Impeachment!

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:33 am

Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:01 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm
Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cr ... sdemeanors
That's nonsense. High crimes and Misdemeanors clearly mean criminal behavior. Why use the word, "crimes", if they don't mean it? Also the word misdemeanor also means committing a crime. Jefferson warned that he did not want the President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate. If you include non-criminal behavior that displeases the Senate, then it can be simply a policy difference.
Harvard law review, a student newspaper at a leftist school once headed by Barrack Obama. "Not a smidgen of scandal" :roll:
And virtually everyone until Trump's lawyers attempted to argue that a black letter crime is required.

They also tried to argue that some sort of forms are required, except no such forms exist.
Black letter form and match:

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[8]

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[9]
So your argument is "Orange man Bad" is enough for conviction of impeachment.

You don't even get a vote on voting who gets a vote.
It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[10]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication.
Same source.
Trump does not drink

There is no proof of abuse of power like you are implying. Acquittal done. Case closed.

If the Democrats actually wanted to remove Trump by conviction on impeachment they would have taken their time and done a proper and above board impeachment process in the House. They were more interested in getting done by Christmas. Before anyone figured out they were full of it.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:57 am

Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:33 am
Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:01 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm
Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cr ... sdemeanors
That's nonsense. High crimes and Misdemeanors clearly mean criminal behavior. Why use the word, "crimes", if they don't mean it? Also the word misdemeanor also means committing a crime. Jefferson warned that he did not want the President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate. If you include non-criminal behavior that displeases the Senate, then it can be simply a policy difference.
Harvard law review, a student newspaper at a leftist school once headed by Barrack Obama. "Not a smidgen of scandal" :roll:
And virtually everyone until Trump's lawyers attempted to argue that a black letter crime is required.

They also tried to argue that some sort of forms are required, except no such forms exist.
Black letter form and match:

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[8]

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[9]
So your argument is "Orange man Bad" is enough for conviction of impeachment.

You don't even get a vote on voting who gets a vote.
It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[10]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication.
Same source.
Trump does not drink

There is no proof of abuse of power like you are implying. Acquittal done. Case closed.

If the Democrats actually wanted to remove Trump by conviction on impeachment they would have taken their time and done a proper and above board impeachment process in the House. They were more interested in getting done by Christmas. Before anyone figured out they were full of it.
So you again run away from the argument.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 am

Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:57 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:33 am
Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:01 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 am
That's nonsense. High crimes and Misdemeanors clearly mean criminal behavior. Why use the word, "crimes", if they don't mean it? Also the word misdemeanor also means committing a crime. Jefferson warned that he did not want the President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate. If you include non-criminal behavior that displeases the Senate, then it can be simply a policy difference.
Harvard law review, a student newspaper at a leftist school once headed by Barrack Obama. "Not a smidgen of scandal" :roll:
And virtually everyone until Trump's lawyers attempted to argue that a black letter crime is required.

They also tried to argue that some sort of forms are required, except no such forms exist.
Black letter form and match:

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[8]

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[9]
So your argument is "Orange man Bad" is enough for conviction of impeachment.

You don't even get a vote on voting who gets a vote.
It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[10]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication.
Same source.
Trump does not drink

There is no proof of abuse of power like you are implying. Acquittal done. Case closed.

If the Democrats actually wanted to remove Trump by conviction on impeachment they would have taken their time and done a proper and above board impeachment process in the House. They were more interested in getting done by Christmas. Before anyone figured out they were full of it.
So you again run away from the argument.
It is not an argument. You are trying to have it both ways. You are basically claiming it is not a criminal process but rather a political process.

Trump was acquitted. Game over.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:38 am

Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 am
It is not an argument. You are trying to have it both ways. You are basically claiming it is not a criminal process but rather a political process.

Trump was acquitted. Game over.
Arguing it's one thing, not another, is trying to have it one way. You need to watch the Trump Derangement Syndrome!

neverfail
Posts: 4813
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Impeachment!

Post by neverfail » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:01 pm

Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 am

Trump was acquitted. Game over.
1) Trump received a BOGUS acquittal.

2) It is far from over.

3) it is NOT a game.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:12 pm

Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:38 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 am
It is not an argument. You are trying to have it both ways. You are basically claiming it is not a criminal process but rather a political process.

Trump was acquitted. Game over.
Arguing it's one thing, not another, is trying to have it one way. You need to watch the Trump Derangement Syndrome!
You are claiming on the one hand it is not a criminal process. Which inherently means you are saying it is a political process. If that is the case it was not only a political process in the house of representatives but it was a political process in the senate as well. Those who live by the political process die by the political process. You have no reason to object to the outcome.

The Dems, the gang that couldn't shoot straight, didn't shoot straight. Surprise surprise.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:21 pm

Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:12 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:38 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 am
It is not an argument. You are trying to have it both ways. You are basically claiming it is not a criminal process but rather a political process.

Trump was acquitted. Game over.
Arguing it's one thing, not another, is trying to have it one way. You need to watch the Trump Derangement Syndrome!
You are claiming on the one hand it is not a criminal process. Which inherently means you are saying it is a political process. If that is the case it was not only a political process in the house of representatives but it was a political process in the senate as well. Those who live by the political process die by the political process. You have no reason to object to the outcome.

The Dems, the gang that couldn't shoot straight, didn't shoot straight. Surprise surprise.
I don’t really care about the outcome of this impeachment. As a matter of fact if you look back in this thread you’ll see that I said this entire causes of action was a turkey from the get-go. That’s because the evidence was not available for an impartial source. It’s called lawyering.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:36 pm

Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:21 pm
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:12 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:38 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 am
It is not an argument. You are trying to have it both ways. You are basically claiming it is not a criminal process but rather a political process.

Trump was acquitted. Game over.
Arguing it's one thing, not another, is trying to have it one way. You need to watch the Trump Derangement Syndrome!
You are claiming on the one hand it is not a criminal process. Which inherently means you are saying it is a political process. If that is the case it was not only a political process in the house of representatives but it was a political process in the senate as well. Those who live by the political process die by the political process. You have no reason to object to the outcome.

The Dems, the gang that couldn't shoot straight, didn't shoot straight. Surprise surprise.
I don’t really care about the outcome of this impeachment. As a matter of fact if you look back in this thread you’ll see that I said this entire causes of action was a turkey from the get-go. That’s because the evidence was not available for an impartial source. It’s called lawyering.
Or lack of evidence
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1789
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:06 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:39 pm
Doc wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:32 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:26 pm
So, the belligerent manchild got his ass impeached. The US continues to prosper. Maybe, after Trump's reelection in 2020 they should impeach the bastard again. Good for the economy . . .
That is their plan. Though before the 2020 election

Yes, before and/or after Trump's reelection Pelosi et al. will give it another go, thereby wasting resources - time and money - while ignoring the best interests of the people and enhancing the popularity of the belligerent manchild.

Right on cue . . .
Speaker Pelosi has just declared her intent to have POTUS impeached again. I forget what high crime or misdemeanor the SOB is alleged to have committed this time. Maybe he is not flossing regularly?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:27 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:06 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:39 pm
Doc wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:32 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:26 pm
So, the belligerent manchild got his ass impeached. The US continues to prosper. Maybe, after Trump's reelection in 2020 they should impeach the bastard again. Good for the economy . . .
That is their plan. Though before the 2020 election

Yes, before and/or after Trump's reelection Pelosi et al. will give it another go, thereby wasting resources - time and money - while ignoring the best interests of the people and enhancing the popularity of the belligerent manchild.

Right on cue . . .
Speaker Pelosi has just declared her intent to have POTUS impeached again. I forget what high crime or misdemeanor the SOB is alleged to have committed this time. Maybe he is not flossing regularly?
Less than half of the Democrats came out for Iowa and New Hampshire than came out for Obama in 2012. They are throwing anything against the wall they can get their hands on to fire up their base. There problem is after 2016 and now this year people can see they are doing to anyone that is not one of them like Bernie what they are accusing Trump of doing -- cheating. Its like they are at the annual office Christmas party wearing a lamp shade. It seemed like a good idea while they were at the party.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply