RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "On December 6, a majority of Democrats in the House joined all House Republicans in voting to prevent the House of Representatives from even debating articles of impeachment against President Trump."

Donald J. Trump and Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Donald J. Trump and Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Wikimedia Commons)


House Democrats Vote to Block Consideration of Impeachment

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

18 December 17


Led by Pelosi and other usual suspects, Dems unprincipled as ever

n December 6, a majority of Democrats in the House joined all House Republicans in voting to prevent the House of Representatives from even debating articles of impeachment against President Trump. The House voted 364-58 (with 10 non-votes) to table impeachment articles (H RES 646) sponsored by Texas Democrat Al Green. Over the strong objections of Democratic leaders (an oxymoron), Green had brought his impeachment resolution to a vote by invoking his personal privilege as a House member. Green’s resolution began:

ARTICLE I

In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions…

There is nothing surprising or false in this observation. The remainder of Article I lists well-reported occasions when Trump acted as described. There is no doubt that the events occurred. Article I concludes that: “Donald John Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.”

There is no question about what Trump’s behavior has been. The argument would be whether his behavior constitutes an impeachable offense under the Constitution’s Article II, section 4, which provides only that:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So what are “other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? The Constitution does not say, and no one knows with certainty what the Constitution’s framers thought they were. What it comes down to in any case of impeachment is whether the president’s behavior is serious enough or damaging enough to the good of the country as a whole that he should be removed from office. Is it enough that he openly violates his oath of office? Is it enough that he issues orders illegal on their face? Is it enough that he continues to commit the war crimes of his predecessors? Is it enough that he trumpets impeachable offenses on TV? Is it enough that he has flouted the Constitution since Inauguration Day? Is it enough that he publicly corrupts the legal process? In any healthy society, the behavior of Donald John Trump would be enough to provoke serious debate as to whether the country should suffer it any further.

A majority of Democrats, appearing neither serious nor healthy, have now gone on record in opposition even to debating Trump’s behavior on its merits. Those Democrats, 128 of them, mostly white-privileged, have voted in tacit support of the racism, bigotry, and prejudice streaming from the Trump administration. Led by Nancy Pelosi, these 128 Democrats (including all the party leadership except James Clyburn) have taken a public pass on discussing real issues of conscience with national importance. Only 58 Democrats voted with conscience, and the corruption of our system is expressed by Washington’s surprise that there were so many, not so few.

Surprise that there were “only” 128 cowards among Democrats in the House is well founded. Nancy Pelosi is the same leader who lacked the stomach to try to impeach George Bush for lying us into a war that the country continues to pay for in money and blood, albeit mostly other people’s blood. In Pelosi-World, if lying the country into war isn’t an impeachable offense, what is?

And let’s be clear here, it’s not as if the votes of any of those 128 Democrats were going to make any material difference in the outcome. The Republican majority in the House was going to table the impeachment resolution no matter how any of the Democrats voted. The Democrats voting not to consider articles of impeachment had no practical grounds for doing so. Each of them put personal politics ahead of any moral reckoning, much less the desperate need of the country for principled leadership. Each of them cast a squalid vote not to confront the profoundly destructive behavior outlined in the impeachment articles, the second (and last) of which began:

ARTICLE II

In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office, of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony, and respect necessary for stability within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than simply insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the American society by publicly casting contempt on individuals and groups, inciting hate and hostility, sowing discord among the people of the United States, on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation, on one or more of the following occasions …

Again the resolution lists illustrative instances of the offending behavior, which happened without any doubt.

But 128 Democrats don’t want to object, or even to be seen as being willing to object to Trump behavior. These 128 Democrats prefer to be seen voting not to discuss outrages even when there is no chance whatsoever that these outrages will be subject to public debate. They all knew before they voted that Republicans wouldn’t allow it. Yet given an absolutely no-risk opportunity to object to Trump behavior, 128 Democrats chose instead to vote as if they have no serious objection to racism-based policy dominating American government. How can we know that’s not exactly true?

Democrats have been fleeing from the impeachment process for months now, ever since Green first brought out his articles in May. At least six other House Democrats have filed articles of impeachment against Trump, none of which have been voted on yet. Five new articles of impeachment were introduced in mid-November, charging Trump with obstruction of justice, illegally taking money from foreign entities, illegally taking money from American entities, undermining the courts in violation of his oath of office, and undermining public media in violation of the First Amendment – all producing demonstrable damage to the United States as a constitutional democracy.

This is all denied by the Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and her minority whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who said without apparent irony:

Do we disagree with the policies? We do. But disagreeing with the policies is not enough to overturn an election, a free and fair election…. There are a large number of Democrats that believe this president ought to be impeached, we have just a made a judgment that the facts aren’t there to pursue that….

According to Hoyer, 2016 was – unquestionably – a “free and fair election,” despite evidence that it was anything but, especially the Democratic primaries. He and Pelosi might well have reason to keep anyone from looking too closely at any of that. Their personal culpability in a corrupt primary process involves, at the very least, doing nothing about it. And the troubles of the Democratic party leadership run much deeper than that, as lucidly articulated Nomicki Konst, member of the Democratic National Committee Unity Reform Commission, who wonders why the DNC spent $700 million on five “consultants” but didn’t have money for yard signs in Michigan and Wisconsin.

And there’s no sense or decency coming from Doug Jones, who was just elected Senator from Alabama. He says the sexual aggression allegations against Trump don’t much matter now. He dismisses the women who have come forward recently, he dismisses the movie “16 Women and Donald Trump“ recently released by Brave New Films, and he dismisses calls for Trump’s resignation or impeachment. Senator-elect Jones, a lawyer who probably knows better, told CNN’s Jake Tapper in his pseudo-folksy Alabama manner:

You know, Jake, where I am on that right now is that those allegations were made before the election. And so people had an opportunity to judge before that election. I think we need to move on and not get distracted by those issues. Let’s get on with the real issues that are facing the people of this country right now.

THAT expresses the specious heart of the Democratic Party these days, a party of dishonesty and denial. Jones must know that the allegations raised during the election were not fully vetted. Jones must know that the allegations have expanded and taken on more weight and credibility as strong, articulate women have come forward to support them. Jones dismisses issues that matter significantly to more than half the population. And what does Jones mean by “real issues”? Does he really think a corrupt, bigoted president threatening nuclear war is not a real issue?

The reality of the Trump presidency is that the president has not spent a single minute in office when he wasn’t committing at least one impeachable offense. Advised after the election to divest himself of conflicts of interest, Trump complied in part but continues to profit from foreign and domestic businesses in clear violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses ( Foreign, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8; and Domestic, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). In a lawsuit pending since June, almost 200 House and Senate Democrats have sued Trump to enforce the emoluments clauses. On Inauguration Day 2017, attorney John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People started an impeachment campaign based on the emoluments clauses. In his view, impeachment can and should proceed as a civil action parallel to the criminal action headed by special counsel Robert Mueller. On Democracy NOW December 15, Bonifaz spoke of the difference between criminal and civil procedures:

The question here are crimes against the state. That is what impeachment is about – abuse of power, abuse of public trust, and not only through the violations of the anti-corruption provisions. There is now, of course, evidence of obstruction of justice. There’s evidence of potential conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 elections and violate federal campaign finance laws, among others. There is now evidence of abuse of the pardon power in the pardoning of former Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. There’s recklessly threatening nuclear war against a foreign nation. There’s misuse of the Justice Department to try to prosecute political adversaries. And there’s the giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. All of this—all of this deserves an impeachment investigation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Realistically, no impeachment proceeding can go forward without some Republicans, an unlikely development before the 2018 elections. The Democrats in charge seem to have the same blind assumption of winning that they had in 2016, which is hardly reassuring. Waiting for that “certain” victory, those Democrats are content to subject the country to another year of unchecked Trump behavior, with no Plan B should Democrats fail to take the House. Meanwhile, Democratic shucking and jiving does nothing to bring Republicans face to face with their own monstrosities. Democratic dishonesty at the top seems to know no shame, as Pelosi said with counter-factual fatuity:

If you’re going to go down the impeachment path, you have to know you can do it not in a partisan way….. We have an investigation in the Justice Department that is seeking facts. We don’t want it to look political…. [My goal is] for our country is to come together to win the next election.

Impeachment is inherently partisan, with the possibility of being bipartisan in part. In reality, “not partisan” is a lie or a delusion. The Mueller investigation is a criminal investigation that may or may not lead directly to indicting a sitting president. It cannot lead directly to impeachment and removal from office. It might lead there indirectly, but that’s a long process that took three years with Nixon. The goal of the country coming together is a fantasy, and winning the next election is purely partisan – what Pelosi says is obscurantist garbage, but that seems to be the best Democratic leaders can give us these days.




Note: listed below are the 58 House Democrats who voted to proceed to consider Rep. Green’s two articles of impeachment. If your Representative is not among them, you might ask him or her why. If we’re to have a Democratic wave election in 2018, it might as well be one worth having.




William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+29 # grandlakeguy 2017-12-18 15:34
Business as usual for "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.
She would not stand up to war criminal G W Bush and will stand by and let Trump destroy our system of government!
She needs to be defeated in the 2018 primary.

The major flaw in our constitution is that we the people have no ability to recall anyone in Federal office be they in the Congress or the President and Vice President no matter how corrupt and destructive they are.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2017-12-20 20:23
Quoting grandlakeguy:
Business as usual for "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.
She would not stand up to war criminal G W Bush and will stand by and let Trump destroy our system of government!
She needs to be defeated in the 2018 primary.

- in 2016 you voted down hillary and got us dickhead instead, thanks for nothing!

have you nothing better to do than vote against dems?

if you say pelosi can be primaried by a better progressive? that would be different, but you're shameless and clueless when it comes to elections, sorry!
 
 
+12 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-12-18 19:26
It seems to me that there are two tendencies among democrats:

1. those who want to impeach Trump as soon as possible for whatever charges are convenient. The don't seem to care that republicans hold majorities in both houses and will never allow an impeachment.

2. those democrats who want to keep Trump in office because he is their best campaign strategy for 2018 and 2020. All any democratic candidate has to do is point to Trump and tell voters, "I'm your best hedge against him." If Trump were out of office, these democrats would have to run on issues or like Hillary run on the past. That's a loser.


Both camps seem very weak to me. I'd be open to impeachment of Trump if the right crimes turn up. Russiagate is not the right crime; it did not take place. But more importantly, I'd be talking steadily about the issues. I'd be educating and informing voters about how US problems could be resolved with the right policies. Sanders is doing a good job of this. Most other democrats are just following the party line.
 
 
-1 # kalpal 2017-12-19 09:39
Waste of time to prematurely attempt to impeach the orange jerk.
It took 2 years to persuade the nation that Nixon obstructed justice and committed felonies. Once the evidence became incontrovertibl e the RW excuse became that every previous president else was a criminal also, so leave Nixon in office. Sentient politicians understood that allowing Nixon to be impeached and found guilty at trial would besmirch the GOP so badly that the party might have been destroyed.
 
 
+5 # Robbee 2017-12-19 10:17
Quoting Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-12-18 19:26:
I'd be open to impeachment of Trump if the right crimes turn up. Russiagate is not the right crime; it did not take place.

- our resident russiabot is confused about criminal element

mueller prosecutes crime, not congress
congress prosecutes impeachment, not mueller

if mueller finds evidence, he will report to congress on collision and/or obstruction of justice, in other words, say, propose to congress articles of evidence that they may or may not use to impeach

most dems in congress, realize that mueller is making serious progress in special investigation of collision and/or obstruction of justice, and that mueller is not done yet

a minority of dems in congress want to go off half-cocked, without any report of mueller's continuing investigation - this is a show vote for the minority party, not with any real hope of impeachment - if in 2019 dems have a house majority that can impeach, that some wanted to impeach before serious investigation arrived at a report shows premature rush to judgment, bias

some of us, including me, want a 2019 majority dem house to impeach dickhead, to force congress to try evidence of collision and obstruction of justice

some of us, including me, prefer that the senate does not convict dickhead without pence, of articles of impeachment, simply because pence is as bad as, or worse than, dickhead, and more likely to win reelection
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2017-12-19 23:30
"Collision" or "collusion"?
 
 
+3 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-12-20 11:18
robbeee -- "mueller prosecutes crime, not congress
congress prosecutes impeachment, not mueller"


go back and read the constitution. The house can impeach -- which means indict -- a president for "high crimes and misdemeanors." High crimes are generally felonies. If a president is indicted (impeached) by the House, then a trial is held in the Senate to see if he is guilty or innocent. There have been two presidents indicted -- Johson and Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate.
 
 
+2 # Robbee 2017-12-20 20:47
Quoting Rodion Raskolnikov:
robbeee -- "mueller prosecutes crime, not congress
congress prosecutes impeachment, not mueller"

go back and read the constitution. The house can impeach -- which means indict -- a president for "high crimes and misdemeanors." High crimes are generally felonies. If a president is indicted (impeached) by the House, then a trial is held in the Senate to see if he is guilty or innocent. There have been two presidents indicted -- Johson and Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

- doesn't that beat all? our resident russiabot pretending to school an american citizen on our constitution? the great pretender?

all i say is "mueller prosecutes crime, not congress
congress prosecutes impeachment, not mueller"

if you know enough, show me any flaw in what should be simple enough and the unassailable so, thanks!

are you challenged by english? what is your problem?

ps - treason and obstruction of justice are crimes, does that help?
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2017-12-19 10:39
Quoting Rodion Raskolnikov:
But more importantly, I'd be talking steadily about the issues. I'd be educating and informing voters about how US problems could be resolved with the right policies. Sanders is doing a good job of this. Most other democrats are just following the party line.

- again, resident russiabot is woefully uninformed

bernie and all dem reps constantly address issues - but unless you made their list, or read about bernie here on rsn, you would never know! - that you don't know that all dems constantly address issues says more about you than about them! sad!
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2017-12-19 16:59
Rodion may be misreading "those who want to impeach
as soon as possible," since none of them is likely so
dim as to think that's possible in the near term.

What IS possible is to build the case,
and that's exactly what the Democratic majority
has chosen to back away from.

Trump has a variety of impeachable offenses,
and they should be argues publicly.

There are other pending articles of impeachment
that have not been voted on. From my article:

"The reality of the Trump presidency is that the president has not spent a single minute in office when he wasn’t committing at least one impeachable offense. Advised after the election to divest himself of conflicts of interest, Trump complied in part but continues to profit from foreign and domestic businesses in clear violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses ( Foreign, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8; and Domestic, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). In a lawsuit pending since June, almost 200 House and Senate Democrats have sued Trump to enforce the emoluments clauses. On Inauguration Day 2017, attorney John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People started an impeachment campaign based on the emoluments clauses. In his view, impeachment can and should proceed as a civil action parallel to the criminal action headed by special counsel Robert Mueller. "
 
 
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-12-20 11:34
Yes, indeed, many groups are building their cases for impeachment. I don't really agree with your point about Trump committing impeachable offenses every day in the white house, unless we are agreeing that the definition of impeachment is so vague that a president could be impeached for almost anything, even raising the question of what the "meaning of "is" is."

But there is a bigger issue behind my skepticism of impeachment. I worked with Bonifaz on his efforts to impeach Bush, who we both thought committed horrific crimes, esp in the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq. But now, the impeachment of Trump is the two parties warring against each other, just as republicans kept trying to impeach Obama.

The last four presidents -- Trump, Obama, Bush II, Clinton -- have been under constant efforts to impeach them. Only Bush really deserved it. The rest of it is how partisan politics works now and I think it is a major detriment to the functioning of government. The two parties never work together on anything, unless it is war or Israel.

Sometimes you hate the person who wins, but an elected official needs to stay in the game and play it as hard as he/she can. I just see demos throwing way too much energy and time into Russiagate with the vain hope that will lead to Trump's impeachment.

If Trump were being impeached for handing control of the wars over to psychopath generals, then I would support it. I don't care about the money he makes from a hotel.
 
 
+1 # Interested Observer 2017-12-19 17:12
Impeachment of Trump,given that the crimes and unfitness for office are already manifest and it is strictly partisan politics, makes no sense until there is a credible possibility of conviction. That is utterly lacking at the moment. Failure to convict is close to giving Trump a second term. Even if successful, Pence is arguably worse. No happy ending here commensurate with the emotional heat on display.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2017-12-19 19:00
The right crimes have turned up. He has been in violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution since he was sworn in.
 
 
-2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-12-20 11:36
I don't buy the emoluments clause. It is out moded. Do you fault Obama for walking out of the white house and making speeches all over the world for millions of dollars. Were those not "deferred emoluments"? Are we so stupid that we cannot see how bribes are paid to politicians these days?
 
 
0 # Robbee 2017-12-20 20:55
Quoting Rodion Raskolnikov:
I don't buy the emoluments clause. Were those not "deferred emoluments"?

- you're the russian expert, you tell us, okay?

in the russian, are "emoluments" "deferred emoluments"?
 
 
+5 # RWPrice 2017-12-18 21:02
Sound arguments, useful list and priceless picture!
 
 
+5 # futhark 2017-12-19 01:13
Well, now we have direct evidence that there are two impediments to having President Trump removed from office by impeachment. The fact that Trump-loyal Republicans still hold a majority of in the House would make passage of articles of impeachment unlikely, but we now discover that among the Democrats as well there are a significant number aligned with the faction that has profited politically from elections that are not "free and fair" and therefor resist investigating the matter.

President Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage" celebrated politicians who put their careers at risk by standing in principled opposition to bad policies. We need more of such in Congress today.
 
 
+10 # LionMousePudding 2017-12-19 01:41
Pelosi: Was the election free and fair, or did the Russians have a hand? You can't have it both ways

Pelosi: Having as your only goal to win the next election is JUST as craven as having as the Republicans' goal to keep Obama from winning a second term. The difference is only in the WAY it gives the Republicans what they want. In attempting to limit Obama's presidency to one term, the Republicans blocked everything good for the country. In attempting to limit Trump's presidency to one term, Democrats will roll over and play dead, giving the Republicans every opportunity to do the worst possible to the world and our country.

In both instances, the people get screwed coming and going. And with the Democrats making nice with Republicans but just not being Trump, there is no reason to think this way will limit this Presidency.

We really have to understand that 90% of Democrats just do not care. They want to be elected and reelected. Jones has barely taken his hat off after winning an amazingly improbable victory by virtue of not being a child molester. His first words are it is ok for Trump to be a serial predator.
 
 
+5 # Salburger 2017-12-19 06:35
Anger is no substitute for analysis, there were reasons why they didn't want to go into a loosing fight over impeachment at this time and Boardman doesn't address them.
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2017-12-19 17:20
Salburger cites NO arguments that went unaddressed,
though there may be some.

Salburger is WRONG to the extent that he says
Boardman didn't address Hoyer, Pelosi, and Jone and
their evasions.

Salburger is also wrong to call this vote a "losing fight"
ver impeachment. Impeachment was never a likely outcome
of this vote without Republican votes, and there's been no
sign of Republicans breaking ranks.

The vote was symbolic, it was without practical consequence
no matter how many Democrats expressed their rejection
of Trumpism. The choice was purely advisory: we oppose or
we support Trump behavior.

128 Democrats freely chose to vote in support of Trump,
revealing the Democratic Party to be a moral cipher even when
NO chips are down.

The sophistry of Pelosi et al arguments should be obvious
to any conscious person.

When Hoyer says (quoted in article):"we have just a made a judgment that the facts aren’t there to pursue that…."
he expresses an intellectual doshonesty in defense of a moral vacuum.
 
 
+9 # relegn 2017-12-19 06:52
If the Democratic Leadership thinks the 2018 elections are a "certain" win it might be a good idea for them to remember how "certain" Hillary's win was supposed to be in 2016.
 
 
0 # Blackjack 2017-12-19 07:12
Democrats: The Party of cowards!
 
 
+20 # Dale 2017-12-19 08:47
The only answer is in the elections of 2018 to do away with all corporate, establishment Democrats and replace then with Progressives.
 
 
+10 # PCPrincess 2017-12-19 10:23
Absolutely, you and me and some readers here know this; now we need to make sure another 299,999,000 Americans know it! (and hope some of them will get of their asses and vote ^^)
 
 
+9 # Larry 2017-12-19 08:52
Maybe some of these Democrats think it is premature to vote on articles of impeachment before the Mueller investigation is complete. Why attempt, and undoubtedly fail, to impeach Trump based on his statements and actions that, while repugnant, don't rise to the level of impeachable offense, when Mueller may be about to deliver credible evidence of actual treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors? A failed impeachment attempt is much worse than none at all.
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2017-12-19 17:23
Larry makes an argument about a reality that does not exist
(see comments above).

From the article:

"The question here are crimes against the state. That is what impeachment is about – abuse of power, abuse of public trust, and not only through the violations of the anti-corruption provisions. There is now, of course, evidence of obstruction of justice. There’s evidence of potential conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 elections and violate federal campaign finance laws, among others. There is now evidence of abuse of the pardon power in the pardoning of former Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. There’s recklessly threatening nuclear war against a foreign nation. There’s misuse of the Justice Department to try to prosecute political adversaries. And there’s the giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. All of this—all of this deserves an impeachment investigation in the U.S. House of Representatives ."
 
 
0 # Larry 2017-12-20 13:35
Unfortunately, "potential conspiracy," "abuse of the pardon power," reckless threatening," et al. do not appear in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. The constitutional grounds are rather narrow, and for good reason: They are offenses comprising objective elements that either exist or don't. The grounds you cite are speculative and/or subjective. Notwithstanding the vile persona and conduct of the current White House occupant, We can be grateful for the constitutional standard, because according to Republicans, Obama abused his power each and every day he was in office. And with enough votes in the House and Senate, they could have and would have removed him from office.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2017-12-21 12:41
Larry is correct about the limited language of the constitution,
but he mistakes that for some sort of strict limitation.

In the real world, as Gerald Ford famously said,
"An impeachable offense is whatever the House of
Representatives says it is."

Larry, like Rodin above, seems to have no fundamental
understanding of what it means when a President
takes his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and
then, from day one, violates the clear language of the Constitution. THATY's what the emoluments clauses
offenses are, not money per se. Trump is thumbing his nose
at the rule of law, and it that's not an impeachable offense,
then we might as well not have a Constitution.

Unfortunately, the dismissive view of Larry, Rodion, and others,
is all to widespread in this country ad makes those who
espouse such views – metaphorically at least –
unindicted co-conspirators .

That would certainly include those 128 Democrats who
prefer silence to raising an alarm, who prefer failed politics to
real backbone.
 
 
+6 # PABLO DIABLO 2017-12-19 10:02
Vote Pelosi and her bunch of bought off Democrats out of office. Get rid of super delegates and the Clintons and we can move forward with the progressives. A government that on many levels is dysfunctional is NOT "our government".
 
 
+1 # mblockhart 2017-12-19 11:46
Really stupid bad planning on the part of those who brought up impeachment before the evidence was there. The Democrats tried to warn the few that proposed this, but they refused to listen to reason.
 
 
+3 # Krackonis 2017-12-19 13:47
I'm impressed how well this Russian Asset has compromised your country in such a short time.
 
 
0 # OrlandoDFree 2017-12-19 16:07
Impeachment right now is a bad idea. It's going to lose, so we'll just have to bring it up again and again. We don't want to look like the Republicans voting over and over to repeal Obamacare without anything ever happening. Once Robert Mueller concludes his investigation, we'll have a much better case to make. Calling for impeachment right now is just ridiculous.
 
 
+2 # Interested Observer 2017-12-19 16:57
No impeachment should be brought forward until the chances for conviction are close to overwhelming. To impeach and fail would secure his position and even help him to a second term. 2018 is the time. If Trump and the current congress are rewarded with the loss of both majorities in the mid term, then it might be possible then to impeach and convict Trump even at the risk of being called "partisan". If not, then the 20+ year GOP gerrymander has withstood even Trump and the chances of successful impeachment are slight, but one might try just the same with nothing left to lose. Even after that you have the disgusting prospect of the theocrat and plutocrat tool Pence who will be just as bad, and much more dangerous. All the emotional noise on the thread about this is almost amusing.
 
 
+2 # kyzipster 2017-12-19 17:22
Is being a racist, sexist, xenophobic a-hole a high crime or misdemeanor? Not if you're an AM radio blowhard. If half the electorate didn't agree with him, he could be impeached and run out of town. Impeachment would only martyr him and make his fascist base of supporters even stronger in spirit. We're living in very dangerous times.

I don't trust the Democrats to do anything even if a high crime is exposed.
 
 
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-12-20 11:41
kyz -- "Is being a racist, sexist, xenophobic a-hole a high crime or misdemeanor?"


I don't think we can punish people for their ideas or beliefs. There are some religions that I definitely hate, but I would not punish any practioner of them.

But actions if criminal should be punished. Bush, Obama, and Trump have been murdering people all over the world with their drone terrorism and their permanent wars. It has been demonstrated over and over that Obama and Hillary created, financed, and armed ISIS, one of the most horrific proxy armies in human history. Why not put them on trial for that? Then impeach Trump for his expanded use of drones that kill innocent people.

OK, Trump is a racist and many of his voters are too. He can believe racist ideas all he wants and we should not touch him. But when he acts, then we should impeach him.
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2017-12-20 12:14
I think an argument could be made that he's unfit for office if enough Republican voters were as concerned or disgusted with his willingness to empower white supremacy groups. His supporters see no problem. That comes from one interpretation of impeachment that I read about.

I mentioned in another thread about an argument I heard for censuring presidents. It made a lot of sense. The purpose is to prove criminality and prevent future presidents from committing the same crimes. The investigation and historical record might be more important than actually removing from office. I think if the spineless Democrats in Congress would have acted on Bush/Cheney's crimes, it could have prevented Obama from doing the same. I think you're right but impeachment isn't the only solution.
 
 
+2 # kyzipster 2017-12-20 15:02
..I'll add that I don't think it's as simple as saying 'all Trump voters are racist, or most.' From what I can tell, close to all of them support the propaganda that excuses what's happening with Trump's so called 'populism', it's fascism and he's absolutely giving a powerful voice to right-wing fringe groups. Not so fringe anymore. But they don't believe they're racist and they don't believe Trump is. In some ways they're not, in other ways they are. They certainly understand that they're not supposed to be anymore and they understand to not act out in racist ways.

The south is difficult to explain to people. I feel comfortable being gay here, even in rural areas mostly. We have an openly gay mayor in our second largest city, an absolute non-issue. Most people really don't give a 'F' anymore but they will absolutely vote against my basic rights and they have in the past. If they managed to put legislation on the ballot to make my relationship criminal again, they would support it as long as the Republican Party and Fox News told them to, I have no doubt in my mind about that.

I don't say they're not homophobic, but I don't think they're all rabid haters so I avoid the word if I can, and the 'racist' label. It's not anywhere near the majority of them. The only group where that might be an exception is Muslims, I think they are widely hated by conservatives. I'm very worried about that population, so much propaganda directed at them, it's very Nazi-like.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2017-12-21 13:08
What Rodion seems to misunderstand about
Rep. Green's articles of impeachment is that
they are NOT about Trump's beliefs,
they are about the actions the President and his administration
have taken to enforce those beliefs,
in violation of civil rights statutes, the Constitution,
and other canons of law.

Trump is free to believe whatever he wants,
so long as his actions are lawful and consistent with
his obligations under the Constitution.

One of the many mysteries to me of late is why –
given Trump's abandonment of millions of Americans
in Puerto Rico – there aren't millions more people
in the streets.

And why no one has proposed that continuing attack
on fellow citizens as a clearly impeachable offense.
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2017-12-21 15:12
What's going on with DACA and illegal immigrants is a human rights crisis. People in hiding, no longer able to work. Trump is within the law on these issues, it's not an argument for impeachment but I'm discouraged that very little passion is coming up from progressives on what is happening right now.

Maybe there is a lot of passion and it's the fault of the media, focusing on Trump's latest Tweet or the latest white supremacy rally with a dozen or so Nazis showing up. Absolute focus on sexual harassment an abuse, and I don't believe that should lack focus but so many issues are getting ignored.
 
 
0 # Vancouver 2017-12-21 11:14
The DNC spent 700 MILLION DOLLARS, not 700 thousand on ‘consultants’ Big difference!
 
 
-1 # WBoardman 2017-12-21 12:53
Yes, yes, Vancouver is exactly right.

In my haste to make the point about yard signs,
I mis-stated the actual amount the DNC spent on
consultants. Apologies for the error.

And thanks for the correction, which matters
by orders of magnitude.

I'l try to get it fixed.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN