So What Crime of Office Has Trump Committed to Justify Impeachment?

[Pellinore]

A 'high crime and misdemeanor' is essentially, as I understand it, a regular crime but committed with public office using the powers of office.

So if the President say broke into a building to steal secrets from his opponents offices, it is not a high crime unless it was to benefit him and he USED the POWERS OF OFFICE to enable the break in.

If a politician has an affair and pays hush money out of his own funds it might be a crime depending on the state, but if he paid out of the public treasury it is a high crime.

So what crime is alledged that Trump committed using his powers of office to commit the crime?

Anyone?

Did he take $1.5 billion from the Chicoms, or use his office to get lovers, or to trade on the information gfained in office, or simply steal public money without a trace?

What was his crime of office?

You misunderstand 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' DGS49 is correct in saying that charges for impeachment do not have to be actual crimes. Back in the day, George Mason, James Madison, and Edmund Randolph pushed for it out of concerns that a President would have enough power to subvert the Constitution, embezzle money, oppress the people, sell us out to some other country, turn the Army against our own people, or whatever else, and that four years would be too long to wait for removal. A committee wrote impeachment in as being only for "treason and bribery," but Madison pointed out that laundry list of charges that a future President could then get away with because they weren't specifically mentioned, so Mason suggested the deliberately vague "high crimes and misdemeanors." It originally included "against the United States," but some other committee later deleted that as redundant; other than that, it was designed to be entirely up to the House's discretion.

The investigation now is to determine whether a majority of the Representatives think that the whole Javelins-Zelensky-Shokin thing is a big enough deal to impeach, but it doesn't need to be a crime.

 

[boedicca]

The only "crime" Trump has committed was to beat hiLIARy in 2016. He won and the Dems cannot forgive him for that.

This is why we are subjected to the endless parade of breathless fact-free nothingburger scandals.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Even if democrats win. They impeach Trump even if they remove him from office what then? The nation will have its final break. The democrats will be despised when ever they leave protected areas. No one will pay a bit of attention to pathetic calls for unity. This has to be what they want.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The investigation now is to determine whether a majority of the Representatives think that the whole Javelins-Zelensky-Shokin thing is a big enough deal to impeach, but it doesn't need to be a crime.

Horse poopoo.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is found in the U.S. Constitution. It also appears in state laws and constitutions as a basis for disqualification from holding office. Originating in English Common Law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S. law. They refer to criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from Tax Evasion to Obstruction of Justice. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress....

The reason for the choice lies in the Framers' approach to the larger question of impeachment. Although borrowing language from the law they knew best, they explicitly chose not to imitate the English model of impeachment. Traditionally, this approach had allowed the British Parliament to conduct a simple review of charges and then remove officials by a majority vote. Instead, the Framers intended for removal from office to be the final step in a two-part process that began in the House of Representatives and, if charges should result, ended in a trial-like hearing before the U.S. Senate. Thus, two goals would be achieved: a full public inquiry into allegations, and, if necessary, the adjudication of those charges requiring a two-thirds majority for removal.

Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.​

While violations of the oath of office or serious incompetence are not illegal, they are gross extremes of malfeasance for whatever cause. It would be simpler to impeach for criminal conduct with office.

But the point is that our President is not to be removed from office simply because the majority party dislikes him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even if democrats win. They impeach Trump even if they remove him from office what then? The nation will have its final break. The democrats will be despised when ever they leave protected areas. No one will pay a bit of attention to pathetic calls for unity. This has to be what they want.

And a President Mike Pence, as well.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

roflmao

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Even if democrats win. They impeach Trump even if they remove him from office what then? The nation will have its final break. The democrats will be despised when ever they leave protected areas. No one will pay a bit of attention to pathetic calls for unity. This has to be what they want.

And a President Mike Pence, as well.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

roflmao

The democrats will begin impeachment of Pence on day one.

 

[Pellinore]

The investigation now is to determine whether a majority of the Representatives think that the whole Javelins-Zelensky-Shokin thing is a big enough deal to impeach, but it doesn't need to be a crime.

Horse poopoo.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is found in the U.S. Constitution. It also appears in state laws and constitutions as a basis for disqualification from holding office. Originating in English Common Law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S. law. They refer to criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from Tax Evasion to Obstruction of Justice. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress....

The reason for the choice lies in the Framers' approach to the larger question of impeachment. Although borrowing language from the law they knew best, they explicitly chose not to imitate the English model of impeachment. Traditionally, this approach had allowed the British Parliament to conduct a simple review of charges and then remove officials by a majority vote. Instead, the Framers intended for removal from office to be the final step in a two-part process that began in the House of Representatives and, if charges should result, ended in a trial-like hearing before the U.S. Senate. Thus, two goals would be achieved: a full public inquiry into allegations, and, if necessary, the adjudication of those charges requiring a two-thirds majority for removal.

Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.​

While violations of the oath of office or serious incompetence are not illegal, they are gross extremes of malfeasance for whatever cause. It would be simpler to impeach for criminal conduct with office.

But the point is that our President is not to be removed from office simply because the majority party dislikes him.

That doesn't contradict what I wrote. It says right there that the "generally accepted viewpoint" includes "both legal and illegal activities." It doesn't need to be a crime.

And your last sentence is correct; that's always a danger. As your link states, that's why our Founders established the two-part system. It almost happened with Andrew Johnson's clearly partisan impeachment and removal trial in 1868, but for a Senator named Ross who cast the deciding vote to leave him in office. (There's a chapter about him in "Profiles in Courage" that's really good, if you're interested.)

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lindsey Graham on Impeachment-Frenzied Democrats: They've 'Lost Their Minds'

"So, while the media gets spun up on a document that amounts to little more than a game of telephone, the media completely ignore a damning report of the political corruption of Joe Biden."

So it is a crime to investigate a crime if the accused is a Democrat?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Fleitz: Did Intel Democrats Help Orchestrate Deep State Complaint?

First, he said, “This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the [intelligence community inspector general] jusrisdiction (sic) over these calls.

Second, he said, “It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved [dissemination] list and should not have been briefed on the call.”

“The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?”​

Why, why that would mean that this is all nothing ore than political theater....which we all should realize by now it is all this is anyway.

 

[Pellinore]

Also, and unrelated to the actual matter, a tip of the hat for the Reply of the Cossacks avatar. Their response letter to the obnoxious Sultan remains one of the greatest writings in history. It is such a joy to behold.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Also, and unrelated to the actual matter, a tip of the hat for the Reply of the Cossacks avatar. Their response letter to the obnoxious Sultan remains one of the greatest writings in history. It is such a joy to behold.

Oh, yes indeed it is. Congrats for recognizing it, you cant be an American then, lol.

I also like the Dudes face. Says a whole lot.

 

[deanrd]

A 'high crime and misdemeanor' is essentially, as I understand it, a regular crime but committed with public office using the powers of office.

So if the President say broke into a building to steal secrets from his opponents offices, it is not a high crime unless it was to benefit him and he USED the POWERS OF OFFICE to enable the break in.

If a politician has an affair and pays hush money out of his own funds it might be a crime depending on the state, but if he paid out of the public treasury it is a high crime.

So what crime is alledged that Trump committed using his powers of office to commit the crime?

Anyone?

Did he take $1.5 billion from the Chicoms, or use his office to get lovers, or to trade on the information gfained in office, or simply steal public money without a trace?

What was his crime of office?

The Bidens have a 1.5 billion? Where are they keeping it? In sacks in their basement?

You do understand that if Trump actually threatened the whistleblower that’s witness tampering which is a federal crime and also impeachable?

Trump is already in unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies. The only thing that protects him is being president.

 

[miketx]

They're saying that Trump 'implied' quid pro quo with regard to that $250 million military aid package for Kiev that has since been withheld in exchange for dirt on Biden

What's being ignored in all of this is that Biden publicly bragged about blackmailing a foreign goverment for personal family gain. Biden, btw, did have a quid pro quo with regard to the Ukraine when he was VP.

Except the Trump admin can't investigate Biden because he's running for office.

Well, except that that prosecutor wasn't investigating Biden's son.
Who was removed because he was corrupt at the insistance of not just the US but the EU.

The Europeans are just as corrupt as you lying democrats.

 

[bullwinkle]

Pathetic Trump Syndrome Denial

How right you are! Trump's denials really are pathetic.

 

[theHawk]

A 'high crime and misdemeanor' is essentially, as I understand it, a regular crime but committed with public office using the powers of office.

So if the President say broke into a building to steal secrets from his opponents offices, it is not a high crime unless it was to benefit him and he USED the POWERS OF OFFICE to enable the break in.

If a politician has an affair and pays hush money out of his own funds it might be a crime depending on the state, but if he paid out of the public treasury it is a high crime.

So what crime is alledged that Trump committed using his powers of office to commit the crime?

Anyone?

Did he take $1.5 billion from the Chicoms, or use his office to get lovers, or to trade on the information gfained in office, or simply steal public money without a trace?

What was his crime of office?

There was no crime.

It’s completely manufactured nonsense by never-trumpers. They just want to launch an investigation of some type. That way they can accuse the President and his staff of “covering up”, “witness intimidation”, and of course “obstruction”. Even though there was absolutely no law ever broken in the first place. I guarantee you the MSM will be parroting these phrases as this “investigation” into nothing rolls on.

 

[theHawk]

How much do you want to bet the “whistleblower” will leak his/her own identity, be outed by the media, then they will immediately accuse the President of “outing his identity” and demand his impeachment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How much do you want to bet the “whistleblower” will leak his/her own identity, be outed by the media, then they will immediately accuse the President of “outing his identity” and demand his impeachment.

It shouldn't be all that hard to index who this guy is based on the complaint he filed.

 

[IM2]

Criminally is not the only basis for impeachment , but you guys know what Trump has done. Pretending not to know and asking these silly questions while trying to quote every legal thing you can about any democrat, just shows your dishonesty.

 

[IM2]

How much do you want to bet the “whistleblower” will leak his/her own identity, be outed by the media, then they will immediately accuse the President of “outing his identity” and demand his impeachment.

Not going to happen.

 

[JoeB131]

There was no crime.

It’s completely manufactured nonsense by never-trumpers. They just want to launch an investigation of some type. That way they can accuse the President and his staff of “covering up”, “witness intimidation”, and of course “obstruction”. Even though there was absolutely no law ever broken in the first place. I guarantee you the MSM will be parroting these phrases as this “investigation” into nothing rolls on.

The president holds up tax payers money to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

https://www.apnews.com/560b20b139d943969e17c82eda77ca8d

Federal law states it is illegal to “knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation.” Trump’s request to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was not for campaign cash, but what’s referred to as an “in kind” contribution that would arguably be of more value — damaging information that could be weaponized against Biden, a potential 2020 rival.