Democratic Congressman Al Green from the great state of Texas took it upon himself to bring forth articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump Friday morning. Although six Democrat congressmen had already previously listed many charges against the president in December articles, including obstruction of justice, a violation of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a violation of the Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary process and undermining the press.
None of these accusations have any basis in kind of reality. Green described the president as a racist and a bigot on Friday, which he said is further proof of the divisiveness of the Trump White House. House lawmakers voted to postpone the impeachment effort for up to two legislative days, as the debate to avert a government shutdown rages in the Senate.
They can postpone all they want. The truth is that they have nothing going on and they know it.
Is Congressman Green wrong? President Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He was not ever called that during very his long career. He’s in his early 70’s and the first time he was called racist was when he began defeating Republican candidates for the Presidency. Democrats utilize the “racist” tactic as a means of battling right-wing believers. If being racist was illegal then Obama may have been in prison years ago for purveying, indirectly, hatred towards white people, particularly police officers. President Trump is putting Americans first, and that doesn’t necessarily require someone to be racist, it just means they love their country, and ALL of the wonderful, beautiful, legal people who contribute, pay taxes and work hard.
The Democrat party faces an uphill battle with the impending release of the FISA memo. It’s understandable that they desperately grasp at straws to deflect from the fact that it was their party, Barack Hussein Obama, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who may be tried for treason against our great nation.
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) January 19, 2018
Critics would need to settle on one argument
The Constitution states that a president can be impeached if convicted of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Those looking to impeach Trump would need to show he has done something that falls into one of those categories — which requires more evidence.
While treason and bribery are defined by the Constitution and by federal law, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a less specific charge. Gerhardt said the framers intended it to refer to “political crimes,” including abuses of power or other offenses against the United States. “They don’t have to be technically criminal things — things for which someone could go to prison — but they do have to reach a certain level of seriousness,” he said.
Some of Trump’s critics have argued that his business dealings are in violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the President from accepting gifts from foreign leaders or governments. Others, including Waters, have argued that the ties between Russia and Trump’s team are signs of wrongdoing. Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, maintains that the Trump University lawsuits provide grounds for impeachment and thinks there’s already a “fairly solid” case to be made.
But for Trump’s opponents to realistically pursue impeachment, they would likely need to focus on investigating one offense and making a specific, formal accusation of wrongdoing.
There would need to be more evidence
Right now, arguments for impeachment are resting on potentially flimsy claims.
While there are mounting questions about potential coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russian interests, no concrete conclusions have been reached.
“So far there hasn’t been a clear smoking gun,” Peterson said.
The House would need to decide there are grounds for impeachment
Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives, where lawmakers can introduce an impeachment resolution or a resolution authorizing an investigation into whether grounds for impeachment exist. If a House committee determines that there are grounds for impeachment, a resolution with a formal accusation of misconduct is presented to the full House for a vote.
In order to impeach a president, that resolution must pass the House by a simple majority. When the President’s own party has control of Congress — as Republicans do now — that’s a difficult bar to clear. If a vote were to take place today, when there are five vacancies in the House, all 193 Democrats and 23 Republicans would need to vote for impeachment in order for it to pass.
“Impeachment is always difficult. It’s designed to be difficult,” Gerhardt said. “That’s the nature of the process, the nature of the constitutional design.”
Only two presidents in U.S. history have been impeached: Clinton in 1998 on charges of lying under oath to a federal grand jury, and Andrew Johnson in 1868 on charges of violating the Tenure of Office Act by firing the Secretary of War.
The Senate would need to find the President guilty
In order to actually be removed from office, the President must then be convicted by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
An impeachment trial could backfire. During Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, public opinion of Republicans fell, while Democrats and Clinton experienced a surge. When asked whether they wanted Clinton or the GOP “to have more influence over the nation,” Americans were evenly split between the two in September 1998, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. But by the time Clinton was impeached in December of that year, the gap had widened significantly. While 60% said they wanted Clinton to have more influence, just 31% said the same for the GOP.
The proceedings also had the unintended effect of sending Clinton’s approval ratings to an all-time high.”
One year into Trump’s presidency and the left wing complaints continue. The leftists often refuse to accept the President and move on to more productive things. Please share if you want this anti-Trump movement end and people can be more productive in politics.