CDZ Grounds for Impeachment and Conviction

[outlier]

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?

 

[ScienceRocks]

no

The congress can impeach and convict for anything they wish to impeach and convict.

The matter of whether they'd want to is the question.

 

[Tank]

no

The congress can impeach and convict for anything they wish to impeach and convict.

You mean the liberals

 

[Spare_change]

no

The congress can impeach and convict for anything they wish to impeach and convict.

The matter of whether they'd want to is the question.

Do your research before you say absolutely idiotic things like this .... you couldn't be more wrong. Frankly, you should be embarrassed.

 

[Rambunctious]

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?

Conviction and impeachment are two different things.
The president of the United States can be impeached by the House but that does not remove the president from office...
The charge of interfering with an investigation can't be used in this case like the firing of Comey for example because the firing of the FBI director is a legal and granted authority of the president...
By the way if the House impeaches the president for nonsensical reasons they will pay dearly in the next election and most likely the president they wanted to impeach......
will serve his or her full term....

 

[monkrules]

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?

Conviction and impeachment are two different things.
The president of the United States can be impeached by the House but that does not remove the president from office...
The charge of interfering with an investigation can't be used in this case like the firing of Comey for example because the firing of the FBI director is a legal and granted authority of the president...
By the way if the House impeaches the president for nonsensical reasons they will pay dearly in the next election and most likely the president they wanted to impeach......
will serve his or her full term....

Here are a couple of quotes from an article that explains the impeachment process simply and well:
----
In practice, the House investigates whether impeachment charges would be warranted. If it determines that charges are warranted, articles of impeachment are drafted that specify the various charges against the officer in question and those are voted on by the whole House. Once the Senate receives articles of impeachment from the House, it organizes itself into a court. Senators take an oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws” when sitting as judges in that court, and the chief justice of the United States presides over the court in the case of an impeachment of the president.
----
The House and Senate have generally taken a broader view of the impeachment power. If an officer has committed specific and serious bad acts that are fundamentally inconsistent with the requirements of their office or the expectations of the public trust, then the House and Senate have tended to be open to evaluating those as potentially impeachable offenses.
----
How Would Impeachment Work?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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 President’s Words Matter: Deception of the Public and the Impeachable Offense
  
• A President’s Words Matter, Part II: Impeachment Standards and the Case of the Demagogue

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Impeachment failed. Will democrats consider that they shot their wad and move on to something more important?

 

[Spare_change]

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 President’s Words Matter: Deception of the Public and the Impeachable Offense
  
• A President’s Words Matter, Part II: Impeachment Standards and the Case of the Demagogue

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)

 

[HenryBHough]

Impeachment?

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

 

[Circe]

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.

 

[JoeMoma]

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 President’s Words Matter: Deception of the Public and the Impeachable Offense
  
• A President’s Words Matter, Part II: Impeachment Standards and the Case of the Demagogue

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.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You know that there has already been an impeachment hearing. Only 58 democrats voted to impeach.

Do you think this should be a weekly event?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[monkrules]

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

 

[Spare_change]

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 President’s Words Matter: Deception of the Public and the Impeachable Offense
  
• A President’s Words Matter, Part II: Impeachment Standards and the Case of the Demagogue

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.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Another quasi-fool who THINKS that, because he read an editorial in the NY Times once, he's now an expert in impeachment LAW.

There is absolutely no - NONE - justification for your opinion. It's nothing but hot air .... I would challenge you to provide a single legal brief that supports your position. (Hint: Don't waste your time - there are none).