IF You notice in the congress, and senate on almost every level now the liberal left is stacked with people who are not from this country or from Indian, Muslim or communists countries, and those who are not have bent knee to these people because yes folks they're making MILLIONS from selling out this country. We the people spoke loud when we elected Donald Trump last November back into office as this sort of inside JOB they were enacting under the Biden/Harris/Obama coup was finally being seen by so many people that the election was to big to rig. We won the Senate, House, and White House. Mid terms coming up soon and we must keep kicking these leftists out... One name we all need to include is Indian born Democrat Rep. Shri Thanedar who is another insane liberal and he just introduced seven articles of impeachment OF President Trump.
The Indian-born Democrat is accusing Trump of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and other accusations. "Donald Trump has already done real damage to our democracy, but defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, That has to be the final straw." Now check out the video below folks, and no TRUMP didn't defy the court ruling he just did the right chess move, and beat the game so these people are upset. So watch this unhinged lunatic on video. Remember Trump got impeached 7 times during his first term and 2 went all the way past the first level so President Donald Trump was impeached twice during his single term in office. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate.
Now we had someone from the left come forward and address this and well it looks like much like the party this is a DEAD ISSUE... The chair of the House Democratic Caucus on Tuesday rejected the efforts in the party to impeach President Trump. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) did not go so far as to say that Trump has not committed impeachable offenses in his first 100 days back in office. But with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate, Aguilar suggested the move is simply impractical. “Impeachment is, at times, a tool that can be used. This president is no stranger to that; he’s been impeached twice,” Aguilar told reporters in the Capitol. “But we don’t have any confidence that House and Senate Republicans would do their jobs. And so this is not an exercise that we’re willing to undertake.”
A day earlier, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) filed seven articles of impeachment against Trump for actions he’s taken since January, including the wrongful deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador and efforts to slash government spending without congressional approval. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), another sharp Trump critic who looks like a caveman and someone who has never heard of things like a shower, has said he also plans to file impeachment articles at some point. The impeachment talk has ramped up amid liberal criticisms that Capitol Hill Democrats haven’t been aggressive enough in combating Trump in the early months of his second term. Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), have rejected that characterization, pointing to a host of actions from field hearings and rallies, to sit-ins and town halls in GOP districts that Democrats have conducted to get their message out to voters.
“And we’re going to continue to show up, stand up and speak up in a variety of ways inside the Capitol, outside the Capitol, on the Capitol steps, in Democratic districts and Republican districts and throughout America,” Jeffries said Monday. Yet all these efforts to take down a President when people in actual need of help for disabilities, and other help that these people could spend their time working on they rather spend our tax payer money on this garbage. Then these liberals wonder why they have lost the voters? Why we voted in a RED WAVE in November? But Aguilar on Tuesday offered a similar message, saying Democrats will focus their energies on highlighting the unpopular elements of Trump’s policy agenda including Medicaid cuts and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans rather than impeachment. Which is the right thing for them to do.
“Right now, we will deal with the tools in front of us,” Aguilar said. “The policies that he and House Republicans have placed forward which are reckless cuts to the health care system, to our supplemental nutrition that is relied on by women and children and families across this country those are the policies that we’re going to push back against. “And those are the items that the American public is paying attention to.” Let's hope that there is some sanity left in the decaying party known as the Democratic Party. But let's take a look back at how the past impeachments of Trump went.
The first impeachment trial stemmed from a call President Trump had with the President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine in which President Trump asked the Ukrainian President to announce two investigations: one involving his potential opponent in the upcoming 2020 presidential election and a second into unsubstantiated allegations that entities within Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election.1 At the time of the call, the Office of Management and Budget had frozen $400 million in military aid to Ukraine at the direction of the President.2 The contents of the call initially came to light through an intelligence community whistle blower report, but a summary of the call was later made public by President Trump. And proved that he never mentioned any of these things and simply asked "President Volodymyr Zelenskyy" to help end corruption in his country and to investigate what happened with "Cloudstrike" ...
The House investigation proceeded in two phases. The fact-finding portion of the investigation was primarily handled by the House Intelligence Committee, in cooperation with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The early stage of this phase of the investigation saw some controversy over whether the House must explicitly authorize the initiation of an impeachment investigation. Although the Speaker of the House had announced that the committee investigations constituted an official impeachment inquiry, the White House counsel objected to the investigations on the ground that the investigation lacked the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding and violated the Due Process Clause.
As a result, the President instructed members of his administration not to cooperate with the House’s unconstitutional inquiry. The House later took action to explicitly approve the impeachment investigation by adopting a resolution authorizing the House committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist . . . to impeach Donald John Trump. Nevertheless, the White House and other Executive Branch offices generally refused to comply with the House investigators requests for information, including subpoenas. Some Executive Branch officials, however, made the individual determination to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry and, as a result, the Intelligence Committee was able to hold a number of investigative hearings and issue a report outlining their findings. The record established in the fact finding phase was then provided to the Judiciary Committee.
Phase two of the impeachment investigation was conducted by the Judiciary Committee. This phase focused on whether the President’s conduct, as uncovered in the fact finding phase of the inquiry, constituted an impeachable offense. Following a series of hearings, the Committee recommended two articles of impeachment against the President, both of which were ultimately approved by the House. The first charged the President with abuse of power, alleging that he had used the powers of his office to solicit Ukraine’s interference in the 2020 election and had conditioned official acts, such as the release of military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit, on President Zelenskyy agreeing to announce the investigations. President Trump, the article alleged, engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. The second article charged the President with obstruction of the House impeachment investigation by directing the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives.
This abuse of office, the article alleged, was subversive of constitutional government and nullif[ied] a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives. Although the impeachment articles were adopted by the House on December 18, 2019, the managers were not appointed and the articles not delivered to the Senate until January 15, 2020. The Senate trial was characterized by deep partisan divides and complicated disagreements over questions of law and fact, including presidential motive. But one clear constitutional conflict that arose during the trial involved the proper relationship between impeachment and criminal law. Trial briefs and debate made clear that the House managers and President Trump’s attorneys reached very different conclusions on the question of whether high crimes and misdemeanors require evidence of a criminal act or other legal violation.14 The House, consistent with past impeachment practice, asserted that for purposes of Article II high Crimes and Misdemeanors need not be indictable criminal offenses.
In response, however, the President’s attorneys asserted that an impeachable offense must be a violation of established law, and that the articles fail[ed] to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution. The acquittal provided no clear resolution to these conflicting positions, but the debate over a link between illegal acts and impeachable acts appears to have had some impact on individual Senators. Indeed, the House’s managers’ failure to allege an explicit criminal act appears, along with criticism of the House investigation and failure of the House to prove its case, to have been among the primary reasons given for acquittal.
As the Senate trial proceeded, it became apparent that a major point of contention would be whether the Senate would call its own witnesses. The House managers asked that the Senate authorize subpoenas for relevant Executive Branch documents and for testimony from various White House officials including former National Security Advisor John Bolton.18 With only forty-nine Senators voting in favor, the Senate chose not to approve that request, and the record was limited to the evidence provided by the House. Ultimately, the Senate acquitted President Trump on both counts. Article I failed by a vote of 48-52 while Article II failed by a vote of 47-53.
The second Trump impeachment occurred a year later in the waning days of the Trump presidency following the events on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in which some supporters of President Trump attempted to disrupt the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election as having been won by Joseph Biden. The House moved quickly following those events. Passing on an investigation, the Judiciary Committee staff compiled publicly available evidence relating to the President’s actions on January 6 and within one week had introduced and approved a single article of impeachment charging the President with incitement to insurrection. Specifically, the article alleged that in the months running up to January 6th the President had consistently issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people. He then repeated those claims when addressing a crowd on January 6, and willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged and foreseeable resulted in lawless action at the Capitol. . . . Notably, although the House ultimately impeached President Trump prior to the expiration of his term, the Senate did not commence a trial until after President Trump had left office.
As the Senate trial proceeded, it became apparent that a major point of contention would be whether the Senate would call its own witnesses. The House managers asked that the Senate authorize subpoenas for relevant Executive Branch documents and for testimony from various White House officials including former National Security Advisor John Bolton.18 With only forty-nine Senators voting in favor, the Senate chose not to approve that request, and the record was limited to the evidence provided by the House. Ultimately, the Senate acquitted President Trump on both counts. Article I failed by a vote of 48-52 while Article II failed by a vote of 47-53.
The second Trump impeachment occurred a year later in the waning days of the Trump presidency following the events on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in which some supporters of President Trump attempted to disrupt the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election as having been won by Joseph Biden. The House moved quickly following those events. Passing on an investigation, the Judiciary Committee staff compiled publicly available evidence relating to the President’s actions on January 6 and within one week had introduced and approved a single article of impeachment charging the President with incitement to insurrection. Specifically, the article alleged that in the months running up to January 6th the President had consistently issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people. He then repeated those claims when addressing a crowd on January 6, and willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged and foreseeable resulted in lawless action at the Capitol. . . . Notably, although the House ultimately impeached President Trump prior to the expiration of his term, the Senate did not commence a trial until after President Trump had left office.
The Senate trial saw the chamber make two important threshold determinations regarding trials of former Presidents. First, although the Constitution clearly requires the Chief Justice to preside over presidential impeachment trials, the Senate implicitly determined that that requirement does not extend to the trial of a former President. At the opening of the trial, Senator Patrick Leahy, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, was sworn in as presiding officer without objection.
The Senate also made the threshold determination of whether it had the constitutional authority to try a former President. After briefing and debate on the question of whether the Senate had jurisdiction over a former President for acts that occurred during his tenure in office, the Senate explicitly determined by a vote of 56-44 that it did. Thus a majority of Senators, as they have on previous occasions, determined that former officials may be tried by the Senate and, though not removable, remain subject to disqualification from holding future office if convicted. With respect to whether the President had committed an impeachable offense, the main substantive question during the trial arguably revolved around the proper application of the First Amendment.
The Senate also made the threshold determination of whether it had the constitutional authority to try a former President. After briefing and debate on the question of whether the Senate had jurisdiction over a former President for acts that occurred during his tenure in office, the Senate explicitly determined by a vote of 56-44 that it did. Thus a majority of Senators, as they have on previous occasions, determined that former officials may be tried by the Senate and, though not removable, remain subject to disqualification from holding future office if convicted. With respect to whether the President had committed an impeachable offense, the main substantive question during the trial arguably revolved around the proper application of the First Amendment.
The former President’s attorneys invoked the First Amendment as a defense to the impeachment charge, asserting that free speech protections apply and limit the conduct that can be considered an impeachable offense. The President’s political statements at the rally, his attorneys argued, constituted core free speech under the First Amendment and thus not an impeachable offense.
The House managers disagreed, arguing that The First Amendment has no application in an impeachment proceeding because impeachment does not seek to punish unlawful speech, but instead to protect the Nation from a President who violated his oath of office and abused the public trust. Moreover, even if the First Amendment did restrict the impeachment power, it still would not protect President Trump’s calls to violence, which the managers asserted fell within the well-established category of unprotected speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
In the end, the First Amendment arguments made by the former President’s attorneys do not appear to have had an impact on Senators, as only one Senator who voted to acquit the former President mentioned the First Amendment in the formal explanation of his vote. Although a majority of Senators voted to convict, former President Trump was ultimately acquitted by a vote of 57-43.
In the end, the First Amendment arguments made by the former President’s attorneys do not appear to have had an impact on Senators, as only one Senator who voted to acquit the former President mentioned the First Amendment in the formal explanation of his vote. Although a majority of Senators voted to convict, former President Trump was ultimately acquitted by a vote of 57-43.
