CDZ The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

[Syriusly]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'

Or the House can do it another way.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution leaves the interpretation of those words entirely to Congress- first the House for the articles of impeachment and then the Senate for the trial. According to the Constitution- Congress's interpretation is the Constitutional interpretation.
And Congress has interpreted them differently than you.
3 officials have been impeached for bribery.
1 judge was impeached for 'drunkenness and unlawful rulings'
1 judge for tax evasion
1 judge for filing false disclosures
And Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings....

How were the rulings unlawful?

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

 

[Leo123]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution leaves the interpretation of those words entirely to Congress- first the House for the articles of impeachment and then the Senate for the trial. According to the Constitution- Congress's interpretation is the Constitutional interpretation.
And Congress has interpreted them differently than you.
3 officials have been impeached for bribery.
1 judge was impeached for 'drunkenness and unlawful rulings'
1 judge for tax evasion
1 judge for filing false disclosures
And Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings....

How were the rulings unlawful?

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

Ah. You cannot answer the question.
I thought not.

 

[Leo123]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

Uh, neither as far as I can tell.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

Uh, neither as far as I can tell.

Clearly.

 

[Syriusly]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

 

[Syriusly]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution leaves the interpretation of those words entirely to Congress- first the House for the articles of impeachment and then the Senate for the trial. According to the Constitution- Congress's interpretation is the Constitutional interpretation.
And Congress has interpreted them differently than you.
3 officials have been impeached for bribery.
1 judge was impeached for 'drunkenness and unlawful rulings'
1 judge for tax evasion
1 judge for filing false disclosures
And Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings....

How were the rulings unlawful?

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

Ah. You cannot answer the question.
I thought not.

I probably could answer your question- but I refuse to do the very work you are too lazy to do yourself.

Meanwhile- as noted- impeachment- and removal from office- has happened for the 'crime' of being drunk on the bench- which shows refutes the claims that High Crimes and misdemeanors are required to be substantive criminal actions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

Ah - you're going with "the house website is lying".
Sad - but expected.

When you read for comprehension, you'll see the house website does not list two of presumably several possible paths, as you claim, but describes the two possible paths.

 

[M14 Shooter]

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings....

How were the rulings unlawful?

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

Ah. You cannot answer the question.
I thought not.

I probably could answer your question

No. You can't.
And you don't understand how the answer to the question - about a statement YOU made - is critical to your argument.

 

[Leo123]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

Trump asked them to investigate corruption and held up assistance until it was investigated. Perfectly legal. The fact that Biden and his son are involved is of no legal consequence because Trump did not ask for help in getting rid of an opponent. That's what Joe Biden did, he held up aid until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's corruption got fired. Notice how Democrats always falsely blame others for the bad shit they themselves are doing.

 

[Syriusly]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

Ah - you're going with "the house website is lying".
..

Where did I say the website is lying. Please show that quote.

Let me help you- here is a link to the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

There you have the entire legal authority for the House to handle impeachment.
How the House chooses to exercise that authority is entirely up to the House.

 

[Syriusly]

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings....

How were the rulings unlawful?

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

Ah. You cannot answer the question.
I thought not.

I probably could answer your question

No. You can't..

Feel free to prove I can't.
I am just not willing to do the research work you apparently are too lazy to do yourself.

Doesn't change the fact that a person was impeached and removed from office for drunkenness.

 

[Leo123]

There is not enough evidence to impeach Trump. Keep dreaming though.

 

[Syriusly]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

Trump asked them to investigate corruption and held up assistance until it was investigated. Perfectly legal. The fact that Biden and his son are involved is of no legal consequence because Trump did not ask for help in getting rid of an opponent. That's what Joe Biden did, he held up aid until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's corruption got fired. Notice how Democrats always falsely blame others for the bad shit they themselves are doing.

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”
Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival- yes he did.
c) 'thats what Joe Biden did'- except- as you know- there is absolutely no evidence that there was any prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden- Joe Biden- along with Republican Senators, and the EU- pushed the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for not fighting corruption.
d) Notice how Trumpkins always falsely blame well anyone for anything that Trump himself is doing.

 

[Syriusly]

There is not enough evidence to impeach Trump. Keep dreaming though.

Exactly how much evidence is needed?

Of course investigations are for gathering the evidence that would be used for impeachment.

Personally I think asking the Commies in China to investigate a political rival is enough evidence right there.

 

[Leo123]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

Trump asked them to investigate corruption and held up assistance until it was investigated. Perfectly legal. The fact that Biden and his son are involved is of no legal consequence because Trump did not ask for help in getting rid of an opponent. That's what Joe Biden did, he held up aid until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's corruption got fired. Notice how Democrats always falsely blame others for the bad shit they themselves are doing.

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”
Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival- yes he did.
c) 'thats what Joe Biden did'- except- as you know- there is absolutely no evidence that there was any prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden- Joe Biden- along with Republican Senators, and the EU- pushed the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for not fighting corruption.
d) Notice how Trumpkins always falsely blame well anyone for anything that Trump himself is doing.

So Biden's son is now Trump's political rival? LOL I love the way you desperate TDSers tell yourself lies...it's actually funny.

 

[Syriusly]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

Trump asked them to investigate corruption and held up assistance until it was investigated. Perfectly legal. The fact that Biden and his son are involved is of no legal consequence because Trump did not ask for help in getting rid of an opponent. That's what Joe Biden did, he held up aid until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's corruption got fired. Notice how Democrats always falsely blame others for the bad shit they themselves are doing.

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”
Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival- yes he did.
c) 'thats what Joe Biden did'- except- as you know- there is absolutely no evidence that there was any prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden- Joe Biden- along with Republican Senators, and the EU- pushed the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for not fighting corruption.
d) Notice how Trumpkins always falsely blame well anyone for anything that Trump himself is doing.

So Biden's son is now Trump's political rival? LOL I love the way you desperate TDSers tell yourself lies...it's actually funny.

Where did I say Biden's son is Trump's political rival? I pointed out that your Nervous Nancy specifically asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden- Trump's political rival- and we know that because Trump has been calling Biden his political rival for months now.

The Trumpkins swallow all of Trump's lies and all of his corruption. Because he is their Messiah, their idol, and they worship whatever corruption Trump wallows in.