ChrisWeigant.com

The Federalist Papers (Number 66)

[ Posted Wednesday, December 18th, 2019 – 17:44 UTC ]

Program Note:

Welcome to the second part of our look at how impeachment was seen by Alexander Hamilton, when he was arguing in the anonymous Federalist Papers for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Today, we have Federalist Paper Number 66, or "Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered." It was published in the New York Packet newspaper in March of 1788.

In addition to the reader-comprehension points I made yesterday (especially the one about senators being appointed by state legislatures back then), I would add one more historical footnote. When the Constitution was proposed, there was some confusion about what people should call the president. At the time, the most popular label for him was "chief magistrate," which at some point must have evolved into the more-familiar "chief executive" used today. Hamilton only uses this term once, but I thought it was worth mentioning, for clarity's sake. I should also note that I have not corrected or modernized Hamilton's archaic spelling and usage (such as using "wellestablished" as a single word). Oh, and speaking of footnotes, there is one in the text today, just to warn everyone in advance. This is an original footnote written by Hamilton himself, not one added later by others, again just to be clear.

So once again, on this historic day, let's take a look at what one of the Founding Fathers had to say about why the impeachment process was designed the way it was, and why he thinks it was the best method possible to the framers of the Constitution.

-- Chris Weigant

 

The Federalist Papers, Number 66

[Originally published March 11, 1788]

To the People of the State of New York:

A REVIEW of the principal objections that have appeared against the proposed court for the trial of impeachments, will not improbably eradicate the remains of any unfavorable impressions which may still exist in regard to this matter.

The FIRST of these objections is, that the provision in question confounds legislative and judiciary authorities in the same body, in violation of that important and wellestablished maxim which requires a separation between the different departments of power. The true meaning of this maxim has been discussed and ascertained in another place, and has been shown to be entirely compatible with a partial intermixture of those departments for special purposes, preserving them, in the main, distinct and unconnected. This partial intermixture is even, in some cases, not only proper but necessary to the mutual defense of the several members of the government against each other. An absolute or qualified negative in the executive upon the acts of the legislative body, is admitted, by the ablest adepts in political science, to be an indispensable barrier against the encroachments of the latter upon the former. And it may, perhaps, with no less reason be contended, that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive. The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches. As the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate will be requisite to a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire.

It is curious to observe, with what vehemence this part of the plan is assailed, on the principle here taken notice of, by men who profess to admire, without exception, the constitution of this State; while that constitution makes the Senate, together with the chancellor and judges of the Supreme Court, not only a court of impeachments, but the highest judicatory in the State, in all causes, civil and criminal. The proportion, in point of numbers, of the chancellor and judges to the senators, is so inconsiderable, that the judiciary authority of New York, in the last resort, may, with truth, be said to reside in its Senate. If the plan of the convention be, in this respect, chargeable with a departure from the celebrated maxim which has been so often mentioned, and seems to be so little understood, how much more culpable must be the constitution of New York? [1]

A SECOND objection to the Senate, as a court of impeachments, is, that it contributes to an undue accumulation of power in that body, tending to give to the government a countenance too aristocratic. The Senate, it is observed, is to have concurrent authority with the Executive in the formation of treaties and in the appointment to offices: if, say the objectors, to these prerogatives is added that of deciding in all cases of impeachment, it will give a decided predominancy to senatorial influence. To an objection so little precise in itself, it is not easy to find a very precise answer. Where is the measure or criterion to which we can appeal, for determining what will give the Senate too much, too little, or barely the proper degree of influence? Will it not be more safe, as well as more simple, to dismiss such vague and uncertain calculations, to examine each power by itself, and to decide, on general principles, where it may be deposited with most advantage and least inconvenience?

If we take this course, it will lead to a more intelligible, if not to a more certain result. The disposition of the power of making treaties, which has obtained in the plan of the convention, will, then, if I mistake not, appear to be fully justified by the considerations stated in a former number, and by others which will occur under the next head of our inquiries. The expediency of the junction of the Senate with the Executive, in the power of appointing to offices, will, I trust, be placed in a light not less satisfactory, in the disquisitions under the same head. And I flatter myself the observations in my last paper must have gone no inconsiderable way towards proving that it was not easy, if practicable, to find a more fit receptacle for the power of determining impeachments, than that which has been chosen. If this be truly the case, the hypothetical dread of the too great weight of the Senate ought to be discarded from our reasonings.

But this hypothesis, such as it is, has already been refuted in the remarks applied to the duration in office prescribed for the senators. It was by them shown, as well on the credit of historical examples, as from the reason of the thing, that the most POPULAR branch of every government, partaking of the republican genius, by being generally the favorite of the people, will be as generally a full match, if not an overmatch, for every other member of the Government.

But independent of this most active and operative principle, to secure the equilibrium of the national House of Representatives, the plan of the convention has provided in its favor several important counterpoises to the additional authorities to be conferred upon the Senate. The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives. The same house will possess the sole right of instituting impeachments: is not this a complete counterbalance to that of determining them? The same house will be the umpire in all elections of the President, which do not unite the suffrages of a majority of the whole number of electors; a case which it cannot be doubted will sometimes, if not frequently, happen. The constant possibility of the thing must be a fruitful source of influence to that body. The more it is contemplated, the more important will appear this ultimate though contingent power, of deciding the competitions of the most illustrious citizens of the Union, for the first office in it. It would not perhaps be rash to predict, that as a mean of influence it will be found to outweigh all the peculiar attributes of the Senate.

A THIRD objection to the Senate as a court of impeachments, is drawn from the agency they are to have in the appointments to office. It is imagined that they would be too indulgent judges of the conduct of men, in whose official creation they had participated. The principle of this objection would condemn a practice, which is to be seen in all the State governments, if not in all the governments with which we are acquainted: I mean that of rendering those who hold offices during pleasure, dependent on the pleasure of those who appoint them. With equal plausibility might it be alleged in this case, that the favoritism of the latter would always be an asylum for the misbehavior of the former. But that practice, in contradiction to this principle, proceeds upon the presumption, that the responsibility of those who appoint, for the fitness and competency of the persons on whom they bestow their choice, and the interest they will have in the respectable and prosperous administration of affairs, will inspire a sufficient disposition to dismiss from a share in it all such who, by their conduct, shall have proved themselves unworthy of the confidence reposed in them. Though facts may not always correspond with this presumption, yet if it be, in the main, just, it must destroy the supposition that the Senate, who will merely sanction the choice of the Executive, should feel a bias, towards the objects of that choice, strong enough to blind them to the evidences of guilt so extraordinary, as to have induced the representatives of the nation to become its accusers.

If any further arguments were necessary to evince the improbability of such a bias, it might be found in the nature of the agency of the Senate in the business of appointments.

It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.

A FOURTH objection to the Senate in the capacity of a court of impeachments, is derived from its union with the Executive in the power of making treaties. This, it has been said, would constitute the senators their own judges, in every case of a corrupt or perfidious execution of that trust. After having combined with the Executive in betraying the interests of the nation in a ruinous treaty, what prospect, it is asked, would there be of their being made to suffer the punishment they would deserve, when they were themselves to decide upon the accusation brought against them for the treachery of which they have been guilty?

This objection has been circulated with more earnestness and with greater show of reason than any other which has appeared against this part of the plan; and yet I am deceived if it does not rest upon an erroneous foundation.

The security essentially intended by the Constitution against corruption and treachery in the formation of treaties, is to be sought for in the numbers and characters of those who are to make them. The JOINT AGENCY of the Chief Magistrate of the Union, and of two thirds of the members of a body selected by the collective wisdom of the legislatures of the several States, is designed to be the pledge for the fidelity of the national councils in this particular. The convention might with propriety have meditated the punishment of the Executive, for a deviation from the instructions of the Senate, or a want of integrity in the conduct of the negotiations committed to him; they might also have had in view the punishment of a few leading individuals in the Senate, who should have prostituted their influence in that body as the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption: but they could not, with more or with equal propriety, have contemplated the impeachment and punishment of two thirds of the Senate, consenting to an improper treaty, than of a majority of that or of the other branch of the national legislature, consenting to a pernicious or unconstitutional law, a principle which, I believe, has never been admitted into any government. How, in fact, could a majority in the House of Representatives impeach themselves? Not better, it is evident, than two thirds of the Senate might try themselves. And yet what reason is there, that a majority of the House of Representatives, sacrificing the interests of the society by an unjust and tyrannical act of legislation, should escape with impunity, more than two thirds of the Senate, sacrificing the same interests in an injurious treaty with a foreign power? The truth is, that in all such cases it is essential to the freedom and to the necessary independence of the deliberations of the body, that the members of it should be exempt from punishment for acts done in a collective capacity; and the security to the society must depend on the care which is taken to confide the trust to proper hands, to make it their interest to execute it with fidelity, and to make it as difficult as possible for them to combine in any interest opposite to that of the public good.

So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue. And so far even as might concern the corruption of leading members, by whose arts and influence the majority may have been inveigled into measures odious to the community, if the proofs of that corruption should be satisfactory, the usual propensity of human nature will warrant us in concluding that there would be commonly no defect of inclination in the body to divert the public resentment from themselves by a ready sacrifice of the authors of their mismanagement and disgrace.

[Footnote 1] In that of New Jersey, also, the final judiciary authority is in a branch of the legislature. In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, one branch of the legislature is the court for the trial of impeachments.

-- PUBLIUS

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

51 Comments on “The Federalist Papers (Number 66)”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is done.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Though we cannot presume to know the framers' minds, I think we can say that they would be proud of how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi steered the ship of impeachment, no?

  3. [3] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Absolutely. And she's still steering, next looking at what McConnell is up to in the Senate, before choosing the House Impeachment Managers, and before sending the impeachments documents to them.

    Uh, oh. It's Nancy Pelosi. Time for McConnell to get his Congress on...

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Though we cannot presume to know the framers' minds, I think we can say that they would be proud of how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi steered the ship of impeachment, no?

    No...

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    Pelosi's own words prove this is nothing but a political hit job with absolutely no ethical or moral value whatsoever..

    This was all pre-ordained on 10 Nov 2016 when Donald Trump had the audacity... the unmitigated gall... to wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton...

    The giveaway, beyond Democrat's own words, is that they simply made up crimes that don't exist..

    OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS??? It would be so laughable if it wasn't so sad and pathetic...

    One has to wonder what Democrats will do when President Trump is exonerated, vindicated and re-elected in a landslide??

    If Democrats are looking for suggestions, I would suggest they consider the Jonestown option.. :^/

    That is how disgusted I am with Democrats and Trump/America haters and their hate-filled agenda...

    And yes, the irony is not lost on me...

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely. And she's still steering, next looking at what McConnell is up to in the Senate, before choosing the House Impeachment Managers, and before sending the impeachments documents to them.

    Sure... Drag this out longer and closer to Nov of 2020..

    Great plan..

    Considering that Democrats are ALREADY losing public support over this faux impeachment coup, yea.. Let's have Democrats double down on STOOPID and make sure that the American people know how much they hate right up to the 2020 election...

    As I said. Great plan... :^/

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Rallies With the People as Dems Try to Undo Their Votes
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/19/trump_rallies_with_the_people_as_dems_try_to_undo_their_votes.html

    That's the Democrat Party.. Ignoring the will of the American people...

    But come Nov 2020, PRESIDENT Trump will have the last laugh..

    twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s a fitting juxtaposition: As President Trump was out with the people in Battle Creek, Mich., Wednesday night, Democrats were in the swamp, trying to take away the people’s votes.

    We’ve seen a lot of contrasts since Nov. 8, 2016. In the early hours that day, Donald Trump was also in Michigan, just north in Grand Rapids. He explained what the election was all about: “Do you want America to be ruled by the corrupt political class, or do you want America to be ruled by you, the people?”

    Their voices were heard loud and clear. But Democrats refused to listen. Ever since, President Trump has worked day and night delivering on those promises he made. The corrupt political class? They’ve been clinging to their power trying to discredit, derail, and delegitimize the man whom the voters chose. First it would be “collusion” with the Russians, then it would be “collusion” with Russia’s nemesis Ukraine. (Hey, they never said it had to make sense.) No matter how many conspiracy theories the Democrats came up with, they never could change one simple fact: The people did decide that election.

    It's clear who is on the side of the American People and who is on the side of dirty disgusting America-hating partisan politics...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    With this vote, Democrats in the swamp have confirmed they think your vote doesn’t matter.

    "We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems,” says Jerry Nadler -- the same man who made his “bold pitch” to lead impeachment when he and his colleagues were fighting for the job back in December … of 2017. The same Nadler who bragged on the Acela train about his grand plans to impeach the president after the midterms.

    Note: All of that occurred before there was ever a phone call with Ukraine.

    "As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine,” President Trump said in his letter to Nancy Pelosi. If it was about withholding military aid to Ukraine, Obama would have been impeached. Or, at the very least, a “whistleblower” would have come forward to warn the public that our national security was under direct assault as Obama and Joe Biden stood idly by, letting Russia invade Crimea and never giving the Ukrainians the lethal arms they so desperately needed.

    “The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing,” President Trump said.

    “The voters are wise” -- these are words you will never hear a Democrat say.

    Because the truth is, Democrats do not think highly of the American voter. They think you will forget all the lies they told to get them here. But most of all they hold you in contempt. They are disgusted by your vote in 2016 and they are terrified you will do it again in 2020.

    Remember where President Trump was on the day of his impeachment vote. He was out with the people in the land he loves. Democrats? They were with the political class in the swamp they love, voting to deny the rights of the very people they represent. The people won’t forget.

    Yes.. By all means, Democrats.. Drag this out closer to the 2020 election..

    Provide the vivid contrast between President Trump who sides with the American People and the Democrat Party who hates America...

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    if you're demonstrating how it will be framed then fine, but you can't possibly really believe that, can you?

    JL

    I don’t really understand your Congress, or your system of checks and balances.. because, as I said during the campaign – I’m just a caveman! I fell on some ice, and later got thawed out by scientists. But there is one thing I do know – we must do everything in our power to lower the capital gains tax.Thank you!
    ~Cirroc (phil hartman), unfrozen caveman lawyer

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzAFqrxfeY

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Which part??

    It's a pretty accurate synopsis of the facts on the ground.

    The giveaways is that there are no such crimes as those charged and impeachment was the goal of Democrats since before President Trump took office.

    How can ANYONE claim this is legit when the decision was made long before anything happened? ??

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, let me try to explain …

    Many good people saw candidate Donald Trump as unfit to hold the highest office in the land based solely on his poor character, bad behavior and indecent treatment of his fellow human beings.

    Impeachment is legit because the president brought ALL of this down on himself for all of the reasons enumerated above.

    The crazy thing is that he could have extricated himself from the mess he created by making changes to his character, behavior and treatment of his fellow human beings. But, alas, he could not.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many good people saw candidate Donald Trump as unfit to hold the highest office in the land based solely on his poor character, bad behavior and indecent treatment of his fellow human beings.

    And those people had their say with their vote..

    But now, because they LOST, they are simply making stuff up..

    Impeachment is legit because the president brought ALL of this down on himself for all of the reasons enumerated above.

    If that were factually accurate, then more than DEMOCRATS would be saying it.

    Since it's *ONLY* Democrats who are pushing this, it is NOT legitimate by ANY stretch of the definition..

    The crazy thing is that he could have extricated himself from the mess he created by making changes to his character, behavior and treatment of his fellow human beings. But, alas, he could not.

    And Obama could have had a better presidency if he had acted more like Republicans wanted him to act..

    Democrats ***LOST*** the election. Elections have consequences...

    By LOSING, Democrats gave up the right to have a say in how things are run..

    But they couldn't HANDLE losing, which is why we have this purely partisan and illegitimate faux impeachment coup...

    And, given the precedent that Democrats are establishing with this faux impeachment coup, if there ever IS another Democrat POTUS in our life-time who is as hated as Obama was and with a GOP HOUSE???

    You can imagine the PAYBACK for this faux impeachment coup will be bloody...

    Democrats LOST..

    Elections have consequences..

    End of story..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everything Democrats have said in the past regarding impeachment PROVES that this is not a legitimate impeachment.

    This is fact...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."

    Have people of opposing viewpoints come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense??

    NO...

    Ergo, this impeachment is NOT legitimate..

    Hay, don't yell at me... It's what JOE BIDEN says... Argue with him..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have given ya'all a MULTITUDE of facts that prove this impeachment is not legitimate..

    Do you have any facts that support ya'all's claim that it IS legit??

    Any facts at all??

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi wanted to play hardball..

    Mitch McConnell threatens to CANCEL Donald Trump's Senate trial if 'scared' Nancy Pelosi does not hand over 'slapdash' articles of impeachment - as Speaker slams him as a 'ROGUE leader' and president gloats he will be cleared by 'default'

    Nancy Pelosi forced the Trump impeachment across the finish line Wednesday

    Now the process moves to a U.S. Senate trial but Pelosi said she's in no hurry

    She blasted Senate leader Mitch McConnell for saying he's not an 'impartial' juror, and declared she won't hand him the baton without a pledge of 'fairness'
    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for witness subpoenas that Republicans don't want to agree to

    Impeachment trial can't start until Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy choose 'managers' to carry the House's case to the Senate

    McConnell slammed Pelosi in a floor speech and warned the Senate's more patient pace will have a 'calming' influence after 'slapdash' impeachment

    President Donald Trump warned that '[t]he Do Nothing Party want to Do Nothing with the Articles & not deliver them to the Senate, but it's Senate's call!'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809853/House-Democrats-begin-agitating-Nancy-Pelosi-HOLD-articles-impeachment-leverage.html

    And McConnell bitch slaps her to the ground. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell cited Democrats' earlier pledges to impeach Trump as proof that Wednesday's vote 'was not some neutral judgment that Democrats came to with great reluctance. It was the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.'

    And THAT is the proof that this impeachment is not legitimate.. It's been promised by Democrats since BEFORE President Trump took office..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi is saying that the Senate Trial is not fair..

    Guess what??

    SHE HAS NO SAY in what the Senate does with the impeachment.

    BY THE CONSTITUTION, her job is done.

    Another indication that this is not a legitimate impeachment..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Until we can get some assurances from the majority leader that he is going to allow for a fair and impartial and trial to take place, we would be crazy to walk in there knowing he has set up a kangaroo court,” Mr. Clyburn said Thursday morning on CNN, referring to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader.

    Tell ya what, moron..

    You have assurances that the Senate Trial will be just as FAIR and IMPARTIAL as the House procedure was..

    THERE is your assurances, dickweed...

  21. [21] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From USA Today:

    A poll released Tuesday by ABC News and The Washington Post found that about 7 in 10 Americans think the administration officials should be able to testify. In an example of bipartisan agreement, 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial in the likely event that the House votes to impeach him.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/17/impeachment-poll-finds-most-think-trump-should-let-aides-testify-senate/2675644001/

  22. [22] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale [20]

    Well said !! I'da found something a little stronger than "dickweed", but other than that, you nailed it man!

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    So???

    A Trump/America hating outlet spouts a poll..

    Big woop..

    99% of ALL Americans thought that Holder should have testified over FAST/FURIOUS under Odumbo..

    What's yer point??

    I am still waiting for someone to provide any FACTS that this faux impeachment coup is legitimate..

    So far, no one has any...

    Color me shocked...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well said !! I'da found something a little stronger than "dickweed", but other than that, you nailed it man!

    "Take THIS 'under advisement', DICKWEED!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Merry Impeachmas’ — Washington Post Reporters Appear To Celebrate Impeachment
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/18/washington-post-reporters-celebrate-impeachment/

    Yea.. THERE is your impartial and unbiased propaganda "News" source.. :eyeroll:

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well said !! I'da found something a little stronger than "dickweed", but other than that, you nailed it man!

    And what's so hilarious about it is that these morons in the House think they actually have a SAY in what the Senate does..

    Once the House votes on the AOI, their input is no longer needed nor relevant.

    The HOUSE doesn't get to dictate jack-shit about anything once they hold their vote..

    Pelosi is just being a chicken-shit because she knows her finished product is complete and utter bullshit..

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    McConnell cited Democrats' earlier pledges to impeach Trump as proof that Wednesday's vote 'was not some neutral judgment that Democrats came to with great reluctance. It was the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.'

    The Speaker of the House, who speaks for the Democrats and is the official voice for the Party in the House, never pledged to impeach Trump. Individual Democrats voiced their desire to remove Trump, and they only were able to thanks to Trump’s continued attempts at involving foreign governments to assist him in getting re-elected!

    And it is utter bullshit to claim that Democrats had planned out this impeachment of Trump before he was even nominated... no one, not even Trump, believed he’d get elected! It would be one thing if Trump was innocent, but he’s admitted to doing what he’s been impeached for!

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it is utter bullshit to claim that Democrats had planned out this impeachment of Trump before he was even nominated... no one, not even Trump, believed he’d get elected!

    Once again, you argue a point that no on was making.. Democrats promised to impeach Trump AFTER he was elected but before he even took office.

    THAT is what proves this impeachment is bullshit..

    It would be one thing if Trump was innocent, but he’s admitted to doing what he’s been impeached

    ABSOLUTELY President Trump obstructs Congress.. Just like Odumbo did except BETTER..

    Guess what, sunshine??

    Obstructing Congress is NOT a crime!! DUH..

    This is like DUmbocrats and their bullshit "collusion" all over again...

    Dumbocrats are the AIR SUPPLY of politicians..

    MAKING CRIMES OUT OF NOTHING AT ALL

    The BJ Hunnicutt of impeachments..

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    She blasted Senate leader Mitch McConnell for saying he's not an 'impartial' juror, and declared she won't hand him the baton without a pledge of 'fairness'

    Which is exactly how Pelosi should have reacted to McConnell telling the world that he’s going to do whatever the president wants him to do in running this trial. I’d think that if you were truly looking at the impeachment process objectively, this would be a problem you, too.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is exactly how Pelosi should have reacted to McConnell telling the world that he’s going to do whatever the president wants him to do in running this trial. I’d think that if you were truly looking at the impeachment process objectively, this would be a problem you, too.

    So, basically, you are all about the Constitution, except when it's inconvenient to your agenda??

    The Senate runs the impeachment trial how the Senate sees fit..

    And I am CERTAIN that McConnell will run HIS Constitutional part of impeachment just as fair and impartially as House Democrats ran THEIR Constitutional part of impeachment.

    Constitutionally, Democrats have no business demanding anything more...

    This is no longer a Constitutionally legitimate impeachment if it ever even was..

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Once again, you argue a point that no on was making.. Democrats promised to impeach Trump AFTER he was elected but before he even took office.

    I was responding to the argument being made in your post....You posted it!

    It was the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.'

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was responding to the argument being made in your post....You posted it!

    Fair enough.. It was someone's argument, not mine..

    It's clear that no one (except me, of course :D) thought President Trump would actually win the election..

    Just as it's clear that after Trump DID win, Democrats and Trump/America haters wanted to impeach him, even before he took office..

    Put another way...

    If a loud angry mob promises to kill Joe Blow if Joe Blow shows up in their town and Joe Blow ends up dead.....

    The angry mob's claims of innocence are dubious at best..

    Basically Democrats decided on 10 Nov 2016 that, if they ever got control of the House, they were going to impeach Donald Trump..

    The details to be filled in later..

    That is why this faux impeachment coup is illegitimate.. It was promised by Democrats long before ANY manufactured reasons came to light..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is why this faux impeachment coup is illegitimate.. It was promised by Democrats long before ANY manufactured reasons came to light..

    Another reason why this faux impeachment coup is illegitimate is because it is completely partisan..

    It was universally agreed on by Weigantia (by those who expressed an opinion) that with bi-partisan came legitimacy...

    Once it became clear there was no bi-partisan, of course people changed their minds..

    But Biden, Pelosi and Schiff amongst others all agree..

    If it's partisan, it's not legit..

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Why should Pelosi have to decide who will serve as the House’s impeachment managers prior to knowing what the Senate rules are for the trial? There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates when she has to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. You remember McConnell did something similar with Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, only Pelosi is not refusing to fulfill her Constitutional duties. If McConnell wants the trial to start, he knows what he needs to do to make that happen!

    It is also quite comical watching you rant about Pelosi while remaining silent on McConnell’s announcement that he will let Trump’s attorney’s decide how the trial is to be run.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why should Pelosi have to decide who will serve as the House’s impeachment managers prior to knowing what the Senate rules are for the trial?

    Because the US Constitution says so..

    It is also quite comical watching you rant about Pelosi while remaining silent on McConnell’s announcement that he will let Trump’s attorney’s decide how the trial is to be run.

    So??? According to the US Constitution, the Senate runs the trial how the Senate runs the trial..

    NO ONE in the House gets to have any say about it.

    If Pelosi sends bullshit to the Senate, the Senate will treat it as the bullshit it is..

    THAT is what the Constitution says..

    If Pelosi wants to sit on the impeachment and NOT send it to the Senate as is her Constitutional duty, then the Senate will simply dismiss the impeachment and President Trump is vindicated and exonerated.

    Easy Peezy Lemon Squeezy..

    But, as I said.. The Senate will be just as FAIR and IMPARTIAL as the House was..

    How can you ask for anything more than that??

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it's Partisan... It's not legit...

    Very simple..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats actually THOUGHT they would get Bi-Partisan?? :D

    GOP gives Trump unapologetic embrace over impeachment
    https://apnews.com/97b5287681408de60e6e6bb86ff7b134

    "Oh Johnny, Johnny... Did YOU back the wrong horse..."
    -Dr Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    As usual, Democrats let their hate do their thinking for them and overreached...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    PIERS MORGAN: It’s a Merry Impeachmas alright – but for President Trump, not the deluded Democrats, dumb liberal celebrities and shockingly-biased media who don’t understand that this will get him re-elected
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809571/PIERS-MORGAN-Merry-Impeachmas-alright-President-Trump-not-deluded-Democrats.html

    It's breath-taking the amazing and utter stoopidity of the Democrat Party...

    This ONLY ends ONE WAY....

    President Trump re-elected to another 4 years... The only real question is how big of a landslide win will it be...

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Because the US Constitution says so..

    Where, exactly, does it say that the House must decide who will serve as their impeachment managers prior to the Senate deciding on the rules for the trial?

    So??? According to the US Constitution, the Senate runs the trial how the Senate runs the trial..

    NO ONE in the House gets to have any say about it.

    And no one has suggested otherwise. Pelosi is simply asking for the Senate to state how the trial is to be run.

    If Pelosi sends bullshit to the Senate, the Senate will treat it as the bullshit it is..

    THAT is what the Constitution says..

    Did Trump tell you that was what it says? First, Pelosi won’t be sending bullshit, she’ll be sending the Articles of Impeachment voted on and passed by the House...as outlined in the Constitution. I am sorry if you think our Constitution is bullshit, but that does not change the fact that it is the law of our land. McConnell could just re-use the rules that governed the Clinton impeachment trial — rules that the Senate passed unanimously. Why the delay?

    And secondly, you are wrong if you think that the rules for the trial should be based on the content of the Articles of Impeachment. That is NOT what the Constitution says, nor was it the intent of our Founding Fathers.

    Lastly, the Constitution states that the Articles of Impeachment need only pass with a simple majority to be legitimate. It would be great if the results had been more bipartisan, but it is not required. Perhaps if the House members had take the same oath prior to voting on the articles that the Senate will be asked to swear to at the start of the trial the vote would have been more bipartisan?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where, exactly, does it say that the House must decide who will serve as their impeachment managers prior to the Senate deciding on the rules for the trial?

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

    And no one has suggested otherwise. Pelosi is simply asking for the Senate to state how the trial is to be run.

    It's not her place to ask and it's none of her business anyways..

    Lastly, the Constitution states that the Articles of Impeachment need only pass with a simple majority to be legitimate.

    Pelosi herself, not to mention Nadler, Schiff-head and Biden state differently..

    Pelosi can sit on the AOI all she wants.. The Senate will simply dismiss the charges out of hand.

    End result, Trump is INNOCENT of all charges..

    Works for me. :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Pelosi knows how bad she has fraked up..

    You impeach the president on Wednesday night, and on Thursday morning you tell reporters you don't want to talk about it. Pelosi just now: 'I'm not going to answer any more questions' on impeachment.

    Pelosi, running scared....

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    You Dems/Libs succumbed to PTSD syndrome the morning after the 2016 election, and the affliction appears to be incurable by the passage of time.

    All the "collusion etc". impeachment-related stuff is simply grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to get rid of the orange moron you hate so much.

    Problem is, all of that bullshit you're supposedly so indignant over falls into the same catagory as does having oval sex in the oral office with teen-age interns - it may be immoral but it aint't illegal nor unconstitutional.

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Pelosi herself, not to mention Nadler, Schiff-head and Biden state differently..

    And the Constitution says otherwise....your point?

    Pelosi can sit on the AOI all she wants.. The Senate will simply dismiss the charges out of hand.

    End result, Trump is INNOCENT of all charges..

    Works for me. :D

    Well, until the Senate receives the AOI, they cannot “simply dismiss the charges out of hand”. And do you keep repeating that “Trump is INNOCENT of all charges..” to fool yourself?

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    4

    This was all pre-ordained on 10 Nov 2016 when Donald Trump had the audacity... the unmitigated gall... to wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton...

    I have an idea..

    Let's play a game called LET'S BE HONEST..

    I'll start..

    LET'S BE HONEST.....

    This impeachment is not going the way ya'all had hoped it would...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/12/11/one-term-joe/#comment-150129

    *laughs*

    Let's be honest that you're all over the highway and need to pick a lane on your pronouncements about the impeachment. You expect the group to now believe this new drivel of yours when you're the guy who not even very long ago was insisting to everyone on the board that impeachment would fail? We here in Weigantia can count the days on one hand wherein you were still claiming there was a 40% chance that impeachment wouldn't happen... so pardon those of us here with reading comprehension ability for laughing at your newly found insistence that it was all preordained since election day... when Donald Trump lost the popular vote by multiple millions but did win in the Electoral College, thus not qualifying as "mopping the floor" unless you're referring to the sweat problem that accompanies his obesity and orange/red face issues.

    The giveaway, beyond Democrat's own words, is that they simply made up crimes that don't exist..

    Wrong... still fabulously wrong and arguing semantics and whining about crimes. Your Worship has committed multiple crimes. It is a crime to obstruct congress, and it is a crime to abuse power in multiple states and at the federal level. Claiming that "obstruction of Congress" is not a crime is like claiming that "killing someone" is not a crime; you're simply arguing semantics. It's a crime to lie to Congress and/or obstruct their role of oversight by lying, failing to appear, failing to produce documents, etc. It's called "contempt of Congress" in the vernacular and is definitely a crime. It's also a crime to "kill someone"; it's called "murder" or "manslaughter" or "negligent homicide"... goes by a lot of different names because words have meaning. Despite your protestations that there is no such thing as "abuse of power" in any state or federal law, you're fabulously wrong, and I blame the right-wingnut propaganda du jour for that spew. Right off the top of my head: Texas Penal Code, Chapter 39, Abuse of Office, and I can find you 49 more and probably one in the District of Columbia too.

    One has to wonder what Democrats will do when President Trump is exonerated, vindicated and re-elected in a landslide??

    Let's be honest: One has to wonder why anyone would whine so much about the entire issue if they claimed it was "preordained" and kept insisting they knew the outcome... which is actually likely based on history and the complicit and spineless GOP.

    If Democrats are looking for suggestions, I would suggest they consider the Jonestown option.. :^/

    I would wager it doesn't surprise a single person on this forum that your solution is death for anyone who dares to disagree with Your Orange Worship Hair Dick Tater. A close friend of my family was shot and killed by the cult at Jonestown along with Congressman Leo Ryan at Port Kaituma, and I find your solution disgusting but keeping in line with your regular spew condoning violence and hatred toward those who disagree with Your Cult Worship... very unhinged and Trumpian too.

    That is how disgusted I am with Democrats and Trump/America haters and their hate-filled agenda...

    Trump isn't America, and you just suggested death for Democrats so you might want to check your mirror for the guy spewing the "hate-filled agenda." Very typical for you and par for your regular modus operandi, though.

    And yes, the irony is not lost on me...

    Like I said... pick a lane. I can link you to multiple comments of yours where you were begging Democrats to impeach Trump. Cry more... but please at least stop deluding yourself that it was "preordained" on election day because it wasn't. There are many people privy to information you don't know and would deny if you did know, and you're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that Trump left them no choice but to impeach him.

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    12

    But now, because they LOST, they are simply making stuff up..

    You've really drunk the Kool-Aid, Mike. Trump confessed and insisted he'd do it again and then ordered his subordinates to ignore the production and subpoena requests of a co-equal branch of government. No one is making that up; he confessed to it, and he did it.

    And Obama could have had a better presidency if he had acted more like Republicans wanted him to act..

    Your Obama/America hatred is again duly noted but has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's actions where he was held accountable for his actions... you know, the ones he confessed to doing and stated he would do them again and then requested China to kneecap Joe Biden, and then he kneecapped Congress's investigation into his actions by refusing to produce a single document and ordering his subordinates and Americans who used to work for him to ignore Congress's authority and impede their investigation by refusing to cooperate in any way.

    Democrats ***LOST*** the election. Elections have consequences...

    The most recent election has consequences too, and Trump got his ass handed to him and the floor was mopped with the Trump sweat and tears.

    By LOSING, Democrats gave up the right to have a say in how things are run..

    You really should crack a book and learn about co-equal branches of government and how the President of the United States isn't a monarch. Might I suggest the Constitution of the United States for starters?

    And, given the precedent that Democrats are establishing with this faux impeachment coup, if there ever IS another Democrat POTUS in our life-time who is as hated as Obama was and with a GOP HOUSE???

    It's like the Trump Cult slept through the Clinton impeachment wherein the POTUS was impeached for lying and breaking his oath to his marriage. At least Democrats admitted he was stupid for what he did.

    You can imagine the PAYBACK for this faux impeachment coup will be bloody...

    Impeachment is not a coup, and the outcome of the election hasn't changed. You shouldn't allow the GOP liars to upset you with their nonsense about Democrats trying to overturn an election. That's just bullshit propaganda designed to punch your buttons because they think you're stupid enough to believe it. :)

    Democrats LOST..

    That is so 2016. The latest election was 2018 wherein Democrats won in quite a spectacular Blue wavy great big wave and flood.

    Elections have consequences..

    Yep... and not just the presidential ones because of those co-equal branches of government. :)

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    19

    Pelosi is saying that the Senate Trial is not fair..

    Guess what??

    SHE HAS NO SAY in what the Senate does with the impeachment.

    Guess what? You and the GOP whined incessantly about the House (who followed the rules made by the GOP), and guess what? It's her Articles of Impeachment until she gives it to the Senate.

    BY THE CONSTITUTION, her job is done.

    Wrong. Her job is done when she sends the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate... which she hasn't done yet.

    Another indication that this is not a legitimate impeachment..

    You and the GOP are a bunch of whiny hypocrites. :)

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    28

    ABSOLUTELY President Trump obstructs Congress.. Just like Odumbo did except BETTER..

    Your comparison is nothing more than GOP propaganda lies and is ridiculous, and you spew this ridiculous bullshit back like the gullible rube they know you are.

    Obstructing Congress is NOT a crime!! DUH..

    You keep arguing semantics! *laughs* You're a sucker for the GOP propaganda bullshit. It is a crime to obstruct Congress; if you don't believe me, ask Michael Cohen. How many times do I have to post the law for which the Trump Trash are sitting in prison?

    You're repeatedly spewing this ridiculous GOP propaganda bullshit you've been spoon-fed like a useful idiot. You are the poster boy for gullible! You seem blissfully unaware that you're repeating the equivalent of: It's not a crime to "get shitfaced drunk and bob and weave on the highway."

    You're embarrassing yourself! *laughs*

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    32

    Basically Democrats decided on 10 Nov 2016 that, if they ever got control of the House, they were going to impeach Donald Trump..

    Some of them did do that, but let's be honest, it was only a couple of them. Also, Trump had announced to the entire world before he took office that he'd basically be violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution... which he continues doing to this very day. He also requested that a foreign government intervene in our election, which is illegal, which they did do, so it's not like they didn't have reason.

    The details to be filled in later..

    Bullshit. You're deluding yourself and falling for the GOP propaganda. If Trump has done nothing wrong, he should want to have his aides and former employees to testify and clear his name rather than obstructing Congress and refusing to cooperate in any way in violation of that law I keep posting... you know, the one for which Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Gates, soon to be Flynn and Roger Stone... are all going to jail by obstructing Congressional oversight.

    Trump refusing to allow anyone to testify makes him look guilty. The Senate not wanting to allow witnesses when there were witnesses at Johnson's and Clinton's impeachment trials... makes Trump look guilty too. Why is Trump afraid to allow anyone to testify? Because he did what he's been impeached for and then covered it up and obstructed congressional oversight.

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    33

    Another reason why this faux impeachment coup is illegitimate is because it is completely partisan..

    So by this bullshit propaganda spew, all a Party need do is refuse to hold the president responsible for what he's admitted to doing and then gaslight the public with claims that the President has done nothing wrong when they know damn well he's broken multiple laws. Duh!

    It was universally agreed on by Weigantia (by those who expressed an opinion) that with bi-partisan came legitimacy...

    Bullshit... then all one side need do is refuse to hold the president accountable and gaslight the gullible rubes with partisan propaganda.

    He's impeached so you can stop your whining about whether or not "it's legit" because the House has the sole power to impeach, and it's done and done. Like I told you... sure thing. :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    34

    Why should Pelosi have to decide who will serve as the House’s impeachment managers prior to knowing what the Senate rules are for the trial? There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates when she has to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. You remember McConnell did something similar with Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, only Pelosi is not refusing to fulfill her Constitutional duties. If McConnell wants the trial to start, he knows what he needs to do to make that happen!

    You'll confuse him with facts.

    It is also quite comical watching you rant about Pelosi while remaining silent on McConnell’s announcement that he will let Trump’s attorney’s decide how the trial is to be run.

    Exactly! McConnell and Lindsey Graham have already both admitted they are partisan so Mike is naturally upset that the impeachment trial won't be bipartisan... oh, wait! :)

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Note to all:

    "Snap reaction to debate" column is now up:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/12/19/post-debate-reactions/

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.