Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

markpkessinger

(8,952 posts)

2. The lawyer did NOT say it was grounds for impeachment, but rather . . .

Reply to rsacamano (Original post)

Fri Jan 5, 2018, 03:01 PM

Jan 2018

. . . that it was grounds for removal under the 25th Amendment. Those are two entirely different things. "Impeachment" refers to a very specific political process under the Constitution; it is not a catch-all for removing someone from office, and the use of that term in the video title amounts to clickbait I'm a bit surprised, and more than a little disappointed, that David Pakman os throwomg aroumd terminology so carelessly. He does a disservice to his viewers by doing so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Republican Ethics Lawyer: Trump Nuclear Tweet is Grounds for Impeachment [View all] rsacamano Jan 2018 OP

You have to Remove an Insane President BEFORE he starts a Nuclear Conflagration, not after tomhagen Jan 2018 #1

The lawyer did NOT say it was grounds for impeachment, but rather . . . markpkessinger Jan 2018 #2