What is an impeachable offense?

[NightFox]

The case affirms that Congress has broad authority to impeach with little if any judicial involvement.

Yes, look at the Constitution

Article I, section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article II, section 4
"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"

Nowhere in the Constitution is "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" defined, therefor an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is whatever the House of Representatives says it is, period, end of story, no further explanation required.

If the HoR wants to impeach the President for spitting on the sidewalk they have the Constitutional Authority to do so; they'll have to answer to the voters in the end.

That is correct. However I'm pretty sure the founding fathers assumed that intelligent restraint would also prevail unlike this time.

Pulling out impeachment in the context of the current situation this pretty much like loading up the 16-inch guns on the Massachusetts to kill a rabbit. While they are technically within their rights to do it the House of Representatives just committed political suicide.

Jo

The founding fathers weren't oblivious to the insanity that can be injected in politics so I doubt the prevailing opinion was that "intelligent restraint would prevail" with respect to ruling out negligent use of the impeachment authority by the House of Representatives. I suspect the majority of them were relying on the CHECK that the Senate was the chamber that actually had to decide on removal to keep things rational.

Ultimately the members of the HoR are the representatives of the people so they are most directly accountable to the people, the Senate on the other hand was designed to be a more cautious and deliberative body one step removed from accountability to the people (PRE-17th Amendment) and thus less likely to be swept up in popular hysteria.

 

[justoffal]

The case affirms that Congress has broad authority to impeach with little if any judicial involvement.

Yes, look at the Constitution

Article I, section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article II, section 4
"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"

Nowhere in the Constitution is "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" defined, therefor an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is whatever the House of Representatives says it is, period, end of story, no further explanation required.

If the HoR wants to impeach the President for spitting on the sidewalk they have the Constitutional Authority to do so; they'll have to answer to the voters in the end.

That is correct. However I'm pretty sure the founding fathers assumed that intelligent restraint would also prevail unlike this time.

Pulling out impeachment in the context of the current situation this pretty much like loading up the 16-inch guns on the Massachusetts to kill a rabbit. While they are technically within their rights to do it the House of Representatives just committed political suicide.

Jo

The founding fathers weren't oblivious to the insanity that can be injected in politics so I doubt the prevailing opinion was that "intelligent restraint would prevail" with respect to ruling out negligent use of the impeachment authority by the House of Representatives. I suspect the majority of them were relying on the CHECK that the Senate was the chamber that actually had to decide on removal to keep things rational.

Ultimately the members of the HoR are the representatives of the people so they are most directly accountable to the people, the Senate on the other hand was designed to be a more cautious and deliberative body one step removed from accountability to the people (PRE-17th Amendment) and thus less likely to be swept up in popular hysteria.

In any case I submit to you that the power of impeachment has been seriously abused thus letting the genie out of the bottle. This is a terrible precedent much like the Senate rules change enacted by Harry Reid.

Jo

 

[colfax_m]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.
Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

 

[NightFox]

Just think of the insanity you're subjecting the country to if you agree with Dershowitz that it requires a criminal offense to impeach a president.
.

IMHO Alan Dershowitz is a career lawyer and academic, the type that thinks that every question remotely related to the law requires some convoluted theory that only people like him can comprehend; it's how such creatures justify their own existence.

The reality is that the Constitution was written with a layman's understanding in mind and it should be clear to anyone that can read it that Dershowitz is really FULL OF SHIT on this question.

"But maybe that's not so bad, 'cause you know what happens when the commies take over? The first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers! And if they miss any of you, I'll do it myself. " -- Lawrence Garfield, Other Peoples Money

 

[The Original Tree]

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

I think he loves seeing the correct application of Law and dislikes injustice.

The Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler lead house submitted incomplete work, and violated both Due Process, and Civil Rights when compiling their incomplete work.

Those are just facts of the matter. The House did attempt to create an offense out of thin air. Their withdrawal of their court cases to Challenge The President's Constitutional Right to challenge a subpoena is Evidence to that fact.

The President has the sole power to determine Foreign Policy. To Initiate A Delay in Foreign Policy is his right, and even with what I consider an unconstitutional limit on how long a president can with hold or delay Foreign Aid, the President still released it within that artificial deadline.

Furthermore, The Democrats have proven that a representative of The Executive Branch can indeed threaten a delay for instance (Biden-Ukraine) by with holding of Foreign Aid.

Joe Biden DID threaten the Ukraine that it had better fire the prosecutor investigating his son, or they don't get the Millions in Foreign Aid. That was a Quid Pro Quo and an example of extortion, yet The Democrats did not pursue charges against Joe Biden when he publicly admitted he had done this.

To wit, The Aide to Ukraine was released by The Trump Administration on time, and within the allowed time range. To wit, no actions were taken by Ukraine to have this aid released. To wit, The Ukrainian Government states that No Pressure was applied, nor any act was necessary for them to perform in order to receive Foreign Aid from The United States. To wit, The Ukrainian Government was never aware of any attempt to withhold foreign aid in exchange for any actions they were pressured to take.

The articles do not contain accusations of infractions of US Code, nor Evidence of misdemeanors committed with respect to US Code, nor evidence of High Crimes committed under US Code exist.

The articles are therefore invalid, do not meet the standard of impeachment and do not even meet the standards of any offenses that could be brought forth in a US Criminal Case or Civil Case according to Our Constitution, and US Code, or other Laws and statutes.

HR-1 Should be dismissed as a malformed Resolution, which has no merit in fact, nor evidence to support such accusations, and has no merit in law, or code known to our current judicial system.

 

[NightFox]

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

I think he loves seeing the correct application of Law and dislikes injustice.

Yeah Dershowitz dislikes injustice, except when he's helping famous, wealthy clients get away with murder, just ask Clause Von Bulow and OJ Simpson.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I doubt that a vote of 67 or more senators will be reached without actual crimes as part of the articles of impeachment.

I doubt that would reach 67 votes if trump shot and killed a pedestrian on 5th ave for fun.

 

[The Original Tree]

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

I think he loves seeing the correct application of Law and dislikes injustice.

Yeah Dershowitz dislikes injustice, except when he's helping famous, wealthy clients get away with murder, just ask Clause Von Bulow and OJ Simpson.

We may not like The Verdict, but if The Standard of the Law was employed we cannot argue with the Verdict. We can only lament that it did not coincide with our opinions.

Regarding The House Inquiry, it did not employ the standard of the law. Being so, I can see why Dershowitz would be interested in such matters.

 

[The Original Tree]

I doubt that a vote of 67 or more senators will be reached without actual crimes as part of the articles of impeachment.

I doubt that would reach 67 votes if trump shot and killed a pedestrian on 5th ave for fun.

Especially if that pedestrian was you. No one would care.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

Trump hasn't the balls to testify under oath, truth is alien to his character. And both Graham and Dershowitz have been exposed as hypocrites.

Trump would be wise to not testify under oath regardless of his guilt or innocence.

Q. Why?

A. Too many skeletons in his closet.

 

[NightFox]

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

I think he loves seeing the correct application of Law and dislikes injustice.

Yeah Dershowitz dislikes injustice, except when he's helping famous, wealthy clients get away with murder, just ask Clause Von Bulow and OJ Simpson.

We may not like The Verdict, but if The Standard of the Law was employed we cannot argue with the Verdict. We can only lament that it did not coincide with our opinions.

Regarding The House Inquiry, it did not employ the standard of the law. Being so, I can see why Dershowitz would be interested in such matters.

It's not about the verdict , it's about the fact that if Alan Dershowitz "dislikes injustice" as you claim, he wouldn't aid clients that he knows are guilty of murder avoid the justice they have coming to them, that's willfully creating injustice.

Dershowitz is just an individual that thinks justice is only for people that can't afford to pay to avoid it.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I doubt that a vote of 67 or more senators will be reached without actual crimes as part of the articles of impeachment.

I doubt that would reach 67 votes if trump shot and killed a pedestrian on 5th ave for fun.

Especially if that pedestrian was you. No one would care.

I'd put you on ignore, but I've used you a number of times on the Internet as a star agent provocateur for Russia and Mr. Putin. No American Patriot would behave in the manner expressed in your posts, and I hope the dime I dropped with legal authorities will eventual look into your past.

 

[Rye Catcher]

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

He is kissing the ass of Donald Trump, with the hope he will be nominated for the next opening on the Supreme Court.

 

[The Original Tree]

I doubt that a vote of 67 or more senators will be reached without actual crimes as part of the articles of impeachment.

I doubt that would reach 67 votes if trump shot and killed a pedestrian on 5th ave for fun.

Especially if that pedestrian was you. No one would care.

I'd put you on ignore, but I've used you a number of times on the Internet as a star agent provocateur for Russia and Mr. Putin. No American Patriot would behave in the manner expressed in your posts, and I hope the dime I dropped with legal authorities will eventual look into your past.

No American Patriot like me would condone Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton asking Putin to interfere in the 2016 Election via The Dirty Dossier they paid them for, nor would they condone using Russian Propaganda to launch a Witch Hunt, and then 2 consecutive COUPS when began clear back in October of 2016.

But you would. You were all in on Russian Propaganda, The Dossier, and Joe Biden Ukraine Extortion. You also supported Iran over America.

Do not clothe yourself in our Flag while defiling it with lies, slander, and false accusations. You are worthy of eternal judgment for such sins, and this makes you an immoral, unethical, wicked human being.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Hmmmmm......who to believe......a Constitutional scholar, or a lefty hack on the innerweb.


It’s a tuffy.

Hypocrisy on display ^^^

Mockery of Pres. Obama, also a Constitutional Professor, was red meat for the right wing, of which this author of this post is clearly a card carrying member.

It seems the author I responded to believes my comment calling him a card carrying RWer was funny, and yet he was unable to provide a defense, or deny he is a RW hack.

 

[The Original Tree]

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

He is kissing the ass of Donald Trump, with the hope he will be nominated for the next opening on the Supreme Court.

Why do you make such immoral, unethical, and sinful false accusations without a shred of evidence? Dershowitz is a honored and trusted Constitutional Scholar, and has earned the recognition he has received as such. Anyone would want his counsel.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Just think of the insanity you're subjecting the country to if you agree with Dershowitz that it requires a criminal offense to impeach a president.

The president could order an end to all investigations into his political allies crimes. He could order investigations into all his political opponents. He could demand that his tax returns be off limits to audit from the IRS. He could demand all government employees stay at his properties when traveling for official business.

None of this is illegal. It's all just abuse of power. Which is apparently totally permissible by the constitution according to Dershowitz.

Exactly.
Dershowitz ,in an interview, was asked if he believed Trump's actions were an abuse of power. He wouldn't answer but he obviously did. The next question to him should have been, "Then what is the remedy for a president who abuses their power if not impeachment?"

 

[Camp]

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

He is kissing the ass of Donald Trump, with the hope he will be nominated for the next opening on the Supreme Court.

Why do you make such immoral, unethical, and sinful false accusations without a shred of evidence? Dershowitz is a honored and trusted Constitutional Scholar, and has earned the recognition he has received as such. Anyone would want his counsel.

Nonsense. Dershowitz lost his credibility and integrity long ago.

 

[justoffal]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

Trump hasn't the balls to testify under oath, truth is alien to his character. And both Graham and Dershowitz have been exposed as hypocrites.

Trump would be wise to not testify under oath regardless of his guilt or innocence.

I agree; Donny doesn't have to prove his innocence and testifying would carry a high degree of risk with respect to giving his political opponents more ammunition to use against him.

correct it would be different if the Democrats were actually interested in justice but we know that they have no interest in Justice.
Their only interest is in an overturning the election by any means they can get it done fair or foul.

Jo

 

[The Original Tree]

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

Dershowitz seems to be taken seriously by his supporters. I think Alan is just after the fame. That guy loves being in the spotlight.

He is kissing the ass of Donald Trump, with the hope he will be nominated for the next opening on the Supreme Court.

Why do you make such immoral, unethical, and sinful false accusations without a shred of evidence? Dershowitz is a honored and trusted Constitutional Scholar, and has earned the recognition he has received as such. Anyone would want his counsel.

Nonsense. Dershowitz lost his credibility and integrity long ago.

Your opinion on that is invalid as you have No Credibility and Integrity, and have had none since long long ago.