Democrat impeachment report: Trump can be impeached despite him breaking no laws

Arminius said:
The House Judiciary Committee report actually argues that it doesn't matter that Trump committed no crimes, and that they get to simply assign “illegitimate motives” to him, charge him regardless of all the facts and evidence, and force him to go through a trial in the Senate on their triggered feelings alone. Seriously. It is literally the first time in the history of the republic such an asinine "make up whatever we feel like" abuse of power has been applied.

:laugh:

It also holds up the fraudulent Johnson impeachment...the one rejected across the board as a hoax, as the model for their legal reasoning. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Stunning in it's stupidity. If the Party of the Jackass thinks they can pull this stupidity off in the Senate, they are woefully retarded. :rolleyes:
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Cheating and lying to win elections comes with a political price as well.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Hey idiot, we didn't make up the rules.
The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
Can you read- knothead? Well then here, allow me to educate you on the subject so that you are informed of how this shit works according to the Constitution!

In the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were attempting to craft a mechanism that would allow for the disciplining of a President who abused his constitutional responsibilities without creating a weapon by which the President would be prevented from carrying them out. At bottom, it was a question of how to refine and make effective the separation of powers.

Article II, Section 4, says that the President, Vice President, and "all civil Officers of the United States"—which includes judges—can be impeached. Members of Congress can be expelled by their own respective body. (See Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.)

Early on, some delegates expressed the apprehension that those serving in the federal government would be disinclined to monitor each other. Accordingly, John Dickinson proposed "that the Executive be made removable by the National Legislature on the request of a majority of the Legislatures of individual States." James Madison opposed the idea because it would subject the executive to the "intrigues" of the states. After defeating Dickinson's proposal, the members of the Convention also turned aside George Mason's and Governer Morris's initial fears that the impeachment power might render the executive the servant of the legislature. Instead, the Framers opted for the procedure that had been followed by the English and by the constitutions of most of the states. The appropriate place of bringing charges of impeachment, which power is analogous to the bringing of criminal charges by a grand jury, is in the lower house of the legislature. Just as the grand and petit juries are popular institutions, so it made sense to have the branch closest to the people charged with this indictment-like power.

The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Early in our history, a Member would rise on the floor of Congress and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee. In recent years, Members of the House Judiciary Committee have initiated the proceeding and then made recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution, and who then become prosecutors in the trial in the Senate.

For a time there was legislation enabling the Attorney General to appoint a "special prosecutor" with the power to recommend impeachments to Congress, but dissatisfaction with the power of such an unchecked independent counsel led to the expiration of the authorizing statute. Even the most famous "independent counsel," Judge Kenneth Starr, who recommended the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton to Congress, had consistently argued against the practice of appointing such independent counsels.

There have not been many instances of impeachment over the years—a few dozen in all, mostly of corrupt federal judges. The most notable impeachments—Justice Samuel Chase, Presidents Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton—have ended in acquittals by the Senate. There were proceedings and hearings at the House Judiciary Committee and a bill of impeachment reported to the House against President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on the impeachment charges against him.

The near-unanimous view of constitutional commentators is that the House of Representatives' "sole power" of impeachment is a political question and therefore not reviewable by the judiciary. The House is constitutionally obligated to base a bill of impeachment on the standards set out in Article II. (See Article II, Section 4.) However, the fact that the Constitution's text grants the House the "sole power," and the fact that such a review is not clearly within the Article III power of the federal judiciary indicate that this responsibility is the House's alone. The Supreme Court has found that the Senate's "sole power" to try impeachments is not justiciable. Nixon v. United States (1993).

That leaves the question of whether the clause imposes an affirmative duty on the House to monitor the conduct of those subject to impeachment, and, when evidence of impea-chable offenses is manifest, to initiate proceedings. It has been the general American practice regarding criminal law to grant considerable discretion to prosecutors, so that by analogy one could argue that the House has complete discretion to decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 77, argued that the nation would find "republican" safety from a presidential abuse of power by the mode of his election and by his "being at all times liable to impeachment." There is no doubt that the Framers saw impeachment as a part of the system of checks and balances to maintain the separation of powers and the republican form of government. The implication is that when the President (or other impeachable official) has committed an impeachable offense, the Members of the House, bound by the oaths they take to uphold the Constitution, are under a particular obligation to deal with the miscreant's offenses, irrespective of whether their bill of impeachment may or may not lead to a conviction in the Senate.

[Stephen B. Presser Sullivan & Cromwell Professor of Law Northwestern University School of Law]
Click to expand...

the constitution doesnt define the process, but congress has. dems aren't doing it right.
 
This is a political trial, and the House alone determines what political crimes meet "bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanours."

Dems are doing it exactly right, the GOP are guilty of obstruction, Again.
 
jimmymccready said:
This is a political trial, and the House alone determines what political crimes meet "bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanours."

Dems are doing it exactly right, the GOP are guilty of obstruction, Again.
Click to expand...
no. absolutely NOT. The Constitution determines the criteria ( high crimes and misdemeanors) for Impeachment
 
Republican congress members are under the false impression that the President is on trial.

He certainly is, on a political not criminal trial.

It also increasingly clear that the GOP individually jointly are on trial before the American people as well.

They may continue to win some elections, but they will have lost legitimacy with the majority of the American people. They did not need to do this, but they have squandered any respect they should deserve to become partners in an ongoing effort to distort our democracy, undermine faith in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and spread Russian disinformation. I don’t often agree with George Will, but they all need to go.
 
Arminius said:
The House Judiciary Committee report actually argues that it doesn't matter that Trump committed no crimes, and that they get to simply assign “illegitimate motives” to him, charge him regardless of all the facts and evidence, and force him to go through a trial in the Senate on their triggered feelings alone. Seriously. It is literally the first time in the history of the republic such an asinine "make up whatever we feel like" abuse of power has been applied.

:laugh:

It also holds up the fraudulent Johnson impeachment...the one rejected across the board as a hoax, as the model for their legal reasoning. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

^For once, this fucking idiot posts the truth.

Impeachment does not require a criminal violation. Abuse of power is sufficient. That’s the way the Founders set it up.
 
countryboy said:
Is that what the Constitution says? Is that what Madison's notes say? No, and no.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not require criminal violations, idiot.

Educate yourself on how “high crimes and misdemeanors” was decided upon.

Fucking willfully ignorant moron
 
Mr. Stephen Castor, Intel Committee Minority Counsel is destroying the Democrat’s flimsy impeachment circus.
The elements of the House Democrat’s impeachment circus are being destroyed by Mr. Castor, one by one.

The “bribee” (sic) says there was no bribery.

Case closed.
 
jimmymccready said:
This is a political trial, and the House alone determines what political crimes meet "bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanours."

Dems are doing it exactly right, the GOP are guilty of obstruction, Again.
Click to expand...

IT'S THE "PERFECT" IMPEACHMENT! LOL!

NOW WATCH THE DEMOCRATS PERFECT IT!

Because Donald Trump's Crimes "perfectly" fit the forefathers idea of a president that would need impeached- so they "perfectly" described how to do it in the Constitution.

His act of "Bribery" in his "Perfect Phone Call" with the newly elected president of the Ukraine, was the perfect case of Bribery the forefathers were concerned a future rogue president might try to commit someday.

Sure! Donald Trump and his Supporters who prop him up and over-inflate him are going to be mad, disappointed, throw temper tantrums, distract, LIE, deny, CRY like little chihuahua's about it, continue to cover up, hate Democrats (THEY HATE US ANYWAY AND ALWAYS HAVE BTW- SO NO LOSS HERE), try to blame Joe Biden and his son as just another WHAT-A-BOUT-ISM and DISTRACTION, use scare tactics like threatening the Democrats are going to be doomed forever and will never win another election, try to further Obstruct Justice, try to further Obstruct Congress.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DEMOCRATS KNOW THE REPUBLICAN PLAYBOOK NOW AND WE KNOW HOW THEY ARE GOING TO REACT- in this forum, In Congress, On Fox News.

ANd guess what? We don't concern ourselves with that- because that is just the way Republicans are- they lie, they cheat, they distort, they distract, even steal, to get themselves into power and try to stay in power.

BUT, the DEMOCRAT led House of Representatives are PERFECTLY carrying out there oath of office, andPERFECTLY doing what our forefathers intended, to remove a corrupt president that thinks he is above the law.

AND THEY CAN CRY US A PERFECT RIVER OF TEARS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top