What is an impeachable offense?

[BluesLegend]

Democrats have bastardized impeachment to overturn a fair election they lost. Since Dem's vowed to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office their impeachment fiasco is 100% phony.

 

[justoffal]

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb here a little bit.

I've always been in his corner though I must admit his vote for Hillary Clinton had me wondering whether or not he got a bad batch of opium that day.

His insistence that a criminal act must be committed before impeachment can be entertained simply does not hold water and I can't understand why he's arguing for it. It scares me frankly.

However I'm also going to entertain the thought that I am not a constitutional scholar and I might be completely all wet on this one. I sure hope that's what it is.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Democrats have bastardized impeachment to overturn a fair election they lost. Since Dem's vowed to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office their impeachment fiasco is 100% phony.

Perfectly well put!
Spot on.....and now that the precedent has been set it's going to be hell on wheels for any president that loses the house.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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.

Wow......nice!

 

[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.

I'm going to go out on a limb here a little bit.

I've always been in his corner though I must admit his vote for Hillary Clinton had me wondering whether or not he got a bad batch of opium that day.

His insistence that a criminal act must be committed before impeachment can be entertained simply does not hold water and I can't understand why he's arguing for it. It scares me frankly.

However I'm also going to entertain the thought that I am not a constitutional scholar and I might be completely all wet on this one. I sure hope that's what it is.

Jo

The standard is High Crime and Misdemeanors or other grievous infractions of The LAW. For instance in Clinton's case, The Special Counsel found he committed 13 infractions. Two Articles came out of those 13 Infractions, and Clinton despite admitting he broke the law was acquitted and exonerated.

By Contrast, there are no infractions of The Law cited in President Trump's case.
Pelosi' witch hunt does not meet the standard of law, nor the historical standard for impeachment, and honestly it should be put up to a dismissal vote.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

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.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

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.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

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.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

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?

Read your OP, and let me give everyone a dose of reality, including you--------------->

It is up to the House to decide what in their estimation, is an impeachable offense.

It is then up to the Senate and the Chief Justice, to decide if they the House, was correct or not!

In essence, it ends up being 2 of the 3 branches of Government agreeing. 1 being the congress, the other being the high court. The Senate has sway for congress, because at the time of our founding, they were elected by the state legislators, and NOT the people directly. That means they did the direct bidding of their states.

That is all that needs to be said!

 

[BlindBoo]

Keeping it simple for ..... stupid. Trumpublicans voters like and understand stupid.

Bribing the President of the Ukraine to announce a bogus investigation into a domestic political rival is an impeachable offense. Trumpybear has been impeached.

The question is, will the former Republicans accept this Foreign Bribery corruption Trumpybear committed like the Democrats accepted Slicks corruption of lying about a Blowjob. I think they're willing to accept Trumpybears Bribery corruption.