The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on November 15, 2017, 12:21:05 PM

Title: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: CC27 on November 15, 2017, 12:21:05 PM
Quote
DonViejo (34,157 posts)

House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump


Source: The Hill




BY JOHN BOWDEN - 11/15/17 09:51 AM EST

Four House Democrats introduced articles of impeachment targeting President Trump on Wednesday, asserting that Trump has violated the Constitution.

Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and Al Green (D-Texas) said the five articles of impeachment come out of "concern" for the country's national security.

"We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution, and we've introduced five articles of impeachment," Cohen said at a press conference.

The articles target Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey, perceived violations of the Emoluments Clause, as well as actions "undermining" the judiciary and freedom of the press.

(https://twitter.com/RepGutierrez/status/930807502710755328/photo/1)

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/360455-house-democrats-introduce-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141914568

DUmmies are creaming themselves in this thread.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Carl on November 15, 2017, 12:30:54 PM
Quote
Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 15, 2017, 12:09 PM

Gothmog (45,312 posts)
48. These impeachment efforts will be fun to watch

This fat mongrel actually claims to be a lawyer too.  :lmao:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: BadCat on November 15, 2017, 12:43:19 PM
Time to buy stock in Kleenex and hand lotion.

I so love it when they're disappointed.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: SVPete on November 15, 2017, 01:24:04 PM
Speaker Ryan should call for an immediate vote. Make D Reps put their votes where their mouth is.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: 67 Rover on November 15, 2017, 01:29:19 PM
Speaker Ryan should call for an immediate vote. Make D Reps put their votes where their mouth is.

Yep. This^


H5
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: FiddyBeowulf on November 15, 2017, 01:38:25 PM
Quote
Cohen said he's not seeking a vote on his resolution, but only urging hearings from the Judiciary Committee.
DUmmies, if he is not asking for vote it is just for show to gin up support (fund raising) from you window lickers.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Old n Grumpy on November 15, 2017, 01:56:50 PM
Time to buy stock in Kleenex and hand lotion.

I so love it when they're disappointed.

Definitely, they spend all their time & energy jerking off.  :thatsright: :lmao:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Skul on November 15, 2017, 03:10:52 PM
Time to buy stock in Kleenex and hand lotion.

I so love it when they're disappointed.

Mix in the concentrated juice from several Caroĺina Reaper peppers.
In my best Yoda voice. ---->  "Scream at the sky, they will."
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: I_B_Perky on November 15, 2017, 05:33:14 PM
Personally I think the house leadership ought to move on it and bring it to the floor, then all the GOP Reps should abstain and let it happen.  Then we will see what the senate has to say. If I recall it takes 3/4 to convict. 


What this will do is not result in President Trump getting kicked out of office and take any future effort off the table unless the man actually commits a crime.

Oh and maybe it just may cost the dems a bunch of senate seats next year.

I believe the American people are getting tired of this stupidity.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: DLR Pyro on November 15, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Personally I think the house leadership ought to move on it and bring it to the floor, then all the GOP Reps should abstain and let it happen.  Then we will see what the senate has to say. If I recall it takes 3/4 to convict. 


What this will do is not result in President Trump getting kicked out of office and take any future effort off the table unless the man actually commits a crime.

Oh and maybe it just may cost the dems a bunch of senate seats next year.

I believe the American people are getting tired of this stupidity.

Yes, The stock market is up, unemployment is down, jobs are coming back to America. 

Outside their politically poisoned bubble, mainstream America couldn't give a crap about their mental masturbation fantasies.

Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: I_B_Perky on November 15, 2017, 08:19:51 PM
Yes, The stock market is up, unemployment is down, jobs are coming back to America. 

Outside their politically poisoned bubble, mainstream America couldn't give a crap about their mental masturbation fantasies.

Yep.  Some energy company in China just signed a memo of understanding to invest 80 some billion over the next 20 years in the state of WV's energy industry.  That is 80 billion with a B.  That would never have occurred under any other president.

President Trump got the chinese running scared. Got the mexicans running scared. Hell he even got the canadians running scared.  The days of unfair trade is over and all President Trump had to do was tweet that he was gonna put an end to it.

That, it seems, was all that was needed.  Seems that his unpredicatability is turning into an asset for the country... and the DC swamp cries, stamps their feet and shows the USA just who they really represent... and it ain't the people that elected them.

I'll admit I did not like the man, thought he was not serious, and would be a disaster. I also admit I was wrong.  He got my vote in 2020.

The man just does not back down to anybody and I like that.   :yahoo:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Old n Grumpy on November 16, 2017, 08:34:24 AM
So other than making America great again and cleaning up the mess you libs made, What exactly is the crime? :mental: :thatsright:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: DLR Pyro on November 16, 2017, 08:47:43 AM
So other than making America great again and cleaning up the mess you libs made, What exactly is the crime? :mental: :thatsright:

he has SRWMS.......  Successful Rich White Male Syndrome
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: SVPete on November 16, 2017, 09:13:48 AM
he has SRWMS.......  Successful Rich White Male Syndrome

And is spreading it, and not just to white people.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Old n Grumpy on November 16, 2017, 09:17:34 AM
And is spreading it, and not just to white people.

They are worried that blacks will discover it was democrats under those sheets. :thatsright:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: sneakypete on November 17, 2017, 06:19:55 AM
And to think that in 8 whole years they could find no reason to impeach Clinton,and he was even convicted of a federal felony.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: SVPete on November 17, 2017, 07:05:36 AM
And to think that in 8 whole years they could find no reason to impeach Clinton,and he was even convicted of a federal felony.

When was Clinton tried for anything in criminal court?
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Bad Dog on November 17, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
When was Clinton tried for anything in criminal court?

Plea bargain, false testimony before a Federal Judge (deposition in Jones case).  Also, large cash settlement to Jones and loss of law license.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: SVPete on November 17, 2017, 10:17:15 AM
Plea bargain, false testimony before a Federal Judge (deposition in Jones case).  Also, large cash settlement to Jones and loss of law license.

The Paula Jones case was in civil court. Clinton was sanctioned, but I don't recall there being a criminal case arising from his false testimony in the civil case.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on November 17, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote
Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 15, 2017, 12:09 PM

Gothmog (45,312 posts)
48. These impeachment efforts will be fun to watch

Oh, indeed...just not in the way you think!

 :popcorn:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: sneakypete on November 17, 2017, 10:59:33 AM
When was Clinton tried for anything in criminal court?

@SVPete

He either plead guilty to,or was found guilty of perjury for lying to a grand jury. He had his license to practice law revoked as a result,and had to pay a small fine.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: SVPete on November 17, 2017, 11:30:09 AM
In what criminal court did Clinton plead guilty to anything? It's not a tough question.

Yes, Clinton was sanctioned by the Paula Jones civil court. Civil and criminal courts are two different systems. That's Business Law 101 information, literally.

Clinton lost his license to practice law in AR. That was an administrative action, not a criminal court action.

Clinton lost his ability to practice law before the US Supreme Court. That was a consequence of losing his AR law license.

 If I've forgotten an actual criminal case against Clinton, well and good. Give me a link. But if I'm correct, why give DU-types grounds to mock our "ignorance"?
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: sneakypete on November 17, 2017, 12:25:43 PM
In what criminal court did Clinton plead guilty to anything? It's not a tough question.

Yes, Clinton was sanctioned by the Paula Jones civil court. Civil and criminal courts are two different systems. That's Business Law 101 information, literally.

Clinton lost his license to practice law in AR. That was an administrative action, not a criminal court action.

Clinton lost his ability to practice law before the US Supreme Court. That was a consequence of losing his AR law license.

 If I've forgotten an actual criminal case against Clinton, well and good. Give me a link. But if I'm correct, why give DU-types grounds to mock our "ignorance"?

@SVPete

Your argument is much akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Criminal Court or Civil Court,it makes no difference. He plead guilty to perjury and as a result lost his law license. He also had to pay out an enormous about of damage money to settle the suit filed by Paula Jones.

Anytime the Dims want to talk trash to us about this issue,we can hit them with that and they can't deny it.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: FlaGator on November 17, 2017, 12:34:37 PM
I think the title should read "House Dems waste time and tax dollars in pursuit of something irrelevant."
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Old n Grumpy on November 17, 2017, 03:10:24 PM
President Trump is guilty of saying "God bless you and God bless America" after his speeches. That is a violation of separation of church and state., And several other constitutional amendments. As well as offending atheists, liberals, progressives and a whole other assortment of assholes.

For these high crimes and misdemeanors several upstanding dipshits will have him impeached and have HiLIARY installed as president. :mental:
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Bad Dog on November 17, 2017, 11:44:32 PM
In what criminal court did Clinton plead guilty to anything? It's not a tough question.

Yes, Clinton was sanctioned by the Paula Jones civil court. Civil and criminal courts are two different systems. That's Business Law 101 information, literally.

Clinton lost his license to practice law in AR. That was an administrative action, not a criminal court action.

Clinton lost his ability to practice law before the US Supreme Court. That was a consequence of losing his AR law license.

 If I've forgotten an actual criminal case against Clinton, well and good. Give me a link. But if I'm correct, why give DU-types grounds to mock our "ignorance"?

I reread this entire thread and found no claim of a conviction in a criminal court.  He was found guilty of contempt for giving false testimony before Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright.  She fined him $90,686 and court costs and made a referral to the AR Bar Assn.  Guilty of contempt for giving false testimony is a conviction.
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: Wineslob on November 18, 2017, 12:43:31 AM
(https://slm-assets1.secondlife.com/assets/9840960/view_large/willywonka.jpg?1402778691)
Title: Re: House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
Post by: SVPete on November 18, 2017, 11:37:33 AM
I reread this entire thread and found no claim of a conviction in a criminal court.  He was found guilty of contempt for giving false testimony before Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright.  She fined him $90,686 and court costs and made a referral to the AR Bar Assn.  Guilty of contempt for giving false testimony is a conviction.

Here's what sneakypete posted:

Quote
And to think that in 8 whole years they could find no reason to impeach Clinton,and he was even convicted of a federal felony.

You see that phrase I emphasized? Especially that word I enlarged? Criminal courts have the jurisdiction to convict people of felonies (or misdemeanors), not civil courts. The Paula Jones case was tried in civil court, and Judge Wright's ruling that Clinton was in contempt of court (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/clinton-guilty-of-contempt-in-jones-case-1086974.html) was in civil court. For Clinton's contempt of court to have been a felony conviction there would have had to be a trial in criminal court, which there was not.