This idiot gets an OpEd piece in the LA Times so she can spew her stupidity at will and without fact checking.
What is her moronic argument; that Democrats can impeach Trump for no other reason than they don't like him.
The Founding Fathers provided us with a way out of troubled presidency — the direct, doable process of impeachment
............
Impeachment requires no actual lawbreaking, and conviction by the Senate does not mean that an official has been found guilty of a crime. Impeachment requires no intent to do wrong. In fact, the first impeachment conviction in U.S. history involved a judge who was unable to perform his duties due to senility. He was, in other words, incapable of legal intent to do wrong.
Wrong; the Constitution is very clear on this:
“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
I don't see anything that says he can be removed because a particular political element doesn't like how he conducts himself.
The idiot in the OpEd lies again with this:
Yet the mainstay grounds for every impeachment in U.S. history remains the principle enunciated by Hamilton: harm to society.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-radnofsky-impeachment-20171016-story.html
Wrong; the Constitution says nothing about "harming" society.
Democrats are removing any doubt that they are repugnant, stupid and shameless as they attempt to find any way possible to disenfranchise more than 50 million Americans because they just cannot accept the legitimate outcome of an election.
It is despicable and their stupidity will come back to haunt them the next time a Democrat wins an election.
What is her moronic argument; that Democrats can impeach Trump for no other reason than they don't like him.
The Founding Fathers provided us with a way out of troubled presidency — the direct, doable process of impeachment
............
Impeachment requires no actual lawbreaking, and conviction by the Senate does not mean that an official has been found guilty of a crime. Impeachment requires no intent to do wrong. In fact, the first impeachment conviction in U.S. history involved a judge who was unable to perform his duties due to senility. He was, in other words, incapable of legal intent to do wrong.
Wrong; the Constitution is very clear on this:
“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
I don't see anything that says he can be removed because a particular political element doesn't like how he conducts himself.
The idiot in the OpEd lies again with this:
Yet the mainstay grounds for every impeachment in U.S. history remains the principle enunciated by Hamilton: harm to society.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-radnofsky-impeachment-20171016-story.html
Wrong; the Constitution says nothing about "harming" society.
Democrats are removing any doubt that they are repugnant, stupid and shameless as they attempt to find any way possible to disenfranchise more than 50 million Americans because they just cannot accept the legitimate outcome of an election.
It is despicable and their stupidity will come back to haunt them the next time a Democrat wins an election.
