Hüsker Dü
DA
So is she a liar or just unaware?
'NOT A SAFE JOURNEY'
Migrant girls over 10 given pregnancy test at border because of rape risk: DHS boss
The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
Gerald Nadler Rejects Constitution’s Limitations on Impeaching Trump
Getty Images
KEN KLUKOWSKI 7 Mar 2019
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (R-NY) told a Sunday show host that Congress can impeach President Donald Trump for matters that are not crimes, and also for alleged acts that he claims Trump committed before becoming president, rejecting key limits that the Framers of the Constitution placed on Congress’s impeachment power.
Nadler gave an interview to George Stephanapoulous on ABC’s This Week, laying out the long-term partisan Democrat’s plan to relentlessly attack President Trump, with the evident goal of ousting him from office.
“Seeking to sabotage a fair election would be an impeachable offense,” Nadler declared, insisting that the president is “implicated” in “various crimes,” including crimes committed during the 2016 election.
Nadler’s Judiciary Committee investigation will seek to establish the facts pertaining to the president’s actions during the 2016 election. Nadler made clear that he has already concluded that the president is guilty of “abuse of power,” “corruption,” and “obstruction of justice.” That last one is key, because it is a specific federal felony that could be cited as grounds for impeachment.
The left-wing Democrat accused President Trump of a laundry list of illegal activities, including little-known – and little-understood, especially by media pundits – constitutional provisions such as what he calls the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution. (There are actually two such provisions in the Constitution, the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. It is unclear which one Nadler says the president is violating.)
But the list of allegations show that the New York partisan is quite serious, including “abuses of power, obstruction of justice, threats to the Mueller investigation, threats to witnesses,” and so on.
Nadler also claimed that when President Trump criticizes Robert Mueller, that criticism is obstruction of justice, which is a felony. He also claims that President Trump’s firing James Comey as FBI director was obstruction of justice.
He also insists that Congress can remove the president from office for matters that are not crimes.
“So can there be impeachable offenses that are not crimes?” asked Stephanopoulous.
“Oh, sure,” Nadler replied. “Crimes and impeachable offenses [are] two different things.”
Nadler’s claims are shocking.
First, the Framers of the Constitution specified in Article II, Section 4, “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Elsewhere, the Constitution adds that it takes a simple majority vote (50 percent plus one, or 218 in the modern House) in the House to impeach, and then a two-thirds supermajority vote (67 in the modern Senate) to remove an impeached president from office.
The Constitution gives treason and bribery as examples of impeachable crimes. The best reading of that clause could be paraphrased as, “treason, bribery, or similarly serious crimes.” People can debate about whether lesser crimes can be treated as impeachable offenses, but they cannot debate about whether the Framers were talking about actual crimes. The Constitutional Convention debated having the Constitution say that a president could be removed for “maladministration” – that is, being a bad president – but deliberately decided against it.
The Democrat-led U.S. House in 1974 included abuse of power as one of the impeachment articles against President Richard Nixon. Nadler did not discuss that, but it is sometimes mentioned in impeachment discussions.
But impeaching for abuse of power is hard to reconcile with the original public meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution unless it is referring to criminal abuses of power. The 1970s were a decade that saw government officials frequently abandon the original meaning of the Constitution, perhaps most infamously with the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision – inventing out of thin air a constitutional right to abortion – but also the original meaning of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause in Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971), how the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause applies to campaign-finance laws in Buckley v. Valeo(1976), and the proper scope of vital constitutional separation-of-powers principles such as Congress’s War Powers Act and vast expansions of federal powers over the environment and education.
In other words, you want to take with a grain of salt conclusions about the Constitution that branches of government promulgated in the 1970s. It was not the U.S. government’s finest decade in that regard.
Getty Images
KEN KLUKOWSKI 7 Mar 2019
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (R-NY) told a Sunday show host that Congress can impeach President Donald Trump for matters that are not crimes, and also for alleged acts that he claims Trump committed before becoming president, rejecting key limits that the Framers of the Constitution placed on Congress’s impeachment power.
Nadler gave an interview to George Stephanapoulous on ABC’s This Week, laying out the long-term partisan Democrat’s plan to relentlessly attack President Trump, with the evident goal of ousting him from office.
“Seeking to sabotage a fair election would be an impeachable offense,” Nadler declared, insisting that the president is “implicated” in “various crimes,” including crimes committed during the 2016 election.
Nadler’s Judiciary Committee investigation will seek to establish the facts pertaining to the president’s actions during the 2016 election. Nadler made clear that he has already concluded that the president is guilty of “abuse of power,” “corruption,” and “obstruction of justice.” That last one is key, because it is a specific federal felony that could be cited as grounds for impeachment.
The left-wing Democrat accused President Trump of a laundry list of illegal activities, including little-known – and little-understood, especially by media pundits – constitutional provisions such as what he calls the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution. (There are actually two such provisions in the Constitution, the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. It is unclear which one Nadler says the president is violating.)
But the list of allegations show that the New York partisan is quite serious, including “abuses of power, obstruction of justice, threats to the Mueller investigation, threats to witnesses,” and so on.
Nadler also claimed that when President Trump criticizes Robert Mueller, that criticism is obstruction of justice, which is a felony. He also claims that President Trump’s firing James Comey as FBI director was obstruction of justice.
He also insists that Congress can remove the president from office for matters that are not crimes.
“So can there be impeachable offenses that are not crimes?” asked Stephanopoulous.
“Oh, sure,” Nadler replied. “Crimes and impeachable offenses [are] two different things.”
Nadler’s claims are shocking.
First, the Framers of the Constitution specified in Article II, Section 4, “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Elsewhere, the Constitution adds that it takes a simple majority vote (50 percent plus one, or 218 in the modern House) in the House to impeach, and then a two-thirds supermajority vote (67 in the modern Senate) to remove an impeached president from office.
The Constitution gives treason and bribery as examples of impeachable crimes. The best reading of that clause could be paraphrased as, “treason, bribery, or similarly serious crimes.” People can debate about whether lesser crimes can be treated as impeachable offenses, but they cannot debate about whether the Framers were talking about actual crimes. The Constitutional Convention debated having the Constitution say that a president could be removed for “maladministration” – that is, being a bad president – but deliberately decided against it.
The Democrat-led U.S. House in 1974 included abuse of power as one of the impeachment articles against President Richard Nixon. Nadler did not discuss that, but it is sometimes mentioned in impeachment discussions.
But impeaching for abuse of power is hard to reconcile with the original public meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution unless it is referring to criminal abuses of power. The 1970s were a decade that saw government officials frequently abandon the original meaning of the Constitution, perhaps most infamously with the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision – inventing out of thin air a constitutional right to abortion – but also the original meaning of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause in Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971), how the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause applies to campaign-finance laws in Buckley v. Valeo(1976), and the proper scope of vital constitutional separation-of-powers principles such as Congress’s War Powers Act and vast expansions of federal powers over the environment and education.
In other words, you want to take with a grain of salt conclusions about the Constitution that branches of government promulgated in the 1970s. It was not the U.S. government’s finest decade in that regard.
Sheriff Joe
DA
DEMS REVOLT AGAINST PELOSI...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/06/ilhan-omar-israel-democrats-1206740
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/06/ilhan-omar-israel-democrats-1206740
Sheriff Joe
DA
NEW GENERATION DEFENDS OMAR...
https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Democratic-divide-over-Omar-s-remarks-tests-13668736.php
https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Democratic-divide-over-Omar-s-remarks-tests-13668736.php
Sheriff Joe
DA
Hiring the Right Plumber: Blacks and the Democrats
RICK HAYES
The 2020 election will soon be upon us, and the black community has hired the same incompetent political party for the past 50 years.
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...e_right_plumber_blacks_and_the_democrats.html
RICK HAYES
The 2020 election will soon be upon us, and the black community has hired the same incompetent political party for the past 50 years.
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...e_right_plumber_blacks_and_the_democrats.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
Typical white feminist Nancy Pelosi behaves typically, caves to bigotry
MARCH 7, 2019
Ilhan Omar is going to get off scot-free.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...elosi_behaves_typically_caves_to_bigotry.html
MARCH 7, 2019
Ilhan Omar is going to get off scot-free.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...elosi_behaves_typically_caves_to_bigotry.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
Race to the electoral bottom
MARCH 7, 2019
If it is mob rule the people want, they can have it in more than one flavor.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/race_to_the_electoral_bottom.html
MARCH 7, 2019
If it is mob rule the people want, they can have it in more than one flavor.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/race_to_the_electoral_bottom.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
'People of Color' Is a Marxist Phrase. Let's Stop Using It.
STEVEN KESSLER
Weaponized envy pleasantly disguised as equality.
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...r_is_a_marxist_phrase_lets_stop_using_it.html
STEVEN KESSLER
Weaponized envy pleasantly disguised as equality.
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...r_is_a_marxist_phrase_lets_stop_using_it.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
TheBlaze
Girl Scouts awards teen for campaign to promote abortion and the anti-Trump Women's March
11 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...NEAk&usg=AOvVaw0DOGogsrOWjVHqcj9J5KMy&cf=1
Girl Scouts awards teen for campaign to promote abortion and the anti-Trump Women's March
11 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...NEAk&usg=AOvVaw0DOGogsrOWjVHqcj9J5KMy&cf=1
Sheriff Joe
DA
Trump: Worst. Racist. Ever.
https://www.redstate.com/darth641/2019/03/07/trump-worst.-racist.-ever./
https://www.redstate.com/darth641/2019/03/07/trump-worst.-racist.-ever./
Well....there's always fishing with a....
Shooting fish in a barrel...
But I suppose it's just a sign of the times that we live in a world where now every sportsman has to come home with a trophy- but boy do these guys sure seem like loosers to me.
Ask yourself questions before popping off.
Why would a guy shoot tuna in a net? It doesn't do anything but damage the product.
Shark in the net would be my guess.
If only you had a dime every time that question was asked about you....
Yes a row of blue collar fishermen with shotguns and hear plugs, dressed in polo shirts... worried about a shark eating the catch. Deep insightful post bra!
"Eating the catch"?
You really are stupid.
"A row of blue collar fishermen"?
I see one guy with a shotgun.
The guy with the shotgun is wearing a wet suit... and he may very well be dispatching the tuna with head shots using shotgun slugs as ammo.
Well and here I thought you were just a plumber from Oceanside who watched Fox News and supported these guys because you saw a gun. But damn... sounds like you're a real sportsman!
Alright, so I finally clicked on the pic to see it at scale. Yes it's a wet suit...
That's how we shot 400 lb halibut so we could get them in the boat when I was up in AK. doesn't make much sense with a 50lb tuna, so the plumber is likely right they are shooting a shark.