Democrats Articles Of Impeachment May Not Include Bribery Or Quid Pro Quo

As Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia (R) said about this “They can’t get over the fact that Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and they don’t have a candidate that can beat him.” They’ve been working towards this since Trump won the election, and now we get

Dems expected to announce at least 2 articles of impeachment against Trump on Tuesday

House Democrats are preparing to announce at least two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday, Fox News has learned.

The articles of impeachment will focus on obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, but all details aren’t settled yet, Fox News is told. A markup session by the Judiciary Committee to prepare the articles would come either Wednesday or Thursday.

Notably absent from the planned charges was a “bribery” count. Democrats had repeatedly accused the president of essentially bribing Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and even floated the idea of drafting an article of impeachment to that effect. But, it quickly emerged that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had conducted focus groups to determine that Democrats should use the term “bribery” purely for political benefit, even as legal experts disputed whether Trump had bribed anyone.

So, obstruction of a partisan political inquiry that wouldn’t have happened if Democrats (and right leaning NeverTrumpers) weren’t so unhinged, obsessed, and deranged. We’ll have to see how abuse of power shakes down in relation to the accusation of quid pro quo. Remember, the Democratic Party run House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.” The report states: “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.”

Democrats should remember that they have now set the bar that Politics 101 is now grounds for impeachment, and shouldn’t be surprised if Republicans do the same thing against a sitting Democrat president. Though, they won’t, because they aren’t stupid. Speaking of stupid

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Democrats Articles Of Impeachment May Not Include Bribery Or Quid Pro Quo”

  1. Dana says:

    Is it possible that the Articles of Impeachment will not list anything that is actually a crime at all? https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

    Supposedly, there’s going to be nothing from the Mueller Report included. If that’s true, the Democrats have given up on Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. The reports are that there will be nothing about bribery in the Ukraine deal.

    If the reports are true, then the Democrats have given the Republicans everything they need to vote in favor of keeping President Trump, and a lot of House Democrats from moderate to conservative districts will have even more reason to vote against impeachment.

    The Democrats have wasted an entire year on this, which was preceded by the Mueller investigation wasting two years. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    President Trump attempted to help his 2020 election bid by forcing Ukraine (withholding allocated $391 million) to announce an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s an abuse of power. Of course you and I can’t be impeached for an abuse of power, can we? Because we’re not government officials like the US President subject to impeachment as described in our Constitution.

    He further tried to cover it up by withholding evidence. That’s obstruction of Congress. If a US President can do whatever he pleases with no Congressional or Judicial oversight how does he differ from a king? Recall that a US President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and could ostensibly have the military shut down Congress and the courts.

    • gitarcarver says:

      ….(withholding allocated $391 million)….

      That would be the same money that Obama withheld?

      The problem with your narrative here is that there is no direct evidence that is what happened. The Ukraine government has said that is not what happened. The only “evidence” is hearsay, two and three times removed from the conversation that the President and the Ukraine said did not happen.

      He further tried to cover it up by withholding evidence.

      He availed himself of the court system to challenge the subpoenas. That’s legal in the world of Congress, the President, the Supreme Court and every person within this country.

      Recall that a US President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and could ostensibly have the military shut down Congress and the courts.

      Of course, such an order would be illegal and therefore no military officer or enlisted person would have to follow such an order, but don’t let your hatred of the military get in the way of facts.

      We get it. The left is so full of hatred that they are willing to impugn anyone and lie about anything to get their way. All they have is hate.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The problem with your narrative here is that there is no direct evidence that is what happened.

        Other than President Trump’s own words. As many prosecutors said, criminals rarely come out and say, “Let’s have a quid pro quo!”, or “I’ll release the $391 million once you accuse Joe Biden of a crime.”

        It’s the Republican contention that everyone except Donald Trump is lying.

        Of course, such an order would be illegal and therefore no military officer or enlisted person would have to follow such an order…

        Other commenters here disagree with you, claiming that the military would follow orders and do as their Commander-in-Chief instructs. I’m with you, and would hope our military would not follow unlawful orders.

        We get it. The right is so full of hatred that they are willing to impugn anyone and lie about anything to get their way. All they have is hate.

        • formwiz says:

          If he said it, don’t you think he would have been charged with a real crime, like Willie was?

          Fact is, what Trump said was entirely different and announced to Fake News months before when they didn’t even react.

          God, you’re stupid. Nobody is even buying it anymore.

          As many prosecutors said, criminals rarely come out and say, “Let’s have a quid pro quo!”

          Unfortunately, Genius Joe was just stupid enough to do just that, CFR video last year.

          It’s the Republican contention that everyone except Donald Trump is lying.

          Usually, that’s the case.

          Other commenters here disagree with you, claiming that the military would follow orders and do as their Commander-in-Chief instructs.

          Direct quotes because you usually turn into a Schiff Head and make it up.

          The right is so full of hatred that they are willing to impugn anyone and lie about anything to get their way. All they have is hate.

          No, we have the truth so you’re the one that always lies.

          All you have is, well, hate, but actually it’s more like impotence.

          Maybe you need some Enzyte.

        • gitarcarver says:

          Other than President Trump’s own words.

          Which paint a different narrative that what the Democrats are saying.

          Once again, the “witnesses” were all giving hearsay testimony. However, the two people actually on the phone – Trump and the Ukraine President disagree with what people who were not there are saying.

          I’m with you, and would hope our military would not follow unlawful orders.

          Recall that a US President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and could ostensibly have the military shut down Congress and the courts.

          I’m having problems keeping track of which side of your mouth you are talking from.

          I am unaware of anyone who has claimed in this forum have claimed that the military would follow illegal orders en masse.

          Please show a citation to back up your claim.

          Once again, so full of hate. It’s all the left has.

        • gitarcarver says:

          BTW Jeffery:

          Former National Security Council official Dr. Fiona Hill testified on Thursday that President Barack Obama had ignored the “interagency consensus” on sending weapons to Ukraine for “political” reasons.

          Under questioning from Republicans, Hill admitted that she herself had been against giving weapons to Ukraine to help it fight Russian invasion, and that she had written an op-ed in the Washington Post expressing those views.

          She also said that the “interagency consensus” had actually been in favor of arming the Ukrainians; she herself was not in government service at the time, but working at the liberal Brookings Institution think tank.

          Hill noted that President Obama had ignored the “interagency consensus” for what she called “political” reasons. She explained that Obama was concerned that arming the Ukrainians could provoke the Russians.

          On Tuesday, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who worked for Hill and remains at the National Security Council, testified that President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold aid from Ukraine temporarily went against the “interagency consensus” on Ukraine, though he also acknowledged that Trump had armed Ukraine while Obama had not.

          And….

          Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

          A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

          The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

          How much hate must the left have to say the truth doesn’t matter? (That’s a rhetorical question…ALL the left has is hate.)

        • Kye says:

          Just for shits and giggles Fredo exactly which law would the President be breaking if he ordered the military to act against what he perceived as domestic enemies?

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Dildo typed: Just for shits and giggles Fredo exactly which law would the President be breaking if he ordered the military to act against what he perceived as domestic enemies?

            Dildo should ask gitarcarver who made the claim. It’s my understanding that soldiers are required NOT to follow unlawful orders.

            The right is so full of hatred that they are willing to impugn anyone and lie about anything to get their way. All they have is hate.

            from gitarcarver’s own citation (at the point he clipped).

            *Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don’t think we’ve ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we’ve seen in this case.”

            There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election.*

            Another of gitarcarver’s citations: She (Dr. Hill) explained that Obama was concerned that arming the Ukrainians could provoke the Russians.

            Is avoiding provoking Russia an impeachable offense? If not, do you have a point?

            And while the Trump campaign had numerous interactions with the Russians, do you have evidence that the Clinton campaign was working with the Ukrainians?

          • gitarcarver says:

            Dildo should ask gitarcarver who made the claim. It’s my understanding that soldiers are required NOT to follow unlawful orders.

            Except I never made the claim that the President could use the military to go after domestic enemies.

            You put that hypothesis forth in claiming that Trump could go after Congress and the Courts using the military which would not be “domestic enemies.”

            As an example, assume for a moment that a large group of people as part of a domestic terrorism, wanted to take out members of another group and were doing so. Would you support the President using military force to protect the second group from the first?

            Second example, a plane has been hijacked and is heading toward a large city in order to crash and kill people a la 9/11. Should the President order the military to shoot down that jet?

            Apparently you have an issue with remembering the topic. Hate apparently makes you forgetful.

            Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect.

            The left’s narrative has always been that Trump wanted or accepted the Russian’s help to defeat Hillary. Now you seem to be saying that they interfered in the election in a way that would have harmed Trump and that somehow was Trump’s fault.

            Is avoiding provoking Russia an impeachable offense? If not, do you have a point?

            So when Obama withheld aid to the Ukraine that was authorized by Congress, that was fine. When Trump withheld it, that was an impeachable offense?

            The point is the hypocrisy from the left based on their lies and hatred.

            Maybe we are impeaching the wrong President.

            You and the left would never consider such a thing because you are blinded by hate. After all, it is all that you have.

    • formwiz says:

      President Trump attempted to help his 2020 election bid by forcing Ukraine (withholding allocated $391 million) to announce an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s an abuse of power.

      No, he was obligated by treaty to inquire into an ongoing investigation. And both parties agree they never viewed the money as a realted issue.

      The only abuse is of our intelligence by your ridiculous claims.

      He further tried to cover it up by withholding evidence. That’s obstruction of Congress.

      No, it’s not because all Presidents have been allowed to invoke Executive Privilege. And, since the House has been making up (and often changing) the rules to suit itself, we’re no longer talking about due process.

      If a US President can do whatever he pleases with no Congressional or Judicial oversight how does he differ from a king?

      I was not aware it was the Federal bench’s job to stick its nose in the President’s business in defiance of due process.

      As for Congress, this is the crowd whose bagmen have just been indicted. Sounds like Congress needs more oversight than the Executive.

      Too bad they have to make up crimes because there aren’t any real ones.

      Recall that a US President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and could ostensibly have the military shut down Congress and the courts.

      He can?

      Sounds like something you wished Zippy had done so he could have declared himself President for Life.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Trump honored Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov today with an official visit to America’s White House. Lavrov also had a joint press conference with US Sec of State Mike Pompeo.

    *Standing beside Pompeo, Lavrov vehemently and condescendingly dismissed the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

    “We have highlighted once again that all speculation about our alleged interference in domestic processes in the US are baseless. There are no facts that would support that. We did not see these facts,” Lavrov said. “No one has given us this proof because it simply does not exist.”*

    Do you agree with Trump that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election?

    • Dana says:

      Mr Dowd asked:

      Do you agree with Trump that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election?

      I agree that they certainly tried; whether their ‘interference’ was the tipping point that kept Hillary Clinton a private citizen, we do not and cannot know. However, if Russian influence was that tipping point, then Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has done the United States and the world as a whole a tremendous favor.

      • Doom and Gloom says:

        @Elwood

        BUT now we know they interfered to disrupt the process. In fact the Ukranians helped HRC try to defeat Trump and failed.

        Why would trump believe his own Intell community who are all testifying against him?

        THIS>>>>>>>>IS EXACTLY why Jimmy Carter decimated the CIA back in the 70’s. He found the same thing true. The CIA had RUN AMUCK.

        You trust them because why exactly?

        Every progressive I know hates them. Despises them and believes them a worse of an evil than corporations if that is possible.

        Oh right. Its the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. Trump hosts a Russian Envoy and hes committing impeachable offenses.

        Then perhaps Obama should have been impeached since he did the same thing WHEN HE KNEW the RUSSIANS WERE INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION AND CALLED PUTIN TO TELL HIM TO STOP IT.

        But NAH. Your paid just to win at any cost. Even if that cost is to stir up rebellion. Is that your marching order Elwood. To stir up rebellion????

        • Doom and Gloom says:

          @Elwood

          Do you remember the left marching in the streets calling Bush/Cheney Hitler because of the INTELL COMMUNITY CLAIMING THEIR WERE WMDS IN IRAQ? Do you remember all those people going before the UN and Congress and claiming that the INTELL COMMUNITY HAD PROOF>

          DO YOU REMEMBER saying I HAVE SEEN THE PROOF?

          YOU hated them, despised them and wanted them put on a leash. Or at least your side did.

          Now you love them, adore them and worship the very halls of their institution as they butt heads with Trump.

          OH AND ELWOOD did you know this even happened?

          15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted for Endless War in Yemen

          Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi-led onslaught.

          10 democrats joined the GOP in their endless wars. The bill was a bipartisan affair that was BIPARTISANLY DEFEATED because we all know how important it is to GENOCIDE YEMEN. That evil nation that Saudia Arabia cant defeat on their own.

          AGAIN CIA involvement keeping the MIC rich and powerful until there is no longer anyone to kill. Except for Americans…..and don’t get me started again on Las VEGAS.

  4. Dana says:

    In his previous identity of Jethro Bodine, Jeffrey Jeffery wrote:

    “tRump will not be president at the end of 2019. Believe me. Mark my word. You tRumpitistas are whistling past the graveyard, and we all understand why. Your hero has committed felonies.” — Jethro Bodine, January 5, 2019.

    Naturally, I did exactly as he suggested, and marked his words!

    Well, the “end of 2019” is but twenty days away and, absent a successful assassination, something the left would love to see, or a fatal heart attack or stroke, and the President is very overweight and eats absolute crap, it would appear that Mr Trump will be President for some time beyond the “end of 2019”.

    “(Our) hero has committed felonies”? In their two proposed articles of impeachment, the Democrats have charged President Trump with exactly zero felonies. If after two years of the Mueller investigation — Mr Dowd/Bodine’s comment was written prior to the release of the Mueller Report — and another half year of the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives investigating, they’ve come up with no felonies at all, perhaps it’s because no felonies were committed?

    Now, maybe it’s a feint. Perhaps the Democrats have planned on sensible people pointing out that no actual crimes were charged, and plan on a Gotcha! moment with another proposed article, charging an actual crime, but at least thus far, it hasn’t happened.

    Even Mr Dowd/Bodine doesn’t believe that, though. In his comment above, he tells us that the current articles are good enough, that abuse of power doesn’t exist as a law for us commoners, but the House can so charge the President.

    What the House is doing is presenting proposed articles of impeachment that give every Republican complete cover for voting against impeachment in the House or conviction in the Senate, because all that has to be said is that no “high crimes or misdemeanors” have been charged.

  5. Kye says:

    “Dildo typed: Just for shits and giggles Fredo exactly which law would the President be breaking if he ordered the military to act against what he perceived as domestic enemies?

    Dildo should ask gitarcarver who made the claim. It’s my understanding that soldiers are required NOT to follow unlawful orders.”

    Except that I’m asking YOU to identify the law that would make such orders “unlawful”. I know of none.

    I personally believe that since the Democrat/Communists began calling for impeachment even BEFORE Trump was sworn in that constitutes a conspiracy to overthrow the lawfully elected President of the United States, which is a coup and a coup is treason. The President has every right and full authority to act militarily against any person or group engaged in a treasonous coup. Ask Lincoln if you don’t agree.

    Trump 2020 Stop the coup.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7894 access attempts in the last 7 days.