General Discussion

Siwsan

(26,259 posts)

7. If things get too hot, I wonder if he'd pull a Nixon

Reply to aeromanKC (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:20 PM

Jan 2019

I can't see him wanting to go through an impeachment hearing. I seriously don't think he's capable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. We have it. We need to use it. [View all] Siwsan Jan 2019 OP

This looks very applicable to our current situation. I'm in favor. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2019 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2019 #2

Damn. I hadn't considered what that psycho might do to get his revenge Siwsan Jan 2019 #4

Wouldn't impeachment in the House at least damage his re-election chancea? Lonestarblue Jan 2019 #25

Honestly I doubt it would cause any further damage to his chances. cstanleytech Jan 2019 #28

I don't think it's tantamount to accepting Codeine Jan 2019 #29

The remedy. mountain grammy Jan 2019 #3

Political malpractice for House to NOT impeach aeromanKC Jan 2019 #5

If things get too hot, I wonder if he'd pull a Nixon Siwsan Jan 2019 #7

Would claim victim status aeromanKC Jan 2019 #11

I could see it. BadgerMom Jan 2019 #12

The second bit is not in the Constitution. TomSlick Jan 2019 #6

I think that is just the explanation of what is meant by that term Siwsan Jan 2019 #9

The problem is, it isn't a good definition. TomSlick Jan 2019 #14

Well, I didn't author it - just shared it Siwsan Jan 2019 #18

That is incorrect Fiendish Thingy Jan 2019 #30

I'm unconvinced. TomSlick Jan 2019 #34

That's not the only source that takes that position Fiendish Thingy Jan 2019 #43

Whose explanation? kst Jan 2019 #35

It appears to be from "Rude and Rotten Republicans" sl8 Jan 2019 #37

To each their own Siwsan Jan 2019 #39

Re: To each their own kst Jan 2019 #45

I guess you could look it up Siwsan Jan 2019 #52

Re: I guess you could look it up kst Jan 2019 #53

I am not the one questioning it, so....... Siwsan Jan 2019 #54

Yeah that's a huge wtf? Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #49

Check, check, check and check. B Stieg Jan 2019 #8

Article II, Sect. 4 is ONLY this BumRushDaShow Jan 2019 #10

Sadly, you are right. Too bad we, the people, can't charge the senate with dereliction of duty. Siwsan Jan 2019 #15

"Without definition, it's just a string of words." BumRushDaShow Jan 2019 #19

We are living in strange, dangerous and frightening times, that's for sure. Siwsan Jan 2019 #20

I have posted before that BumRushDaShow Jan 2019 #23

"... refusal to obey a lawful order."? sl8 Jan 2019 #13

It's a part of what is meant by 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Kind of a catch all definition. Siwsan Jan 2019 #16

Although I am not in the military, it almost looks like something that is part of military code BumRushDaShow Jan 2019 #21

Plucked from ass. Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #51

Yep, trump is guilty Miigwech Jan 2019 #17

This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Jan 2019 #22

People shouldn't add unlabeled editorial content Codeine Jan 2019 #24

Agreed. That's disturbing jberryhill Jan 2019 #26

+1 onenote Jan 2019 #47

CONDUCT UNBECOMING Martin Eden Jan 2019 #27

The remedy is to stomp Republicans into oblivion in 2020. Pepsidog Jan 2019 #31

+1000 nt littlemissmartypants Jan 2019 #38

Looks like The Asset checks every box in the second paragraph to qualify. calimary Jan 2019 #32

No doubt Siwsan Jan 2019 #33

The second paragraph is totally made up and without any legal effect or significance. onenote Jan 2019 #48

AOT, K! OMGWTF Jan 2019 #36

Afghanistan, Belarus, and Montenegro ffr Jan 2019 #40

Exactly! He must be removed and NOW! ecstatic Jan 2019 #41

He only cares bdamomma Jan 2019 #44

High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Donald debsy Jan 2019 #42

k and r Stuart G Jan 2019 #46

K&R ck4829 Jan 2019 #50