With Donald Trump refusing to cooperate with an IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY by the HOUSE OF REP., we are left with the following: That the reasoning behind the refusal is as Irrational and Nonsensical as we might expect, given his inability to justify Intellectually and Morally just about any decision he has made since entering office.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
To begin with, any IMPEACHMENT INQUIRES OR PROCEEDINGS BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE, AND DOES NOT NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT OF THE INQUIRY.
FROM THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 5.
The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5, CLAUSE 2.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...
IT IS THE HOUSE ITSELF THAT ESTABLISHES RULES FOR HOW IT CONDUCTS BUSINESS, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. While there may be CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS,THESE WERE DECIDED BY THE COURTS, AND NO ONE ELSE.
NOTHING THE HOUSE OF REP. IS DOING CURRENTLY, REGARDING DONALD
TRUMP, IS CONTRARY TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR JUDICIAL PRECEDENT.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TAKE A QUICK SURVEY OF U.S. HISTORY TO FIND
HOW SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED IN THE PAST.
FOR EXAMPLE: THE CLAIM THAT THE HOUSE HAS TO VOTE FOR AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY TO BEGIN IS FALSE, AND A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO THROW ATTENTION AWAY FROM DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS BEHAVIOR WHILE IN OFFICE. THE ONLY VOTE TAKEN IS AT THE END OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE "ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT" ARE VOTED ON. A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS NEEDED FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BE "IMPEACHED", WITH THE ARTICLES SENT TO THE U.S. SENATE FOR TRIAL.
LETS PUT IT THIS WAY: IT WOULDN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO HAVE THE OBJECT OF A POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE HOUSE:
- WHEN AND WHY THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO
POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
- WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT SAY TO POSSIBLE WITNESSES.
- HOW THEY CAN OR CANNOT GATHER EVIDENCE.
...AND MOST IMPORTANT: WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHABLE
BEHAVIOR.
The TRUMPIANS HATE IT WHEN THERE IS A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT
THEY CAN'T CORRUPT.
TO BE CONTINUED...
IT IS THE HOUSE ITSELF THAT ESTABLISHES RULES FOR HOW IT CONDUCTS BUSINESS, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. While there may be CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS,THESE WERE DECIDED BY THE COURTS, AND NO ONE ELSE.
NOTHING THE HOUSE OF REP. IS DOING CURRENTLY, REGARDING DONALD
TRUMP, IS CONTRARY TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR JUDICIAL PRECEDENT.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TAKE A QUICK SURVEY OF U.S. HISTORY TO FIND
HOW SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED IN THE PAST.
FOR EXAMPLE: THE CLAIM THAT THE HOUSE HAS TO VOTE FOR AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY TO BEGIN IS FALSE, AND A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO THROW ATTENTION AWAY FROM DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS BEHAVIOR WHILE IN OFFICE. THE ONLY VOTE TAKEN IS AT THE END OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE "ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT" ARE VOTED ON. A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS NEEDED FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BE "IMPEACHED", WITH THE ARTICLES SENT TO THE U.S. SENATE FOR TRIAL.
LETS PUT IT THIS WAY: IT WOULDN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO HAVE THE OBJECT OF A POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE HOUSE:
- WHEN AND WHY THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO
POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
- WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT SAY TO POSSIBLE WITNESSES.
- HOW THEY CAN OR CANNOT GATHER EVIDENCE.
...AND MOST IMPORTANT: WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHABLE
BEHAVIOR.
The TRUMPIANS HATE IT WHEN THERE IS A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT
THEY CAN'T CORRUPT.
TO BE CONTINUED...
