The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: ABX on May 23, 2017, 01:56:33 am
-
No Ann, breaking promises is not a high crime. It just means he is the same BS artist he has always been and many warned about.
Ann Coulter told Fox Business’ Stuart Varney on Monday that if President Donald Trump doesn’t keep his promises, impeachment could well be on the horizon.
Varney noted that Coulter had “lately been down on Trump,” referring to her recent blog posts blasting the president his lack of action on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Coulter stated in a recent interview that she was close to jumping ship on the president.....
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/22/ready-ann-coulter-donald-trump-could-be-impeached/
-
I didn't know you could be impeached for not doing what Ann wants you to do. :whistle:
If we could impeach Presidents for not keeping promises, we'd be impeaching them all.
-
She helped make Trump possible, and now she is insinuating that his broken promises are high crimes and misdemeanors?
You were warned Ann, and you went to war upon those who did the warning and who would not vote for Trump.
-
Ann this is what gets you impeached...praying this is more fake news
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=264084.new#new
WaPo: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence
-
Ann has no business throwing a trumpertantrum over this. She was warned.
-
No Ann, breaking promises is not a high crime. It just means he is the same BS artist he has always been and many warned about.
No, it isn't, but that's not what she said:
"... I hope Trump notices that if he doesn’t keep his promises, Republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections, Democrats will have the House of Representatives, and they absolutely will impeach him.”
I think she's wrong, we don't have a majority because of Trump or his promises, and I don't see us losing enough in the midterms to swing it to the Dems, but if we did, as she says, they could impeach him.
-
Ann this is what gets you impeached...praying this is more fake news
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=264084.new#new
WaPo: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence
Even if this turns out to be true, the Faithful will declare it fake news and attack the sources as anti-Trump and therefore part of the "coup".
Same as those of us have been declared part of the Hillary/Leftist "Coup" for daring to talk about all this crap.
-
No, it isn't, but that's not what she said:
"... I hope Trump notices that if he doesn’t keep his promises, Republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections, Democrats will have the House of Representatives, and they absolutely will impeach him.”
I think she's wrong, we don't have a majority because of Trump or his promises, and I don't see us losing enough in the midterms to swing it to the Dems, but if we did, as she says, they could impeach him.
The problem with politics is that negative isn't simply the inverse of positive when it comes to influence. Trump certainly didn't help the GOP get its majority, but now that he's the GOP's guy, his negatives will affect the rest of the GOP and he could very well cost the GOP its majority in the 2018 midterms. If that happens, impeachment most certainly beckons.
-
The problem with politics is that negative isn't simply the inverse of positive when it comes to influence. Trump certainly didn't help the GOP get its majority, but now that he's the GOP's guy, his negatives will affect the rest of the GOP and he could very well cost the GOP its majority in the 2018 midterms. If that happens, impeachment most certainly beckons.
That is true, his negatives could tarnish the brand (further). But AC specifically said we could/would lose because he broke his promises. My (not well made) point was that broken promises isn't going to lose the HR. The people who voted for him were:
1) Going to vote GOP anyway, and will continue to do so.
2) Dems and Independents who voted for him due to his promises.
3) Dems and Independents and GOP who voted for him for other reasons (for example, Hillary).
4) GOP voters who care so much about his promises that they'll punish the party if he breaks them.
5) GOP voters who care about his promises, but won't punish the party if he breaks them.
[hopefully I got that right]
So, if he breaks his promises, we lose some/most of #2, but then we had a decent majority without them anyway and they may have voted Trump at the top and Dem down-ticket, and #4 who I suspect are nowhere near populous to lose us even one seat, let alone 30.
-
No Ann, breaking promises is not a high crime. It just means he is the same BS artist he has always been and many warned about.
Did anyone tell Ann (1) It takes 50% + 1 house votes to impeach (2) GOP hold the House. (3) 67 Senators to convict?
I think Ann wants to generate needless controversy.
-
First of all, Trump has to commit an impeachable offense. What crime has he committed? Secondly, I believe she is correct to an extent; if he doesn't build the wall which was the one issue that launched his campaign and landed him the presidency, not only is he done, but so is the GOP. Second issue will be Bammycare; if it is not repealed and replaced the GOP is done. They have a chance to deliver and to make some changes according to what the people want, not what D.C. wants, and if they don't do so, the GOP loses and so do the people. Honestly, if the GOP loses the majority in both houses, I see Trump marching along to the tune of the liberals and impeachment will be the furthest thing from their minds.
-
Even if this turns out to be true, the Faithful will declare it fake news and attack the sources as anti-Trump and therefore part of the "coup".
Same as those of us have been declared part of the Hillary/Leftist "Coup" for daring to talk about all this crap.
That's not why you have been declared part of the "Coup". In fact, you are only seen as "useful dupes" of said coup....not members of it....very different, indeed.
As for if it turns out to be true...well....since virtually everything else thrown at the wall has turned out to be false, why should this be any different. As for sources, could there possibly be a more blatantly anti-Trump source than Wapo? Its become comical, right along with the NYT. 6 months of investigating and not a single source has any evidence of collusion...worse, these sources are virtually all "anonymous" meaning they are mostly from the Clinton/Obama camp. More importantly, it seems to be getting more and more likely that the Wikileaks leaker was not Russian, but an inside Dem operative...making this whole Russian absurdity ever more ridiculous.
The irony here is that nearly all of us "Trumpers", as you call us, are wide open to making criticisms of the president's actions and demeanor when warranted...the persons blinded by hate/anger are most certainly in the NT camp. They are suffering from a form of what is clearly a Derangement Syndrome, Trump could bring them Cold Fusion, Ambrosia and a Unicorn to ride and you'd rant about what an Orange Baboon he is...that's just the level of your discourse. Quite frankly, your monochromatic arguments are dull and witless, absent any semblance of intellectual articulation to support your silly assertions. On the other hand, you'd make a great Editor at Wapo or the NYT...so there are job prospects available to you. So its not ALL bad news.
-
First of all, Trump has to commit an impeachable offense.
No, 217 (I think, not sure if it's a majority or a majority of those voting, either way it's not happening) members of the House need to vote to bring him up on charges.
-
No, 217 (I think, not sure if it's a majority or a majority of those voting, either way it's not happening) members of the House need to vote to bring him up on charges.
If dims are stupid enough, I hope GOP counters with Obama offenses. With some litmus test established on which is more serious.
The Holder era alone could fill a book.
-
So, if he breaks his promises, we lose some/most of #2, but then we had a decent majority without them anyway and they may have voted Trump at the top and Dem down-ticket, and #4 who I suspect are nowhere near populous to lose us even one seat, let alone 30.
You are correct the scrupulous, principled GOP voters are few and far between these days.
-
First of all, Trump has to commit an impeachable offense. What crime has he committed? Secondly, I believe she is correct to an extent; if he doesn't build the wall which was the one issue that launched his campaign and landed him the presidency, not only is he done, but so is the GOP. Second issue will be Bammycare; if it is not repealed and replaced the GOP is done. They have a chance to deliver and to make some changes according to what the people want, not what D.C. wants, and if they don't do so, the GOP loses and so do the people. Honestly, if the GOP loses the majority in both houses, I see Trump marching along to the tune of the liberals and impeachment will be the furthest thing from their minds.
The grounds for impeachment are not limited to defined criminal conduct.
-
That is true, his negatives could tarnish the brand (further). But AC specifically said we could/would lose because he broke his promises. My (not well made) point was that broken promises isn't going to lose the HR. The people who voted for him were:
1) Going to vote GOP anyway, and will continue to do so.
2) Dems and Independents who voted for him due to his promises.
3) Dems and Independents and GOP who voted for him for other reasons (for example, Hillary).
4) GOP voters who care so much about his promises that they'll punish the party if he breaks them.
5) GOP voters who care about his promises, but won't punish the party if he breaks them.
[hopefully I got that right]
So, if he breaks his promises, we lose some/most of #2, but then we had a decent majority without them anyway and they may have voted Trump at the top and Dem down-ticket, and #4 who I suspect are nowhere near populous to lose us even one seat, let alone 30.
fair dinkum
-
The irony here is that nearly all of us "Trumpers", as you call us,
WRONG. I do not use that term. Others do.
are wide open to making criticisms of the president's actions and demeanor when warranted...
No you're not. Cite a criticism you people have made over his actions and demeanor. All I have read from your ilk is analogies to 6th dimensional chess, rope-a-doping and other justifications or outright dismissal of his silly actions and statements.
Trump could bring them Cold Fusion, Ambrosia and a Unicorn to ride
Hmmm.... sounds like Trump's campaign promises from last year. Or maybe just uttering Barker spiel at a circus tent for what is inside?
and you'd rant about what an Orange Baboon he is...that's just the level of your discourse.
Once again WRONG. I do not use that term.
Quite frankly, your monochromatic arguments are dull and witless, absent any semblance of intellectual articulation to support your silly assertions.
You are projecting again.
On the other hand, you'd make a great Editor at Wapo or the NYT...so there are job prospects available to you. So its not ALL bad news.
I hate the city and the Northeast... so NO - those prospects are not an option, even though it would be fun to turn them inside out. I like it here in the middle of nowhere, where Jesus is still respected, we have and practice liberty most of Americans no longer recognize, and we're armed to the teeth so we can load up our freezers with venison and other goodies on the one hand and make sure no Yankees want to be stupid enough to push their crap on us out here on the other.
-
I didn't know you could be impeached for not doing what Ann wants you to do. :whistle:
If we could impeach Presidents for not keeping promises, we'd be impeaching them all.
Ann Coulter has lost all credibility.... she has turned every way but loose.
-
Did anyone tell Ann (1) It takes 50% + 1 house votes to impeach (2) GOP hold the House. (3) 67 Senators to convict?
I think Ann wants to generate needless controversy.
Absolutely and as for Trump's promises ... he's kept some of them; tried to keep others and ... well, is there a time limit.
The closest Trump will come to impeachment is after his first term if he either realizes he can't get the nomination again or decides he's got better things to do and drops out.
But... we could impeach Ann... or could we?
-
WRONG. I do not use that term. Others do.
No you're not. Cite a criticism you people have made over his actions and demeanor. All I have read from your ilk is analogies to 6th dimensional chess, rope-a-doping and other justifications or outright dismissal of his silly actions and statements.
Hmmm.... sounds like Trump's campaign promises from last year. Or maybe just uttering Barker spiel at a circus tent for what is inside?
Once again WRONG. I do not use that term.
You are projecting again.
I hate the city and the Northeast... so NO - those prospects are not an option, even though it would be fun to turn them inside out. I like it here in the middle of nowhere, where Jesus is still respected, we have and practice liberty most of Americans no longer recognize, and we're armed to the teeth so we can load up our freezers with venison and other goodies on the one hand and make sure no Yankees want to be stupid enough to push their crap on us out here on the other.
I hope it won't offend you but I hate those quote things you use in your replies. Very annoying.
-
WRONG. I do not use that term. Others do.
No you're not. Cite a criticism you people have made over his actions and demeanor. All I have read from your ilk is analogies to 6th dimensional chess, rope-a-doping and other justifications or outright dismissal of his silly actions and statements.
Hmmm.... sounds like Trump's campaign promises from last year. Or maybe just uttering Barker spiel at a circus tent for what is inside?
Once again WRONG. I do not use that term.
You are projecting again.
I hate the city and the Northeast... so NO - those prospects are not an option, even though it would be fun to turn them inside out. I like it here in the middle of nowhere, where Jesus is still respected, we have and practice liberty most of Americans no longer recognize, and we're armed to the teeth so we can load up our freezers with venison and other goodies on the one hand and make sure no Yankees want to be stupid enough to push their crap on us out here on the other.
Saying 'you and your ilk' is equally offensive. Just say what you mean ... trumpers.
-
I hope it won't offend you but I hate those quote things you use in your replies. Very annoying.
Saying 'you and your ilk' is equally offensive. Just say what you mean ... trumpers.
I do not care that you are offended by what I write, nor do I care that you hate how I do it.
In fact, given your snowflakishness to such things, I will obviously be annoying you even more in the future.
How about them apples lady?
-
The grounds for impeachment are not limited to defined criminal conduct.
What are you talking about? I cannot find an instance where someone was impeached without "defined" criminal conduct. It specifically says in the Constitution that treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the offenses they can charge someone with.
BTW, impeachment is a far cry from removal from office.
-
I do not care that you are offended by what I write, nor do I care that you hate how I do it.
In fact, given your snowflakishness to such things, I will obviously be annoying you even more in the future.
How about them apples lady?
I am so glad that you don't care. I am so glad that you have the word 'snowflakishness' in your vocabulary.
I'm just glad you're you.
-
What are you talking about? I cannot find an instance where someone was impeached without "defined" criminal conduct. It specifically says in the Constitution that treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the offenses they can charge someone with.
BTW, impeachment is a far cry from removal from office.
The first and only USSC Justice to be impeached, Samuel Chase, was impeached for making partisan decisions. He wasn't convicted:
President Thomas Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review, led his party's efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. His allies in Congress had, shortly after his inauguration, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase, two years after the repeal in May 1803, had denounced it in his charge to a Baltimore grand jury, saying that it would "take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy[.]"[7] Earlier in April 1800, Chase acting as a district judge, had made strong attacks upon Thomas Cooper who had been indicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts; Chase had taken the air of a prosecutor rather than a judge.[8] Also in 1800, when a grand jury in New Castle, Delaware declined to indict a local printer, Chase refused to discharge them, saying he was aware of one specific printer that he wished them to indict for seditious behavior.[9] Jefferson saw the attack as indubitable bad behavior and an opportunity to reduce the Federalist influence on the judiciary by impeaching Chase, launching the process from the White House when he wrote to Congressman Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland asking: "Ought the seditious and official attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?"[10]
Virginia Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke took up the challenge and took charge of the impeachment. The House of Representatives served Chase with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804, one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. One article covered Chase's conduct with the New Castle grand jury, charging that he "did descend from the dignity of a judge and stoop to the level of an informer by refusing to discharge the grand jury, although entreated by several of the said jury so to do." Three articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed at his “intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent” remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. The United States Senate—controlled by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans—began the impeachment trial of Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding and Randolph leading the prosecution.
-
Here's a good article on it:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/impeachment-trial-samuel-chase
The Senate prosecution of Chase was conducted by Representative John Randolph, a firebrand proponent of states' rights from Virginia. At the trial, Randolph presented an emotional but disorganized harangue against Chase. Chase was defended by the finest lawyers the Federalists could assemble, who emphasized that he was not accused of any crimes, but rather was impeached merely because he took legal positions not in accordance with the jurisprudential theories advanced by Jeffersonians. In particular, in the Callender and Fries trials Chase had sought to exclude evidence or arguments that he thought irrelevant and which might mislead the jury. Randolph argued that the juries should have been allowed to determine the law and the facts with a maximum of discretion, but Chase believed the jury had a more narrow role, to apply the law as given to it by the judge to the facts as found from the most reliable evidence. Chase's rulings were in keeping with what was to become American orthodoxy and Randolph's notions were no longer in the mainstream.
Chase's philippic before the Baltimore grand jury was more political than judicial, but the requisite two-thirds majority could not be found in the Senate even for conviction on that conduct. Persuaded that the prosecution of Chase represented an inappropriate attack on the independence of the judiciary, some Jeffersonian Republicans joined all the Federalist members of the Senate in voting to acquit, and thus Chase prevailed. The conventional wisdom regarding the outcome of Chase's impeachment—the only such proceeding ever brought against a U.S. Supreme Court justice—is that it showed that a judge could not be removed simply for taking politically unpopular positions. Less often observed is that the Chase impeachment caused the Supreme Court to shy away from overt displays of politics, and to a great extent, that it caused the federal judges to give up their role as "Republican schoolmasters" to the American public.
-
Ann is still trying to be relevant.
-
(http://omnipotentpoobah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/attentionwhore.png)
-
What are you talking about? I cannot find an instance where someone was impeached without "defined" criminal conduct. It specifically says in the Constitution that treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the offenses they can charge someone with.
BTW, impeachment is a far cry from removal from office.
Because impeachment is mainly political, not a matter of ordinary due process (which is what requires crimes to be defined ahead of time).
And yeah, it's pretty obvious that impeachment doesn't mean removal. Duh.
-
(http://omnipotentpoobah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/attentionwhore.png)
And in 2017 his record shows him to be far more of a liberal then a conservative. If he's the army we have then I think the applicable term is quisling.
-
Because impeachment is mainly political, not a matter of ordinary due process (which is what requires crimes to be defined ahead of time).
And yeah, it's pretty obvious that impeachment doesn't mean removal. Duh.
That bastard Clinton wore it like a badge of honor his last two years in office.
-
In all likelihood the dems would be talking impeachment for ANYONE who is a Republican.
-
In all likelihood the dems would be talking impeachment for ANYONE who is a Republican.
Quite possibly. But it's highly unlikely that anyone else would be giving them so much able assistance in that regard.
-
I very vividly recall Dems introducing articles of impeachment against W in 2006-2007. I think the Clinton thing soured political leaders on Impeachment and they can backfire in a big way. Of course, Clinton actually broke the law while in office.
-
I very vividly recall Dems introducing articles of impeachment against W in 2006-2007. I think the Clinton thing soured political leaders on Impeachment and they can backfire in a big way. Of course, Clinton actually broke the law while in office.
Well, after the Clinton impeachment fiasco (and it was), no President in our lifetimes will be impeached. The Dems are just wanting to do revenge impeachment...