[POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It?

[nutildah]

Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious."

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it.

Hey look at this tidbit I found in The Constitution of the United States of America.

"An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature."

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

You are wrong. Are you going to admit it Nutilduhh?

Hi Techole:

You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury.

According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense.

Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation:

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet:

What’s the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?

The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.

A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.

A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedom—or even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office.

[1714765319]

1714765319

[1714765319]

1714765319

[TwitchySeal]

Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious."

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it.

Hey look at this tidbit I found in The Constitution of the United States of America.

"An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature."

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

You are wrong. Are you going to admit it Nutilduhh?

Hi Techole:

You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury.

According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense.

Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation:

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet:

What’s the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?

The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.

A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.

A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedom—or even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office.

That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding.  Even though did say that, multiple times.

Here's another good one from Constitution:

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.

[Flying Hellfish]

One look at my paycheck and you'll see the root of my frustrations.  Like most working citizens, 40% of my paycheck doesn't make it to me. I'm tired of working my ass off to support those who refuse to support themselves.

You should be pissed but you should also place the anger in the right place, you should be pissed at the American Oligarchs running the political system.  It's the Oligarchs funnelling money up the pyramid that has fucked you in the ass for DECADES while you stupidly blame whomever places like FOX and the Church tell you to hate.

Feel the Bern American Oligarchs!

And just WOW, Bitcointalk, the only cesspool in the world (short of 8chan etc) where FOX is not far enough to the right LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

[tvbcof]

...

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Anyone, Trump included who suggested/requested that Ukraine evaluate the Biden crime family's activities in Ukraine was doing UKRAINE a favor.

Were they also helping themselves?  Sure they were; that's how humans roll, and it's certainly not limited to politicians.  This is a minor kerfuffle between two quasi-American crime families (Trumps and Bidens) who are in a bit of a turf war.  If Ukraine get's an opportunity to limit the damage they are doing in their nation, that's great.  If the American peeps get a peek the nature of the crimes that these families are involved in, that's also great.  With me at least.

Am I making sense?

Your apologetics for the Biden clan make perfect sense.  More importantly they are amusing to watch.

[TwitchySeal]

...

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Anyone, Trump included who suggested/requested that Ukraine evaluate the Biden crime family's activities in Ukraine was doing UKRAINE a favor.

Were they also helping themselves?  Sure they were; that's how humans roll, and it's certainly not limited to politicians.  This is a minor kerfuffle between two quasi-American crime families (Trumps and Bidens) who are in a bit of a turf war.  If Ukraine get's an opportunity to limit the damage they are doing in their nation, that's great.  If the American peeps get a peek the nature of the crimes that these families are involved in, that's also great.  With me at least.

Am I making sense?

Your apologetics for the Biden clan make perfect sense.  More importantly they are amusing to watch.

Are you calling it the Biden crime family because he's a democrat?  You realize 2 of his 3 kids and their mom are dead right?
He's been a Senator/VP since 1973, is there any actual evidence of him committing a crime?  

[tvbcof]

...
Am I making sense?

Your apologetics for the Biden clan make perfect sense.  More importantly they are amusing to watch.

Are you calling it the Biden crime family because he's a democrat?  You realize 2 of his 3 kids and their mom are dead right?
He's been a Senator/VP since 1973, is there any actual evidence of him committing a crime?  

Crime families often suffer high mortality rates.  It warms the cockles of my heart when a whole genetic line of these scum are wiped out.

Yes, there is prima facie evidence of Biden in mob boss mode getting the Ukranian prosecutor fired in the form of Joe himself braging about it at the CFR.  And to add insult to injury, he was using my tax dollars as a tool in this operation.

The only thing worse than a mob boss is a kiddie groping mob boss.  There is prima facie evidence of creepy 'uncle Chester' Joe having that perversion in his resume as well.

A blind man could see that the Dems have put up Joe Biden to make sure that they lose.  Probably because there is a three-card-monte trick being played on the Trump side which will get a Kushner in and they don't want the mock-Dems to mess it up.  Funny enough, either Jared or Yael Kushner could probably run as a Dem and win anyway.

[TECSHARE]

Fine fine.  muh deepstate, I get it.

Even though the head of the FBI, CIA and DOJ all serve at the pleasure of the president, we should obviously trust Ukraines investigation results more than ours.  And the fact that it's the presidents political adversary is just a coincidence.  He really just can't stand any corruption anywhere.

The corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA are VERY well documented. The Strzok/Page "insurance" texts, Comey's criminal FISA warrant, giving Hillary a pass on releasing classified information, the meeting on the tarmac, there are tons of examples of their corruption, and complicity in coverups of corruption as well as bias against Trump. Don't even bother trying to defend the CIA. Funny you have been watching over 3 years of fruitless investigation into Trump and anyone he has ever met, but you don't ever apply that standard of "coincidence" there now do you?

Hi Techole:

You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury.

According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense.

Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation:

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet:

What’s the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?

The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.

A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.

A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedom—or even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office.

Not just an interpretation, an actual quote from the constitution.

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense.

The other interpretations are not exclusive. I was specifically referencing the criminal case upon which the subpoenas issued to Nixon were based, which were the criminal basis upon which the articles of impeachment were based. Even in the counter interpretation is still goes on to explain a criminal impeachment trial can also be based on criminal acts. I never said anything about exclusivity, this is just you trying for a hail Mary. Note the words in red. When is some one convicted and put on trial? That's right, in a criminal proceeding.

The Constitution of The United States of America > The Wall-street Journal.  So are you going to admit you were wrong Nutilduhhhhh?

That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding.  Even though did say that, multiple times.

Here's another good one from Constitution:

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.

I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.

[suchmoon]

That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding.  Even though did say that, multiple times.

Here's another good one from Constitution:

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.

I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.

The red part states that the person can still be subject to a criminal trial after the impeachment. IIRC some federal judge (back in 1980s or 1990s) tried to argue that double jeopardy protection should apply to his impeachment and he lost that one. So this actually seems to reinforce the non-criminal nature of impeachment.

[TECSHARE]

That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding.  Even though did say that, multiple times.

Here's another good one from Constitution:

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.

I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.

The red part states that the person can still be subject to a criminal trial after the impeachment. IIRC some federal judge (back in 1980s or 1990s) tried to argue that double jeopardy protection should apply to his impeachment and he lost that one. So this actually seems to reinforce the non-criminal nature of impeachment.

Hey look who is here to try to help their dumb pals save face with some unsourced single incident as if it trumps the constitution.

You still aren't addressing the constitution itself.

""Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense."

[suchmoon]

Hey look who is here to try to help save their dumb pals save face

unsourced

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

You still aren't addressing the constitution itself.

Both the "shall nevertheless be liable" clause and the double jeopardy clause are in the Constitution of the United States as well, but I keep forgetting that you're a Zerohedge law school graduate so you get to cherry-pick your own constitution.

[TECSHARE]

Hey look who is here to try to help save their dumb pals save face

https://i.imgflip.com/3dmtor.jpg

unsourced

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

You still aren't addressing the constitution itself.

Both the "shall nevertheless be liable" clause and the double jeopardy clause are in the Constitution of the United States as well, but I keep forgetting that you're a Zerohedge law school graduate so you get to cherry-pick your own constitution.

From your source:

"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."

Perjury and conspiracy you say? What is perjury and conspiray? Oh that's right, crimes, crimes independent of the original charges. In this context, you have essentially just proved my point, because a double jeopardy argument would only be valid if they were both criminal proceedings for the same crime (but the crimes were independent), so thanks for that. Of course this is a district judge anyway and not a presidential impeachment, so they aren't the same thing anyway. This is just a fumbled attempt at pulling a Hail Mary out of your ass.

What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary non-precedent, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law.

[suchmoon]

What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary precident, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law.

I apologize, I did not mean to attack your person. I meant to attack your sloppy attempt at an ad hominem and your ridiculous cherry-picking of the Constitution that appeared to be lifted from some conspiracy blog. I apologize if that wasn't Zero Hedge. I shall make a note to myself that you read more than one conspiracy blog. I also apologize that you don't feel sufficiently refuted. There is only so much I can do if you refuse to acknowledge or read things that you don't like. I have long ago accepted that you are never ever wrong.

[TECSHARE]

What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary precident, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law.

I apologize, I did not mean to attack your person. I meant to attack your sloppy attempt at an ad hominem and your ridiculous cherry-picking of the Constitution that appeared to be lifted from some conspiracy blog. I apologize if that wasn't Zero Hedge. I shall make a note to myself that you read more than one conspiracy blog. I also apologize that you don't feel sufficiently refuted. There is only so much I can do if you refuse to acknowledge or read things that you don't like. I have long ago accepted that you are never ever wrong.

It doesn't matter if I read it from a tattoo on your mama's ass, it is a direct quote from The US Constitution. Its validity is not dependent on 3rd parties that reference it. Run along now with your hive mind buddies and work on your next attack strategy.

[suchmoon]

It doesn't matter if I read it from a tattoo on your mama's ass, it is a direct quote from The US Constitution. Its validity is not dependent on 3rd parties that reference it. Run along now with your hive mind buddies and work on your next attack strategy.

The quote doesn't say that impeachment is a criminal trial, you're just stretching it to that meaning because you really want it to mean that.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for - among other things - ridiculing the Congress "in a loud voice". Such a horrible crime.

[TwitchySeal]

I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.

A subpoena does not have to be for a criminal proceeding for it to be valid.

The corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA are VERY well documented. The Strzok/Page "insurance" texts, Comey's criminal FISA warrant, giving Hillary a pass on releasing classified information, the meeting on the tarmac, there are tons of examples of their corruption, and complicity in coverups of corruption as well as bias against Trump. Don't even bother trying to defend the CIA.


Funny you have been watching over 3 years of fruitless investigation into Trump and anyone he has ever met, but you don't ever apply that standard of "coincidence" there now do you?

You're using a bunch of twisted facts, lies and debunked conspiracy theories to conclude that Trump should trust Ukraines investigator more than the entire US intelligence community, all run by people he hand picked.

Comey didn't give Hillary a pass.  The FBI doesn't prosecute people, the DOJ does.  He just didn't recommend prosecution and said he didn't think any prosecutor would be able to get a conviction - Obviously Sessions and Barr agreed.  Otherwise she would have been indicted like Trump promised.

Same goes for anyone else Trump has been calling a criminal for years on twitter.  

Where are the indictments?  Why isn't anyone in jail or being punished?

Oh wait, I almost forgot, Trumps Campaign Manager, Personal Lawyer are both in prison now.  His Sec of Defense #1 is a convicted felon waiting to be sentenced, so is his deputy campaign manager.  
And his current personal lawyer is under federal investigation.  This isn't because of the Democrats or Comey or the FBI.  It's because Trump hires people that are willing to commit crimes for him.






TLDR;

Trump hand picked the head of FBI, CIA, DOJ and all the rest.  He's been president for almost 3 years.  Why aren't any criminal Democrats being indicted - but members of his cabinet and campaign are?

[philipma1957]

Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected?

Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated.  Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent.  

Or is it something else I'm missing?
 

I see nothing wrong with asking anyone to open an investigation if there is suspicion of a crime.  I'm all about criminals being investigated, and even more importantly...and much more rarely...actually prosecuted.  Being a politician should not insulate one from investigation into wrongdoing or give someone a free pass for criminal behavior.  That's a big problem that the U.S. and many other countries have and part of the reason why we have such corrupt governments.

If politician A asks country B to investigate a non-existent crime against politician B for political reasons then politician A is committing a crime for which he/she can be punished.  That's the deterance.  If politician B is guilty of a crime then it's doing the world a favor to pound his balls flat.

The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal.  They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide.  He also could have gone through the Department of State.

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Am I making sense?

Here's an idea:  How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals?  Someone should try that someday.

Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, most of the GOP candidates from 2016 and all the Dem candidates besides Biden, Beto and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.)

I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president.

(Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term)

I bolded a good idea almost seeing what is happening.

Dems vs Repubs.  Is the exact same as the WWF.   Trump is a combo of Vince McMan and the Undertaker and the Dems are putting up meatball canonfodder “good guys”

Ie Trump is winning the election after he is impeached and not removed when the senate backs him.

His campaign will be Obama Biden Biden did quid quo pro with Ukraine and the only way to prove their “crimes” was for him to muscle the Ukraine into telling the truth.

It is all laid out on tv for us to view. Btw White House spoke about foreign influence and elections today.

Saying there will always be that condition.  They are right fox tv was own by an australian and nbc was owned by a  French company for a while.

Sadly it is just another WWF show with the bad guy beating on some meatballs.

All this will setup Pete booty-check for prez in 2020.

[TECSHARE]

It doesn't matter if I read it from a tattoo on your mama's ass, it is a direct quote from The US Constitution. Its validity is not dependent on 3rd parties that reference it. Run along now with your hive mind buddies and work on your next attack strategy.

The quote doesn't say that impeachment is a criminal trial, you're just stretching it to that meaning because you really want it to mean that.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for - among other things - ridiculing the Congress "in a loud voice". Such a horrible crime.

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

If it is not saying impeachment can be a criminal trial, why exactly does it exclude impeachment from the normal due process of criminal trials? Wouldn't that be totally pointless? I never claimed ALL impeachments were criminal trials, so your point is moot. I am not stretching anything, except for maybe your mama's booty hole.

Hello Techole,

We've already established that contrary to your beliefs, not all impeachments are based on actual crimes. Just because you quoted one line from the constitution used by one particular interpretation (out of several in the article you found by doing a Google search for "is impeachment a criminal procedure?"), it doesn't mean the constitution says impeachment hearings are the same thing as a criminal procedure. This whole debate is simply a failure to acknowledge that you made a misstatement earlier and rather than correcting it you are now doubling down and defending it to the death, which is not going well for you.

Again, criminal trials can only be decided upon by a judge and/or jury, and not the house of representatives. The WSJ article is just a well-written summary of common knowledge; well "common" except to you I suppose.

By the way, my name means "silence" in my ancestral language -- something you should probably practice more of.

Some, but not all impeachments are in fact criminal trials. You haven't established anything except for your desperation to have a "gotcha" moment regardless of the main premise of discussion. I not only didn't make a misstatement, you made a misstatement in your pathetic attempt to claim I did so. The congress is supervisory authority over the office of the president, so yes, they do in this case hold criminal impeachment trials against them in some circumstances. This is established in the constitution itself, once again...

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

They are literally stating it can be a criminal proceeding, and that a trial by jury is not required in this specific instance.

So are you going to admit you are wrong Nutilduhhhh?

[TwitchySeal]

Lets not forget that the reason we are debating about whether it's criminal or not is because TECSHARE thinks that House subpoenas are not valid since the house isn't the established process of impeachment.

the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

From the article he posted to defend his stance:

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html


I'm guessing they are implying that they don't mean they can change the rules that are actually in the constitution without an amendment.  (Chief Justice must preside and stuff like that)

[TECSHARE]

Lets not forget that the reason we are debating about whether it's criminal or not is because TECSHARE thinks that House subpoenas are not valid since the house isn't the established process of impeachment.

the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

From the article he posted to defend his stance:

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html


I'm guessing they are implying that they don't mean they can change the rules that are actually in the constitution without an amendment.  (Chief Justice must preside and stuff like that)

According to NBC News, this is the full text of the "subpoena":

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454557/2019-10-04-EEC-Engel-Schiff-to-Mulvaney-WH-Re.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-subpoena-house-democrats-sent-white-house-trump-ukraine-documents-n1062766


The so called "five chairs letter" referenced within it:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FiveChairsLetter8.22.pdf


"Subpoena" sent to Mike Pompeo:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf


A sample subpoena legal form for the jurisdiction of The District of Columbia:

https://oah.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oah/publication/attachments/OAH-402-General-Subpoena.pdf


If you read the source material, you will see some very distinct legal terminologies that give a subpoena force of law completely absent from these "subpoenas", which in reality are just carefully worded requests for information. Pelsosi could in theory issue subpoenas from the various sub-councils, but this would be ineffective because until there is a vote to engage in an official impeachment inquiry, the two branches of government stand on equal levels of authority and the president is well within his rights to exercise executive privilege. If the full house were to vote, and it was passed, this protection under executive privilege would be severely limited, however it would also grant the president the authority to issue his own subpoenas.

Pelosi knows this full well, and knows if she does this, Trump is going to take a massive shit all over the Democrat party by exposing all of their own corruption and getting it on public record for everyone to see. As I previously explained, they are boxed in. If they vote to impeach, they give Trump the power to bring his own evidence. If they fail to impeach they piss off their own base. Hence they are engaging in a strategy of PRETENDING to impeach and PRETENDING to issue subpoenas in order to play this out as a political and media battle rather than a legal battle, IE an actual impeachment. This strategy satiates her base, confuses most of the public who don't have the time or inclination to bother to look this close, and creates "bad optics" for Trump, but has ZERO AUTHORITY under law.

Half of the house engaging in "impeachment" is not constitutional nor is it due process. If the accused has no ability to defend themselves and the accuser makes all of the rules, that is not due process. If the accuser ignores all previous precedent and constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government, that is not due process. This is all a made for TV movie, not a legal proceeding, and you all lined up to buy tickets because it serves your confirmation bias. Just don't forget your $15 tub of popcorn rubes.


Some more reference material:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/white-house-tells-pelosi-your-fake-impeachment-subpoenas-have-no-real-legal-authority/

https://canadafreepress.com/article/subpoenas-not-valid-since-there-is-no-impeachment-inquiry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/

https://www.lucianne.com/2019/10/07/house_sends_more_carefully_wordedbr_impeachment_demand_letters_not_brsubpoenas__omb_and_pentagon_17139.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/02/pelosis_sidestep_on_impeachment_vote_cuts_both_ways__141391.html

[Viper1]

According to NBC News, this is the full text of the "subpoena":

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454557/2019-10-04-EEC-Engel-Schiff-to-Mulvaney-WH-Re.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-subpoena-house-democrats-sent-white-house-trump-ukraine-documents-n1062766


The so called "five chairs letter" referenced within it:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FiveChairsLetter8.22.pdf


"Subpoena" sent to Mike Pompeo:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf


A sample subpoena legal form for the jurisdiction of The District of Columbia:

https://oah.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oah/publication/attachments/OAH-402-General-Subpoena.pdf


If you read the source material, you will see some very distinct legal terminologies that give a subpoena force of law completely absent from these "subpoenas", which in reality are just carefully worded requests for information. Pelsosi could in theory issue subpoenas from the various sub-councils, but this would be ineffective because until there is a vote to engage in an official impeachment inquiry, the two branches of government stand on equal levels of authority and the president is well within his rights to exercise executive privilege. If the full house were to vote, and it was passed, this protection under executive privilege would be severely limited, however it would also grant the president the authority to issue his own subpoenas.

Pelosi knows this full well, and knows if she does this, Trump is going to take a massive shit all over the Democrat party by exposing all of their own corruption and getting it on public record for everyone to see. As I previously explained, they are boxed in. If they vote to impeach, they give Trump the power to bring his own evidence. If they fail to impeach they piss off their own base. Hence they are engaging in a strategy of PRETENDING to impeach and PRETENDING to issue subpoenas in order to play this out as a political and media battle rather than a legal battle, IE an actual impeachment. This strategy satiates her base, confuses most of the public who don't have the time or inclination to bother to look this close, and creates "bad optics" for Trump, but has ZERO AUTHORITY under law.

Half of the house engaging in "impeachment" is not constitutional nor is it due process. If the accused has no ability to defend themselves and the accuser makes all of the rules, that is not due process. If the accuser ignores all previous precedent and constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government, that is not due process. This is all a made for TV movie, not a legal proceeding, and you all lined up to buy tickets because it serves your confirmation bias. Just don't forget your $15 tub of popcorn rubes.


Some more reference material:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/white-house-tells-pelosi-your-fake-impeachment-subpoenas-have-no-real-legal-authority/

https://canadafreepress.com/article/subpoenas-not-valid-since-there-is-no-impeachment-inquiry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/

https://www.lucianne.com/2019/10/07/house_sends_more_carefully_wordedbr_impeachment_demand_letters_not_brsubpoenas__omb_and_pentagon_17139.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/02/pelosis_sidestep_on_impeachment_vote_cuts_both_ways__141391.html

Yes, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. And so all the things like facing your accuser, due process and the like, simply don't apply which also means they write their own form of subpoena. Impeachment is basically like a grand jury proceeding and indictment. Trump will have his turn to defend himself etc if he gets impeached (indited) and it goes to the senate for "trial". So what's your point?

As for issuing his own subpoenas etc, I get the impression it has nothing to do with impeachment, but which committee is doing things. If I was Pelosis I'd probably do the same thing just so he couldn't turn it into a circus and just get it done and then, assuming they want to go through with it, get it into the hands of the senate as soon as possible and let them have their shit show.

I really don't get the whole "real impeachment" thing. Congress can do things how they want. The right just throws out "prior presidential" impeachments as precedent but what about all the other impeachments. The constitution seems pretty crystal clear to me, congress has sole power and can run things however they want. If he gets impeached, then maybe he should try and take it to the supreme court and get a ruling on it or something. If it's such a big deal, then maybe they should have written some laws or do some constitutional amendments to set out exact procedures to follow. But really, do you think either side wants to really do that? They all love the show they get to put on far to much. I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how little the Dems are making this a show. I thought it would be a hell of a lot more. Almost makes me think they're actually serious about it.

Funny that you would post links to pretty much all right wing sources and then talk about other peoples confirmation bias. I also noted that most of them showed a hell of lot of "red" on newsguard for "This website severely violates basic standards of credibiilty and transparency". I find that humorous since it's not exactly tough to do things in a way to get some green from that tool so the overall rating shows green. Even breitbart shows up as green (despite two categories I would consider very important being red for them)