Top Democrats Considering Censure Instead Of Impeachment

This is the wimping out version, meant to show that they Did Something rather than taking up the impeachment that a goodly chunk of the Democrat base and more unhinged elected members want which would lead to Trump’s easy re-election

Democrats keep censure for Trump on the table

House Democrats are eyeing a move to censure President Trump as a possible alternative to impeaching a president they have accused of gross wrongdoing while in office.

A censure resolution — essentially a public reprimand — lacks the teeth of impeachment’s intrinsic threat to remove a sitting president. But supporters say it would send a clear and immediate message to voters that Democrats are taking seriously their constitutional responsibility to be a check on executive misconduct.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who’s calling for immediate censure of Trump, said it would send a warning to future administrations that Congress won’t sit idle in the face of presidential malfeasance.

And unlike impeachment, which requires overwhelming Senate support, the Democratic-controlled House could censure Trump without a single Republican on board.

“The advantage of that is it can be done with the House,” he said. “We can hold the president accountable and say that his actions are unethical, and he’s engaged in blatant misconduct and that there can be some accountability for future presidents.”

This is Trump we’re talking about: do you think he’ll be concerned, or laugh off the notion of Democrats censuring him on a strictly party line vote?

Yet there are risks involved with censure, according to a number of former Democratic lawmakers watching the saga unfold.

“The advantage is it perhaps becomes a strategic substitute to an impeachment process that could backfire electorally,” said former-Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.). “The disadvantage is that it could negatively impair the investigations that House Democrats are conducting.”

“If you pass a censure resolution, I suppose an argument could be made that you no longer need these investigations because you’ve already censured the guy,” he added.

At some point Democrats will have to give up their Trump Derangement Syndrome, right? LOL. Good luck with that.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Top Democrats Considering Censure Instead Of Impeachment”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The US president is a buffoon, and a criminal buffoon at that.

    You’re correct that trump will laugh off any censure, as he has no concern about American ideals, tradition, mores or law. Congress should ignore calls to impeach or censure, and focus on investigating trump’s lawless behaviors.

    He laughs at Congress and the courts. Legal requests, court orders and subpoenas mean nothing. It’s how trump has lived his business life.

    • Dana says:

      President Trump will laugh off any censure, responding that it simply proves that the Democrats are obsessed with Trump Derangement Syndrome, eager to say mean things about him but also proving that he’s done nothing wrong, ’cause they didn’t have the evidence to impeach him.

      And he’ll be right.

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will then turn around, present the censure resolution to the Senate, where it will be rejected.

      Congress should ignore calls to impeach or censure, and focus on investigating trump’s lawless behaviors.

      Robert Mueller, with 19 partisan Democrat assistant persecutors working full time over two years with him, armed with subpoena power, couldn’t find sufficient evidence of Mr Trump’s “lawless behavior.” What do you think the Democrats, with only 17 months until the election, working part-time, are going to find?

      A censure resolution will do two things: it will anger the Republicans who support President Trump, solidifying that support, and piss off the leftist partisans, who will see the Democrats as mealy-mouthing their way through this. That’s a great prescription for helping President Trump win a second term.

  2. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Dems have done nothing but obstruct. They’ve accomplished nothing since the midterms.

  3. Kye says:

    Elwood, after three years of constant screaming, crying and investigation can you tell me exactly what crime he has been proven to have committed? Just one.

    You do realize you sound as insane a the rest of your pathetic party of science deniers. Trump’s a criminal who was never prosecuted for nor found guilt of committing a crime. With the full power of the DoJ, the Democrat Party and their lap dogs in the Fake Media going after Trump how can that be?

    Maybe, just maybe his only crime was beating the crap out of the drunk Hillary.

    • Dana says:

      No, he really doesn’t realize it. The insane do not recognize their insanity, but think everyone else is nuts.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Being proven guilty requires an indictment and a trial. Mr. Mueller has said repeatedly that the law did not allow him to indict a sitting president.

      Mr. Mueller presented valid evidence that trump had attempted to obstruct the investigations, which is a crime.

      trump will have to settle up once he is no longer president, if America survives this Fourth Reich.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        And obviously Mueller could not indict anyone else who was not the President.
        You silly silly little girl.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Were there no indictments? How about the 6 trump advisers?

          Mr. Mueller handed over Michael Cohen, trump’s “fixer” and lawyer, to NY and he pleaded guilty to paying hush money to trump’s inamorata, Stormy Daniels. trump was identified as Individual 1 in the indictment, making trump an unindicted co-conspirator. trump can deal with that once he’s out of office.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            You silly silly little girl… Where are the indictments for obstruction?

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You silly, silly little fascist… They’re coming when trump is out of office.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Keep flailing away little missy.
            Keep bringing your special kind of stupid, sweetie…

  4. Jl says:

    “A public reprimand..”. Oh, no!

    • Professor Hale says:

      If that doesn’t work, they shall reprimand him a second time!

      • Kye says:

        The left spent three years day in and day out screaming about how Mueller was “gonna get Trump”. Then when Mueller came out and said he found no crime to go after suddenly “Well, Mueller REALLY can’t prosecute Trump anyway”. So what did the Democrats spend three years and $125 million to do? And how was he “gonna get Trump” if he couldn’t do anything?

        Things were so much simpler when we had a half black half white, half communist half Muhammadan, half American half Kenyan President! We all knew he was a traitor so we didn’t need to waste millions to prove he wasn’t. Ah, the good ole days.

Pirate's Cove