Democrats have spectacularly failed in their attempt to impeach President Donald Trump, with the House throwing out the motion on Wednesday. The majority of House Democrats joined Republicans on Wednesday in rejecting the move to impeach Trump, with just 58 remaining Democrats voting to approve it.
Politico.com reports: The motion to sideline the measure — killing the effort — was approved 364-58, with four Democrats voting present. The vote was forced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who introduced articles of impeachment describing Trump as a bigot who incites hate and has demeaned the presidency.
“Donald John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office,” Green said on the House floor as he introduced the articles.
“Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment,” Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said in a joint statement, shortly after Green introduced his articles of impeachment.
The White House quickly dismissed the effort, labeling Green and his allies “extremists.”
“It’s disappointing that extremists in Congress still refuse to accept the President’s decisive victory in last year’s election,” spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. “Their time would be better spent focusing on tax relief for American families and businesses, and working to fund our troops and veterans through the holiday season rather than threaten a government shutdown.”
Pelosi and her top allies urged Democrats to help bottle up the measure during a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday morning.
But Green offered the proposal as a so-called privileged motion, a procedural tactic that allows a single member to force a vote. He had flirted with forcing a vote on articles of impeachment in October but backed away amid pressure from Democratic leaders at the time. Republican leaders then moved to “table” the motion, a procedural step to bottle it up indefinitely.
Green’s articles of impeachment cite Trump’s remarks in the aftermath of a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, as well as his attacks on Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) and his repeated criticism of NFL players who have protested abuses by police officers by kneeling during the national anthem.
“Friends, whether we like it or not, we now have a bigot in the White House who incites hatred and hostility,” he wrote in a letter to colleagues on Tuesday.
Wasn't this the guy who fondled,man-handled, propositioned, and attempted to lure about ten of us with lewd remarks???
I don't know, please do tell, I love to share things.
Attempt at humor, these people are suffering from the "derangement" and someone ought to stifle them, they do great harm, but seem to be making damn Fools of themselves, so far. The American People are no longer buying their "Bill of Goods". We reject them, as we are intelligent enough to see our Country improving, and they just keep trying to blow smoke.
The only bigots we have are those who signed on to this bill of Impeachment... they are not only bigots, they are racist of the first order and need to need to be sensured by the House for their bigotry and hate speech.
'Up next is Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, accused of harassment and the unwanted touching of Republican staffer Winsome Packer, who was on the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Hastings claims that he was not aware of the settlement and that he is outraged that taxpayer money was used to pay off the staffer.'
Rep. Alcee Hastings is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEATED... he was IMPEACHED as a Federal Judge and removed from office. The punishment for Impeachment includes a life time restriction on holding any office.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." See: Article I, Section 3, Clause 7
Rep. Hastings is illegally seated and needs t[o be immediately removed... the Speaker of the House needs to be censured for failing to enforce the US Constitution by permitting Rep. Hastings to remain a member of the House of Representatives... an office he is clearly BARRED from holding by the US Constitution.
It should be noted that CONVICTION and PUNISHMENT upon Impeachment may not be pardoned or set aside by the President or Congress. There is no valid Constitutional provision to permit Rep. Hastings from holding his office. He is Constitutionally disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States... perhaps, being a member of Congress is no longer considered an honorable office, holding the trust of the people... and is only seen as an office for profit. In any event we all need to write the Speaker of the House and ask how he has permitted Rep. Alcee Hastings to hold his office in the House.
I have a idea Ronald,
Seeing how I have been in a meeting for the last 3 hours, and I worked all day, ahh, you handle that one, and if ya need a hand let me know.
Well Tiff... that is how Hastings got to where he is today... to many people were willing to ignore the US Constitution ... the results are clear... we no longer have a Constitutional Republic.
Alcee Hastings was removed from his office as a Federal Judge by IMPEACHMENT... that permanently bars him from ever holding public office again... or from enjoying any benefit from such an office. He is illegally seated in Congress and ALL OF CONGRESS KNOWS IT... shameful is not a word strong enough to describe what he represents... Congress is refusing to abide by the US Constitution... thus ending any pretext that we are a Constitutional Republic.
Article in Washington Post... Oct. 21st.1989 reads:
"U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted by the Senate yesterday of engaging in a "corrupt conspiracy" to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him, marking the first time a federal official has been impeached and removed from office for a crime he had been acquitted of by a jury. " Washington Post.
For the entire article See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/link...
Convictions of Impeachment are without appeal... nor can they be pardoned... they are final and permanent, under the Constitution there is no remedy.
Ronald according to the information he"Alcee Hastings " may be guilty:https://www.google.com/search?q=Alcee+Hastings&ie=utf-8&oe=...
In 1981, a federal grand jury indicted Judge Alcee L. Hastings, appointed to the federal district court in 1979, along with his friend William A. Borders, a Washington, D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons convicted in Hastings’ court. A year after Borders was convicted of conspiracy, the result of an FBI sting effort, Hastings's case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted in a criminal court in 1983 and returned to his judicial post.
Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case. The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference, which, in turn, informed the House of Representatives on March 17, 1987, that Judge Alcee Hastings should be impeached and removed from office.
On August 3, 1988, following an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, the House of Representatives voted 413 to 3 to adopt H. Res. 499, approving 17 articles of impeachment against Hastings, the greatest number of articles in any impeachment proceeding to date. Charges included conspiracy, bribery, perjury, falsifying documents, thwarting a criminal investigation, and undermining the public confidence "in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." The Senate received the articles on August 9, 1988.
Following the precedent set in the 1986 Claiborne impeachment case, the Senate again chose to refer the matter to a special committee as authorized by impeachment rule XI. On March 16, 1989, the Senate rejected a motion by Hastings to dismiss the case, and adopted S. Res. 38, creating a 12-member trial committee to hear evidence and then report to the full Senate on contested and uncontested facts. The committee was not tasked with making a recommendation on guilt or innocence. Committee hearings continued from July 10, to August 3, 1989. Consisting of six Republicans and six Democrats, the committee heard evidence for and against Hastings, and took testimony from 55 witnesses, including Borders. The House managers presented convincing evidence that Hastings had, indeed, conspired with Borders to solicit the bribe. Hastings, who appeared in his own defense, objected to the use of the committee, insisting that the full Senate should be required to hear evidence. His motion failed. Hastings also insisted that the Senate trial amounted, in legal terms, to "double jeopardy" since he had already been acquitted in a court of law.
The trial committee presented its report on October 2, 1989. Sixteen days later, the trial began in the U.S. Senate, with prosecution and defense given two hours to summarize their cases. The Senate deliberated in closed session on October 19, 1989. The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.
Four years later, Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the term beginning January 3, 1993. As a member of that body, on December 19, 1998, Hastings voted (on four articles of impeachment) against impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton.
It must be noted that the US Senate is not required to vote on disqualifying Hastings from holding future office as the US Constitution MANDATES that he be disqualified...
The US Senate may not set aside the plane language of the US Constitution. Rep. Hastings is serving unconstitutionally and MUST be removed if we are to have a Constitutional Republic... a government that honors and abides by the US Constitution.
This man being seated in the House of Representatives is a disgrace... it typifies the type of individual that both Parties find acceptable for government service... both political parties demurred to accept this mans horrible conduct... the result was to be expected... more bad conduct while in office... sexual harassment among other character flaws soon followed.
Ronald, I tell ya what, you put up a blog,
The Tax Money, who found out?
The Lady that filed the complaint, who is she, not just her, her family?
Now remember there are Republicans as well as Democrats involved in this investigation.
The clue may be, if Tax money that was used?, who dropped the information, put up a blog, collect some information and lets start from there.
Beating up the blog with Constitutional Republic, does not solve the why?
The 'Why' for most of our Nation's problems is the failure of Government to apply the Constitution properly...
Alcee Hastings would not be a US Representative if the Constitution was applied... He would be an unemployed, Impeached, Federal Judge... whose license to practice law was revoked. There would be no Tax Payer funding for settlements of sexual harassment in his case. He is Constitutionally barred from holding office. However, the political establishment failed to exercise the Constitution to deny him a seat in Congress.
The underlying problem is the immoral men running Congress... if they applied the laws of the US ... starting with the Constitution... men like Alcee Hastings would not be serving in the Congress or any other office of the US Government. The problem is immoral and corrupt leadership in both political parties... the problem is not Alcee Hastings. He is doing what comes natural to corrupt men and women..