Name:	Rich -	Reply
Subject:	Irony Impeachment
Date:	12/18/2019 8:27:47 AM

exactly 21years to the day of Clinton's! Look at the pushers for impeachment that were around for that one. Anyone want to bet the timeline didn't mean something to them. I can just imagine the back room conversations that this is our time for revenge. Irony, I think not perhaps culmination of a plan.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	What Alan Dershowitz had to say
Date:	12/18/2019 9:40:42 AM

And it is so very true.  This reminds me of all the other mistakes Democrats made like Obamadon'tcare and the nuclear option.  It comes back to haunt them as will this impeachment mess.

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption. A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the Constitution.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	What Alan Dershowitz had to say
Date:	12/18/2019 9:49:27 AM

But the Circus must go on. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	What Alan Dershowitz had to say
Date:	12/18/2019 10:14:28 AM

We now have the "brilliant" lawyer Lawrence Tribe suggesting that the House should pass the articles of impeachment but not send them to the Senate until they agree to what the Democrats want to happen in the trial.  What a genuinely stupid idea.  If I were Cocaine Mitch I would tell them...."Hey, whatever....send em over whenever.  In the meantime we'll keep approving judges at a record pace while you diddle away over there."

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Irony Impeachment
Date:	12/18/2019 10:53:25 AM

What a waste of the taxpayers money.  And they can't just vote and get it over with.  No, they have to "debate" beforehand.  There is no debate - Dem's are going to impeach him and Senate is going to acquit him.  And we will have paid for the whole circus.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Irony Impeachment
Date:	12/18/2019 11:22:18 AM

Classic case of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse if there ever was one.

Name:	PTClakefan -	Reply
Subject:	What Alan Dershowitz had to say
Date:	12/18/2019 12:55:11 PM

Tribe's proposal seems rather strange to me, but it does bring up an interesting question.  Assuming the House proceeds along this line and there is a stand-off with Senate Rebublicans as to what form the trial should take, and thus the articles of impeachment are never submitted to the Senate for trial, would that even be considered an "impeachment" per se? It would be somewhat analogous to a grand jury finding probable cause, but the prosecutor decides not to charge the suspect by referring the matter to the court with jurisdiction for trial. In that case, the individual could certainly plausibly argue that they were never actually "charged" with a crime.  Regardless of the constitutional semantics, it would be foolish for House Democrats to follow Tribe's proposal even though they know it will be dead on arrival in the Senate.  If that were to occur, most every fair-minded individual, regardless of party affiliation, would then certainly realize that this was a sham proceeding undertaken solely for partisan political purposes and it would be a disastor for Democrats next November, IMHO.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	What Alan Dershowitz had to say
Date:	12/18/2019 1:27:13 PM

Good question.  I suppose it would just sit in limbo waiting for the next election.  That would be a silly outcome but maybe Dems are hoping they take the Senate in 2020 and if Trump wins they could send them over to vote and hopefully convict.  Seems like a long shot given they need 67 votes.  No way Democrats have a super-majority unless the world is coming to an end.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Irony Impeachment
Date:	12/19/2019 9:07:45 AM (updated 12/19/2019 9:12:37 AM)

This is slightly out of date; Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Van der Zwaan, and Rick Gates have all now been convicted. Van der Zwaan, Manafort, Cohen, and Gates have been sentenced. So much for the "best people."

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Irony Impeachment
Date:	12/19/2019 12:08:55 PM

Bwhahahhaahhhahahhah OMG no Drama Obama - Damn I needed a good laugh.