His arrest photo…
Cite the specific text in the Constitution prohibiting the President from acting for his personal “betterment”. Not that President Trump acted for his personal betterment in combating corruption in the Ukraine, it’s just that the gratuitous invocation of the Constitution needs to be pointed out.
The emoluments clause, as you well know.
Btw, he wasn’t battling corruption anywhere. He never mentioned corruption in his July 25th phone call that got his ass in the hot grease, except when he talked about his chief rival, challenging his seat.
There is nothing in the transcript that is remotely close to a quid pro quo, nothing.This is just another waste of taxpayer money for the showboating Dems for TV time considering what will happen in the Senate.
How hard can it be to pass a" bipartisan " bill when the Dems have a substantial majority in the House.
Monte ,I guess you supported Eric Holder when he defied the House to turn over records they wanted. That was probably a witch hunt also.I will defend your right to not like Trump but you’re as bad as the media with the name calling and deep personal hatred
Well OF COURSE THERE IS.
Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said in his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee. “The answer is yes.”
And Sondland was Trump’s buddy…
No, he should have been prosecuted for that. So should Loretta Lynch for meeting B Clinton on the tarmac…
I’m sorry but that comment doesn’t make sense to me. 
The Dems can pass anything they want in the House because of the majority they have. How can their legislationbe considered bi partisan?
Having the majority is not what makes bipartisan legislation possible, support from the other side does.
Nope, emoluments are gifts or titles of nobility given by foreign governments. Democrats have been trying to criminalize renting a hotel room at market rates as an emolument for years yet nothing related to emoluments appears in the bill of impeachment. 
Democrats are attempting to broaden the criteria for impeachment to the highly subjective “personal benefit” packaging this radical ad hoc amendment to the Constitution as a patriotic defense of the Republic and the rule of law when this would create a parliamentary system of government where Congress could simply use impeachment as a vote of no confidence. 
1 Like
Under questioning Sondland stated he had no direct knowledge of a QPQ. He “presumed” President Trump wanted one. Naturally this part of his testimony is excluded from consideration by the impeach at all costs Resistance Democrats. 
In later testimony about the overheard cafe telephone conversation with President Trump he vigorously denied a QPQ going on to state all he wanted was for the Ukrainian President to do the right thing. The right thing being carry out his campaign promise to fight the notorious Ukrainian corruption. President Trump having just emerged from the 2 year ordeal of the Mueller witchhunt was understandably upset at Resistance Democrats starting another investigation based on a false premise. 
1 Like
Here’s the honest answer.
- The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
- Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970), Congressional Record , vol. 116, p. 11913.
[quote=“AZRWinger, post:71, topic:6179”]
Under questioning Sondland stated he had no direct knowledge of a QPQ. He “presumed” President Trump wanted one. Naturally this part of his testimony is excluded from consideration by the impeach at all costs Resistance Democrats.
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said…
Mr. Trump initially strongly denied there was any quid pro quo involving Ukraine, and numerous Republicans took up that refrain. But as the inquiry has unfolded, he and Republican lawmakers have gradually begun to move away from that position. Instead they have adopted the argument that a president insisting on a quid pro quo from a foreign government to benefit himself politically may be of concern, but it is not — in the words of Mr. Trump himself — “an impeachable event.”
This is not impeachment, this is a coup. The DEMS have been trying to overthrow our legally elected President. This has been treason. Hope they’ve been watching the UK elections.
1 Like
No sweetie, this is exactly what an impeachment is supposed to look like. Don’t let Faux News get that pretty little mind if you assault twisted up too much.
1 Like
So when you claimed the Constitution prohibits the President from conducting foreign policy for his “personal benefit” were you being other than honest? 
If what Jerry Ford said was accurate we’d live in a parliamentary system with the President subservient to the whim of Congress. Instead, our Constitition specifies a narrow basis for impeachment.
Does the constitution provide for income tax, a blue water navy or an expidionary army? How about the various forms of welfare, social security, Medicare and Medicaid and a host of other social services. The constitution is ambiguous on the rules and definition of impeachment leaving a whole lot of congressional discretion.
The Clinton impeachment began with an investigation into a real estate deal before Clinton was president and then the suicide of Vince Foster, then continued on for over four years, from early in his first term to mid second term, ending with catching him in a lie about a blow job. The republicans worked to overturn the election of Bill Clinton.
Don’t give me any shit about process, rule of law or constitutional precedent. Y’all act like a bunch of HYPOCRITES!!!
No mention of Sondland’s admission that he presumed the President had conditioned aid on an investigation. Neither is President Trump’s explicit denial of an QPQ accounted for.
Instead of reasoned discussion you hide behind an editorial from the Trump hating NYT masked by a pay wall.
I didn’t pay anything to read it A, and 2, all I posted was a direct quote from Sondland, a trump enthusiast who bought his ambassadorship, but even he couldn’t stomach the presidents abuse of power.
And btw, Mc Connell has already declared the verdict, before a trial that he acknowledged will be run by the WH lawyers. But EVERYBODY knew going into this two months ago that Trump would be acquitted by his accomplices in the senate.
You are the one claiming the Constitution prohibits Presidents from personal benefits from foreign policy. The rhetorical questions about what else is included or not in the Constitution is irrelevant to your claim.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to the grand jury. That’s a high crime satisfying the Constitutional requirement for impeachment.
The Constitutional requirements for impeachment are clear. They don’t include nebulous complaints like “abuse of power” or worse, exercising the legal right of executive privilege with no attempt by Congress to resolve the issue.