abuse of power." And has supposedly "impeached" him without any backup from the Senate (how does that work).

However, let's look at the real facts:

-Congress expects to be able to impeach without the Senate, while refusing to do the bare minimum of having actual articles for impeachment. In other words, somehow they are not abusing power by being like "Here he is, impeach him!" Yeah, that's kangaroo court, sorry.
- Congress has repeatedly refused term limits, allowing these people to get elected again and again (meanwhile, eight years is the limit of consecutive office for a president).
- Apparently, Congress has also been involved in some sexual misconduct and yet has largely swept it under the rug.
- There's also the fact that Congress is able to levy (and raise) taxes, with no oversight from the other branches. Until the 16th amendment, we didn't even have income taxes, all taxes were from other sources.
- Congress also does not have the power to force investigation into a private citizen's information (even if that citizen is president). Yet nobody calls them on it.
- Or trying to vote for abolishing Electoral College. Because that's not overstepping authority at all!
- Further, the president does not even have the authority to take a pen to a law and scratch out portions they don't like (called a line item veto) and can barely veto a law without Congress trying to stop them, yet Congress can propose laws without anyone stopping them.

So who is Congress accusing of abuse of power?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/queen_pelosis_abuse_of_power.html

Impeachment is kind of like a grand jury were they examine an accusation to see whether in their opinion it is worth going to trial. So no conviction, no judgement. Just, hey they feel like they have a case they could win. Trial is done by the Senate were the House attempts to prove its case. Impeachment is just a bar that congress has to meet to progress to the actual trial.

Until a ruling is handed down by the Senate, the president is free to go on about their business as if nothing has happened.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
And has supposedly "impeached" him without any backup from the Senate (how does that work).
The Senate has NOTHING to do with impeachment. Impeachment is something the House and the House alone does. How does that work? It's written and clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
So after failing to make "collusion" stick
Mueller's report does show that, yeah, things happened there.

- Congress has repeatedly refused term limits, allowing these people to get elected again and again (meanwhile, eight years is the limit of consecutive office for a president).
Presidential term limits are still a fairly new thing. And remember how the Tea Party campaigned on term limits? They didn't impose or enact them.

- Apparently, Congress has also been involved in some sexual misconduct and yet has largely swept it under the rug.
That, along with most of the rest of your post, is an entirely different case. If Person A is being charged with murder, that trial has nothing to with Person B who sold the gun to Person A to carry out the murder. That is a different issue, different case, different trial.
- Further, the president does not even have the authority to take a pen to a law and scratch out portions they don't like (called a line item veto) and can barely veto a law without Congress trying to stop them, yet Congress can propose laws without anyone stopping them.
Yeah, they kind of can with executive orders. And Congress can veto them. Laws that congress pass, the president can veto those. Congress can override that.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Impeachment is kind of like a grand jury were they examine an accusation to see whether in their opinion it is worth going to trial. So no conviction, no judgement. Just, hey they feel like they have a case they could win. Trial is done by the Senate were the House attempts to prove its case. Impeachment is just a bar that congress has to meet to progress to the actual trial.

The grand jury does not do an investigation. As in the members that determine if there are to be charges. It is more like a police investigation and multiple DAs with the police voting to press charges or not
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The reality if that the "abuse of power"/"obstruction of justice" is really quite obvious as the Mueller Report attested to in its 2nd article. One can rather easily see this because the administration has refused to allow testimony or send forth requested documents. Now they don't want any witness' testimony.

Logically, if Trump is supposedly innocent, why does he keep on trying to stop these investigations? If I'm innocent, I want these witnesses and documents to come forth to show that I'm innocent.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The grand jury does not do an investigation. As in the members that determine if there are to be charges. It is more like a police investigation and multiple DAs with the police voting to press charges or not

Ok, yeah I heard a lawyer on the radio saying folks should stop trying to compare this to a criminal trial as it is nothing of the sort.

I suppose more or less a vote of confidence whether or not to have the current president removed from office.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Ok, yeah I heard a lawyer on the radio saying folks should stop trying to compare this to a criminal trial as it is nothing of the sort.

I suppose more or less a vote of confidence whether or not to have the current president removed from office.

Impeachment was created to avoid a no-confidence system as per British Parliament. The Found Fathers were against the idea that a simple 51% vote by Congress (two houses of Parliament Senate/House) could remove POTUS as often removal was political without any crime or misconduct involved. Hence the requirement of 67 Senate votes and House investigations. Hence why crimes, dereliction of duty, mental capabilities and breach of trust are found in the Convention and Constitution. Only a party with a super-majority and a case that appealed to the super-majority voter would pass voting only down party lines in the US at this time. Under a UK system Obama would have been voted out of office in 2015 via a simple 51% majority vote as per the UK system. Toss in Trump, Clinton, Nixon and Johnson as they would have faced a different system in their history of impeachment and related cases. With the US only a two party system at this time a no-confidence system would have crippled the US decades ago.
 
Top