CDZ Grounds for Impeachment and Conviction

Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

1) that isn't an argument for congress. congress is not Donald's lawyer. the whole point is to get someone out of office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is undefined in the constitution, but was a phrase used in place of prior drafts containing more specific acts.
2) there is no basis on which a president would be exempt from obstruction of justice charges during an impeachment.
3) impeachment is not a criminal trial. there only has to be a vote of the senate, not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" which only applies to criminal charges.

your question is interesting. this might help you:

The case for normalizing impeachment
 
Impeachment?

Is the left sufficiently ready for civil war to give it a shot?


Yeah, really.

Look: you all are making it too hard, too boring, too legalize. There have been only three impeachment attempts/threats.

The first was gross drunkenness and incapability: Andrew Johnson was a dipsomanic and quite unable to go on, as well as making some weird decisions that Congress didn't like. Impeachment failed even so.

The second was Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment if he didn't resign. As he certainly had, as we know for sure now, ordered the burglary of the Dem. headquarters at the Watergate, for no reason ANYONE has ever been able to figure out since his election against McGovern was a shoo-in (sex is the favorite guess, no evidence at all) he did resign.

Bill Clinton for perjury in saying he didn't have sex with That Woman, when, in fact, he sort of had. Again, impeachment failed.

My point is, it has to be very, very juicy. I don't think Trump is going to give you juicy, and besides, the GOP holds the Executive, the House, the Senate and probably already the Supreme Court, so forget it.

But impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. So, it looks like the founders were worried about a president not just committing treason but lesser crimes like inflamming and dividing people and acting the ignorant buffoon and bully boy, like Trump surely is doing. Even if an impeachment fails, it will be on record that certain Americans tried to do something about their president's behaviour. Clinton's impeachment will always be a black mark against him for future students and historians. I believe Trump deserves this impeachment now, win or lose. I did vote for Trump, considering him the least worst of two crummy choices. Too bad we can't come up with better candidates nowadays.
That is so incredibly ignorant, and stupid, it defies description ...

Your lack of knowledge of the law is only exceeded by the temerity to publish stupid stuff.

well, at least other people read. you clearly don't.

but keep on trolling and adding nothing. because you're the one who has no knowledge or law or politics. impeachment is not a legal issue, it is a political one. and the only time anyone has been tossed after impeachment are federal judges....

and they've been tossed for embarrassing the country and bringing shame on their office.

try reading... just for a moment. so you don't embarrass yourself any further.
 
Impeachment failed. Will democrats consider that they shot their wad and move on to something more important?
Republicans, over a four year period, voted over FIFTY times to repeal Obamacare.

And getting rid of a horrendous piece of shit, like trump, is a tad more important to the nation.

They've got to keep on trying.

trump is a fucking nightmare. He's not fit to clean the toilets in our White House.

It is up to you to pick up whatever weapon you can and storm the white house to remove him by force.
Never the need for force.

The Founders had the foresight to include ways to deal with total incompetents like trump.

The big question is if our GOP led Congress will have the character, principles, or guts, to do their job.
 
Impeachment failed. Will democrats consider that they shot their wad and move on to something more important?
Republicans, over a four year period, voted over FIFTY times to repeal Obamacare.

And getting rid of a horrendous piece of shit, like trump, is a tad more important to the nation.

They've got to keep on trying.

trump is a fucking nightmare. He's not fit to clean the toilets in our White House.

It is up to you to pick up whatever weapon you can and storm the white house to remove him by force.
Never the need for force.

The Founders had the foresight to include ways to deal with total incompetents like trump.

The big question is if our GOP led Congress will have the character, principles, or guts, to do their job.

Trump is president accept it or do something about it. Don't stand around waiting for someone else to do it for you.
 
Impeachment failed. Will democrats consider that they shot their wad and move on to something more important?
Republicans, over a four year period, voted over FIFTY times to repeal Obamacare.

And getting rid of a horrendous piece of shit, like trump, is a tad more important to the nation.

They've got to keep on trying.

trump is a fucking nightmare. He's not fit to clean the toilets in our White House.

It is up to you to pick up whatever weapon you can and storm the white house to remove him by force.
Never the need for force.

The Founders had the foresight to include ways to deal with total incompetents like trump.

The big question is if our GOP led Congress will have the character, principles, or guts, to do their job.

Trump is president accept it or do something about it. Don't stand around waiting for someone else to do it for you.
Please, lay off the sauce. We live in a representative democracy. Our representatives are supposed to do these things for us. It's their job to represent their constituents.

Unlike trump supporters, I love this country and I wouldn't want to see it torn apart by brainless violence.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?
No.

Impeachment is a political – not legal – process.

As we know, the states, not the people, elect the president.

The Framers’ original intent of impeachment was to afford the people the means by which to remove from office someone unfit to be president, such as Trump, correcting the error made by the states.

Impeachment of Trump is perfectly warranted pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, where Trump has committed numerous misdemeanors demonstrating he is in fact unfit to hold the office of president.

Misdemeanors are bad acts or bad conduct, not criminal acts.

Indeed, a president can be impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office absent any criminal wrongdoing.

And if a president does commit a crime while in office, the impeachment process would remove that president from office, where he’d be subject to criminal prosecution as a private citizen, rendering moot the question as to whether a sitting president can be subject to criminal indictment.

What the Framers didn’t anticipate, unfortunately, was a partisan Republican House refusing to do its Constitutional duty.
Comedy gold!
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Ultimately congress gets to decide what the high crimes and misdemeanors are for impeachment and conviction. If the house and the senate has the votes, they can impeach and convict a president for anything they want to define as high crimes and misdemeanors.
... and it will last about 30 seconds, until the Supreme Court overturns it .....

EVEN the Democrats are not stupid enough to try it ... well, except Maxine and Pochantas.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a say in what congress considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
Impeachment?

Is the left sufficiently ready for civil war to give it a shot?


Yeah, really.

Look: you all are making it too hard, too boring, too legalize. There have been only three impeachment attempts/threats.

The first was gross drunkenness and incapability: Andrew Johnson was a dipsomanic and quite unable to go on, as well as making some weird decisions that Congress didn't like. Impeachment failed even so.

The second was Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment if he didn't resign. As he certainly had, as we know for sure now, ordered the burglary of the Dem. headquarters at the Watergate, for no reason ANYONE has ever been able to figure out since his election against McGovern was a shoo-in (sex is the favorite guess, no evidence at all) he did resign.

Bill Clinton for perjury in saying he didn't have sex with That Woman, when, in fact, he sort of had. Again, impeachment failed.

My point is, it has to be very, very juicy. I don't think Trump is going to give you juicy, and besides, the GOP holds the Executive, the House, the Senate and probably already the Supreme Court, so forget it.

But impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. So, it looks like the founders were worried about a president not just committing treason but lesser crimes like inflamming and dividing people and acting the ignorant buffoon and bully boy, like Trump surely is doing. Even if an impeachment fails, it will be on record that certain Americans tried to do something about their president's behaviour. Clinton's impeachment will always be a black mark against him for future students and historians. I believe Trump deserves this impeachment now, win or lose. I did vote for Trump, considering him the least worst of two crummy choices. Too bad we can't come up with better candidates nowadays.
That is so incredibly ignorant, and stupid, it defies description ...

Your lack of knowledge of the law is only exceeded by the temerity to publish stupid stuff.

That's it? Why not explain to me how my thinking is wrong then. Oh, and don't forget this is the cd zone. Don't respond if you're not capable of avoiding insults when expressing yourself.
 
Last edited:
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

Congress can legally impeach a President for having a bad hair day.

Yes- Congress can impeach a President for anything it wants to.
 
Impeachment?

Is the left sufficiently ready for civil war to give it a shot?


Yeah, really.

Look: you all are making it too hard, too boring, too legalize. There have been only three impeachment attempts/threats.

The first was gross drunkenness and incapability: Andrew Johnson was a dipsomanic and quite unable to go on, as well as making some weird decisions that Congress didn't like. Impeachment failed even so.

The second was Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment if he didn't resign. As he certainly had, as we know for sure now, ordered the burglary of the Dem. headquarters at the Watergate, for no reason ANYONE has ever been able to figure out since his election against McGovern was a shoo-in (sex is the favorite guess, no evidence at all) he did resign.

Bill Clinton for perjury in saying he didn't have sex with That Woman, when, in fact, he sort of had. Again, impeachment failed.

My point is, it has to be very, very juicy. I don't think Trump is going to give you juicy, and besides, the GOP holds the Executive, the House, the Senate and probably already the Supreme Court, so forget it.

But impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. So, it looks like the founders were worried about a president not just committing treason but lesser crimes like inflamming and dividing people and acting the ignorant buffoon and bully boy, like Trump surely is doing. Even if an impeachment fails, it will be on record that certain Americans tried to do something about their president's behaviour. Clinton's impeachment will always be a black mark against him for future students and historians. I believe Trump deserves this impeachment now, win or lose. I did vote for Trump, considering him the least worst of two crummy choices. Too bad we can't come up with better candidates nowadays.
That is so incredibly ignorant, and stupid, it defies description ...

Your lack of knowledge of the law is only exceeded by the temerity to publish stupid stuff.

That's it? Why not explain to me how my thinking is wrong then. Oh, and don't forget this is the cd zone. Don't respond if you're not capable of avoiding insults when expressing yourself.
Speaking the truth is not an insult ----- it is merely the truth. The truth cannot be an insult, because the truth is a fact.

Your commentary was rife with errors, and indicates a significant ignorance of the law, and constitutional law, in particular. You applied a layman's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in an attempt to pontificate endlessly about something you know nothing about. You did NOT apply the common accepted legal definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as it was defined by the founding fathers.

I suggest you do the following:

1) Research the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". A decidedly simplistic definition - far exceeding your error-filled definition can be found at: High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

2) Then, I suggest you research the legal implications, and applications, of "high crimes and misdemeanors". A discussion can be found at: What Are "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? It was generated after the Clinton impeachment, so you know it is slanted to the liberal point of view.

3) Since "high crimes and misdemeanors" made a direct transition from English common law to our legal system, you probably want to review that, as well. http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm . (I'll give you a hint: There is a discussion in there about how a president can be impeached for obstruction of justice - which, of course, has nothing to do with the ignorance you attempted to foment)

4) After those, I suggest you review an academic treatise of the application of impeachment law. One can be found at: Guide to the Constitution though, if you don't like what you read - and you won't - feel free to do more research.

5) Then, knowing that these answers will destroy any argument about impeaching Trump, you probably want to visit that bastion of liberal thought, the purveyor of all things left, the Huffington Post, and read: What Does the U.S. Constitution's Impeachment Clause Mean by "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? | HuffPost

6) After you have completed all that homework, come back here and apologize to the good people of this forum for the sin of spreading ignorance and misinformation.

7) You can skip any apology to me .... I don't give a damn.
 
Last edited:
Impeachment failed. Will democrats consider that they shot their wad and move on to something more important?
Republicans, over a four year period, voted over FIFTY times to repeal Obamacare.

And getting rid of a horrendous piece of shit, like trump, is a tad more important to the nation.

They've got to keep on trying.

trump is a fucking nightmare. He's not fit to clean the toilets in our White House.

It is up to you to pick up whatever weapon you can and storm the white house to remove him by force.
Never the need for force.

The Founders had the foresight to include ways to deal with total incompetents like trump.

The big question is if our GOP led Congress will have the character, principles, or guts, to do their job.

the idea that you can fire hiring mistakes from every job in the country but not from the most important job in the world is absurd.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

Congress can legally impeach a President for having a bad hair day.

Yes- Congress can impeach a President for anything it wants to.
Damn ---- is the ignorance in this place contagious???
 
Congress can legally impeach a President for having a bad hair day.

Yes- Congress can impeach a President for anything it wants to.


Trump's in trouble, then..........

No, that's not true, as I recall it from all the debate around the Bill Clinton impeachment. (The Nixon threat was not a problem: burglary IS a high crime or misdemeanor!)

They were generally agreed that they could not impeach Clinton for what they actually wanted to impeach him for: Monica and that cigar. And the ......not quite sex. So what they did impeach him for was perjury ---- and the perjury was clear, then, but I can't quite remember what the details were: I think he swore he didn't have anything to do with That Woman, but of course he did. He was disbarred for that, you'll recall.

So they DO impeach for juicy, salacious stuff, like being a public drunk in Johnson's case, but they have to dress it up as a high crime: he dismissed Stanton as SecWar and put someone else in the job. That was some sort of offense at the time, but it gave them cover.

I hope they don't impeach Trump, but they could make up something. The public would have to turn against him, as they did against all three of the other presidents we're talking about. They can't safely impeach a beloved prez like Trump: too popular. The poster who asked if leftists are ready for civil war are correct. We won't put up with that.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Ultimately congress gets to decide what the high crimes and misdemeanors are for impeachment and conviction. If the house and the senate has the votes, they can impeach and convict a president for anything they want to define as high crimes and misdemeanors.
... and it will last about 30 seconds, until the Supreme Court overturns it .....

EVEN the Democrats are not stupid enough to try it ... well, except Maxine and Pochantas.

You are absolutely right- the GOP won't impeach Trump even if he is found standing over a dead body.

But the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn any impeachment or conviction
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Not true. A crime need not be committed for the House to impeach. How can it? Impeachment precedes a criminal trial when one can be convicted of a crime. All it takes to impeach a president is the appearance of a crime. I don’t see the House impeaching Trump over this, but if they decided to impeach him for obstruction of justice for trying to get the FBI to drop their investigation into Flynn, there would be nothing to stop them.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Ultimately congress gets to decide what the high crimes and misdemeanors are for impeachment and conviction. If the house and the senate has the votes, they can impeach and convict a president for anything they want to define as high crimes and misdemeanors.
... and it will last about 30 seconds, until the Supreme Court overturns it .....

EVEN the Democrats are not stupid enough to try it ... well, except Maxine and Pochantas.

You are absolutely right- the GOP won't impeach Trump even if he is found standing over a dead body.

But the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn any impeachment or conviction
Actually, that's not true .... a simple wrongful termination lawsuit will rectify the situation. Of course, the suit will be filed in DC federal court, but will be expedited to the SCOTUS.

Simply, there are no legitimate grounds for impeachment/conviction. All this talk is wasted time.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Not true. A crime need not be committed for the House to impeach. How can it? Impeachment precedes a criminal trial when one can be convicted of a crime. All it takes to impeach a president is the appearance of a crime. I don’t see the House impeaching Trump over this, but if they decided to impeach him for obstruction of justice for trying to get the FBI to drop their investigation into Flynn, there would be nothing to stop them.
You're right ---- nothing but precedence, protocol, and logic.

The perpetrators would be laughed out of office.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Not true. A crime need not be committed for the House to impeach. How can it? Impeachment precedes a criminal trial when one can be convicted of a crime. All it takes to impeach a president is the appearance of a crime. I don’t see the House impeaching Trump over this, but if they decided to impeach him for obstruction of justice for trying to get the FBI to drop their investigation into Flynn, there would be nothing to stop them.
You're right ---- nothing but precedence, protocol, and logic.

The perpetrators would be laughed out of office.
One of the articles of impeach against Johnson was for making speeches disrespectful of Congress. I can’t decide, is that a high crime or a misdemeanor?
 
No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Ultimately congress gets to decide what the high crimes and misdemeanors are for impeachment and conviction. If the house and the senate has the votes, they can impeach and convict a president for anything they want to define as high crimes and misdemeanors.
... and it will last about 30 seconds, until the Supreme Court overturns it .....

EVEN the Democrats are not stupid enough to try it ... well, except Maxine and Pochantas.

You are absolutely right- the GOP won't impeach Trump even if he is found standing over a dead body.

But the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn any impeachment or conviction
Actually, that's not true .... a simple wrongful termination lawsuit will rectify the situation. Of course, the suit will be filed in DC federal court, but will be expedited to the SCOTUS.

Simply, there are no legitimate grounds for impeachment/conviction. All this talk is wasted time.

Actually that is true. The Constitution is very clear about it- but hey- you can believe whatever you want to.

I haven't seen any legitimate ground for impeachment yet- no high crimes or misdeamenors not yet. That doesn't mean that they don't exist- for that they do.

But it does mean it is premature to be calling for Trump's impeachment.
 
Suppose Congress buys the argument that the POTUS cannot commit obstruction of justice can they impeach and convict him for doing that which would be obstruction of justice by anyone else?

Would a POTUS have to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted when impeached of whatever the charge is?

No. Impeachment and conviction is something Congress can do without regard to the U.S. Code. Impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political matter not a legal one.
A naive, and incorrect, opinion ----- impeachment and conviction is steeped in English law, and is very specifically defined.

"The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a commonly recognized description of a specific set of criminal activities. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The concept that the president could be impeached and convicted for a traffic ticket, or actions prior to his term, or any of the other nonsense being perpetuated by the media - and every self-ordained legal expert - is, simply, nonsense.

What SHOULD scare you is the ignorance of many of the members of congress who purvey this ignorance and disinformation as if it is true. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Al Green ... you, too, Henny Stoyer ... and, of course, at you -though, it hurts my eyes - Maxine Waters)
Not true. A crime need not be committed for the House to impeach. How can it? Impeachment precedes a criminal trial when one can be convicted of a crime. All it takes to impeach a president is the appearance of a crime. I don’t see the House impeaching Trump over this, but if they decided to impeach him for obstruction of justice for trying to get the FBI to drop their investigation into Flynn, there would be nothing to stop them.
You're right ---- nothing but precedence, protocol, and logic.

The perpetrators would be laughed out of office.
One of the articles of impeach against Johnson was for making speeches disrespectful of Congress. I can’t decide, is that a high crime or a misdemeanor?

Wouldn't that fall under 'doing a public service'? LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top