Impeachment not going so well?

[icanhelp1]

One of the requirements for an impeachment to result in a conviction is for there to have been a crime that the accused actually committed.

I've read them. Although in all honesty I fell asleep twice.

They're hanging their hat on the dumb narrative that impeachment is strictly political, they're going all in with the Gerald Ford opinion. However, the framers had a different perspective, something about high crimes and misdemeanors which seems to indicate our framers believed a crime or some kind of statutory violation should be at the very center of any impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment is a political process because its conducted by a political body and outside the court system. The framers never intended impeachment to be a party dominated event where removal of a president could be accomplished strictly on policy differences and not actual crimes that raised to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I'm afraid the dems weaponized impeachment to gain a political advantage in the next election, 1. by shaping public opinion before the 2020 election and 2. Exposing how certain senators vote on impeachment just before the elections hoping to influence the electorate in certain districts where senators are weak. This is a ploy by dems to take back the senate and stop the bleeding on court judge appointments.

If the house and senate are dem majorities and Trump wins, Trump is dead in the water ( lame duck ) before his admin even gets started. Same tactic used with the Mueller investigation to win back the house, use a fake narrative to win votes from the less informed electorate. Tough to compete when main street media is the voice of the democratic party. It is imperative the Durham report becomes public before 2020 and expose the Obama DOJ, FBI and the misuse of the FISA courts and how they illegally attempted influenced the 2016 election.

 

[phrodeau]

One of the requirements for an impeachment to result in a conviction is for there to have been a crime that the accused actually committed.

I've read them. Although in all honesty I fell asleep twice.

Last week’s news.

https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/D21272

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

 

[jaF0]

They're hanging their hat on the dumb narrative that impeachment is strictly political, they're going all in with the Gerald Ford opinion. However, the framers had a different perspective, something about high crimes and misdemeanors which seems to indicate our framers believed a crime or some kind of statutory violation should be at the very center of any impeachment proceedings.

See Leningrad Lindsay's comments in post 613.

 

[icanhelp1]

See Leningrad Lindsay's comments in post 613.

I don't give a flying fuck what Lindsey Graham says. I believe I know more about constitutional law than he does. The house impeachment process has been one cluster fuck after another. Nancy has acted like a dictator and it will come back to bite her on the ass.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If the house and senate are dem majorities and Trump wins, Trump is dead in the water ( lame duck ) before his admin even gets started.

Very possible.

However, it will be crystal clear to the voters and President Paul will have ALL the support he needs to finish what President Trump started.

 

[jaF0]

I don't give a flying fuck what Lindsey Graham says. I believe I know more about constitutional law than he does.

Donny has acted like a dictator ...

Fixed that fer ya.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "I guess you do have a point in that the Republicans' 100% PARTISAN impeachment backfired on them in 1998."

First of all, it WASN'T 100% partisan in '98 - but yes, it really DID backfire on the G.O.P.! Everyone acknowledges today that Bill Clinton DID commit perjury in order to obstruct an investigation of sexual harrassment brought against him by his own department of justice, but enough senators felt that it didn't warrant his removal from office, and so Clinton was vindicated and the Republicans LOST!

But, as Nancy Pelosi would later point out: President Clinton was "impeached forever!"

"But there's no evidence of a backlash this time, with even Fox News admitting the public is against Trump by a substantial margin."

This time, it's 100% PARTISAN - not a single House Republican voted to impeach President Trump, but a couple of Democrats OPPOSED their own party, including ONE New Jersey U.S. representative who actually switched parties from Democrat to Republican! And while the U.S. Senate has NOT yet voted, I'm guessing that ONLY Democrats will vote to convict Trump (they won't even get Mitt Romney's vote!), while both Democrat AND Republican senators will vote to acquit! The only BIPARTISANSHIP shown in this entire endeavor has been AGAINST impeachment!

The backlash will come AFTER the Democrats have failed, and when the American people realize that legislative Democrats have wasted the past three years and many MILLIONS of taxpayer-dollars in their failed witchhunts to end the Trump presidency early! The American people dislike wasteful failures!

 

[YDB95]

Last week’s news.

https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/D21272

Doesn't matter. They've settled on their narrative that "there was no crime", and by God, they're going to stick with it. Really, what other options have they got?

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Doesn't matter. They've settled on their narrative that "there was no crime", and by God, they're going to stick with it. Really, what other options have they got?"

There was NO CRIME - Adam Schiff & the House Democrats wanted to impeach Trump immediately after the Mueller Report was released, but then Mueller reported "no collusion & no obstruction," at which point the Democrats began looking for something else. What they found was a whistleblower reporting hearsay about a phone call to the Ukraine.

President Trump immediately released the complete transcripts of the phone call in question, showing no laws being broken, but Schiff & the House Dems were tired of waiting. The Democrats declared Joe & Hunter Biden as pure as the driven snow (they're NOT), and rushed through two articles of impeachment WITHOUT first gathering enough evidence or witnesses to make it stick!

And now that Nancy Pelosi has FINALLY allowed the U.S. Senate to see the flimsy evidence provided by her managers, the House Democrats are now DEMANDING that the U.S. Senate do their investigating FOR them, thinking that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is supposed to do whatever Speaker of the House Pelosi orders him to do! Only that's NOT how it works!

NOBODY thinks the U.S. Senate will vote to remove President Trump from office - NOBODY! All the Democrats are hoping for at this point is that the BACKLASH from their failed impeachment efforts don't come back to bite Speaker Pelosi on her stupid butt!

 

[magicalmoments]

How dumb are you dump. There was crime. In any event so what? A crime is not required for impeachment. Hell, when they wrote the constitution there were no criminal codes. So clearly the founders were covering a situation where a president went rogue and used general terms to cover the possibilities. Clearly, all the experts believe a crime is not required, even if some have changed their mind on the point in their dottage.

 

[JackLuis]

How dumb are you dump?

That's what happens when you drink the orange Kool-Aid.

 

[Dumpington]

magicalmoments writes: "How dumb are you dump. There was crime."

How dumb am I? I'm sorry, but neither you nor I are JURORS in this case! The only way we'll know whether or not there was a crime is when the full U.S. Senate votes on it!

And yes, Liz Warren & Bernie Sanders SWORE not to be biased in this case. And yes, magicalmoments, perjury IS a crime!

"A crime is not required for impeachment. Hell, when they wrote the constitution there were no criminal codes."

Yes, the House of Representatives can impeach President Trump SIMPLY for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016. But getting the U.S. Senate to then remove him from office for doing that is another matter entirely! It's NOT going to happen!

"...the founders were covering a situation where a president went rogue and used general terms to cover the possibilities. Clearly, all the experts believe a crime is not required, even if some have changed their mind on the point in their dottage."

No, I don't believe that America's Founding Fathers ever expected impeachment to be used in a purely partisan fashion by one political party that was simply angry & frustrated that their party lost a presidential election, and was poised to lose another. But by giving the U.S. Senate the power to override a rogue congress and vindicate the president, they seemingly found a way around it!

And yes, the American voters will very likely PUNISH a congress that so cavalierly uses impeachment in this fashion. I'm guessing that the resulting political backlash will seriously damage Speaker Pelosi's House majority in the November of 2020 elections!

 

[YDB95]

Besides the intentionally vague "high crimes and misdemeanors", the Constitution names two crimes that meet the standard of impeachment: treason and bribery. What Trump did with the funds for Ukraine arguably meets the definition of both. But more to the point, the articles of impeachment did specify two crimes: abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress.

 

[gunthernehmen]

How dumb are you dump. There was crime. In any event so what? A crime is not required for impeachment. Hell, when they wrote the constitution there were no criminal codes. So clearly the founders were covering a situation where a president went rogue and used general terms to cover the possibilities. Clearly, all the experts believe a crime is not required, even if some have changed their mind on the point in their dottage.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Besides the intentionally vague "high crimes and misdemeanors", the Constitution names two crimes that meet the standard of impeachment: treason and bribery. What Trump did with the funds for Ukraine arguably meets the definition of both. But more to the point, the articles of impeachment did specify two crimes: abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress.

LMFAO!! Yea if you're high on fentanyl laced PCP.

Which is why neither you nor anyone else has tried to or is arguing that absurd notion.

Obstruction of congress isn't a crime. It's a foot stamping hissy fit that the HoR isn't getting it's way and everyone other than the most drunk on (D) Kool-Aid can see it.

And "abuse of power" is subjective bullshit that the (D)'eez are having a difficult time making because it's really just "Orange Man BAD!" and nothing else.

 

[phrodeau]

Doesn't matter. They've settled on their narrative that "there was no crime", and by God, they're going to stick with it. Really, what other options have they got?

I know. On crimes it’s Trump 1 Biden 0.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "What Trump did with the funds for Ukraine arguably meets the definition of both."

If you believe Adam Schiff, then yes. Of course, if you believe Adam Schiff, then the Mueller Report LIED about Trump not colluding with the Russians! The problem is, Adam Schiff's power-base remains in the U.S. House of Representatives, and NOT in the U.S. Senate! And it's the U.S. Senate that gets to determine whether or not President Trump committed a crime regarding the Ukraine.

And you know as well as I do, YDB95, that the U.S. Senate does NOT buy into Adam Schiff's clown-show of a witchhunt. When this whole thing is over, President Trump will have been VINDICATED, with the Trump-haters once again voicing their outrage & frustration over Trump defeating them once again!

phrodeau writes: "I know. On crimes it’s Trump 1 Biden 0."

Yes, phrodeau, and the final score in the U.S. Senate is going to be: Trump 1, Schiff/Pelosi/Nadler 0 - and, while we're at it, let's predict a few OTHER final scores, as well! In the 2020 Democratic Party nomination process Biden's going to defeat the riff-raff currently challenging him, with Bernie Sanders particularly upset that he's once again been screwed-over! Biden 1, Bernie 0 (with Sanders refusing to endorse Creepy-Sleepy Joe!) And the final score in November will therefore be: Trump 1, Biden 0.

 

[icanhelp1]

LMFAO!! Yea if you're high on fentanyl laced PCP.

Which is why neither you nor anyone else has tried to or is arguing that absurd notion.

Obstruction of congress isn't a crime. It's a foot stamping hissy fit that the HoR isn't getting it's way and everyone other than the most drunk on (D) Kool-Aid can see it.

And "abuse of power" is subjective bullshit that the (D)'eez are having a difficult time making because it's really just "Orange Man BAD!" and nothing else.

You need to take your own advice, you're wasting your time. I hope they don't believe all that shit they post.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I hope they don't believe all that shit they post.

I'm pretty sure a couple of them do, but most of them appear to just be trolls, either by profession or avocation.

It's amazing the degree of interest the rest of the world has in our internal politics!

 

[BotanyBoy]

You need to take your own advice, you're wasting your time. I hope they don't believe all that shit they post.

As you said, sometimes it's just too good not to!

And they totally do....

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm pretty sure a couple of them do, but most of them appear to just be trolls, either by profession or avocation.

It's amazing the degree of interest the rest of the world has in our internal politics!

They have more interest than many Americans do!! LOL I agree! most are trolls

 

[dan_c00000]

And "abuse of power"

Withholding funding despite Congress passing a resolution would certainly constitute that. Additionally, stealing money from the military to fund a border wall would meet a similar threshold.

Poor bot still mad about being hookwinked because your hero the Orange Nazi hates Jews. No wonder you're so willing to protect him.

 

[icanhelp1]

Withholding funding despite Congress passing a resolution would certainly constitute that. Additionally, stealing money from the military to fund a border wall would meet a similar threshold.

Poor bot still mad about being hookwinked because your hero the Orange Nazi hates Jews. No wonder you're so willing to protect him.

1. Withholding funding does not constitute a statutory violation, primarily the ICA nor is it impeachable. Funds were released within the fiscal deadline.

2. Trump never stole a dime, diverting funds is not stealing. It was sanctioned by the high court and therefore not a statutory violation and certainly does not rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanor. What it does rise to is Dems Delusionary Syndrome.

You need to stop getting your legal advice off of match book covers!

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "Withholding funding despite Congress passing a resolution would certainly constitute that."

Unless, of course, the House managers handling those very serious charges you mention turn out to be completely incompetent boobs, in which case the U.S. Senate will REFUSE to convict, am I right? - so, are Schiff & Nadler completely incompetent boobs, Dan? I guess we'll soon find out!

"Additionally, stealing money from the military to fund a border wall would meet a similar threshold."

Except that the primary purpose of funding our military is to prevent invasions of our country (e.g. foreigners unlawfully crossing our borders and entering our nation illegally!) And isn't building a border wall ALSO for that exact same purpose, Dan?

"Poor bot still mad about President Obama sending billions of dollars to the Iranians in the middle of the night to fund the activities of the heroic & brilliant Islamic leader: General Qassem Soleimani!"

I have some bad news for you, Dan - I believe that your General Soleimani might have been killed last month, when he ran head-on into a hellfire missile right after leaving the Baghdad airport on his return to Tehran! I'm sorry to be the one to break this news to you!

 

[YDB95]

1. Withholding funding does not constitute a statutory violation, primarily the ICA nor is it impeachable.

The Constitution is intentionally vague about what is impeachable. Ultimately it's up to the House, and they say it is.