We'll see

I think TheRUMP might be gun shy about issuing challenges...IF he isn't gun shy....I guess HE didn't get enough egg on HIS face for HIS previous challenge.

Trump last week: I’ll own the shutdown. Trump now: It’s the Democrats’ fault.

A week ago, President Donald Trump said he’d be responsible if the government shut down. Now that a shutdown is imminent, he’s trying to blame it on Democrats.

On Friday morning, with a government shutdown looming as Trump and Congress struggle to agree to a budget deal, Trump tweeted, “The Democrats now own the shutdown!”

This is in sharp contrast to Trump’s comments from last week, when he said he would “take the mantle” if the government shut down.

Speaking to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the Oval Office, Trump said on December 11, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. … I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.”

Trump challenging Dem to impeach him...HE doesn't even know what impeachment involves?

Trump Unclear On Impeachment Rules

US President Trump appeared to misunderstand how the process of presidential impeachment works, saying on Thursday that he "can't imagine the courts" would allow Congress to impeach him. Impeachment experts were quick to point out that Congress can vote to impeach the president without the involvement of the courts.

High crimes AND misdemeanors?....AND?.....Not OR?

Found guilty of conspiring with the Russians AND crossing the street on a red light?

From another source

Trump went on to call the term impeachment “a dirty, filthy, disgusting word” that has “nothing to do” with him and argued that, in order to be impeached, he would have to be found guilty of both “high crimes” and “misdemeanours.” The constitutional standard defines impeachable offenses as “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanours.”

“It’s high crimes and – not ‘with’ or ‘or’ – it’s high crimes and misdemeanours,” Trump said. “There was no high crime and there was no misdemeanour, so how do you impeach based on that?”

Appelbaum argued that the Constitution doesn’t require the president to commit both categories of offenses and that not all impeachable offenses are technically crimes.


Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-misunderstand-how-impeachment-works-2019-5#0Mwhim3kRHdOMteR.99

"President Donald Trump appeared to misunderstand how the process of presidential impeachment works, "

Just impeachment?

someone has trouble using simple prepositions
And/or conjunctions.

evidently don't know much either.....

"US President Trump appeared to misunderstand how the process of presidential impeachment works, saying on Thursday that he "can't imagine the courts" would allow Congress to impeach him. Impeachment experts were quick to point out that Congress can vote to impeach the president without the involvement of the courts."

Even if the House impeaches him (and they actually WOULD need 'impeachable offenses' in their minds WITH proof to do so, Trump has the legal ability to CHALLENGE it in the courts.  Clinton was unable to do that because the House, at that time, HAD proof of actual CRIMES he committed that he WAS guilty of.

And without a Senate to ALSO vote to impeach, NOTHING changes and Trump goes on for another 5-1/2 years.  Pelosi KNOWS this which is not only what happened with Clinton but she knows that elections are coming and she needs to walk a fine line until they're over and done with or risk losing the House AND her position so soon after getting it back.

CHALLENGED and then REJECTED.....

Just so I understand your "logic".

You believe that the courts will rule that the branch of government that is SOLELY responsible for the impeachment process is not allowed to impeach?

Please explain exactly what the thought process of the courts would be.

POTUS is above "the law" AND above the Government?

Answers to no man or woman?

Sounds like you didn't vote for a President...you voted for a dictator or Royalty?

Perhaps you are just saying HE can challenge and not saying HE would win the challenge...Is that what you are saying?

the impeachment by the House (the Senate needs 2/3 to make it a 'full' impeachment and that's never gonna happen and Pelosi knows that) in the court system. And if the courts find that the House didn't have any viable impeachable charges according to the Constitution, their vote will be denied. The House 'can' impeach on anything they want, including how he combs his hair if they want, but that doesn't mean it will hold up in a court setting.

What 'crimes' do you think they will use? NONE of the people who are demanding or even talking about impeachment have yet to voice WHAT they feel he can be charged with. Terms like 'coverup' are tossed around, but they don't know WHAT he's covering up so they're back to 'fishing'; however, even some of the subpoenas they've issued don't have legs to stand on which is why they are all being challenged in court. So far, only one liberal judge has told two banks to turn over docs and although those banks have 'agreed' to do so, they haven't been turned over yet because that's being challenged as well. Just because you WANT something, doesn't mean you'll GET it.....at least not without a damned good reason for demanding it and so far, they've got nothing other than a 'hunch' and that's not good enough legally.

Their main goal right now is to keep digging and try to keep him from implementing his agenda and hope for elections to go their way. They TALK impeachment, but the House won't do anything about it....other than allow Trump to keep that talking point going right up until he wins again. Dems have gotten pretty stupid since Obama....and he screwed them 'bigly' as he walked away. They just can't admit he did it to them.....

state WHAT charges YOU think the House will bring that are ACTUAL impeachable CRIMES?

Since there are NONE, excepts HINTS at things that even MUELLER wouldn't take a shot at, in the Mueller report, the House is now trying via more subpoenas since they didn't like HIS answers to get at records they have no ability to get their hands on because they have nothing else. Courts DO deny Congressional subpoenas when they are baseless.

With Nixon and Clinton, SCOTUS wasn't involved in either of those cases because those cases were never challenged....because BOTH were actually found to be GUILTY of the charges against them via PROOF. Mueller had admitted that there was NO PROOF of anything against Trump....only his SUSPICIONS...and that's not good enough for the courts OR even the HOUSE. Which is why an impeachment vote will never happen....or if it's forced, it will never pass. IF the House does manage to cripple the votes together and 'impeaches' Trump, it WILL be challenged in the courts, and Trump will win because there is written documented PROOF in Mueller's report that there was NOTHING he could be impeached over according to the CONSTITUTION itself. It's all show and no substance...…..

Nancy KNOWS it's a losing proposition....she is only allowing those on TV to spout that crap because they think it's good for their base (who will be sorely disappointed again when it never materializes).

NO...

MY mission was to enlighten YOU on YOUR misconception that Trump has the legal ability to CHALLENGE it in the courts.

RE:With Nixon and Clinton, SCOTUS wasn't involved in either of those cases because those cases were never challenged..

I believe YOU are talking about a different Nixon...

MY post even notes In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon)

It was Tricky ****...NOT Tricky Walter

Nixon DID challenge...unsuccessfully...

So IF you want to call that "being able to CHALLENGE"...go for it.

Challenge, OR TRY and challenge IF you want...it will not be a successful CHALLENGE.

Resistance is futile....just like trying to get someone to say something they are not going to say....you realize what THAT is like....

As far as state WHAT charges YOU think the House will bring that are ACTUAL impeachable CRIMES?

WILL bring?

.How 'bout COULD bring...Since MY crystal ball is in the shop.

You do realize when someone is "impeached" it is a vote on someones popularity, don't you.

IF POTUS gets enough politicians upset with him...THEY can impeach him.....no need to commit a CRIME.

HE'S FIRED!!!!!!

I don't know what country you believe YOU live in, but not LIKING a President is NOT grounds CONSTITUIONALLY to impeach. What 'high crimes and misdemeanors' category do you think that falls under in order to win in a court challenge? This is NOT NK where failing a negotiation is grounds punishable by death, and yet you keep insisting that Trump will lose the House battle. I disagree whole heartedly because there are NO crimes to legally impeach on.....and the Speaker knows it. They will continue to TALK publicly about impeaching, but that vote will never happen.

IF Mueller's true reason for not charging Trump was because he is POTUS, then it stands to reason that once Mueller knew that NOBODY in the Trump admin, including Trump, colluded/conspired with Russia (the initial mandate for the investigation was to investigate Russia's tampering with our elections), Mueller's job was over and done with and he should have ended there a year and a half ago since he KNEW he would never indict him for anything anyhow. He continued ONLY so he and his henchmen could hopefully find SOMETHING for Dems to impeach him on instead.....and even THEN, he found NOTHING because Trump NEVER OBSTRUCTED the investigation in any way, shape, or fashion.....unlike BO/HILL/LYNCH,COMEY, et al during HER investigation.

I believe, that if read in context, Mr. Adams is challenging a way of thinking and actually refers to that thinking as leading to an "absurd" conclusion. See here on page 180. This piece is in regards to a case being considered against a US senator back in the very early 1800s. If this is where your citation got its information, they need to go back and re-read the entirety of JQA's "REPORT ON SENATOR JOHN SMITH", consider quoting it properly, and make some adjustments to their interpretation.

it's been debated as to whether or not a person can be removed due to dislike or lack of popularity, should it also be debated as to whether or not a person who was actually known to have committed impeachable acts should be acquitted because of their being too popular. I believe it was argued that at least one previous president escaped because he was too well liked. So...absurdity begets more absurdity? I can't say as all I know is what I read in the papers of other opinions.

Andrew Johnson was impeached on that ground, and narrowly missed removal, as many admitted after the dust had settled.
He was gigged for being too forgiving of the former Confederate states during Reconstruction.

Britannica: "Harry Truman said that Johnson knew the Constitution better than any other president, and many of his later political battles were framed in terms of the constitutionality of proposed legislation."
Didn't know it as well as you and Bill of course.

He had a long career in federal politics based in Tennessee before filling Lincoln's ticket.

himself can be charged/indicted with obstruction of justice because DURING his investigation, HE destroyed a good majority of STZROCK'S emails even while FIRING him at the same time.

Is THIS why he doesn't want to testify in front of Congress...and why Nadler has now announced that they won't subpoena Mueller after all?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mueller+destroys+stzrock+emails&form=EDGNTT&qs=PF&cvid=7d7c5ba624e04e3088c66e48aa90a567&cc=US&setlang=en-US&elv=AXK1c4IvZoNqPoPnS%21QRLOP6g7emovcgd7k%21uFfcS0lTw2YzKPiMNtDE6Ek9PxFl8X2cqqAHQb2UnylJurcNd*5dgQh1yNUzWAGdj3vPpFHf&plvar=0&PC=HCTS

take your pick from ANY of the links available on this search....

by Mueller.....it's been found that he also edited Dowd's testimony for the benefit of the 'report'. Since most, if not all, of that report was actually written by the 'associates' on his team, including Weisman who has a reputation of being overturned in courts for NOT providing exculpatory evidence in his 'conviction' cases and the entire testimony by Dowd had that evidence removed by 'someone' in the transcript of his testimony.

DJT instructs former WH employees not to hand over documents.

through....

They've ALREADY testified for hours on end with MUELLER AND the documents were ALREADY turned over to MUELLER. Trump is DONE cooperating (more than ANY other President, btw) because now it's nothing more than harassment, pure and simple, so they have the 'excuse' to not DO anything they've been ELECTED to do.....and they are continuing their 'resist at all costs' mentality.

Since the main idea behind testimony already given is to now play a 'gotcha', ANY testimony again would be a 'hope for a deviation in Mueller's report so we can charge somebody/ANYBODY with perjury and demand charges', so he is now, for the FIRST time, using Executive Privilege to protect his people from tyrants on a rampage/vendetta agenda.

links to things that are already publicly acknowledged....but here are a few examples for you.

1. NO notes taken ("502" FBI reports) during the HILL's 'interrogation' over her server (the same 'meeting' that allowed a WITNESS (Cheryl Mills) to be in the same room with a third person, another aide to act as her attorney as well.

2. FOUR witness testimonies that had THEIR 502's never be turned over during the Mueller investigation.

3. Eric Holder's documents over Fast & Furious hearings being withheld by an unprecedented Exec Privilege order at the last minute.

4. Destroyed SUBPOENED evidence (server, sims cards, harddrives on laptops, and cellphones)...some were actually ALLOWED by the FBI to be destroyed by those witnesses.

5. Not to mention all those who refused to testify in Congress by either taking the 5th (Lerner) or not bothering to show up even under subpoena (HILL's IT guy who destroyed the server and who was never held in contempt, btw).

AND it's from FOX News...so you can't dispute "the source/claims".

Fox & Friends host: Trump confiscated notes of meetings with Putin because he "simply didn't like leaks"

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): As it turns out, the president simply didn't like leaks. Remember, the president had only been in office a couple of weeks when The Washington Post had on their front pages all the details of his private conversation with the Australian prime minister where he hung up 35 minutes later -- 35 minutes early. So, clearly the president didn't like leaks, and, to reiterate what a lot of people have said about the story since then, this is not a conventional president.

...

EARHARDT: The president's team was asked about this, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that was absurd.

KILMEADE: Yeah, it is. It also has a pattern. The president met with President Xi in private at Mar-a-Lago. The president met with Kim Jong Un in private in Singapore. That's the way he does things.

Trust HIM?...HE knows what HE's doing....BUT YOU don't?

however, since you want to ONLY discuss Trump, even though you ASKED for evidence of OTHER examples of 'hiding' information, I'll play along for now. (Deflect and divert when you don't hear what you want....change your name to Nadler already and get it over with)

Considering that a good many BO holdovers and never-Trumpers were all around him, I personally wouldn't trust but a handful of my admin either......and ALL of THAT evidence is coming out, little by little, regarding his instincts being right.

Now can you go back to MY info and comment on it?