Impeachment

[Gyfts]

--snip--

[1713896750]

1713896750

[1713896750]

1713896750

[1713896750]

1713896750

[1713896750]

1713896750

[TECSHARE]

They did have solid evidence to impeach Trump. He's been impeached.

Impeachment is a tricky matter because the articles of impeachment did not cite a particular crime that Trump committed which takes away from the objectivity of the charges. A President can be impeached for essentially anything so to say there was evidence of impeachable related offenses is technically correct but does not set a good precedent because you could make this argument and cite evidence for impeachable offenses in every single Presidency in American history.

Looking at the timeline of events, near August Democrats were accusing Trump of bribery related charges by tying military aid into investigations with Joe and Hunter Biden. Was it wrong of Trump to ask for investigations into his political opponents? Sure. I'll concede that point because it isn't a good look for the President of the U.S. to be inquiring about his political opponents via proxy of a foreign country -- Have the U.S. Department of Justice handle it.  But, there was not enough evidence to suggest that Trump had sought out investigations into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden with predication of those investigations being linked to the release of military aid. Democrats knew they could not charge Trump under the legal codes of extortion or bribery so they chose broad charges of Obstruction of Congress, which he has the legal authority to do, and Abuse of Power which is too subjective of a charge.

When Nancy Pelosi was asked about this, she didn't have an answer stating that it was up to the lawyers she worked with to cite the specific charges. Keep in mind, a month prior to this statement, she was on the record stating that Trump would possibly be charged with bribery related charges. Regardless of your views of Trump, this was not a good move to impeach. Public support for were pretty much across party lines shown by polling data with independents split on impeachment. There's an election coming up in 2020, support for Trump should have been decided there. Combine this with Nancy Pelosi holding impeachment charges in the House, I can't help but believe this is partisanship taken too far.

Impeachment requires "high crimes and misdemeanors". The articles votes on don't seem to include any statutory crimes making them invalid. Furthermore the articles of impeachment have not been submitted to The Senate, meaning technically until that has been done, the legal prerequisites for an impeachment to be valid have not been completed.

[Gyfts]

They did have solid evidence to impeach Trump. He's been impeached.

...

Impeachment requires "high crimes and misdemeanors". The articles votes on don't seem to include any statutory crimes making them invalid. Furthermore the articles of impeachment have not been submitted to The Senate, meaning technically until that has been done, the legal prerequisites for an impeachment to be valid have not been completed.

High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. The framers of the constitution presumably anticipated a complex legal framework that would be created after the drafting of the constitution which explains the open ended verbiage of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." That being said, it absolutely should be a precedent in today's legal framework that the President be charged with a specific crime when being impeached to prevent the House holding hostage the executive through endless impeachment inquires. Like I said, Trump was not charged with a crime and this is a bad road to go down.

[BADecker]

They did have solid evidence to impeach Trump. He's been impeached.

...

Impeachment requires "high crimes and misdemeanors". The articles votes on don't seem to include any statutory crimes making them invalid. Furthermore the articles of impeachment have not been submitted to The Senate, meaning technically until that has been done, the legal prerequisites for an impeachment to be valid have not been completed.

High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. The framers of the constitution presumably anticipated a complex legal framework that would be created after the drafting of the constitution which explains the open ended verbiage of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." That being said, it absolutely should be a precedent in today's legal framework that the President be charged with a specific crime when being impeached to prevent the House holding hostage the executive through endless impeachment inquires. Like I said, Trump was not charged with a crime and this is a bad road to go down.

Right! And if the people of the States don't like the impeachment that the House is doing, they can impeach their Congress people right out of office. The reason they don't, often is that they don't know that they can do it. And their impeachment of their Congress person is stronger than the U.S. Gov President impeachment by Congress.

All this turmoil reminds me of the saying: "Pro is to Con as Progress is to Congress."

[Spendulus]

....
High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. ...

I kind of think that "High crimes" referred to crimes, don't you?

[TECSHARE]

....
High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. ...

I kind of think that "High crimes" referred to crimes, don't you?

Trump tore the tag off of his couch mattress once. Some one call Nancy Pelosi so she can file a new article of impeachment!

[dupeddonk]

....
High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. ...

I kind of think that "High crimes" referred to crimes, don't you?

We can obviously debate all day on whether or not Trump 'should' be impeached, but It's pretty clear in the Constitution that congress doesn't have the power to charge someone with a crime, just remove them from office. 

If they impeach someone in the Executive or Judiciary branch, that doesn't make that person a criminal.  That doesn't make them a criminal or even prove they committed a crime.

[Gyfts]

....
High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. ...

I kind of think that "High crimes" referred to crimes, don't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

Not necessarily. You can be impeached without violating an actual criminal statute.

[nutildah]

They did have solid evidence to impeach Trump. He's been impeached.

Impeachment is a tricky matter because the articles of impeachment did not cite a particular crime that Trump committed which takes away from the objectivity of the charges.

Your personal opinion on the matter does not change the reality of the situation, which is that Trump has been impeached.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...

The particular "high crimes" were Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. You can read the whole text if you'd like to understand more.

Of course nobody can force anybody to understand anything that runs against their personal beliefs. That behavior pretty much defines the P&S section of the forum, so I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on the issue.

[Gyfts]

Your personal opinion on the matter does not change the reality of the situation, which is that Trump has been impeached.

This is true. It's also true that my entire comment was not about impeachment or denying that Trump was impeached but rather about the precedent it sets.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...

The particular "high crimes" were Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. You can read the whole text if you'd like to understand more.

Of course nobody can force anybody to understand anything that runs against their personal beliefs. That behavior pretty much defines the P&S section of the forum, so I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on the issue.

I'm definitely open minded and can have my mind changed. I've seen the impeachment document -- Again, the point I was making was not about impeachment, but about precedent. to address what you mentioned about high crimes, Trump was not charged with a specific sort of crime. Looking at Bill Clinton, he was charged with perjury, a specific crime. Abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress are not specific crimes, they're broad charges.

[TwitchySeal]

I'm definitely open minded and can have my mind changed. I've seen the impeachment document -- Again, the point I was making was not about impeachment, but about precedent. to address what you mentioned about high crimes, Trump was not charged with a specific sort of crime. Looking at Bill Clinton, he was charged with perjury, a specific crime. Abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress are not specific crimes, they're broad charges.

The precedent of the last 25+ years is that when party A has the White House and party B controls the House of Representatives, party B to looks for any possible reason to impeach the president.

There were plenty of attempts to impeach Obama (passing Obamacare, Benghazi, Drone attacks, he wasn't actually an American, transgender bathroom laws, and others).  I think there were several points where a majority of the House Republicans were openly prepared to vote to impeach - but not enough to get a majority of the entire House.  

For the most part though, Obama just ignored the attacks, which seems to have worked, and Trump is taking the opposite approach by playing the victim card, which also seems to be working.

Before Obama, GW had to deal with impeachment resolutions from the Dems, and Clinton got impeached by the Republicans.


Efforts to Impeach GW
Efforts to Impeach Obama


Personally, I think being 'an impeachment happy country' is better than not.  Adding "I agree to be transparent, reasonable and not bitch and moan when I am inevitably investigated" to the Presidential Oath wouldn't be a bad idea imo.

It sucks how divided and pissed everyone is, but the less we investigate and scrutinize every decision the President makes, especially when it comes to anything involving elections, the bigger the risk of becoming a ' democracy '.

[Spendulus]

....
Personally, I think being 'an impeachment happy country' is better than not.  Adding "I agree to be transparent, reasonable and not bitch and moan when I am inevitably investigated" to the Presidential Oath wouldn't be a bad idea imo.

It sucks how divided and pissed everyone is, but the less we investigate and scrutinize every decision the President makes, especially when it comes to anything involving elections, the bigger the risk of becoming a ' democracy '.

Hell of an attitude, coming from an obivious Obamanoid and sole loser of 2016.

Don't you really mean "investigate the enemy" and "Never investigate our own tribe"?

If not, do you recognize that "Never investigate our own tribe" is one of the primary features of your tribe?

[dupeddonk]

....
Personally, I think being 'an impeachment happy country' is better than not.  Adding "I agree to be transparent, reasonable and not bitch and moan when I am inevitably investigated" to the Presidential Oath wouldn't be a bad idea imo.

It sucks how divided and pissed everyone is, but the less we investigate and scrutinize every decision the President makes, especially when it comes to anything involving elections, the bigger the risk of becoming a ' democracy '.

Hell of an attitude, coming from an obivious Obamanoid and sole loser of 2016.

Don't you really mean "investigate the enemy" and "Never investigate our own tribe"?

If not, do you recognize that "Never investigate our own tribe" is one of the primary features of your tribe?

I’ve voted for every republican since Raegan and agree 100% with twitchyseal.  I think you misunderstood his point.

[TwitchySeal]

....
Personally, I think being 'an impeachment happy country' is better than not.  Adding "I agree to be transparent, reasonable and not bitch and moan when I am inevitably investigated" to the Presidential Oath wouldn't be a bad idea imo.

It sucks how divided and pissed everyone is, but the less we investigate and scrutinize every decision the President makes, especially when it comes to anything involving elections, the bigger the risk of becoming a ' democracy '.

Hell of an attitude, coming from an obivious Obamanoid and sole loser of 2016.

Don't you really mean "investigate the enemy" and "Never investigate our own tribe"?

If not, do you recognize that "Never investigate our own tribe" is one of the primary features of your tribe?

I was really just trying to discuss the way our country is set up with checks and balances.  The system is set up to give the President more power than any other American, but also prevent him from becoming a King. Allowing a president to abuse the power of his office to gain more power is what Ben Franklin was talking about with the 'we have a Republic, if we can keep it' comment.  

I don't look at each election as half the country winning and half the country losing.  It's just a decision the country made collectively.  (I didn't vote for Trump, but honestly I was kind of excited he did and thought he could end up being a great president after his first speech after he won) . The more rational and informed everyone is, the better a decision we can make.  Trash talking and complete loyalty makes for an exciting Hockey game.  But this isn't a Hockey game, how about we just listen to each other as Americans (and Humans) with different opinions and ideas that maybe you hadn't considered instead of just talking shit.