Topic: Impeachment (Read 147 times)

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?

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?

....
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 '.

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.

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


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.

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.

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

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

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

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

....
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. ...

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.

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.

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.