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

Adolf_Twitler said:
Cheating and lying to win elections comes with a political price as well.
Click to expand...

Hence the outcome of Election 2016. Endless Democrat cheating, lying, and elitist power-abusing snobbery is what elected Trump. :cool:

Adolf_Twitler said:
CBTW, impeachment is the COST of lying and cheating.
Click to expand...

Say the only people who have been repeatedly caught lying and cheating. :laugh:

Adolf_Twitler said:
Your approval of Donald Trump's cheating and lying is going to cost you your choice for president.
Click to expand...

Yeah, about Democrats and their predictions...

View attachment 13210.View attachment 13211.View attachment 13212.View attachment 13213.View attachment 13214

:rofl2:
 
Last edited:
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...

It's so cute when Democrats take a break from shitting on our Anthem, burning our flag, tearing down our monuments, and smearing our Founders to suddenly pretend they don't despise everything the Founders put in place...but only so long as to peddle their illiterate butchery of the Constitution and condescendingly lecture those of us who can actually prove that the Founders authorized and intended the exact opposite of everything they are claiming.

:rofl2:

What part of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that a crime isn't required? CAN the House technically start impeachment based on absolutely nothing? Sure. Is it an unprecedented Constitution-shredding abuse of power? Absolutely.

Try again. :bs:

View attachment 13215
 
Arminius said:
It's so cute when Democrats take a break from shitting on our Anthem, burning our flag, tearing down our monuments, and smearing our Founders to suddenly pretend they don't despise everything the Founders put in place...but only so long as to peddle their illiterate butchery of the Constitution and condescendingly lecture those of us who can actually prove that the Founders authorized and intended the exact opposite of everything they are claiming.

:rofl2:

What part of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that a crime isn't required? CAN the House technically start impeachment based on absolutely nothing? Sure. Is it an unprecedented Constitution-shredding abuse of power? Absolutely.

Try again. :bs:

View attachment 13215
Click to expand...

Your opinion are those of a fool. But thanks for sharing your unknowing self-important self-righteous hateful hypocritical opinions.
 
Arminius said:
It's so cute when Democrats take a break from shitting on our Anthem, burning our flag, tearing down our monuments, and smearing our Founders to suddenly pretend they don't despise everything the Founders put in place...but only so long as to peddle their illiterate butchery of the Constitution and condescendingly lecture those of us who can actually prove that the Founders authorized and intended the exact opposite of everything they are claiming.

:rofl2:

What part of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that a crime isn't required? CAN the House technically start impeachment based on absolutely nothing? Sure. Is it an unprecedented Constitution-shredding abuse of power? Absolutely.

Try again. :bs:

View attachment 13215
Click to expand...

All that is for me to know and for you to find out! Haha!
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Your opinion are those of a fool.
Click to expand...

Says the guy whose Englishes are that of a semi-literate. :laugh:

Adolf_Twitler said:
But thanks for sharing your unknowing self-important self-righteous hateful hypocritical opinions.
Click to expand...

So I couldn't help but notice you blowing past the challenge to hurl off-topic (self-describing) insults. It's almost as if you can't debate and are just lashing out with pot-kettle smears to change the subject. :thinking:

View attachment 13222

I'll post it again...What part of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that a crime isn't required? CAN the House technically start impeachment based on absolutely nothing? Sure. Is it an unprecedented Constitution-shredding abuse of power? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
Adolf_Twitler said:
No- the House has the telephone conversations in full now, and those are from the horses mouth- even the horses ass's mouth- DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF.

Trump should have paid attention to Snowden when he warned the world that the US intelligense agencies record every cell phone conversation.

And so they now have all of Trumps cellphone conversations with Giuliani. Everyone tried to warn Trump not to be using his Cellphone when conducting impeachable crimes like bribery!

Too bad, because now they are evidence that not even the Senate can deny.

Sorry, but we didn't commit the crimes, nor did we make up the rules!

But the Democratic led House must uphold their Oath of Office, and commitment to the people of this country, and remove this criminal president from office.

They have no choice- AND NEITHER DOES THE SENATE NOW!
Click to expand...

not
 
Arminius said:
It's so cute when Democrats take a break from shitting on our Anthem, burning our flag, tearing down our monuments, and smearing our Founders to suddenly pretend they don't despise everything the Founders put in place...but only so long as to peddle their illiterate butchery of the Constitution and condescendingly lecture those of us who can actually prove that the Founders authorized and intended the exact opposite of everything they are claiming.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
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...

This puts the Senate in an interesting position if the House votes to impeach. What are they going to try him on??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top