After Contentious Debate, House Judiciary Votes To Advance Articles of Impeachment Against Trump

The motion passed along party lines.


Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted Friday morning to advance articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The move came after hours of debate on Wednesday and Thursday as the committee sparred over the merits of the articles, with Republicans introducing a series of amendments, all of which were denied along party lines. Trump is hurtling toward impeachment amid allegations that he withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announcing public probes into his political rivals. Specifically, Trump wanted Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma Holdings, the energy company where former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board, and look into a highly criticized theory that Ukraine executed a major 2016 election interference scheme to help Democrats.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) sought to strike the first article entirely. "Article one in this resolution ignores the truth, ignores the facts, ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American people over the last three weeks," he said. There was no quid pro quo, Jordan maintained, although Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that there was a well-understood exchange in place with respect to the desired White House meeting. Jordan also continued to drive home that the investigations in question never took place, a point that the minority party repeatedly made during the initial hearings. 

"I think the tougher challenge is the question of what explains why the money eventually got delivered," Keith Whittington, a political scientist at Princeton, told me last month. "We may not want to give them a lot of credit for eventually coming to their senses and trying to release the funds, especially if we think that why they're doing it was because they got caught."

Jordan also urged the committee to erase language that says Trump should be removed from office, which Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–New York) said was a "silly" suggestion.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R–Penn.) fought to have the second article removed, asserting that Trump has not obstructed congressional investigators from conducting their inquiry. Democrats cite the president's refusal to release certain documents and let witnesses testify, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former national security adviser John Bolton.

Reps. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) and Andy Biggs (R–Ariz.) each introduced an amendment as well. The former requested that "Burisma and Hunter Biden" supplant the mention of Joe Biden, which he called "the true topic" of the desired probe. (A White House rough transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy shows the president mentioning both men.) 

Gaetz invoked the younger Biden's history of drug abuse as he sought to characterize his business relationship with Burisma as rife with corruption. "I don't want to make light of anybody's substance abuse issues, I know the president is working real hard to solve those throughout the country," he said, "but it's a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car." In response, Rep. Hank Johnson (D–Ga.) reminded Gaetz of his 2008 arrest on drunk driving charges.

Biggs asked that language be inserted to add that the aid block was "consistent with administration policy to ensure foreign aid is not used for corrupt purposes," although Ukraine had already met all of the necessary anti-corruption benchmarks to receive the aid before it was withheld. The articles of impeachment currently state that Trump released the security assistance package when "faced with the public revelation of his actions," referring to the whistleblower report and the press attention that followed.

The articles will soon head to the House floor for a full vote, likely to take place next week.

NEXT: U.K. Election: Brexit Wins, Jeremy Corbyn Crashes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This would make a good History Channel documentary,. Call it ‘Looking for Hitler’. Or ,’ Hitler on trial’.

  2. If a whistleblower hadn’t stepped up and set this ball in motion, we would still be seeing President Trump at his rallies screaming about the Ukrainian government’s interference in the election and the corruption of Joe Biden — and the mainstream media would be chasing the story like it was a private email server. Team Trump was only days away from getting away with it.

    From the moment he stepped on to that  escalator in June of 2015, Donald Trump’s unethical, illegal and immoral behavior has been leading toward this day. Assuming that the full House votes to impeach and sends the case to the Senate, his name will always have the scarlet asterisk next to it as the third president in U.S. history to be impeached, a fact which reportedly upsets him greatly. In a just world, he would be the first president to be impeached, convicted and removed from office. That’s not the world in which we live, unfortunately.

    1. Fanfic is always bad, as a rule.

    2. Another fail.

    3. Oh hey look Salon, I love fiction!

    4. //That’s not the world in which we live, unfortunately.//

      At least you have enough sense to realize how delusional you are.

    5. You’re broken.

    6. Yeah, that’s it. Thanks for the stunning insight.

    7. Did this clown just cite Salon? YGBSM….

    8. Hey everybody! Pod reads Salon!

    9. True. Thanks to Pelosi, lost more people now know about Biden’s corruption, his son’s misbehavior, and the fact that Ukraine tried to influence the election in Hillary’s favor.

  3. The motion passed along party lines.
    That’s how you know it’s super cereal.

    1. The founders were smart enough to require a 2/3 vote at the trial.

  4. Good! There’s no question Trump is hell-bent on destroying our Constitution, our most sacred institutions and our norms of democracy. Just look at how many times he’s advocated carving out exceptions to free speech with hate speech laws, the right to keep and bear arms with strict gun laws, eliminating the electoral college, proportional representation of the states in the Senate, promised a fundamental transformation of our country and our society by replacing capitalism with socialism, criticized the NSA for their sacred duty of spying on every single person on the planet, the FBI for their tradition of being immoral scumbags, the CIA for their proud record of always being wrong about everything, promoted rule by neutral and unbiased un-elected bureaucrats rather than partisan politicians, it just goes on and on and on – Trump clearly hates America and everything she stands for and means to change it all and this is a horrifying and unacceptable vision of what America should be. Impeaching is too good for the bastard, I’d suggest much sterner measures against him and anybody else that believes such things.

    1. I first skipped to the hyphen to catch the conclusion, did a double take, then decided the whole thing was worth it.

      It was. bravo.

    2. Donald Trump is almost Satan.

      Meanwhile Satan wishes he was Bill Belichick

    3. Nice work , I may plagiarize

    4. How dare you assume America is cisgender.

    5. Do you understand the concept of irony, because your post is dripping with rich irony.

      1. Do you understand
        “Fuck off, Hihn”

        1. That’s not hihn

          1. Really?
            Looks like one of his socks.

            1. No, unfortunate name choice for the above.
              LibertyTruthTeller is hihn
              Truthteller1 isn’t, and seems to a more or less rational human being

  5. Walls closing in, biatches!

    1. Does this mean right-wingers are finally about to turn the culture war tide and stop getting curb-stomped by their liberal-libertarian betters?

      This time it’s for real?

      1. That UK election rape you suffered is clearly pissing you off lololol

        1. Ahahahaha I mean, first Trump fucks you up, then you lose to BORIS “Oasis Hair” JOHNSON AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          1. Hicklib sees the fact that he hasn’t won an election in 4 years as more evidence that his ideology is ascendant, like an Adventist after the “Great Disappointment”.

      2. Curb-stomping is a racist act of violence. Stupid clinger.

      3. Whats up with this? Are continually high and drunk?

        1. No, he’s just functionally retarded.

          1. The rev is a parody. It’s not hard to make progs look repugnant, but this guy is next level. We should be applauding him.

      4. Unfortunately for you and your ilk the culture war was won in 2016. Try and keep up.

        1. Truthteller1 seems unfamiliar with the Reverend’s “work” here.

  6. So I watched about 8 hours of this debate yesterday and a few things stood out to me.

    1. Nobody was interested in really discussing whether the articles of impeachment were the best articles, or most truthful articles, that could be voted on.

    2. Democrats are leading a witch hunt, is Trump a witch? I don’t personally think so, but he’s definitely not kosher either.

    Overall I would say I am equally concerned about the democrat’s behavior in congress, especially the forcing of this impeachment. The goalpost for impeachment has been a moving target for them, house judiciary committee chair Jerry Nadler campaigned among his colleagues as being the best guy to lead impeachment proceedings. Ultimately they cite no broken law in the document they passed, nor do I feel they faithfully and accurately represented what I read in the transcripts. The democrats are ultimately hiding behind a vague sense of Trump violating the constitution (as if they don’t do this on 1st and 2nd amendment rights openly and gleefully).

    I mean look, he asked for an investigation into the Bidens, both Joe and Hunter, yet one is left out of the documentation here because it makes democrats look bad if they admit an investigation into Hunter Biden might show that he was involved in Ukrainian corruption during a previous administration. Personally I think this is a very low bar for impeachment we are setting, lest we forget Obama promising Putin a better negotiating position for Putin after his second election. It is a far reach here from what democrats claim of inviting interference in the election, and ultimately no investigation was ever launched.

    I say impeach him in the house, acquit him in the senate and lets get back to actually governing.

    1. and lets get back to actually governing.
      How about we try just leaving me the hell alone?

      1. yeah, here’s hoping for more distractions and fewer new laws.

    2. “lets get back to actually governing”

      The only good to come from any of this is while these morons fuck around, there is no actual governing.

      1. I don’t disagree. But it occurs to me that by this reasoning, these impeachment proceedings are not only unequivocally the best thing to happen during Trump’s presidency, they are the best possible thing.

    3. //I watched about 8 hours of this debate yesterday//

      Jesus …

      1. Same reaction. Why do that to oneself.

    4. lets get back to actually governing.

      Good setup. GREAT punchline. I LOLed.

    5. My favorite was when a Republican asked what crimes had trump committed and Salwell responded it didnt have to be a crime but bribery was one and I believe Goehmert responded with “why did you pull ut out then?”

    6. “Democrats are leading a witch hunt, is Trump a witch? I don’t personally think so, but he’s definitely not kosher either.”

      This is the worst part. Because the dems are so unhinged, they effectively discredit any legitimate criticism of trump’s administration. Their tds is self-defeating.

  7. “lest we forget Obama promising Putin a better negotiating position for Putin after his second election”

    Only Reason and the rest of the corporate press forgets, it’s a convenience thing

    1. *** Response to Snuffleluffagus

  8. They voted to keep on voting.

    Bold move.

  9. Impeachment would ensure that Trump’s historical legacy will be a single line — ‘disruptive, chaotic populist who was impeached.’

    To Trump, however, that might constitute ‘winning’ — because the most likely alternative was to be entirely ignored and forgotten.

    1. Guess we’ll never know, since this transparently desperate attempt by the Regressive Left to once again rewrite history to scapegoat everyone else for the things they’ve done (in this case, particularly Obama and the Clintons) is going to fall flat as soon as it comes to hurdle that the Democrats didn’t build a ramp across.

    2. You, on the other hand Reverend, will have nothing at all in the history books.

      1. He’s still going for that single-line legacy of “asshat”.

    3. “the most likely alternative was to be entirely ignored and forgotten.”

      Really, Art? You think the world would simply forget that a 3-decade Russian intelligence asset became President of the United States?

      You think nobody would remember he literally ran concentration camps and put kids in cages?

      Or that his election directly caused a global recession with no end in sight?

      Your analysis is severely flawed. Drumpf was already set to go down in history as the worst President ever, even before #TrumpUkraine shook the very foundations of our democracy.

      1. I like it. Gave you an 8.5

    4. Disruptive, chaotic populist who was impeached and then re-elected in a landslide as liberals drowned themselves in a sea of wine and SSRI’s.

      1. I guess the Rev is for continuing the 1994 crime bill as it was and animal abuse. The first makes me think he racists, but the second makes me think he’s pro Michael Vicks, so I guess it’s a wash.

    5. The rev is just upset that Trump has been the first president since Carter to not initiate combat activities on foreign soil.

    6. Impeachment is a non-event.

      Removal from office would likely mean that history would record as Trump as the last president before the US got taken over by socialists and progressives, and thereby went down the path to self-destruction.

    7. Haha. Says the guy who repeatedly claims to be “winning”, contrary evidence aside.

      Rev = Charlie sheen.

  10. On the bright side — The R nibble fish critters have introduced an entirely new product line – the MAGA bung hole pedicure.

    Slap some branding on that Mr Donald.

    1. “On the bright side — The R nibble fish critters have introduced an entirely new product line – the MAGA bung hole pedicure.”

      Fucking lefty ignoramuses are still trying for humor which won’t embarrass a 1st-grade kid.
      And failing.

    2. You’re less amusing than Kirkland.

  11. >>>although Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that there was a well-understood exchange in place with respect to the desired White House meeting

    no, he changed his testimony after others tried to refute his original “no qpq” … be a cheerleader fine but at least use the right words

    1. Since there was no trade, there is no qpq. Perhaps you have a case for conspiracy, but that’s not the charge.

      1. Unclear on the concept of inchoate crimes?

    2. Reason has access to none of the live testimony, only the written opening statements. This is the same lie pushed in every article.

  12. “a highly criticized theory that Ukraine executed a major 2016 election interference scheme to help Democrats.”

    I suppose that’s better than describing it as “debunked”, which is the usual Democratic go-to. I don’t know that I’d describe it as “major”, but a Ukrainian court has confirmed it happened, and in violation of Ukrainian law, too.

    Basically everybody interferes in everybody else’s elections, Ukraine would have been fairly unusual if they hadn’t. But they were a bit embarrassed to be caught trying to help the losing candidate, that’s not generally good for a small country’s diplomatic stance.

    1. It’s a conspiracy confirmed by a Ukrainian court.

    2. One thing I’ll never understand is how someone can be for globalism then turn around and act shocked when your elections reveal some ‘foreign interference’.

      Isn’t the whole idea of globalism that there is no such thing as ‘foreign’?

      I suppose we should ask Britain how that worked out for them, but I think they just provided a pretty clear answer.

  13. ::yawn::

    – Jerrold Nadler

    1. Better drink some water before you pass out again …

  14. This is a sad day for our country. It doesn’t matter whether you think these articles are total bullshit or not (they are). I am truly ashamed with the representation we have in the Congress. The whole lot of them, Team D & Team R, are unworthy of the honor of the office they hold. At a time where we need adults as elected leaders, we have crabby toddlers.

    1. The problem is that they don’t get voted out of office frequently enough.

      1. Totally agree. Eliminate their pensions and perks. More will self-select out.

        1. Get rid of congress’s staff and make them actually write laws themselves (and sign the sections they author).

    2. It wasn’t totally sad – watching Nadler puffing up, getting up on his hind legs and start piously lecturing about the separation of powers and Congress’ prerogatives as a check on the Executive after 75 years or so of watching Congress chucking their powers to the Executive as gracelessly and shamefully as they can had me falling off my chair, rolling on the floor and peeing my pants with laughter. This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard, that Congress thinks they’re just as powerful as the President when they willingly and eagerly traded all their powers to the President in exchange for the plausible deniability of ever being held responsible to the voters for a damn thing government ever does.

    3. I will agree that the quality of our leaders is rather poor.
      Venal and self-serving.

      1. Too bad Hillary isn’t President. Right?

        1. IT WAS HER TURN!

        2. I had jeff finally admit this morning he isnt neutral. He still claims to be pro liberty though.

          1. Yes, I “admitted” that I was not something that I never claimed to be in the first place.

            In another shocking admission, I hereby admit that I am not a millionaire. OMG!

            1. So you’re a team blue ass eater …

          2. Jeff is so pro-liberty that he has suggested we look at freedom through the lens of utilitarianism before.

            True story. Much wisdom.

        3. If I had to choose between Hillary and communism…

          Well, we all know which one you chose, right?

          1. I recall you saying on a million occassions that you despise Team Blue and Team Red, and now suddenly your not “neutral,” until we call you out on your partisan hackery in which case you become “neutral” again.

            This is why people abuse you. Your a liar, and you can’t even keep track of your own lies.

  15. “a highly criticized theory that Ukraine executed a major 2016 election interference scheme to help Democrats.”

    To be fair its not clear there was any “major” interference in our election. When you have to mention Russian Facebook trolls to support your narrative that Russia stole the election you are basically full of shit.

    Hillary lost “Oh the horror” is basically it. I wonder how many total $$’s have been wasted on this shit.

    Everyone tries to influence but based on these latest hearings it appears our own FBI did way more interfering than anyone else.

    1. “”Everyone tries to influence but based on these latest hearings it appears our own FBI did way more interfering than anyone else.””


      If they really gave a shit they would pause the impeachment and correct the issues at the FBI.

  16. OK, so they charged him with littering. Did they add ‘creating a nuisance’?

    1. If only we could get a case of good old-fashioned blind justice.

  17. Christmas is coming early this year.

  18. There’s nothing “contentious” about it other than Republicans actively ignoring every piece of the constitution. Power before people or country for them.

    1. The irony from this NPC is so thick it could blot out the sun.

    2. wearingit
      December.13.2019 at 2:07 pm


    3. Hahahahaha

  19. The impeachment articles are virtually certain to pass along party lines in the House, and the Senate trial is virtually certain to acquit along party lines.

    The odd thing is that with such a predetermined scenario, the big wild cards that might make it not go smoothly are Trump himself, who reportedly wants to turn the Senate trial into an anti-Biden spectacle against the better judgment of Senate leaders; Giuliani, who has been over in Ukraine trying to dig up dirt to present what he found to the Senate although Senate leaders reportedly don’t want to hear it; and Parnas, who supposedly can unleash some bombshell.

    1. Senator McConnell has already stated how this trial is going to go. It is not rocket science. He knows that he has the votes.

      The trial will open; and,
      The House Managers will present their case; and,
      The POTUS lawyers will make their case; and,
      No witnesses will be called; and,
      The Senate will deliberate for a few hours; and,
      The Senate will vote and POTUS Trump will be acquitted.

      Probably a week. Then the real fun begins. POTUS Trump will be completely unrestrained. If you think he is insufferable now, wait until he gets going, post-trial.

      1. And Giuliani will be out there, doing his thing, as well.

        1. Would you feel better if it was Fusion GPS or other foreign government ex spooks doing this? Maybe if it got a cool code name like Crossfire Hurricane then you wouldn’t care about actual abuses of power let alone this case supported by no more than hatred and projection.

          1. I’d feel better if all of the above were refraining from their activities: Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, foreign spooks, FBI election interference investigators, the whole lot of them.

        2. Whatever Giuliani is doing, it is not for the impeachment trial. Why bother presenting his findings when it could probably be so much more useful and effective during the 2020 campaign?

          1. I suppose if he can reveal enough dirt to knock Biden out of the race now, he could start digging up dirt on Bloomberg.

    2. There are no wild cards. Team Blue is toast. Now, and in 2020.

      1. You are probably right, but there are wild cards.

    3. A Senate trial would likely hurt BIden and Schiff badly. But both of them are non-entitiies and irrelevant to the 2020 election, so why bother?

      1. Out in his campaign stops, Biden is already handling questions about Hunter really badly. Not to mention his blaming matters he should take responsibility for on his staff .

  20. Maybe the Senate trial will be more amiable, and less contentious?

  21. “amid allegations that he withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine…”

    Sounds like normal negotiations among heads of state. Who’s being indicted for spying on the President?

    “…in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announcing public probes into his political rivals.”

    Last I checked, Hunter Biden isn’t running for President.

    1. Democrats noticed that Hunter Biden, if investigated, would obviously bring up questions about Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency. The Democrat theory goes that Hunter is guilty and that by necessity would harm Joe Biden should he actually get the nomination at some point in the future.

      In some fairness, that was probably a reason for wanting an investigation on Trump’s part. It stretches credulity that it didn’t occur to him. Unfortunately for Democrats, there appears to be good reason to investigate regardless of how it could have affected Trump’s campaign for reelection.

      It’s also ignored that, should Hunter Biden have been found innocent, that it would certainly have harmed Trump’s reelection campaign. It’s clearly false to claim such an investigation could only have helped Trump, which sort of sinks their whole boat if anyone is paying attention.

      If someone finds a tape of Trump asking the Ukraine to find Hunter Biden guilty regardless of evidence that would obviously be a different story. Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t seem such a tape exists.

      This is why everyone is trying to read minds and magical intent: their own case defeats itself otherwise.

      In short, no one should be shocked when Trump is found not guilty with current evidence that we’re actually aware of. Unless a major hard evidence bombshell drops, there is no chance he’ll be removed from office.

      1. “”It’s also ignored that, should Hunter Biden have been found innocent, that it would certainly have harmed Trump’s reelection campaign. It’s clearly false to claim such an investigation could only have helped Trump, which sort of sinks their whole boat if anyone is paying attention. “”

        Good point.

        I guess the dems in the house only see that investigation going in Trump’s favor. Guilty. That says something about them.

        1. Precisely.

          In fact, if anyone is paying attention, Democrats are selling the idea that Hunter being investigated at all is apparently proof of guilt.

          Pretty staggering, really. It shouldn’t be a surprise though, since this is what the Democrats are selling when it comes to Trump as well. He’s being investigated by the Democrats, so clearly he is guilty just like Hunter is guilty for being investigated by Trump.

          They are very hard to take seriously at this point. It’s obvious, at least to me, that Democrats have a very low opinion of voter intelligence. Perhaps rightly so, even, but it’s insulting.

          1. Investigated = Guilty
            That’s why when Hillary was being investigated the FBI went through her 30k emails in about 2 weeks.

            Nothing to see here.

            1. No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against a Presidential candidate, after all, and nevermind your lying eyes about what happened with candidate Trump.

      2. It’s pretty amusing how fast the media goes from ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness!” to “We should ignore potential wrongdoing by politicians because it might hurt their election chances.” depending on whether the person in question has an (R) or a (D) after their name.

      3. It really doesn’t matter whether Hunter BIden is guilty of anything; Joe Biden had a massive conflict of interest that he failed to deal with correctly.

    2. The rest of the quote, “… in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announcing public probes into his political rivals”, explains why it was not a normal negotiation.

      1. Wasn’t that what people admitted was their presumption?

        You were just talking the other day about how the qpq was for a whitehouse visit.

        Hunter is not his political rival.

        1. Is this the argument that Trump was not investigating Joe Biden, only Hunter? That is completely disingenuous and ludicrous, and you are smarter than that. Trump has explicitly, publicly said he wants it to be looked into that Joe got the Ukrainian investigator fired — that’s clearly calling for investigation of Joe Biden.

          1. Seems Joe want’s the President “Fired” too for investigating.

            Isn’t Joe in the U.S.??? Why can’t the FBI just investigate Joe if Joe is really the target here?

            1. The FBI could investigate Joe. Several Trump defenders here in the commentariat argue Trump couldn’t use existing Federal agencies to investigate the Bidens because they are all part of the Deep State.

      2. “”The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

        Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

        This was on Nov 20.

        1. Yes, and we have had this conversation before. You can’t change reality by repeating a mantra that tried to change it: (a) the standard in the impeachment hearings is not absolute proof, as it is not a trial; (b) Trump commanded the very people who could provide the firsthand testimony you call for from testifying.

          1. Some of the people Trump “commanded” not to testify did, anyway and some documents were provided.
            Those who chose not to, did so for themselves.
            This is America, people aren’t commanded to do things they don’t want to.
            If those, who wouldn’t testify, violated the law, charge them. Don’t use that as an excuse to charge Trump with “obstruction”.
            To these traitors, any effort to defend oneself is “obstruction”.

            1. Larger point is they were able to refuse testifying before the House committees, for whatever reasons, so it is disingenuous for critics of how the hearings were conducted to simultaneously claim that the hearings proved nothing because there was a lack of firsthand testimony and not acknowledge that those who could have best provided that testimony refused to testify.

              Then, the next thing, critics usually say is that Trump is innocent until proven guilty because of lack of firsthand testimony, and should not be impeached. But that is disingenuous because it does not acknowledge that the hearings were not a trial, meaning they had a lower standard of proof and did not have the power to compel testimony.

              1. So you’re relying on presumption

                1. Yes, the impeachment articles rely on some solid facts and some presumption.

      3. So your contention is that if I don’t want to be investigated by the executive branch, I should just run for president? Or does that exemption only apply to major American political dynasties?

        1. At this point you know exactly why what you said is a disingenuous oversimplification that ignores other options Trump had for investigating the Bidens.

          1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Trump asking a foreign government to investigate the Bidens.

  22. Obstruction of Congress

    One thing the dems are not admitting is that executive privilege is a real thing. Other presidents have applied. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. No president has been impeached after SCOTUS shot down their executive privilege claim as unlawful. Not sure why the dems want to make a precedent of impeachable offense on this. This is something the lawyer for Trump should hammer home. Perhaps give a list of every time a president used it unsuccessfully and note that no one was impeached.

    Also note that admin dept heads have no requirement to follow an unlawful order by the executive and dept heads that did not testified believed they were acting in good faith to a lawful order. If they were not, then they themselves obstructed Congress.

    1. The whole point of the Second Amendment is Obstructing Congress. When politicians jerk down a citizen’s drawers and try to have congress with them without their consent, the right of self defense is clear-cut and must needs be exercised if actually invaded “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Read the Constitution… it only takes an hour!

    2. The judge’s decision in the McGahn case would clarify that Executive Branch members could not refuse a House subpoena to appear in hearings, but could refuse to answer particular questions on the basis of executive privilege.

      However it is in appeal, and the House Democrats did not want to wait. If it were upheld, it would have given the Democrats form ground for the obstruction article. As it is, obstruction is only their interpretation of Trump’s actions.

      1. Meant to say “If they had been willing to wait and it were upheld, …”

      2. If it were upheld, it would only give the communists grounds to charge obstruction if Trump continued to suggest McGahn not testify.
        It is not obstruction to exert the authority of privilege, until a court says that the privilege may not be.

        1. My understanding is that it would set a precedent that applies to more than McGahn, but I may be wrong. Regardless, the House Democrats don’t want to wait for the case to be completely resolved.

      3. Even Democrats say he INTENDED to break the law, but ultimately didn’t.

        So how in the hell are you going to impeach Trump for bad intentions?

        I mean, you can try but this is the weakest shit I’ve seen from Democrats in a long time.

        The fact that some people are for this goes to show how deeply leftists have confused their good intentions and righteous beliefs for actual good works and outcomes.

    3. President Clinton unsuccessfully invoked executive privilege and was impeached, albeit not for obstruction of Congress. President Nixon unsuccessfully invoked executive privilege and would have been impeached had he not resigned. The articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee there included obstruction of Congress.

  23. I would love to see a question about the use of executive privilege in a dem debate.

    Do you promise not to use executive privilege while in office?

    1. Ha ha!
      After they’ve finished explaining their expansive plans to remake every area of our lives
      – they will totally refrain from executive privilege abuse.

      Because that would be stepping over the line.

  24. Homicide investigators look for hesitation marks–bulletholes in ceiling, skid marks before bridge columns–people make when attempting suicide. I was relieved the Dems finally went through with it. With their brains splattered all over the ceiling, there will be plenty of extra opportunities for Libertarian candidates to increase their spoiler votes. Those spoiler votes come in right handy to whop kleptocrats upside the head and cause them to repeal bad laws in a desperate effort to not be tossed out on their fat asses.

  25. The Dems are upset that Trump supposedly held up less than $375 million in military aid to Ukraine.

    These same Dems praised Obama for denying any military aid whatsoever to Ukraine.

    Lost in this whole discussion is that Joe proudly admitted blackmailing Ukraine by the openly stated threat of denying over a billion dollars in aid unless they fired a member of their government who was investigating corruption involving Biden’s son. Gotta love the irony.

    1. Where is the evidence that any investigation of Burisma was active during the time that Joe Biden expressed concern about the corrupt prosecutor?

  26. OT:
    Newsflash: World Not to End in Twelve Years!
    “EU leaders meet to try to agree on carbon neutrality by 2050”

    And Gaia-Bleevers unfurl banners predicting the rapture!

  27. Why does it matter if Trump threatened to withhold military aid from the Ukraine unless they reopened a criminal investigations against the Bidens?

    1. Does it matter if someone tries to steal an old lady’s purse and gets caught without getting away with it?

      1. Try reading the question again and answer that, not the voices in your head.

      2. Does it matter if someone tries to steal an old lady’s purse and gets caught without getting away with it?>

        Let’s take this and try to make it fit better, shall we?

        Does it matter if someone who’s about to fill an old lady’s purse with cash asks for her help investigating whether one of her grandkids was an accessory to a crime the criminals are bragging about committing(that was accompanied by a previous purseful of cash) and considers not giving her the money after all–but decides to go ahead without voicing any of this to her?

        There. Much closer to the reality.

        But wait–the son(the grandkids dad who committed the crime) was a competitor of the guy handing out the money, and the guy handing out the money would benefit if he could solve the crime–isn’t that improper? To personally benefit from solving a crime?

        Is it? In what world? Solving crimes is a good thing. Solving crimes benefits lots of people. The victims. The investigators. The people who called for the investigation.

        The idea that someone shouldn’t call for an investigation of–not just a criminal, but one who’s boasting about committing that crime in public– because one might benefit is just ludicrous.

        1. “… without voicing any of this to her?” Trump did not go without voicing any of it to Ukraine. His diplomatic representatives voiced the quid pro quo to Ukraine, he voiced a request for the investigation in a phone call, and the Ukrainians figured out the aid was being held up.

      3. So, are you saying that someone who hasn’t committed a crime should be punished in some way?

        1. Typically, it’s the attempt to commit the crime that counts.

          1. You have to have actual proof of that, not assumptions about intent.

            1. Yes, it must be proven — in the Senate trial. There hasn’t been a trial yet.

          2. And- that the behavior in question is actually a crime. In the case of Trump, a different assumption of intention exonerates him, unless it’s a crime to condition foreign aid.

            1. No, for impeachment or removal from office, there doesn’t have to be a crime. The House can impeach because of abuse of office or something like incompetence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.