I Like Politics
Respect ✊
For the first republican senator (Mr. Chabot)... that in my opinion made a good case.
And then for some reason goes into the Chewbacca defense. But if it's good, you have to say it.
Mr Chabot (Ohio):
[b]This is a sad day in our countries history as house democrats to approve on a strictly partyline vote articles of impeachment. Based on what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called: “Wafer-thin evidence.”. This will become a dangerous precedent where impeachment rather becomes the norm, rather then the exception. That’s not what our founding fathers intended. They wanted impeachment to be rare, they set a high bar for impeachment: reason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.[/b] Alleged abuse of power, the first article is not a high crime and misdemeanor, in fact, it’s nog even a crime. And since there is no concise legal definition for the abuse of power, the majority power in the house can designate nearly any disagreement with the president, from now on with impeachable offense. The second article alleged obstruction congress would assert a similar dangerous precedent. Asserting executive privilege, a practice that begin with George Washington is not obstruction of congress rather is essential to the checks and balanced contemplated under the constitution. Here is what every grade school student in America knows, but apparently house democrats do not. If congress disagrees with the president, if they don’t agree with the president take it to court. Let the 3th branch of government decide they are the refs. The house has never, and I repeat never, approved either abuse of power or obstruction of congress as an article of impeachment.[i] But that’s going to change today, today house democrats are pursuing a wacky constitutional theory. One for which all four presidents on mount Rushmore could have been impeached. If all of this sounds absurd Madame speaker, that’s because it is absurd. In fact this whole process is absurd and has been from the outset.[/i] But here is what is not absurd but rather frightening. House democrats today are setting a dangerous precedent, under which no future president will be immune from impeachment. And that will forever negatively tarnish the history of this house.
Mr Chumer (NY):
Madame speaker, the presidents crimes constitute the highest of high crimes against our country. And offence doesn’t have to violate a criminal statue to be impeachable. That was confirmed in president Nixons’ case and again in president Clintons’ . There is no higher crime then for the president to use the powers of his office to corrupt our elections.
[b]The Bold:[/b] This is a pretty good attack in my opinion. Because I didn't know what he was talking about when he said Jonathan Turley (I'm not an American). But then I looked it up and he had this to say:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pj1k3CTpss]
👆️ What an incredible nice testimony, from someone with some good credentials.
[i]The Cursive:[/i]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Em8BkZYnI]
If he stopped after the bold part... he would have had the best rebuttal so far in my opinion. Respect. ✊
For the first republican senator (Mr. Chabot)... that in my opinion made a good case.
And then for some reason goes into the Chewbacca defense. But if it's good, you have to say it.
Mr Chabot (Ohio):
[b]This is a sad day in our countries history as house democrats to approve on a strictly partyline vote articles of impeachment. Based on what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called: “Wafer-thin evidence.”. This will become a dangerous precedent where impeachment rather becomes the norm, rather then the exception. That’s not what our founding fathers intended. They wanted impeachment to be rare, they set a high bar for impeachment: reason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.[/b] Alleged abuse of power, the first article is not a high crime and misdemeanor, in fact, it’s nog even a crime. And since there is no concise legal definition for the abuse of power, the majority power in the house can designate nearly any disagreement with the president, from now on with impeachable offense. The second article alleged obstruction congress would assert a similar dangerous precedent. Asserting executive privilege, a practice that begin with George Washington is not obstruction of congress rather is essential to the checks and balanced contemplated under the constitution. Here is what every grade school student in America knows, but apparently house democrats do not. If congress disagrees with the president, if they don’t agree with the president take it to court. Let the 3th branch of government decide they are the refs. The house has never, and I repeat never, approved either abuse of power or obstruction of congress as an article of impeachment.[i] But that’s going to change today, today house democrats are pursuing a wacky constitutional theory. One for which all four presidents on mount Rushmore could have been impeached. If all of this sounds absurd Madame speaker, that’s because it is absurd. In fact this whole process is absurd and has been from the outset.[/i] But here is what is not absurd but rather frightening. House democrats today are setting a dangerous precedent, under which no future president will be immune from impeachment. And that will forever negatively tarnish the history of this house.
Mr Chumer (NY):
Madame speaker, the presidents crimes constitute the highest of high crimes against our country. And offence doesn’t have to violate a criminal statue to be impeachable. That was confirmed in president Nixons’ case and again in president Clintons’ . There is no higher crime then for the president to use the powers of his office to corrupt our elections.
[b]The Bold:[/b] This is a pretty good attack in my opinion. Because I didn't know what he was talking about when he said Jonathan Turley (I'm not an American). But then I looked it up and he had this to say:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pj1k3CTpss]
👆️ What an incredible nice testimony, from someone with some good credentials.
[i]The Cursive:[/i]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Em8BkZYnI]
If he stopped after the bold part... he would have had the best rebuttal so far in my opinion. Respect. ✊
