Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Demanding that Trump needs to have committed a crime to be removed is a direct admission that your standards for a Commander in Chief are lower than for a burger-flipper.
Click to expand...

Not saying he hasn't committed any crimes, but isn't that literally the criteria for removal specified in the Constitution?

All of the burger flippers back then were probably slaves, so it shouldn't surprise anyone if the Founders really did have a double standard there.
 
theprestige said:
Not saying he hasn't committed any crimes, but isn't that literally the criteria for removal specified in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

not, it isn't. Haven't you read the Constitution?

A High Crime is the kind of crime no one BUT a President or other very high ranking Official can commit. It is all the worse for being done by someone entrusted with so much power.
A burger-flipper doesn't have much Power to Abuse in the first place.

Trump wasn't given his power for four years come what may - it is the duty of Congress to take it away when he abuses it (knowing Trump, that was not an If).
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Not saying he hasn't committed any crimes, but isn't that literally the criteria for removal specified in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

"The terms “high crimes and misdemeanors,” in their natural sense, embrace a very large field of actions. They are broad enough to cover all criminal misconduct of the President, — all acts of commission or omission forbidden by the Constitution and the laws. To the word “misdemeanor,” indeed, is naturally attached a yet broader signification, which would embrace personal character and behavior as well as the proprieties of official conduct. Nor was, nor is, there any just reason why it should be restricted in this direction; for, in establishing a permanent national government, to insure purity and dignity, to secure the confidence of its own people and command the respect of foreign powers, it is not unfit that civil officers, and most especially the highest of all, the head of the people, should be answerable for personal demeanor.
The term “misdemeanor” was likewise used to designate all legal offences lower than felonies, — all the minor transgressions, all public wrongs, not felonious in character. The common law punished whatever acts were productive of disturbance to the public peace, or tended to incite to the commission of crime, or to injure the health or morals of the people, — such as profanity, drunkenness, challenging to fight, soliciting to the commission of crime, carrying infection through the streets, — an endless variety of offences."
​
The Atlantic, January 1867


You should keep in mind that even the article above was written BEFORE the first Federal US Code was drafted in the 1970s.

You should also really try reading your own Constitution sometime. Its an interesting set of documents if you're a history buff.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
If I'm reading this thread correctly, no matter what the Democrats do it's all their fault? It's either their fault because:

a) They didn't list a crime
b) They're not pushing the articles up
c) They are pushing the articles up
d) Because.

That's the crux of this thread from what I can tell. There is absolutely no move at this point in time that the Dems can make that would work to their political advantage.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's not because of a, b, c, or d. It's because we're dealing with a cult here: the Cult of Trumpism. You can't fight a cult with parliamentary procedures.

plague311 said:
Talk about how ******* stupid this country is that we can't even remove someone that's committed crimes. No ******* wonder we're the laughing stock of the world. I'm embarrassed to even live here let alone pretend I'm represented by any of these dip ***** we have in office.
Click to expand...
+1 :(
 
smartcooky said:
No, it isn't.
"The terms “high crimes and misdemeanors,” in their natural sense, embrace a very large field of actions. They are broad enough to cover all criminal misconduct of the President, — all acts of commission or omission forbidden by the Constitution and the laws. To the word “misdemeanor,” indeed, is naturally attached a yet broader signification, which would embrace personal character and behavior as well as the proprieties of official conduct. Nor was, nor is, there any just reason why it should be restricted in this direction; for, in establishing a permanent national government, to insure purity and dignity, to secure the confidence of its own people and command the respect of foreign powers, it is not unfit that civil officers, and most especially the highest of all, the head of the people, should be answerable for personal demeanor.
The term “misdemeanor” was likewise used to designate all legal offences lower than felonies, — all the minor transgressions, all public wrongs, not felonious in character. The common law punished whatever acts were productive of disturbance to the public peace, or tended to incite to the commission of crime, or to injure the health or morals of the people, — such as profanity, drunkenness, challenging to fight, soliciting to the commission of crime, carrying infection through the streets, — an endless variety of offences."
​
The Atlantic, January 1867


You should keep in mind that even the article above was written BEFORE the first Federal US Code was drafted in the 1970s.

You should also really try reading your own Constitution sometime. Its an interesting set of documents if you're a history buff.
Click to expand...
Well done! I can't believe that the implication of an improper demeanor in the word "mis-demeanor" was staring me in the face all this time and I didn't understand it.


:thumbsup:
 
Also it's worth nothing that within the confines of an impeachment Congress.. can't really punish the President in a legal "give him a sentence" sense of the term. They can't execute Trump, they can't send him to prison, they can't make him march down Pennsylvania Blvd wearing a dunce cap.

All they can do is remove him from office and forbid him from holding future offices. That's it. That's the maximum penalty they can hand down.

Again Impeachment is it's own metaphor and it's not exactly like anything else but it's as much like a disciplinary hearing to see if Trump is going to be fire as it is a trial.
 
The "party of limited government" has placed a single person in the too-big-to-fail category. This is actual Republican policy now.
 
Norman Alexander said:
There is nothing stopping the Dems launching another impeachment if Trump misbehaves just as badly and openly as he did with the Ukraine thing. As noted above, he's a target-rich environment.

Let's say he did just that. And the Dems once again went through all the hoops of the last few months and a second (or even more) impeachment is passed. But they still don't send them up to the Senate. That would build a laundry-list of impeachments for a whole bunch of Trumpy crimes. And eventually this will tilt against Donny. In the past he has been cornered and made to pay for his misbehaviour, no matter how many lawyers he threw in and tried to delay things. If the Dems make impeachment an ongoing, rolling, building process, Trump's base for the most part will eventually crumble. As will many GOP senators when they realise they are supporting a career liar and criminal.

Once is bad. Twice is a lot worse. Three times...rethink your life choices, guys.
Click to expand...

LOL. Too much fake news gives one a warped viewpoint of reality. Trump has lost zero support, and has actually gained support during the Democrats' stupid no-crime impeachment sham. If the Democrats continue to act like spoiled brats who refuse to accept the results of elections, the GOP will gain support, not lose it. This is America, not a banana republic.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
LOL. Too much fake news gives one a warped viewpoint of reality. Trump has lost zero support, and has actually gained support during the Democrats' stupid no-crime impeachment sham. If the Democrats continue to act like spoiled brats who refuse to accept the results of elections, the GOP will gain support, not lose it. This is America, not a banana republic.
Click to expand...
Assumes facts not in evidence.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
not, it isn't. Haven't you read the Constitution?

A High Crime is the kind of crime no one BUT a President or other very high ranking Official can commit. It is all the worse for being done by someone entrusted with so much power.
A burger-flipper doesn't have much Power to Abuse in the first place.

Trump wasn't given his power for four years come what may - it is the duty of Congress to take it away when he abuses it (knowing Trump, that was not an If).
Click to expand...

The Prestige is doing it again. Acting deliberately obtuse for the benefit of spin. He KNOWS damn well that HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS does not mean breaking specific coded laws or CRIMES.

To begin with he's ignoring the word "misdemeanors". Misdemeanor at that time did not mean lesser crime but an offense that wasn't a crime. A dereliction of duty or an abuse of the office may not constitute a crime but it is still an offense. Also, 14 people have been impeached and only one of them were charged with an actual crime.

Here is one of articles of Impeachment against President Johnson. It cracked me up considering Trump is President now.

Article X. which was adopted by amendment after the first nine articles, alleged that Johnson, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach. the Congress of the United States, [and] to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all good peoIple . . . for the Congress and legislative power thereof ...by making "certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous ha-rangues." In addition, the same speeches were alleged to have brought the high office of the President into "contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens."
Click to expand...

The House of Representatives has in the last 230 years drawn up Articles of Impeachment on only 15 people as best as I can tell and of the more than 140 various Impeachment articles less than 10 were based on actual crimes. And get this, the only

The argument that articles of impeachment must be based on a crime is not supported by the debate of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention or the writings of Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist's papers or other writings at that time. It is also not supported by the history of impeachment. As best as I can tell not one of the people who were impeached were convicted of a crime. One was indicted, but the charge was dropped.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
The "party of limited government" has placed a single person in the too-big-to-fail category. This is actual Republican policy now.
Click to expand...

Compassionate, conservative GOP Party: limited government, low taxes and limited spending that doesn't blow the deficit up, yessiree! :thumbsup:
 
BrooklynBaby said:
LOL. Too much fake news gives one a warped viewpoint of reality. Trump has lost zero support, and has actually gained support during the Democrats' stupid no-crime impeachment sham. If the Democrats continue to act like spoiled brats who refuse to accept the results of elections, the GOP will gain support, not lose it. This is America, not a banana republic.
Click to expand...

Do you have a clue about our Constitution or US history?

More than 100 articles of Impeachment have been drawn up against various officials in the last 230 years. Less than ten were based on actual crimes.

But if you dont think extorting a foreign power to help your political career isn't a crime than I seriously question your personal integrity.
 
Last edited:
Good for you Pelosi, hang on to those impeachment papers until the Senate agrees to a fair process!!


Warning, stop this Simpson gif after the first Ha ha. It goes on for 10 minutes.:eye-poppi
 
Norman Alexander said:
If the Dems make impeachment an ongoing, rolling, building process, Trump's base for the most part will eventually crumble. As will many GOP senators when they realise they are supporting a career liar and criminal.
Click to expand...

Both Trump's base and the GOP Senators already know they're supporting a career liar and criminal.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
LOL. Too much fake news gives one a warped viewpoint of reality. Trump has lost zero support, and has actually gained support during the Democrats' stupid no-crime impeachment sham. If the Democrats continue to act like spoiled brats who refuse to accept the results of elections, the GOP will gain support, not lose it. This is America, not a banana republic.
Click to expand...

The only people living in 2016 are the Trump drones.

This is about everything since. Actually he could have been impeached rightfully long ago.
 
I heard most of McConnell's speech today. At times I thought I was hearing words directly from The PDJT himself. Then I realized I probably was, since MM spent the last couple days with the Prez at the White House. He probably helped him write it. Hell, they likely helped write each other's nastygrams.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom