Will Trump be impeached?

[Docscurlock]

Nobody said that .. but if you'd go do some more research besides using children's cartoons you'd see that the House has SOLE power over impeachment. SOLE means the Senate has no say on the outcome of the House's actions. That's why Trump was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. And when it goes to the Senate, he will still have been impeached on Dec 18, 2019.

— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
Johnson became the first president impeached by the House, but he was later acquitted by the Senate by one vote. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials.

Where he is surely going to be acquitted. So an impeachment is like an indictment, it is not a sentence. If you were indicted for murder but found not guilty of murder are you a murderer? Who became President after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached? This is not a trick question.

If he was actually impeached, why the wait to send Articles to the Senate? Isn't a quick trial by your peers in the Constitution? Or is the problem that the immature House
Dems are so embarrassed by this charade they have gotten cold feet? or 2. Someone forgot to fill Nancy in on proper procedure? 3. She thinks she is queen of the world and what she wants goes? BTW, why all the vitriol?

Sponsored

 

[Docscurlock]

He is, I've said that before. But does that give him a free ticket to do things he took an oath to as POTUS not to do? Are you really OK with a Pres using his powers in office for personal gain? That's what's so retarded about what's going on. Many people just don't understand the oath of these officials, and they don't understand the Constitution is designed to stop people who abuse their power of office. That's the whole purpose of the impeachment clause in the Constitution.

But we don't have proof that he used his power for personal gain, there are people who think that, there are people who heard from people who heard from people who think that but no where is there any solid proof that 1. He actually meant to gain personally 2. He actually gained anything 3. That the Ukrainian understood that he meant to gain anything personally. No proof at all and you want to impeach him. He never said the words" If you don't fire him you aren't getting the billion dollars" but I know someone who did.

 

[Docscurlock]

Good Lord ... yes, that was my response TO bjstang. So why are you even making a comment back to me about it? Who's syco now?

My misunderstanding, thought it was my post. And it is psycho.I still don't think he was talking to you.

 

[Docscurlock]

He is, I've said that before. But does that give him a free ticket to do things he took an oath to as POTUS not to do? Are you really OK with a Pres using his powers in office for personal gain? That's what's so retarded about what's going on. Many people just don't understand the oath of these officials, and they don't understand the Constitution is designed to stop people who abuse their power of office. That's the whole purpose of the impeachment clause in the Constitution.

Do you mean like getting your kid a 7 figure job at a Ukrainian Natural gas company? This has been my whole point all along. Everyone is ranting about what Trump did and completely overlooking the obvious corruption of Biden. Coke snorting Hunter was not qualified to be on a natural gas board of directors anymore than I am. And don't think I believe the story, "I had no idea what my son was doing".

 

[GT Pony]

— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
Johnson became the first president impeached by the House, but he was later acquitted by the Senate by one vote. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials.

That's right ... two separate steps in the process. House (impeachment) and Senate (trial).

The first step - impeachment - is completed.

Where he is surely going to be acquitted. So an impeachment is like an indictment, it is not a sentence. If you were indicted for murder but found not guilty of murder are you a murderer? Who became President after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached? This is not a trick question.

If he was actually impeached, why the wait to send Articles to the Senate? Isn't a quick trial by your peers in the Constitution? Or is the problem that the immature House
Dems are so embarrassed by this charade they have gotten cold feet? or 2. Someone forgot to fill Nancy in on proper procedure? 3. She thinks she is queen of the world and what she wants goes? BTW, why all the vitriol?

You're late to the party. There's a difference between an indictment (being charged) in the House and a "sentence" (being found guilty) in the Senate.

You might want to study up on the DIFFERENCES between federal/civic law and Constitutional Law. They are NOT the same. So your analogy doesn't fit the House impeachment and Senate trail scenario.

A gov't official can be impeached, but found innocent in the Senate ... but if found innocent he is still officially impeached, and will be recorded in history as such. Go read up in the PDFs in this US Senate website.

Read this: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44260

More here: https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm

 

[GT Pony]

My misunderstanding, thought it was my post. And it is psycho.I still don't think he was talking to you.

It was in a post of his that was responding to me ... so yeah, I can take it that's he talking to me. Are you trying to say and dictate how I should respond to posts that are quoting me? You responded to the same post of his, and he didn't even quote you.

 

[Weather Man]

 

[GT Pony]

But we don't have proof that he used his power for personal gain, there are people who think that, there are people who heard from people who heard from people who think that but no where is there any solid proof that 1. He actually meant to gain personally 2. He actually gained anything 3. That the Ukrainian understood that he meant to gain anything personally. No proof at all and you want to impeach him. He never said the words" If you don't fire him you aren't getting the billion dollars" but I know someone who did.

Well, then it should go to trial in the Senate as planned without the Senate making it more of a kangaroo court that the House. If "deputy dog" Mitch does what he plans in the trial, he can actually be breaking the oath he will take in the trial, and therefore could technically also be impeached if people wanted to peruse that. These idiots operating rouge in the gov't need to re-learn the rules they made an oath to uphold. No wonder the gov't is so frickin' corrupt at times.

https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcco...ake-impeachment-trial-says-government-1477368

Another misnomer ... that people thinking it's all AOK if he "never received anything". Just asking for the foreign help is enough to be impeached. And he doesn't need to say the exact smoking gun words to be caught at being corrupt. There's plenty of evidence that he had a scheme going, and if the Senate would allow others to testify (of course they won't because they know the potential damage), the case would most likely be even more clear.

 

[GT Pony]

Do you mean like getting your kid a 7 figure job at a Ukrainian Natural gas company? This has been my whole point all along. Everyone is ranting about what Trump did and completely overlooking the obvious corruption of Biden. Coke snorting Hunter was not qualified to be on a natural gas board of directors anymore than I am. And don't think I believe the story, "I had no idea what my son was doing".

Like I said before ... then people in the gov't should use their channels to bring up charges instead of crying about it as an excuse for Trump to be corrupt too.

And technically, if Biden does become Pres, he can actually be impeached for wrong doing in the past. There have been gov't officials that have been impeached from wrong doings before obtaining the office. It's laid out in the impeachment clause in the Constitution. Do some research.

I'm sure Trump never knew what Jr. were doing in Trump tower when meeting with Russian either.

 

[Docscurlock]

That's right ... two separate steps in the process. House (impeachment) and Senate (trial).

The first step - impeachment - is completed.



You're late to the party. There's a difference between an indictment (being charged) in the House and a "sentence" (being found guilty) in the Senate.

You might want to study up on the DIFFERENCES between federal/civic law and Constitutional Law. They are NOT the same. So your analogy doesn't fit the House impeachment and Senate trail scenario.

A gov't official can be impeached, but found innocent in the Senate ... but if found innocent he is still officially impeached, and will be recorded in history as such. Go read up in the PDFs in this US Senate website.

Read this: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44260

More here: https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm

It is the Dems own Constitutional scholar that has laid the doubt, I'm sorry it doesn't fit into your ideals. Who knows with this impeachment farce, nothing is normal, the charges for impeachment aren't even Federal Laws that were broken. They may as well have impeached him for wearing the wrong cologne and chewing bubble gum. I just can't wait for the next DEm pres (actually I can) to be impeached for any little trivial things the Repub majority may come up with. It seems there doesn't have to be real charges, any proof or any real laws broken to be "impeached" (or not in this case). I didn't think the Dems could look any more foolish or petulant than they did but I was wrong here too. So you win this argument, you and the dems are right, laws don't make a difference, rule of law is gone, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the way it is and fair trials by impartial jurors is so 20th century. Welcome to your new reality where you are guilty until you prove you are not, you are a racist unless you talk the way they do, you are a bigot unless you let your rights be trampled, you are a corporate master unless you give away all your net worth, you are trampling on human rights if you own your own home. Good job guys, the American Dream is now gone forever to be replaced with Venezuela.

 

[GT Pony]

It is the Dems own Constitutional scholar that has laid the doubt, I'm sorry it doesn't fit into your ideals.

Sorry bud, there's also another scholar that disagrees with the Dems scholar.

Who knows with this impeachment farce, nothing is normal, the charges for impeachment aren't even Federal Laws that were broken. They may as well have impeached him for wearing the wrong cologne and chewing bubble gum. I just can't wait for the next DEm pres (actually I can) to be impeached for any little trivial things the Repub majority may come up with. It seems there doesn't have to be real charges, any proof or any real laws broken to be "impeached" (or not in this case). I didn't think the Dems could look any more foolish or petulant than they did but I was wrong here too. So you win this argument, you and the dems are right, laws don't make a difference, rule of law is gone, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the way it is and fair trials by impartial jurors is so 20th century. Welcome to your new reality where you are guilty until you prove you are not, you are a racist unless you talk the way they do, you are a bigot unless you let your rights be trampled, you are a corporate master unless you give away all your net worth, you are trampling on human rights if you own your own home. Good job guys, the American Dream is now gone forever to be replaced with Venezuela.

Again, late to the the discussions. It's been shown many times that there does NOT have to be a defined federal law broken to be impeached. Like said, Constitutional Law and federal/civil law are different. So do some research.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S2_C5_1_3/

The House has impeached nineteen individuals: fifteen federal judges, one Senator, one Cabinet member, and two Presidents. The consensus reflected in these proceedings is that impeachment may serve as a means to address misconduct that does not necessarily give rise to criminal sanction. The types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment in the House appear to fall into three general categories: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. Consistent with scholarship on the scope of impeachable offenses, congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office."

The problem with the people in this country, is that they really don't understand our gov't or the Constitution.

 

[Docscurlock]

Just asking for the foreign help is enough to be impeached. And he doesn't need to say the exact smoking gun words to be caught at being corrupt. There's plenty of evidence that he had a scheme going, and if the Senate would allow others to testify (of course they won't because they know the potential damage), the case would most likely be even more clear.

Again, there is proof if we look hard enough. Shouldn't that truth be brought out before you impeach him. The courts were in the process of deciding whether these guys should be forced to testify or not. That is how the law works. Not the way you are describing. Not the way Adam Schiff says, not the way Nadler says, not how Nancy says, not how you say. You are just as corrupt as them.

" the case would most likely be even more clear." Really? Says who, did you get a secret transcript of these testimonies? You and Adam have more secret bunker meetings that we don't know about. This is how facism starts, with people changing the laws themselves and assuming things they have no idea of . I can't believe you just said the things you did.

 

[Docscurlock]

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.


The problem with the people in this country, is that they really don't understand our gov't or the Constitution.

Let's also have 4. Impeached because they hate the person, he is getting in the way of their corrupt globalist agenda and he has the audacity to expose that corruption.

I understand the Constitution just fine and I can also see when something is being twisted into something it is not intended to be.

 

[GT Pony]

Again, there is proof if we look hard enough. Shouldn't that truth be brought out before you impeach him. The courts were in the process of deciding whether these guys should be forced to testify or not. That is how the law works. Not the way you are describing. Not the way Adam Schiff says, not the way Nadler says, not how Nancy says, not how you say. You are just as corrupt as them.

" the case would most likely be even more clear." Really? Says who, did you get a secret transcript of these testimonies? You and Adam have more secret bunker meetings that we don't know about. This is how facism starts, with people changing the laws themselves and assuming things they have no idea of . I can't believe you just said the things you did.

It's now how the Constitutional law works. The House didn't have to wait for court subpoenas to force others to testify. The House could have waited, and they probably should have IMO. They should have got all the people they wanted to testify broken loose from Trump's demand that they not participate (his obstruction of justice, just like Nixon did only worse). Then have the House hearings around May or June.

Actually, the stuff you've been posting (after obviously drinking Trump Kool-Aid) shows that you are the one who's corrupt, and just another blind follower who doesn't really understand the Constitution and why the things are proceeding like they are.

 

[GT Pony]

I understand the Constitution just fine and I can also see when something is being twisted into something it is not intended to be.

Actually, do don't. Just the fact that you believe a gov't official needs to break some defined federal or civil law proves you do not understand the Constitution, or the article of impeachment.

Sponsored