CDZ The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

[Skylar]

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Nope. My position is both consistent and correct. Impeachment is the charges themselves. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, a president is still impeached.

Look at your own definition:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

Impeachment is the levying of charges.

It is NOT the removal of the president.

You keep trying to conflate the two, adding additional qualifiers that the US constitution neither mentions nor recognizes. If articles of impeachment are sent from the House to the Senate....

....a president is, and forever remains, impeached.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:
"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Nope. My position is both consistent and correct. Impeachment is the charges themselves. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, a president is still impeached.

Look at your own definition:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

Impeachment is the levying of charges.

It is NOT the removal of the president.

You keep trying to conflate the two, adding additional qualifiers that the US constitution neither mentions nor recognizes. If articles of impeachment are sent from the House to the Senate....

....a president is, and forever remains, impeached.

It is clear you don't understand what I am talking about:

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

When House managers and court Prosecutors fails to convict the accused, the charges are ALWAYS dropped, always!

Impeachment/indictment is a composite of charges against the accused, when it fails in court or Senate, the impeachment/indictment charges fails. Clinton was Impeached by the House (charges), but remains in office because the House fails to back up their impeachment charges in a Senate trial, thus Impeachment charges are dropped.

How come you can't understand the obvious here?

 

[Skylar]

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Nope. My position is both consistent and correct. Impeachment is the charges themselves. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, a president is still impeached.

Look at your own definition:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

Impeachment is the levying of charges.

It is NOT the removal of the president.

You keep trying to conflate the two, adding additional qualifiers that the US constitution neither mentions nor recognizes. If articles of impeachment are sent from the House to the Senate....

....a president is, and forever remains, impeached.

It is clear you don't understand what I am talking about:

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

When House managers and court Prosecutors fails to convict the accused, the charges are ALWAYS dropped, always!

You keep shifting from quotes....which back everything I'm saying, to your own personal commentary, backed by nothing. Your personal commentary, citing yourself, that you keep bolding and increasing the font size on.

You claim that the charges are 'always dropped'. But nothing you've posted or any of the sources you've referenced say the 'charges are dropped'.

An impeachment is the levying of the charges themselves. Full stop. Which is why every president or federal judge who has been impeached has STILL been impeached, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

You're erroneously conflating the impeachment with the impeachment trial. And they are not the same thing. Worse, you're fallaciously conflating impeachment with the OUTCOME of the impeachment trial. And you're wrong again.

Impeachment is merely the levying of charges. Once those charges are levied, a president or federal judge is impeached. And always will be.All the talk of the charges 'failing' and the charges 'being dropped' is just you citing yourself.

It has no basis in the constitution, as there's no mention of it.

How come you can't understand the obvious here? And as if to underline the singular role that the House has on impeachment, the constitution is crystal clear:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

US Constitution Article 1, Section 2

Your response to the clear and unambiguous language of the constitution explicitly contradicting you is 'uh-uh'.

Good luck with that.

 

[Faun]

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

 

[Skylar]

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

Probably from the same place that he got the 'the impeachment failed' nonsense.

It most definitely wasn't the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

Probably from the same place that he got the 'the impeachment failed' nonsense.

It most definitely wasn't the Constitution.

Nor in any court in America. Acquittal means a defendant was found not guilty of the charges, but the charges are not dropped, they're still on the record.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Nope. My position is both consistent and correct. Impeachment is the charges themselves. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, a president is still impeached.

Look at your own definition:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

Impeachment is the levying of charges.

It is NOT the removal of the president.

You keep trying to conflate the two, adding additional qualifiers that the US constitution neither mentions nor recognizes. If articles of impeachment are sent from the House to the Senate....

....a president is, and forever remains, impeached.

It is clear you don't understand what I am talking about:

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

When House managers and court Prosecutors fails to convict the accused, the charges are ALWAYS dropped, always!

You keep shifting from quotes....which back everything I'm saying, to your own personal commentary, backed by nothing. Your personal commentary, citing yourself, that you keep bolding and increasing the font size on.

You claim that the charges are 'always dropped'. But nothing you've posted or any of the sources you've referenced say the 'charges are dropped'.

An impeachment is the levying of the charges themselves. Full stop. Which is why every president or federal judge who has been impeached has STILL been impeached, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

You're erroneously conflating the impeachment with the impeachment trial. And they are not the same thing. Worse, you're fallaciously conflating impeachment with the OUTCOME of the impeachment trial. And you're wrong again.

Impeachment is merely the levying of charges. Once those charges are levied, a president or federal judge is impeached. And always will be.All the talk of the charges 'failing' and the charges 'being dropped' is just you citing yourself.

It has no basis in the constitution, as there's no mention of it.

How come you can't understand the obvious here?

This is from the House website, again showing that the House can pass a list of charges that passed a simple majority (impeachment), I QUOTED all this, which means I never denied that Impeachment can happen, but what YOU fail to understand is that when the charges fails in the Senate trial, then the charges of impeachment has failed, thus dropped at the end of the trial, it is the same in a regular court case, charges are dropped when the accused is found innocent.

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

When Impeachment charges FAILS, they have to be dropped since the accused is free of the claims made against them, that is standard procedure in any court trial. The House impeachment charges against Presided Clinton were dropped, when he wasn't convicted.

I never once denied that Impeachment existed, what I am saying is when the articles of impeachment fails in the Senate trial, then Impeachment charges are dropped. You are having serious problem understanding, that I am talking about Impeachment failure when the accused isn't convicted, never denied that Impeachment occurs or exist at all.

I am done here with you, who thinks I am denying impeachment exist or removed from the record. That is simply false, which you should have understood by now.......

 

[Skylar]

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Nope. My position is both consistent and correct. Impeachment is the charges themselves. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, a president is still impeached.

Look at your own definition:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

Impeachment is the levying of charges.

It is NOT the removal of the president.

You keep trying to conflate the two, adding additional qualifiers that the US constitution neither mentions nor recognizes. If articles of impeachment are sent from the House to the Senate....

....a president is, and forever remains, impeached.

It is clear you don't understand what I am talking about:

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

When House managers and court Prosecutors fails to convict the accused, the charges are ALWAYS dropped, always!

You keep shifting from quotes....which back everything I'm saying, to your own personal commentary, backed by nothing. Your personal commentary, citing yourself, that you keep bolding and increasing the font size on.

You claim that the charges are 'always dropped'. But nothing you've posted or any of the sources you've referenced say the 'charges are dropped'.

An impeachment is the levying of the charges themselves. Full stop. Which is why every president or federal judge who has been impeached has STILL been impeached, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

You're erroneously conflating the impeachment with the impeachment trial. And they are not the same thing. Worse, you're fallaciously conflating impeachment with the OUTCOME of the impeachment trial. And you're wrong again.

Impeachment is merely the levying of charges. Once those charges are levied, a president or federal judge is impeached. And always will be.All the talk of the charges 'failing' and the charges 'being dropped' is just you citing yourself.

It has no basis in the constitution, as there's no mention of it.

How come you can't understand the obvious here?

This is from the House website, again showing that the House can pass a list of charges that passed a simple majority (impeachment), I QUOTED all this, which means I never denied that Impeachment can happen, but what YOU fail to understand is that when the charges fails in the Senate trial, then the charges of impeachment has failed, thus dropped at the end of the trial, it is the same in a regular court case, charges are dropped when the accused is found innocent.

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

And no where in the quote does it say a thing about the impeachment 'failing' or the charges being dropped. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The souces you're citing don't say what you do. Which is where your baseless commentary of you citing you kicks in. For example:

When Impeachment charges FAILS, they have to be dropped since the accused is free of the claims made against them, that is standard procedure in any court trial. The House impeachment charges against Presided Clinton were dropped, when he wasn't convicted.

And once again we have you, citing you, giving us your personal opinion backed by absolutely nothing but you insisting it must be so.

And this is *exactly* where your argument breaks. The House has the sole authority over impeachment. There is no one above them, no mitigation, no sharing of authority with anyone. Says who? Says the US constitution.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

US Constitution Article 1, Section 2

Your response to the clear and unambiguous language of the constitution explicitly contradicting you is 'uh-uh'.

Good luck with that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

Probably from the same place that he got the 'the impeachment failed' nonsense.

It most definitely wasn't the Constitution.

Nor in any court in America. Acquittal means a defendant was found not guilty of the charges, but the charges are not dropped, they're still on the record.

Yes they are on the record (which I have never disputed), but the Senate record Clinton trial) shows it is a FAILED charge, thus the charges are dropped against the ACCUSED, who are no longer bound by them.

That is what you and Skylar don't understand.

The end result is what is important, getting impeached or indicted means little or nothing if you don't get convicted. Bill Clinton never spend a day in jail or pay fines because he was found INNOCENT, thus being on record that he was impeached means little to him. He thinks about being found innocent in the Senate trial is what really matters.....

You can indict a ham sandwich, you can impeach the President, but they remain free because the House Managers and Prosecutors they failed to back up the charges in a trial. After that impeachment charges becomes meaningless as they failed in a trial.

You finally getting it?

=========================
This hilarious statement makes clear you have no idea how courts treats criminal charges when the accused are found innocent:

"And no where in the quote does it say a thing about the impeachment 'failing' or the charges being dropped. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The souces you're citing don't say what you do. Which is where your baseless commentary of you citing you kicks in. For example:"

Clinton is free because the Impeachment charges failed in the Senate trial, thus he can now ignore the House impeachment charges that were made against by a bunch of Republicans.He has been free every day since the trial ended in 1998, only 21 years now.

That is the reality you keep dodging.

 

[Skylar]

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

Probably from the same place that he got the 'the impeachment failed' nonsense.

It most definitely wasn't the Constitution.

Nor in any court in America. Acquittal means a defendant was found not guilty of the charges, but the charges are not dropped, they're still on the record.

Yes they are on the record (which I have never disputed), but the Senate record Clinton trial) shows it is a FAILED charge, thus the charges are dropped against the ACCUSED, who are no longer bound by them.

Says you, citing yourself. And you citing yourself isn't 'reality'.It's merely your personal opinion backed by nothing.....which obviously has no legal or constitutional authority.

Nothing you've cited says any about 'failed charges' or 'charges being dropped'. Nor does the constitution make the slightest mention of it. Impeachment is the SOLE power of the House. And if the house sends articles of impeachment to the Senate, the president is impeached.

Full stop.

As impeachment is the levying of charges. It is NOT the trial, it is NOT the outcome of the trial, it is NOT the removal of the president. If a president is impeached, they are always impeached, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

 

[Faun]

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

Probably from the same place that he got the 'the impeachment failed' nonsense.

It most definitely wasn't the Constitution.

Nor in any court in America. Acquittal means a defendant was found not guilty of the charges, but the charges are not dropped, they're still on the record.

Yes they are on the record (which I have never disputed), but the Senate record Clinton trial) shows it is a FAILED charge, thus the charges are dropped against the ACCUSED, who are no longer bound by them.

That is what you and Skylar don't understand.

The end result is what is important, getting impeached or indicted means little or nothing if you don't get convicted. Bill Clinton never spend a day in jail or pay fines because he was found INNOCENT, thus being on record that he was impeached means little to him. He thinks about being found innocent in the Senate trial is what really matters.....

You can indict a ham sandwich, you can impeach the President, but they remain free because the House Managers and Prosecutors they failed to back up the charges in a trial. After that impeachment charges becomes meaningless as they failed in a trial.

You finally getting it?

=========================
This hilarious statement makes clear you have no idea how courts treats criminal charges when the accused are found innocent:

"And no where in the quote does it say a thing about the impeachment 'failing' or the charges being dropped. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The souces you're citing don't say what you do. Which is where your baseless commentary of you citing you kicks in. For example:"

Clinton is free because the Impeachment charges failed in the Senate trial, thus he can now ignore the House impeachment charges that were made against by a bunch of Republicans.He has been free every day since the trial ended in 1998, only 21 years now.

That is the reality you keep dodging.

"Yes they are on the record (which I have never disputed), but the Senate record Clinton trial) shows it is a FAILED charge, thus the charges are dropped against the ACCUSED, who are no longer bound by them."

That is nothing more than your misguided opinion. When charges are actually dropped, that occurs either before a trial, in which case there is no trial; or even during a trial, in which case the presiding judge dismisses the trial. Charges are never dropped after a verdict nor can they be because no court has the authority to do so. Only a prosecuting attorney's office can drop charges.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution states the House has the sole power.

LOL, You brought up the analogy of a grand jury indictment, then retreat to your slogan when you have your hat handed to you. Do you actually believe that an impeachment based solely on "I hate Trump" would pass constitutional muster? Do you think SCOTUS would uphold that charge as grounds for impeachment? Or how about "Trump ate a hamburger?" Is that a high crime or misdemeanor?

The Supreme Court has absolutely no power when it comes to impeachment.
Again- check the Constitution.
The House has the sole power according to the Constitution.

Is drunkenness a 'high crime or misdemeanor'?
John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings and being of bad moral character due to intoxication while on the bench. The charges arose in connection with a libel for unpaid duties against the Eliza. The House voted to impeach Pickering on March 2, 1803 on charges of drunkenness and unlawful rulings.[2]:491 Political controversy raged, with Federalists accusing Democratic-Republicans of trying to usurp the Constitution by attempting to remove the judge from office, although he had committed neither "high crimes nor misdemeanors", which are grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.[2]

The United States Senate tried Pickering in absentia, beginning January 4, 1804. The Senate convicted Pickering of all charges by a vote of 19 to 7 on March 12, 1804, thereby immediately removing him from office.[2]:504

And since Jefferson was the one who made the accusations- we can be fairly sure he knew what the actual intent of the Constitutional impeachment standards were.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution leaves the interpretation of those words entirely to Congress- first the House for the articles of impeachment and then the Senate for the trial. According to the Constitution- Congress's interpretation is the Constitutional interpretation.
And Congress has interpreted them differently than you.
3 officials have been impeached for bribery.
1 judge was impeached for 'drunkenness and unlawful rulings'
1 judge for tax evasion
1 judge for filing false disclosures
And Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings and being of bad moral character due to intoxication while on the bench. The charges arose in connection with a libel for unpaid duties against the Eliza. The House voted to impeach Pickering on March 2, 1803 on charges of drunkenness and unlawful rulings.[2]:491 Political controversy raged, with Federalists accusing Democratic-Republicans of trying to usurp the Constitution by attempting to remove the judge from office, although he had committed neither "high crimes nor misdemeanors", which are grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.[2]

The United States Senate tried Pickering in absentia, beginning January 4, 1804. The Senate convicted Pickering of all charges by a vote of 19 to 7 on March 12, 1804, thereby immediately removing him from office.[2]:504

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution leaves the interpretation of those words entirely to Congress- first the House for the articles of impeachment and then the Senate for the trial. According to the Constitution- Congress's interpretation is the Constitutional interpretation.
And Congress has interpreted them differently than you.
3 officials have been impeached for bribery.
1 judge was impeached for 'drunkenness and unlawful rulings'
1 judge for tax evasion
1 judge for filing false disclosures
And Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings....

How were the rulings unlawful?

 

[Syriusly]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is what the Congress decides it is.

I agree. And the High Crimes and Misdemeanors would need to be vary serious in order to get a 2/3 majority in the senate for removal from office.

Not necessarily. Depends on the Senate.
Today's Senate might well ignore any high crimes and misdemeanors committed by a President Trump, while be more than willing to impeach a President Obama for - I don't know...something outragious like- calling on a foreign government to investigate a political rival.
Just like the House has the sole authority to decide on what is an impeachable offense, the Senate has the sole authority to decide on whether that offense warrants conviction and removal from office.

 

[Syriusly]

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.

Charges are not dropped when you are acquitted in trial. Where do you get that nonsense from? When charges are dropped, there is no trial.

Probably from the same place that he got the 'the impeachment failed' nonsense.

It most definitely wasn't the Constitution.

Nor in any court in America. Acquittal means a defendant was found not guilty of the charges, but the charges are not dropped, they're still on the record.

Yes they are on the record (which I have never disputed), but the Senate record Clinton trial) shows it is a FAILED charge, thus the charges are dropped against the ACCUSED, who are no longer bound by them.

That is what you and Skylar don't understand.

The end result is what is important, getting impeached or indicted means little or nothing if you don't get convicted. Bill Clinton never spend a day in jail or pay fines because he was found INNOCENT, thus being on record that he was impeached means little to him. He thinks about being found innocent in the Senate trial is what really matters.....

You can indict a ham sandwich, you can impeach the President, but they remain free because the House Managers and Prosecutors they failed to back up the charges in a trial. After that impeachment charges becomes meaningless as they failed in a trial.

You finally getting it?

=========================
This hilarious statement makes clear you have no idea how courts treats criminal charges when the accused are found innocent:

"And no where in the quote does it say a thing about the impeachment 'failing' or the charges being dropped. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The souces you're citing don't say what you do. Which is where your baseless commentary of you citing you kicks in. For example:"

Clinton is free because the Impeachment charges failed in the Senate trial, thus he can now ignore the House impeachment charges that were made against by a bunch of Republicans.He has been free every day since the trial ended in 1998, only 21 years now.

That is the reality you keep dodging.

"Yes they are on the record (which I have never disputed), but the Senate record Clinton trial) shows it is a FAILED charge, thus the charges are dropped against the ACCUSED, who are no longer bound by them."

That is nothing more than your misguided opinion. When charges are actually dropped, that occurs either before a trial, in which case there is no trial; or even during a trial, in which case the presiding judge dismisses the trial. Charges are never dropped after a verdict nor can they be because no court has the authority to do so. Only a prosecuting attorney's office can drop charges.

Clinton was impeached- but not removed from office. The Senate decision doesn't change the fact that he was impeached.

 

[Syriusly]

And that impeachment is soley at the discretion of House. The Senate gets zero say.

In other words, the House has the power to impeach, but the Senate can tell them that their charges do not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. So much for the House's "sole power" to define those terms.

You are starting to understand- the House has the sole power to impeach- including deciding what charges are impeachable.

The Senate may disagree- but it never changes the fact that the House defines what charges are impeachable offenses.

 

[Syriusly]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

The Congress determines what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

This the game the Democrats play. The intent of the impeachment phrase is very clear in it's TOTAL context. The Democrats zero in the one word that gives them maximum ability to stage their coup "MISDEMEANORS".

The very idea that you buy in on the idea that using the Constitution to remove a President from office would be a 'coup' just shows a willful ignorance of our Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

Impeachment only succeeds if the person is convicted, otherwise the indictment/impeachment charges fails and the person goes free, charges dropped.

Every person who is impeached and removed from office 'goes free'.

They might be subsequently indicted and convicted on criminal charges but Senate conviction does only one thing- remove the person from office.