Impeachment Does Not Require a Crime

[regent]

over 70% of registered voters want to hear witnesses - so lets swear them in and get evidence

The House is required to investigate, The Senate renders a verdict on the case they bring to the Senate.

Your House Clowns showed up without a case, despite claiming it was “overwhelming”.....now you morons want the Senate to do the House’s job.

Sorry, you lost already.

I think the House hopes the Senate allows the House to present their evidence and witnesses. Isn't that the controversy taking place at this time?

 

[justoffal]

over 70% of registered voters want to hear witnesses - so lets swear them in and get evidence

The House is required to investigate, The Senate renders a verdict on the case they bring to the Senate.

Your House Clowns showed up without a case, despite claiming it was “overwhelming”.....now you morons want the Senate to do the House’s job.

Sorry, you lost already.

I think the House hopes the Senate allows the House to present their evidence and witnesses. Isn't that the controversy taking place at this time?

There will be no witnesses. That's a loose cannon that many powerful people down in DC positively do not want. Many of them are Senators of both parties.

Jo

 

[Intolerant]

The title speaks for itself. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. trumps impeachment is constitutionally correct.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

 

[MaryL]

Why not? There isn't any actual standard to go by here. Fair is fair. If you crack a walnut you get to the core of the issue...here. liberals constantly do this game, digress infinitely. No more, stand on your principals or fall. End this.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The loons aren't questioning trump as to why he can't allow his witnesses to prove his innocence.

Wow, I sure hope you never end up in jail and have a jury filled with morons like you.

IM2 is guilty of being alive and is causing global warming, now he must prove his innocence of that charge....

 

[Dale Smith]

President Trump will be YOUR president a year from now.....wannna bet me?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Takes 67

Not according to IQ7.

Technically 66 2/3 and I'm all up for chopping Romney into 3 pieces so two of his pieces can vote.

What it gets down to is that with the number of Senators not being divisible by 3, it is not possible to get exactly ⅔, since a Senator's vote cannot be divided in such a manner. So, if we get 66 to vote to convict, that's less than ⅔, and the conviction fails, if we get 67, then that's greater than ⅔, so it succeeds.

Now, if we were to add one more state, that would add two more Senators to go with that state, raising the total to 102 Senators. In that case, 68 voting to convict would be exactly ⅔. Wondering if that would be a conviction, or a tie requiring the Vice President to cast the tie-breaking vote, I look back to the actual language of the Constitution, and see that former is the case. Article I, Section 3, paragraph six:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

So exactly two thirds is sufficient.

I now notice that it says, “…two thirds of the Members present”, and not two thirds of all Senators. So, if one Senator is absent, and there are ninety-nine present, then sixty-six would be enough to convict.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Impeachment Does Not Require a Crime

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.​

So, there's some quibbling as to what exactly constitutes “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, but I think that very clearly, it has to involve conduct that is, if not illegal, at least very solidly unethical and inappropriate to the office. It is not Constitutional to impeach and remove the President simply because Congress doesn't like him, or disagrees with his own legitimate exercise of his duties and powers.

And the Articles of Impeachment which the House produced do not make a rational case for anything that meets that standard. The “abuse of power” charge is pretty much a lie, and the “obstruction” charge is based on the President not playing along with an illegal fishing expedition that was being conducted against him.

If there was any abuse of power involved here, it was on the part of the House Democrats, in conducting this unwarranted witch hunt against the President, absent any credible evidence of illegal or inappropriate conduct on his part. They've as much as admitted that they've been trying to find a way to remove him from office since before he was even inaugurated into it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The title speaks for itself. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. trumps impeachment is constitutionally correct.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

High crimes and misdemeanors are not crimes ?

Who knew ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Does it require evidence?

No. It just requires an accusation by a lying, anti-American, butt-hurt liberal.

Along with the cooperation by a Criminal In Charge and his merry band of Criminals.

More gas passed from the resident owner of irritated bowels.

 

[justoffal]

Takes 67

Not according to IQ7.

Technically 66 2/3 and I'm all up for chopping Romney into 3 pieces so two of his pieces can vote.

What it gets down to is that with the number of Senators not being divisible by 3, it is not possible to get exactly ⅔, since a Senator's vote cannot be divided in such a manner. So, if we get 66 to vote to convict, that's less than ⅔, and the conviction fails, if we get 67, then that's greater than ⅔, so it succeeds.

Now, if we were to add one more state, that would add two more Senators to go with that state, raising the total to 102 Senators. In that case, 68 voting to convict would be exactly ⅔. Wondering if that would be a conviction, or a tie requiring the Vice President to cast the tie-breaking vote, I look back to the actual language of the Constitution, and see that former is the case. Article I, Section 3, paragraph six:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

So exactly two thirds is sufficient.

I now notice that it says, “…two thirds of the Members present”, and not two thirds of all Senators. So, if one Senator is absent, and there are ninety-nine present, then sixty-six would be enough to convict.

I still favor cutting Romney into three pieces so two of his pieces can vote.

 

[easyt65]

No they didn't.... But they also didn't say that the high crimes and misdemeanors were required for the impeachment process.

?!

You're freakin' nuts.

 

[kyzr]

Impeachment by the House doesn't require a crime, but the senators need an "impeachable offense" to vote for removal.
Trump will be acquitted, "see you in November Bernie"

 

[DOTR]

From “he’s a criminal” to “ok he isn’t but he doesn’t have to be a criminal” to “pleaaaaaaase just censure at least” it’s entertaining and instructive. Democrats are shapeshifters with no real moral anchor. They will grab what they can as they slink off like shop lifters.

 

[justoffal]

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.


Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Actually no....

The original quote was " investigation into criminals" ... not democrats. The fact that some turned out to be Democrats is quite beside the point.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

The title speaks for itself. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. trumps impeachment is constitutionally correct.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

You are quite right, impeachment can be anything that the Congress deems impeachable. Problem for idiots like you, is that once the impeachment is processed it goes to the Senate where sane people are in charge, and put down all the crazy shit that the left presented....You are a dumbass.

I dont agree with that premise "anything congress seems impeachable".

Let's put it like this, if trump wins again, but the senate goes to the dems, trump will be impeached again, and he will be removed.

Even if the Senate goes to the Dems they need 67 votes to remove. Not likely to happen

Yes, but my point was, we dont need this precedent being established. It could lead to less savory times in the years ahead.

Unfortunately, pandora box is already open. If trump is acquitted, then next time dem holds the presidency, and comes into this situation, then people can look back and say "see, repubs got away with it, so you cant impeach the dem president".

If he is removed, then it opens the door for any congress to remove a president at their whim, and it means congress can hold power over the executive branch, via threat of impeachment.

This is simply a bad situation we find ourselves in and it could be bad for the future.

The way I see it, if trump is truly innocent and he has nothing to hide, then he needs these witnesses and documents to come out. He needs to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has done nothing wrong, and put this precedent to bed.

If he is guilty of conspiring with a foreign government, then he needs to be removed. I dont buy the obstruction accusation as I believe there is a procedure for dealing with refused subpoenas, and the dems didnt do it. Each of the 3 coequal branches of government cannot be forced by the other, they can be challenged, and that challenge needs to go to court.

Had the house done that, there is a good chance they would have won, but they didnt, and here we are.

well, dont look now but keeping witnesses from testifying before congress IS OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.

DERP DIDDY DERP DERP -

Not completely. Just because congress issues a subpoena to the White House doesnt mean the White House has to automatically comply. The White House can challenge the subpoena. This is then decided by the courts.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The title speaks for itself. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. trumps impeachment is constitutionally correct.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

You are quite right, impeachment can be anything that the Congress deems impeachable. Problem for idiots like you, is that once the impeachment is processed it goes to the Senate where sane people are in charge, and put down all the crazy shit that the left presented....You are a dumbass.

I dont agree with that premise "anything congress seems impeachable".

Let's put it like this, if trump wins again, but the senate goes to the dems, trump will be impeached again, and he will be removed.

Even if the Senate goes to the Dems they need 67 votes to remove. Not likely to happen

Yes, but my point was, we dont need this precedent being established. It could lead to less savory times in the years ahead.

Unfortunately, pandora box is already open. If trump is acquitted, then next time dem holds the presidency, and comes into this situation, then people can look back and say "see, repubs got away with it, so you cant impeach the dem president".

If he is removed, then it opens the door for any congress to remove a president at their whim, and it means congress can hold power over the executive branch, via threat of impeachment.

This is simply a bad situation we find ourselves in and it could be bad for the future.

The way I see it, if trump is truly innocent and he has nothing to hide, then he needs these witnesses and documents to come out. He needs to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has done nothing wrong, and put this precedent to bed.

If he is guilty of conspiring with a foreign government, then he needs to be removed. I dont buy the obstruction accusation as I believe there is a procedure for dealing with refused subpoenas, and the dems didnt do it. Each of the 3 coequal branches of government cannot be forced by the other, they can be challenged, and that challenge needs to go to court.

Had the house done that, there is a good chance they would have won, but they didnt, and here we are.

The way I see it, if trump is truly innocent and he has nothing to hide, then he needs these witnesses and documents to come out.


Yeah......in our system of government, it is up to the government to prove it's case....not the victim of the government prosecution....

I see what you are saying, but my point is, if trump is innocent, he needs to remove all doubt about it. He doesnt needs to allow this case to be won with doubt and speculation in peoples minds. Doing so will open doors and set precedents that I dont think this country wants.

 

[easyt65]

Impeachment Does Not Require a Crime



Ok, enough of the Snowflakes' 'Constitutional Expertise' IGNORANCE - Time to put an end to the Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat butt-hurt, Trump-hating, TDS-suffering, false narratives.......


The Constitution, 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.


Words mean something...all the time. The Founding Fathers did not just 'throw' the Constitution together. They knew this document would be the foundation for this nation, and they new every word would be analyzed, scrutinized, and even questioned. It is one of the greatest documents ever written, the greatest Constitution ever written.

Unlike current Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler - and snowflakes, the Founding Gathers understood that the Constitution was a framework of government FOR THE PEOPLE, not got power-hungry partisan politicians. They knew it was much bigger than themselves. Impeachment was not a tool taken / created lightly, one that would allow a President to be removed from office for some subjective, partisan reason, such as the Democrats and snowflakes suggest here.





IT'S NOT IN THERE...

The House Impeachment / Coup managers are attempting to make the case that the Constitution created BY THE PEOPE FOR THE PEOPLE, a document creating a new government against Tyranny, one that empowers the PEOPLE, includes a provision that would allow partisan politicians to step in to void a democratic election, that would allow the government to strip the people of their choice of Presidents, and allow those partisan power-hungry politicians to declare 'the people an not be entrusted to make such a choice'...not based on any crime but rather on those politician's personal / partisan DISLIKE of the President.

IT'S NOT IN THERE!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Takes 67

Not according to IQ7.

Technically 66 2/3 and I'm all up for chopping Romney into 3 pieces so two of his pieces can vote.

What it gets down to is that with the number of Senators not being divisible by 3, it is not possible to get exactly ⅔, since a Senator's vote cannot be divided in such a manner. So, if we get 66 to vote to convict, that's less than ⅔, and the conviction fails, if we get 67, then that's greater than ⅔, so it succeeds.

Now, if we were to add one more state, that would add two more Senators to go with that state, raising the total to 102 Senators. In that case, 68 voting to convict would be exactly ⅔. Wondering if that would be a conviction, or a tie requiring the Vice President to cast the tie-breaking vote, I look back to the actual language of the Constitution, and see that former is the case. Article I, Section 3, paragraph six:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

So exactly two thirds is sufficient.

I now notice that it says, “…two thirds of the Members present”, and not two thirds of all Senators. So, if one Senator is absent, and there are ninety-nine present, then sixty-six would be enough to convict.

So what state should we add?

 

[justoffal]

Takes 67

Not according to IQ7.

Technically 66 2/3 and I'm all up for chopping Romney into 3 pieces so two of his pieces can vote.

What it gets down to is that with the number of Senators not being divisible by 3, it is not possible to get exactly ⅔, since a Senator's vote cannot be divided in such a manner. So, if we get 66 to vote to convict, that's less than ⅔, and the conviction fails, if we get 67, then that's greater than ⅔, so it succeeds.

Now, if we were to add one more state, that would add two more Senators to go with that state, raising the total to 102 Senators. In that case, 68 voting to convict would be exactly ⅔. Wondering if that would be a conviction, or a tie requiring the Vice President to cast the tie-breaking vote, I look back to the actual language of the Constitution, and see that former is the case. Article I, Section 3, paragraph six:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

So exactly two thirds is sufficient.

I now notice that it says, “…two thirds of the Members present”, and not two thirds of all Senators. So, if one Senator is absent, and there are ninety-nine present, then sixty-six would be enough to convict.

So what state should we add?

It's easier to cut up Romney...

Jo