Democrats Claim Trump Capturing Maduro is an ‘Impeachable Offense’
“We are in 25th Amendment territory now.”
Here we go again!
Yes, the Democrats have described the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as an impeachable offense.
The Democratic lawmakers are furious that Trump left Congress in the dark about the operation.
The administration plans to brief Congressional leaders today at 5:30 PM ET.
Something tells me the briefing won’t change their minds.
Axios mentioned a few statements from the Democrats:
- “I had absolutely no briefing or heads up,” House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) fumed to Axios. “I received all information from the news media at this point.”
- “Trump must be impeached,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) in a statement, also calling for the passage of legislation to rein in executive war powers and reassert congressional control over the process.
- Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) called Trump’s plan to run Venezuela “truly insane” and a “disaster.” Referring to a Constitutional mechanism that allows the Cabinet to remove a president, he told Axios: “We are in 25th Amendment territory now.”
- “Today, many Democrats have understandably questioned whether impeachment is possible again under the current political reality,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). “I am reconsidering that view.”
- Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said in a statement: “This violation of the United States Constitution is an impeachable offense.”
Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) claimed Trump’s actions are a “direct violation of the United States Constitution.”
Other Democrats did not mention impeachment, but agreed that Trump violated the Constitution.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who is also running for California governor, said Maduro is an illegitimate leader, but insisted the administration violated the Constitution:
Swalwell said nobody wanted to see Maduro in charge of Venezuela but said Trump’s unilateral military actions had been taken without legal congressional authority.
“What this president has done, in the shortcuts that he has taken, is he’s going to, one shortcut at a time, put us in a fascist cul-de-sac. That’s where he’d taken us, that’s the objection. It’s not a process objection; it’s an objection for acting in such a fascistic way,” he said.
Swalwell would not rule out funding an occupation of Venezuela, saying that too much was unknown, including how long any troop deployments would last and what they could cost. But he said the president had put Congress in a “tough position” and the Democratic caucus would meet soon to try to determine its stance.
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi echoed Swalwell’s thoughts about Maduro and Trump’s operation:
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) called Maduro an “illegitimate leader” but questioned the Trump administration’s reliance on allegations of drug trafficking as a justification of force and said the administration had not proven Maduro represented an urgent threat to the United States.
“If the President grounds his actions on the basis of drug trafficking charges, it is entirely hypocritical in light of his recent pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was responsible for bringing more than 400 tons of cocaine in the United States in order to ‘shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos,’” Pelosi said in a statement.
“The Administration says Maduro will be tried for drug trafficking in a U.S. court – but Hernandez was convicted of the same crimes by an American jury and Trump pardoned him,” she said.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The democrats claim Trump even existing is an impeachable offense.
Yeah, the d/prog leadership have been really confused and inconsistent seemingly trying to figure out what their own base wants them to say/do.
Democrats are irretrievably stupid.
This. The Communist retards don’t know what that means
Trump should not every make this kind of information available to Congress until it is too late for traitors to leak it.
Another day of the usual sturm and drang– I doubt Trump will even suffer impeachment let alone removal from office. The invasion of Panama to get Manuel Noriega paved the way for a similar action against Maduro. His lawyers made all the same arguments and they all failed. Of course the Southern District of NY qualifies as our most corrupt district, and a rogue judge could become a barrier to conviction. So this case could end up in SCOTUS which will likely support Trump.
The Dems are laboring under the mistaken impression that the POTUS is obligated to inform them in advance of his exercise of military options. But existing law (the War Powers Act) requires no such thing. At worst, Trump’s “failure” to inform Congress in advance of this episode is merely discourteous. It’s certainly not a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
And. Even the e. iSync law itself is on thin ice as to constitutionality.
Maybe discourteous, but certainly good sense.
You know a bunch of them will be drop dimes as soon as they are out of the briefing.
When I pulled away from the McD’s drive thru yesterday I found out they handed me the wrong order. That must be grounds for impeaching someone. Wasn’t Trump a fry cook before he was elected President? It’s Trump’s fault so let’s impeach him!
Sounds like midterm fundraiser season.
Better impeach him soon. Before we find out Maduro was making “donations” to them.
Al Green already filed articles of impeachment this year. Democrats didn’t have enough votes
and even their leadership voted against it.
I bet ol’ Al is jumping up and down right now, or at least waving his cane wildly, grunting “Me…Me..Me, Let me do it again!”
Al “Horshack” Green…
Horshack is an old and respected name. It means “The Cattle Are Dying.”
Too late. Maduro was paying off over 60 Senator’s.
Too bad the Democrats fulfilled de Toqueville’s warning about impeachment by making it meaningless after they decided that Trump being President was an impeachable offense.
Their statement is correct, as far as it goes. It is indeed something for which Congress could legitimately impeach and remove the president — if it wanted to.
If this all goes pear-shaped, and in hindsight it turns out to have been a serious misjudgment, then I expect there will be an effort to do so, perhaps even successfully, depending on just how pear-shaped it goes.
But if it succeeds, as it currently gives every sign of doing, then Congress will be happy with it, and that makes it OK.
There is not one word in the constitution that gives Congress an advance veto on the president. It gets its say afterwards. When the president acts like this he is taking a risk; if it works he’s a hero, if it fails he may lose his job. So far it’s working, and there’s no indication that it’s not going to keep on working, but that is still a possibility. That’s all.
That is a darn good summary Milhouse.
It fur shure is! It deserves FAR more downticks!
/must I?
It was and now the cowardly tw*t that downclicked you is going to have to downclick me. I hate to be left out of a good party.
Ask and ye shall receive sweetie 🤣🤣
Well kudos for announcing you were downclicking.
In that regard, the House could legitimately impeach for anything. But that is not what this is about, and it would turn legitimacy into an Orwellian.
Historically, when has a president ever been impeached for a foreign policy mistake?
Historically, in the USA, presidents have almost never been impeached, even for actual proven crimes. But as I understand it, in the 18th century people were impeached in the UK for disastrous judgment calls, and that’s the background the framers and ratifiers would have understood it against.
The first time a president was impeached, it was for violating a law that the Supreme Court later said was an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress into the president’s powers. Which is exactly what every president since the War Powers Act was passed has called it.
What does UK history have to do with it? The fact is that the Democrats’ threats deserve ridicule, not a lesson in impeachment that has little, if any, relationship to the actual circumstances here. As someone else intimated above, Trump’s birth is an impeachable event to some. The House could impeach him for that, if it wanted.
UK history has everything to do with interpreting the constitution because that is its background. The USA was formed by Englishmen, and to this day the English common law is our background law; when interpreting it, the courts must look to English cases, preferably from the 18th century, or at least no later than the early 19th, while the two countries’ understanding of their common legal heritage was still very similar.
As I commented above, the War Powers Act, such that it is (likely unconstitutional) doesn’t require the POTUS to give Congress advance notice of a military operation. The Dems are cheesed off (as they allege) that they weren’t informed in advance, a policy choice for which the POTUS was elected to exercise his judgment. But the Constitution doesn’t admit of impeachment over policy (even when it proves disastrous – the remedy for disastrous policy is found in an election, not in an impeachment), but only for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
It is the conceit of the left to assume that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” means “anything they damned well want it to mean”.
It seems to me that by passing the War Powers Act Congress gave those specific powers to the president. He can act but then he has to report afterward and that’s what happened
That’s assuming the War Powers Act is even valid in the first place.
The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress over Pres Nixon’s veto in 1973 is presumed valid unless it’s ruled un Constitutional by SCOTUS or changed by Congress. Those clowns saying Trump should have notified Congress before action are ignoring the law they passed which says he must notify Congress within 48 hours. What he did is entirely legal from that standpoint and is not grounds for impeachment.
Every president since 1973 has officially taken the position that it is not valid, and that while they choose to comply with it for the sake of peace with Congress, they reserve the right to violate it should they ever feel the necessity.
If a president ever does violate it, that’s when the courts will get their say. Until then the courts can’t give their opinion, so we don’t know how they’d rule.
Where is the “High crime or Misdemeanor” that the Constitution requires for impeachment?
The history of impeachment in the UK in the 18th century seems to show that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can include bad judgment.
Now apply US precedent. It’s where we live.
Irrelevant. How people understood the constitution in the 1880s doesn’t matter; the only thing that mattes is how they understood it in the 1780s, and at that time their understanding of impeachment was based on its use in the UK.
The authors of the Constitution were pretty smart cookies. If they had wanted to authorize impeachment for policy differences, they would have said as much. The system they devised (operationally a democracy) allows punishment for bad policy to be found at the polls. We elect a POTUS to use his judgment concerning the exercise of his Article II powers. The reasons for impeachment don’t include “policy differences” because a remedy for bad policy is found elsewhere in the Constitution. The purpose of impeachment and removal from office is to allow the prosecution of a POTUS for actual crimes (because trying a sitting POTUS for criminal offenses would be disruptive to government and, presumably, to the country’s well-being), which is why actual crimes (“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”) are listed. Having executed “bad policies” isn’t a crime, so there’s no cause to impeach and remove a POTUS from office over bad policy decisions.
So you are an “originalist? Interesting.
But in this case, you are wrong.
The Founders did take many concepts from English law. That does not mean they were not modified or changed to fit the new country.
For example, England still uses common law. Here in the US, we do not.
But in regards to impeachment, the debate at the Constitutional Convention centered around what basis could an official be impeached. They rejected the English basis of impeachment for several reasons.
First, the United States was not going to have a king. That alone shifts the dynamics of impeaching the highest government official in the land.
Secondly, George Mason proposed exactly what the English system encompasses – removal of someone for a “bad decision.” James Madison argued against that saying that if someone could be impeached for “mere decisions,” then whatever party that was in power in the legislature could remove a sitting President, Vice President, etc which would effectively make Presidential elections null and void.
In other words, the idea of impeachment may have come from England and English common law, the English standards of impeachment would not be the same here. That alone disputes your idea that the US “have to look at” English impeachment for guidance.
Although impeachment does not require an actual crime, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65:
“The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
Hamilton also talks about and rejects the idea that people can be impeached for “bad decisions” which would allow the Congress to remove people for decisions with which the majority disagree.
Finally, if you want to hold that impeachment allows for removal for “bad decisions,” why weren’t Supreme Court Justices impeached for decisions the Congress felt were bad, such as the Heller decision, the Bruen decision and even the Dobbs decision on abortion?
Sorry, but relying on English precedent and practices for impeachment when the Founders moved away from those precedents, doesn’t make sense, nor is it what the Founders understood at the time.
Of course I’m an originalist. Why would you think I wouldn’t be?
Yes, we do. In the federal courts and in 49 states. How does everyone not know this?
Because the outcome of the failed attempt to impeach Samuel Chase was that judicial independence (which was a principle inherited from the UK) requires that a judge can’t be removed for his decision, but only for bad conduct.
We don’t know it because it is not true.
The foundation of the American legal system is now the laws of the land, (statutory law) and not the decisions of the Courts (common law.) Courts interpret laws – not make them.
Yet you argued in a previous comment that English impeachment laws allow for the impeachment of a person for their decisions. The Constitution allows for the impeachment of judges. It follows that under your stated beliefs that judges can be removed for their decisions.
You are trying to argue both sides of the coin.
You are wrong about the common law. The USA and 49 out of 50 states still operate under the common law that we inherited from the UK and that we have developed since then. The only place in the USA where the common law does not apply is LA.
As for impeachment, the constitution does not include judges under impeachment. There is no reference to impeachment of judges. The constitution simply says that judges can only be removed for bad conduct, but doesn’t say how that should be done. So the procedure of impeachment by the house and removal by 2/3 of the senate was adopted for the removal of judges, but it remains a different kind of action.
The principle of judicial independence requires that judges must not be removed for their decisions on the bench; doing that would make their independence impossible. But executive officers aren’t meant to be completely independent, so the same consideration can’t be applied to them.
The problem you face is that Article II, Section 4 reads:
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.
Judges, as understood in the days of the Constitutional Convention were “civil Officers.” In fact, at the time of the Convention a state judge was being impeached.
Judges have been impeached far more than any other government official.
Therefore your stance seems to be contrary to the orginialist you claim to be, and any type of common law which you claim is in effect.
I quite agree. But it was you who in another response claimed the US must consult English common law which allows for the removal of people for their decisions.
Therefore, since we know judges can and have been impeached, and you believe people can be impeached for their decisions, your argument is that judges can be impeached for their decisions.
I, of course, disagree.
But if you want to argue how wrong your initial position is, go right ahead. I won’t stop you.
What’s your source that judges were considered civil officers? And what was this state judge being impeached for (under that state’s constitution)? Was it for his decisions, or for his conduct off the bench?
Not judges. Judicial independence was already the law in the UK, part of the system we inherited. What’s your source that in the UK in the 18th century judges could be removed for their decisions?
Democrats are irretrievably stupid.
This is, as is to be expected, a pretty idiotic statement coming from yourself Justice Milhouse.
Democrats would impeach Trump for curing cancer or delivering world peace.
The reality is their reflex is to immediately condemn any and everything Trump does REGARDLESS of whether those very same Democrats were calling for action themselves, which they were only a matter of months ago.
All your statement shows us is your detachment from reality.
What Democrats would like to do is irrelevant. They haven’t got the numbers. If they had they would be impeaching him for getting up in the morning, but that would not be legitimate, any more than his first two impeachments were.
But if he were to end up dragging the country into a major disaster, especially because of a decision he made unilaterally, there might well be enough Republicans who would vote not only to impeach but even to convict him, and it would be legitimate.
You mean like the debacle that was the Afghanistan withdrawal that no one knew about, not even the Afghan Allies who essentially woke up the next day to discover their American allies had abandoned them to the Taliban, and then who’s decisions directly resulted in American service personal deaths because for some reason someone under Bidens command thought it a great idea to abandon the only airbase that could be secured for evacuating personal out of the country.
Or do you man abandoning the Southern Border so that MILLIONS of illegal immigrants to flow in to America while at the same time refusing the remove illegal immigrants from American soil who killed, raped and maimed their way across America with impunity?
Or how’s about destroying Libya for no good reason and then allowing islamists to take over and operate from with impunity?
What about the level of negligence required work WITH the mullahs in Iran ti ensure they stay in power during a popular uprising?
You mean that level of gross negligence? Or some other level of gross negligence that has not yet been witnessed that would make the decisions carried out under Barry Husseins and Bidens reigns of error seem like child’s play.
Once again you miss the point because you cannot get out of the way of your ass!
Yes, those were all things for which Congress could have impeached and removed Biden if it wanted to. But removal was never going to happen because the numbers weren’t there, and impeaching him without removal would be a futile gesture that would only bounce back on the Republicans, the way the Clinton impeachment did even though it was 100% justified, so the House chose not to.
If the numbers had been there to remove Biden for any of these disasters, it would have been done and it would have been completely legitimate. Unlike the impeachments of Johnson and Trump, which were illegitimate.
This is the crux of the matter. Democrats consider a “high crime or misdemeanor” to be anything they disagree with–their basic premise is already flawed and silly.
Crying their drup supply Venezuela is going down the tube for their voters.
Hunter affected most
Democrats crying because the cartel money funding their campaigns has been cut off.
good
cause we just impeached maduro
The vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crat neo-communists/Islamofascists/Muslim supremacists/Trannies are contemptible, subversive and malignant clowns.
These dopes seem determined to lose the 2026 congressional elections, by declaring their most cherished constituencies to be all of the following: evil, communist dictators/caudillos; genocidal, Jew-hating and Christian-hating Muslim terrorists; illegal alien criminals and domestic criminals; child/teen-abusing/grooming/manipulating/mutilating trannies.
Don’t count on this adversely affecting the 2026 midterms for the Democrats.
What is going to play prominently in that election is whether people believe that Trump is a pedophile.
That is what is going to make, or break, the midterms….barring any extraordinary events between now and then of course.
Where are you getting this narrative from the Dhimmi-crats, about President Trump being an alleged pedophile? I haven’t heard it, unless you are referring to the Epstein files nonsense, which is of course, pure Dhimmi-crat propaganda and distraction, born of total desperation and the fact that the Dhimmi-crats have no substantive, positive policies to advance or to articulate.
What’s going to matter, in the midterms, is the state of the economy, and, consumer inflation/prices. And, on that score, the Dhimmi-crats don’t have a leg to stand on.
Yes, it’s about the Epstein files. If you don’t know what’s going on, then I don’t know what to tell you.. Judging from the early down notes I got, I’m going to shut up from here on in.
Carry on…
I’m assuming your comment meant that the Democrats’ best chance for upcoming victory is to convince their libtard voters that the pedophilia charge is a real thing. Which I certainly wouldn’t put it past them to try, but I don’t think that even they have enough voters stupid enough to buy it.
Oh, yeah — please “enlighten” me, as to “what’s going, on” — the latest juicy, baseless innuendo and rumors, regarding our president and Epstein. No serious conservative gives a shit about Epstein.
Nobody outside of the Dhimmi-crats’ base of evil fanatics — a motley crew of communists/”Democratic Socialists”, illegal alien criminals, domestic criminals, Islamofascists/Muslim supremacists, and trannies — is focused on Epstein, to the exclusion of everything that actually matters, to middle-class voters — consumer prices; inflation; energy abundance; the end of tranny tyranny; the end of “DEI;” the end of “green” energy fanaticism; etc.
Of course the hypocritical demonrats had no problem with former Autopen Potatohead sniffing or groping children, bathing with his daughter, or having townhalls with children about his leg hairs.
What is going to decide the midterms is the economy. Early signs are that the economy is growing at a rapid rate.
If Trump wins the tariff case and the new Fed lowers interest rates to stimulate home purchases the GOP just might be in pretty good shape.
Believe whatever you want.
There’s a reason Democrats push this kind of propaganda over and over again.
Because it works.
Sorry to say, but it’s true.
The real question is will what the democrats push resonate with independent votes who manage to drag themselves to the polls to vote.
You are desperately grabbing at straws, TDS is a terrible disease.
Dude, you’re a one-note mariachi. Nobody gives a shit what the witless, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats think, or, what stupid propaganda they attempt to disseminate. These idiots have been trying to destroy #45 and #47, since 2015; they’ve failed, utterly.
“What is going to play prominently in that election is whether people believe that Trump is a pedophile.”
Wow, I don’t even see that on the radar..
I’d actually give more credence to *Danny’s* suggestion that Trump may get sandbagged by the perceived state of voters’ pocketbooks.
(I just don’t think the triggers for either of these scenarios will be in the cards.)
To be a betting man.
The only people who believe this is fringe Democrats suffering from terminal TDS.
Keeping in mind that you even brought this up in spite of the fact Biden was showering, inappropriately, with his daughter and his documented inappropriate behaviour around children over the years.
But apparently according to low information intellectual Pygmies like yourself it’s Trump that has questions to answer 🤔
Get help. TDS can be terminal if untreated.
“Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said Maduro is an illegitimate leader, but insisted the administration violated the Constitution”
He’s an illegitimate leader, he’s a narco-terrorist, he’s hurting our country, Biden’s DOJ prepared charges and placed a bounty on his head, but you can’t do anything about it.
It’s like border enforcement. All the pieces are funded and in place to perform it, except for the part where you actually perform it.
The Fang Fang Banger is going to have to point out the part in The Constitution that Trump violated. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. That guy is desperate to get in the news any way he can so he can be elected Governor.
According to Swallowell (Sic), Trumps existence violates the Constitution. Only qualified political hacks should be allowed to become POTUS.
By the hypocritical Dhimmi-crats’ “logic,” narcissist-incompetent-dunce, Obama’s, idiotic and strategically stupid decision to depose Mubarak in Egypt, and, Qaddafi, in Libya — thus creating a predictable power vacuum and enabling the rise of the evil ISIS Muslim terrorist thugs, and, their sadistic killings and atrocities — should have constituted impeachable offenses.
As per usual, if the wretched Dhimmi-crats didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards, at all.
The democrats are livid that they weren’t able to contact Maduro’s government and give them a head’s up.
A plan like this takes months to prepare. That there were no leaks out of The White House or The Pentagon shows how much Trump learned his first term. It appears that despite the lefts screaming about Hegseth and his firings of DEI Generals, firing deep state actors and tightening down press access that Pete knows what he is doing.
Hmm, does that mean he’s successfully rid the Pentagon of all the traitors, or just that the ones remaining learned to keep their heads down and their powder dry?
Well, it turns out that there were leaks. Both NYT and WaPo knew about it in advance and chose not to publish it out of a sense of civic duty. Which makes them more reliable than whoever in the government leaked it to them.
Don’t Cry Fot Me, Argentina…Venezuela is doing a good job.
I would point out that a conviction followed by a pardon is not an impossible outcome.
This is the (at the very least) 3rd time a Republican president has had to do this.
“ Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi …”
There is no such title. Please don’t refer to her as such.
Also, it’s downright sexist.
It’s downright annoying is what it is.
“Failed President and Vice President” aren’t titles either, but I shall insist on my liberty to use them.
“Criminal morally corrupt hypocritical old hag” works.
Yes, that’s right. You are not entitled to any kind of briefing or heads-up. It has generally been the practice of presidents, including this one, to brief Congressional leaders, sometimes including committee chairmen and ranking members, sometimes only the so-called “gang of eight”, but that has been a courtesy, not an entitlement. It also helps presidents spread the blame if it goes wrong. Trump chose not to do that, both because he doesn’t feel he owes you any courtesy, and because he knows he can’t trust you. This means if it goes wrong he will rightly bear all the blame — but if it goes right, as it appears to be doing, he will deserve all the credit.
It’s doubtful whether Congress can do that. Even the War Powers Act is controversial. No president since it was passed has acknowledged its validity, but they’ve all complied with it voluntarily while reserving the right not to do so in the future.
No, we are not. It may be that the President’s decision was insane, and it may turn out to be a disaster, but the President himself is clearly sane and “able to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. That is the standard, not whether his decisions are wise, let alone whether Congress agrees with them.
Besides which, the judges for whether the 25th amendment should be invoked are the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet secretaries. None of them think the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, so Congress doesn’t get a say in the matter.
The political reality hasn’t changed. Republicans still control the House, so impeachment is not possible.
There is no violation. If the situation goes drastically wrong, and the decision turns out to have been disastrous, then it will indeed be impeachable, but we’re not there yet. And even then, there will have been no violation of the constitution; it will simply have been a bad decision, which will have cost him his job, that’s all. And there’s no indication of that happening.
No such authority is needed.
Yes, he has. But that’s not his problem.
He doesn’t have to do that.
Hypocrisy is a political matter, not a legal or constitutional one. Trump had his reasons for that pardon; you may or may not agree with them, or even know what they are, but the constitution puts that entirely in his hands. Any penalty he may have to pay can only be imposed by the voters.
Yes. The same is true every time someone is charged with a crime someone else was pardoned for. Is it hypocrisy to pardon one murderer and then go on trying other people for murder?!
My take is somewhat more concise.
Go ahead and impeach him again, you whiny toddlers. It’s not like you’re busy doing anything that any US citizen thinks desperately needs doing.
You’ve insulted whiny toddlers everywhere! Apologize now!
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said in a statement: “This violation of the United States Constitution is an impeachable offense.”
Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) claimed Trump’s actions are a “direct violation of the United States Constitution.”
It’s likely neither of these doofuses has ever blinked at anti-gun/gun control legislation.
Of course not. That’s Different™.
It should be spelled (D)ifferent™.
I get the charges of drug trafficking etc but the charge of possessing automatic weapons? If they are legal for Maduro to possess in Venezuela then what is that charge for? Hell, automatic weapons are legal for possession in the US. If I had the inclination I could buy one.
These charges have nothing to do with President Trump; they are in the original indictment from SDNY.
Ask them. I’m sure they were based on something substantial.
The original indictment was under Trump. And no, I don’t know what it’s about. It seems suss, and I hope they drop it.
If the d/prog believe they can muster the majority vote to pass an article of impeachment in the HoR then get 67 Senators to vote to remove DJT from office they are welcome to try but they should stop the tiresome posturing.
It’s obvious that they can’t. They’re making noise in case it all goes wrong, and late this year we’re stuck in a quagmire in Venezuela, troops coming home in body bags, and they can say “We told you so”. In that circumstance there may very well be majorities for impeachment and removal, ahead of the midterms. They’re setting themselves up in case that happens.
They’re also firing up their ignorant and insane base, which is worth doing for them anyway.
Nah. They are just lashing out because the money Maduro was directing into their campaigns has been cut off.
Trump cut off their USAID money and now their cartel money. And he is going to roll up their Somali fraud money too.
They are fundraising by the same playbook as 2018
I don’t buy threatening impeachment today as laying the groundwork for an ‘I told you this was a bad idea’ months from now. First it doesn’t require suggestion or threat of impeachment to accomplish. Second as of today there ain’t any boots on the ground/nation building/quagmire to generate ‘body bags’. Frankly I don’t think were gonna see any sort of ‘occupation’ force b/c it isn’t necessary to bend Venezuela to our will. Either they play ball or we dial up the pressure all the way to eleventy with a no kidding blockade/no fly zone shutting down their airspace, their ports and interconnected roadways with other Nations.
IMO this impeachment talk from the d/prog is foolish empty posturing and toothless threats by the d/prog lashing out like toddlers being told no.
That tiresome posturing is all they got. They have no policies other than oppose trump and impeach trump. None what=so-ever and Trump is using this to get them on to the short side of every 80-20 issue. They are complete and utter useless idiots and don’t deserve power considering how easily they are played.
It’s just posturing for soundbites to use for the upcoming mid terms. There is zero chance Trump is going to be impeached for anything.
Maduro will walk. What else can you expect from the Southern Distr. of new York?
To where would he walk? Back to Venezuela? Not likely. He’s been permanently removed from the equation, whether he’s convicted or not.
mamdami will allow maduro to room with him in his quest for the
warmth of collectivism to show the world
what would be nicer is for mamdami to be bunking with maduro in the same prison cell
The word is, they’ll both be staying at the Hampton Inn.
or the Hilton.
Milhouse – good comments on this thread.
The lack of creativity of the democrats is what I note here. Impeaching Trump again is so passe.
You expect innovation from Communists?
Just the mental exertion required to substitute “race struggle” for “class struggle” exhausted them for nearly half a century,
They may try to impeach Trump, but it’ll be another in their long string of failures against him. The 25th amendment is never gonna fly. His cabinet loves him.
“…Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) in a statement, (called) for the passage of legislation to rein in executive war powers and reassert congressional control over the process.”
Arguably, such legislation as that which already exists is unconstitutional. Any greater restraint on the Article II powers of the POTUS would almost certainly be a separation of powers infraction.
Dummycrats love their crime, and kickbacks from protecting drug cartels.
Back in 2020, before the election, people like Chuck Schumer went off on Trump for not doing anything about Maduro. Schumer claimed that Trump not removing Maduro showed Trump was an ineffective President who blustered about issues, but did nothing.
Forward to now, and Schumer and others are screaming that Trump broke the law for doing what they wanted him to do in 2020. It is also interesting that the Democrats did not press Biden to do something even though his administration issued warrants for Maduro’s arrest.
In June of 2020, Biden tweeted “Trump talks tough on Venezuela, but admires thugs and dictators like Nicolas Maduro.
As President, I will stand with the Venezuelan people and for democracy.
…..but yet in four years, Biden did nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s4siat8f7kk
This is not about the rule of law, the Constitution, or the Venezuelan people as far as the left is concerned.
This is another chance to “get Trump” while hiding their own statements, beliefs in 2020, and their hypocrisy.
Dems tried to act like Trump having 2 scoops of ice cream was an impeachable offense.
Yeah, I never got what the point of that whole thing was. Why did they think he shouldn’t have two scoops, if that’s what he wants? It’s his ice cream, he’s paying for it, why can’t he have as much as he wants? How did they ever make it out to be anyone’s business but his?
Did they limit Biden to one scoop?
Leave a Comment