Will Trump be impeached?

[Docscurlock]

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.

Why should they have waited, you said yourself, the proof is there, we just haven't found it yet.
The ultimate impeachment will be the 2020 election, it will be fair, we have 150million jurors, they can cast 1 vote each, they can vote with their wallet, their heart, by flipping a coin whatever they want. Any thinking person can see this stunt is a way to shake up the election. I can guarantee you libs aren't smarter than Americans even thought you think you are.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

Why should they have waited, you said yourself, the proof is there, we just haven't found it yet.
The ultimate impeachment will be the 2020 election, it will be fair, we have 150million jurors, they can cast 1 vote each, they can vote with their wallet, their heart, by flipping a coin whatever they want. Any thinking person can see this stunt is a way to shake up the election. I can guarantee you libs aren't smarter than Americans even thought you think you are.

I said there proof there ... but I also have said many times that they needed more people to testify, like Bolton, Rudy, Barr, etc, etc. Basically the people they want to testify in the Senate trial.

No, any thinking person would see that this country is trying to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the constitution of Donald J. Trump. The Republican party is becoming more and more corrupt under the thumb and spell of Trump.

"You libs" ... lol. I guess you really don't understand what I've said in this thread, or where I really stand. I do not like the Dems either ... they go against most of what I believe in, especially these Dems today. I want a Pres who's in the middle of the spectrum, who has morals, ethics and integrity. Not some egotistical cheating, lying asshole who thinks he's above the law and doesn't uphold his oath of office.

You're just another TZ that thinks anyone who sees Trump in any kind of bad light that they are "libs" and the enemy. That right there is what starts fascism, and a fascist gov't where people are brainwashed and want to bend the knee to their "king".

 

[Docscurlock]

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.

I would like to see your proof of that. I researched it thoroughly and found you were full of beans.
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4 - underling mine
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Why?
Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term "misdemeanor" does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.

In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress "in a loud voice."
They forgot this one.
How?
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."

The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict.
The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.

His were not passed to the senate, don't yell at the messenger. This is brought to you via the House website and Legal Information Institute at Cornell, hardly a bastion of right wing conspiracies.

 

[Docscurlock]

I said there proof there ... but I also have said many times that they needed more people to testify, like Bolton, Rudy, Barr, etc, etc. Basically the people they want to testify in the Senate trial.

No, any thinking person would see that this country is trying to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the constitution of Donald J. Trump. The Republican party is becoming more and more corrupt under the thumb and spell of Trump.

"You libs" ... lol. I guess you really don't understand what I've said in this thread, or where I really stand. I do not like the Dems either ... they go against most of what I believe in, especially these Dems today. I want a Pres who's in the middle of the spectrum, who has morals, ethics and integrity. Not some egotistical cheating, lying asshole who thinks he's above the law and doesn't uphold his oath of office.

You're just another TZ that thinks anyone who sees Trump in any kind of bad light that they are "libs" and the enemy. That right there is what starts fascism, and a fascist gov't where people are brainwashed and want to bend the knee to their "king".

This is what YOU said: 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.

YOU must have some sort of proof that if one of those people testifies, it will for sure make the case of a quid pro quo. I'm not putting words in your mouth this is the tripe you are spewing forth and expecting me, a thinking person to agree with. I still think there is innocence until proven guilty, the right to a fair and speedy trial and the right to face your accuser.

 

[GT Pony]

I would like to see your proof of that. I researched it thoroughly and found you were full of beans.

Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term "misdemeanor" does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.

In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress "in a loud voice."

Yes, there can actually be grounds for impeachment if the Pres simply behaves badly.

Go read the official documentation what it says here on the US Senate website. Obviously you haven't read them yet as suggested.

From the Summary section on page 2:
Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (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.

NO defined federal or civil crime needs to be broken to be impeached, per the Constitution ... period.

 

[Docscurlock]

Yes, there can actually be grounds for impeachment if the Pres simply behaves badly.

Go read the official documentation what it says here on the US Senate website. Obviously you haven't read them yet as suggested.

From the Summary section on page 2:
Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (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.

NO defined federal or civil crime needs to be broken to be impeached, per the Constitution ... period.

ALL of my quotes and summaries were from the House website, as you said before, The House has the sole power of impeachment, who gives a rip what the senate site says.

 

[Docscurlock]

Yes, there can actually be grounds for impeachment if the Pres simply behaves badly.

Go read the official documentation what it says here on the US Senate website. Obviously you haven't read them yet as suggested.

From the Summary section on page 2:
Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (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.

NO defined federal or civil crime needs to be broken to be impeached, per the Constitution ... period.

"Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required.

From the House Website: I can type in red too.

What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?

 

[GT Pony]

This is what YOU said: 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.

YOU must have some sort of proof that if one of those people testifies, it will for sure make the case of a quid pro quo. I'm not putting words in your mouth this is the tripe you are spewing forth and expecting me, a thinking person to agree with. I still think there is innocence until proven guilty, the right to a fair and speedy trial and the right to face your accuser.

Apparently you didn't watch all the House hearings and saw the evidence put forth in those hearings. It's pretty evidendent that there was a scheme for personal gain going on. If you don't believe it, then that's OK, it's your right.

He is innocent until proven guilty ... hence, the reason for the Senate trial. But I'm sure that thinking people would agree that it should be a real trial, not a rigged trial like Mitch McConnell has admitted he's going to peruse. McConnell should be careful because he could actually be impeached himself if he goes rouge like Trump.

If Trump is so innocent, then he has the right to defend himself in the Senate trial, not to short circuit it in a corrupt way like McConnell wants to do. Just another corrupt act of the Reps.

 

[GT Pony]

ALL of my quotes and summaries were from the House website, as you said before, The House has the sole power of impeachment, who gives a rip what the senate site says.

More evidence of Trump brainwashing. "Oh, the info on the official Senate website must be wrong because I found something else that aligns with what I think is right." I guess you didn't see the part of your quote I put in red, which basically supports the info I've posted.

 

[Docscurlock]

From the Summary section on page 2:
Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (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.

NO defined federal or civil crime needs to be broken to be impeached, per the Constitution ... period.

This is not the Constitution, this is a summary page on the Senate website, I actually used the constitution and it says" treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors doesn't include being a meanie head!
Nancy, SChiff, Nadler and you need new coies of the Pocket Constitution

 

[watisthis]

 

[GT Pony]

"Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required.

From the House Website: I can type in red too.

There is nothing there that says you have to commit a defined federal or civil crime to be impeached .. what part of NOT don't you understand? "impeachment process IS NOT tightly linked to the criminal law"

What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?

Now you're just making shit up. Go quote me where I said that. I think you have some kind of reading comprehension problem.

 

[Docscurlock]

Apparently you didn't watch all the House hearings and saw the evidence put forth in those hearings. It's pretty evidendent that there was a scheme for personal gain going on. If you don't believe it, then that's OK, it's your right.

He is innocent until proven guilty ... hence, the reason for the Senate trial. But I'm sure that thinking people would agree that it should be a real trial, not a rigged trial like Mitch McConnell has admitted he's going to peruse. McConnell should be careful because he could actually be impeached himself if he goes rouge like Trump.

If Trump is so innocent, then he has the right to defend himself in the Senate trial, not to short circuit it in a corrupt way like McConnell wants to do. Just another corrupt act of the Reps.

It was not evident to me. I especially liked the part where Sondler was asked :"Did anyone on this planet tell you that Trump wanted a quid pro quo?" His answer was very simple to me, so unless someone pipes up and says different, it is all hearsay and speculation. That person has not spoken up yet.

If Trump has the right to defend himself in a Senate trial why won't Pelosi transmit her articles of impeachment? if she simply did her job, the senate trial could commense but she won't for some reason that only she knows. We should just adopt the same rules the House used for the "impeachment inquiry". Fair is fair, I'm not saying we shouldn't be fair but we should be careful not to condemn someone before the proof is there especially when his accusers are so partisan and unfair. Even Obama who is a complete narcissistic ass shouldn't have been treated this way.

 

[GT Pony]

This is not the Constitution, this is a summary page on the Senate website, I actually used the constitution and it says" treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors doesn't include being a meanie head!
Nancy, SChiff, Nadler and you need new coies of the Pocket Constitution

More evidence you really don't understand the Constitution and rules of impeachment. The typical misunderstandings trying to defend Trump from his impeachment.

 

[Docscurlock]

There is nothing there that says you have to commit a defined federal or civil crime to be impeached .. what part of NOT don't you understand? "impeachment process IS NOT tightly linked to the criminal law"




Now you're just making shit up. Go quote me where I said that. I think you have some kind of reading comprehension problem.

More evidence of Trump brainwashing. "Oh, the info on the official Senate website must be wrong because I found something else that aligns with what I think is right." I guess you didn't see the part of your quote I put in red, which basically supports the info I've posted.

We are both quoting summaries about the constitution that plainly says " bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
I am quoting from the House website who has been laid with the burden of being the "sole power of impeachment".

Who is right, who is wrong, didn't read anything anywhere that he could be impeached for being a meanie head.

Sponsored