Jump to content
modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment

Recommended Posts

Judge Jeanine: Sen. McConnell, please force a trial if impeachment gets to you

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

If we at least are not going to look for a crime, then you have no goal post whatsoever.  That is fine.  The Constitution is fairly vague here.

I can't remember all of the testimony verbatim, but I thought Mulvaney admitted it was his assumption this was the case and he was not told this by Trump or by the Administration in general.  So, it was his opinion.  Not saying he was not right, but it was his opinion....not proof.  We should have proof if we are going to impeach presidents.  Otherwise presidents are going to be impeached every time their party does not control the congress.

No it's not.  High crimes and misdemeanors is a well understood term.  The senate either convicts the president of that or it doesn't.  It's not so complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, toonkee said:

So Dershowitz decides what is sufficient for removal "in addition" to the requirements stated in the constitution and I'm supposed to move a discussion forward based on that? 

No thanks.

 

OK, you don't like Dershowitz (me neither). 

But what part of this is factually untrue, or not in the Constitution?:

 

the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for removing a president.

In addition to committing one or more of these designated offenses, the person to be removed must have violated the public trust or abused his office. These criteria are in addition to those explicitly set out in the Constitution. They are not substitutes for the constitutional prerequisites for impeachment and removal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

No it's not.  High crimes and misdemeanors is a well understood term.  The senate either convicts the president of that or it doesn't.  It's not so complicated.

The articulated "High Crime and Misdemeanor" that Democrats have identified is

 

alleged Bribery / Quid Pro Quo

 

So, what is the evidence that they have identified that substantiates these two crimes (meaning bribery / high crimes / misdemeanor)?

Only thing is appears is  a somewhat vague telephone transcript.   Isn't there anything else besides this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

I got the sharing tweet and video idea from Democratic sympathetic posters....

I hope to encourage discussion and mutual learning by sharing many, many, many, tweets and videos, from popular conservative media sources (even those I don't agree with).

If you see a video that peaks your interest, please let me know.

The worst thing ever would be to have an "echo chamber" that only presents sources from one political side. 

I feel better about your Breitbart videos now with that explanation.  I was worried you actually took them seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

OK, you don't like Dershowitz (me neither). 

But what part of this is factually untrue, or not in the Constitution?:

 

the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for removing a president.

In addition to committing one or more of these designated offenses, the person to be removed must have violated the public trust or abused his office. These criteria are in addition to those explicitly set out in the Constitution. They are not substitutes for the constitutional prerequisites for impeachment and removal.

 

High crimes and misdemeanors includes office abuse, violating public trust, etc.  This "in addition" stuff is nonsense.

 

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alum93 said:

I feel better about your Breitbart videos now with that explanation.  I was worried you actually took them seriously.

I do take Breitbart videos seriously.

Breitbart is one of the largest influencers in the United States right now.   Everyone should take them seriously.

They have done some very interesting things, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

I do take Breitbart videos seriously.

Breitbart is one of the largest influencers in the United States right now.   Everyone should take them seriously.

They have done some very interesting things, too.

I take them every bit as seriously as a Hannity or Tucker exclusive Trump interview.

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, toonkee said:

High crimes and misdemeanors includes office abuse, violating public trust, etc.  This "in addition" stuff is nonsense.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."

Wait, you are trying twist it and identify "abuse" and "violating public trust" as constituting the actual "bribery, high crime and misdemeanor"?

 

Had no idea that an "abuse" and "violation of public trust" is now a crime (in the context of "high crimes and misdemeanors").

 

Can you provide the definition of what an "Abuse" and "Violating Public Trust" is then, so we can all be sure of whether there are grounds for any future "High Crime / Misdemeanor" impeachments moving forward?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Wait, you are trying twist it and identify "abuse, violating public trust" as constituting the actual "bribery, high crime and misdemeanor"?

 

Had no idea that an "abuse" and "violation of public trust" is now a crime (in the context of "high crimes and misdemeanors").

 

Can you provide the definition of what an "Abuse" and "Violating Public Trust" is then, so we can all be sure of whether there are grounds for any future "High Crime / Misdemeanor" impeachments moving forward?

 

 

Perhaps you missed my reply or thought I was joking. I was being serious:

If the President of the United States were to say “Hey, I’m moving to Saudi Arabia so I can take three more wives” And then actually do it. Would that be an impeachable offense? Or would we just wait until the next election to decide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it amusing that Stunner is still throwing a tantrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Wait, you are trying twist it and identify "abuse, violating public trust" as constituting the actual "bribery, high crime and misdemeanor"?

 

Had no idea that an "abuse" and "violation of public trust" is now a crime (in the context of "high crimes and misdemeanors").

 

Can you provide the definition of what an "Abuse" and "Violating Public Trust" is then, so we can all be sure of whether there are grounds for any future "High Crime / Misdemeanor" impeachments moving forward?

 

 

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that was used by the Founders, because it was well understood at the time. It's not shocking to me that you haven't bothered looking up the etymology of the term. This is a good read on the subject.

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

Perhaps you missed my reply or thought I was joking. I was being serious:

If the President of the United States were to say “Hey, I’m moving to Saudi Arabia so I can take three more wives” And then actually do it. Would that be an impeachable offense? Or would we just wait until the next election to decide?

Is the President of the United States quitting the job, and moving to a different country a impeachable offense?

It would depend on the following:

 

the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for removing a president.

In addition to committing one or more of these designated offenses, the person to be removed must have violated the public trust or abused his office. These criteria are in addition to those explicitly set out in the Constitution. They are not substitutes for the constitutional prerequisites for impeachment and removal.

 

Under your fictional scenario, I would assume that a President leaving office, and failing to maintain legal residency in the United States would constitute a disqualifying PART 1 "high crime or misdemeanor" (which I've been told is a term of art), and also meet the PART 2 standard of a "violation of public trust".   So, yes, if he refused to resign, I'm sure he could be removed by impeachment.  I mean, you can't keep a job if you don't show up for work.

Plus, Polygamy is against the law in the United States (I think it is a "High Crime or Misdemeanor"), and he could also be impeached under PART 1 and PART 2 for practicing polygamy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I do find it amusing that Stunner is still throwing a tantrum.

I find you more amusing and a source of entertainment than you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that was used by the Founders, because it was well understood at the time. It's not shocking to me that you haven't bothered looking up the etymology of the term. This is a good read on the subject.

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Yes, yes, I know the analysis:

 

the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for removing a president.

In addition to committing one or more of these designated offenses, the person to be removed must have violated the public trust or abused his office. These criteria are in addition to those explicitly set out in the Constitution. They are not substitutes for the constitutional prerequisites for impeachment and removal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, #1Stunner said:

Yes, yes, I know the analysis:

 

the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for removing a president.

In addition to committing one or more of these designated offenses, the person to be removed must have violated the public trust or abused his office. These criteria are in addition to those explicitly set out in the Constitution. They are not substitutes for the constitutional prerequisites for impeachment and removal.

That's the analysis by one individual... an individual who has been very supportive of Trump over the course of his presidency. Go read through what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means, the historical context, as well as Federalist 51, 64, 64, 66, and 69... then get back to us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Is the President of the United States quitting the job, and moving to a different country a impeachable offense?

It would depend on the following:

 

the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for removing a president.

In addition to committing one or more of these designated offenses, the person to be removed must have violated the public trust or abused his office. These criteria are in addition to those explicitly set out in the Constitution. They are not substitutes for the constitutional prerequisites for impeachment and removal.

 

Under your fictional scenario, I would assume that a President leaving office, and failing to maintain legal residency in the United States would constitute a disqualifying PART 1 "high crime or misdemeanor" (which I've been told is a term of art), and also meet the PART 2 standard of a "violation of public trust".   So, yes, if he refused to resign, I'm sure he could be removed by impeachment.  I mean, you can't keep a job if you don't show up for work.

Plus, Polygamy is against the law in the United States (I think it is a "High Crime or Misdemeanor"), and he could also be impeached under PART 1 and PART 2 for practicing polygamy. 

 

Ok, so forget the multiple wives, he just wants to divorce his current wife, marry a deferential Saudi woman and work remotely for a year as President of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, retrofade said:

That's the analysis by one individual... an individual who has been very supportive of Trump over the course of his presidency. Go read through what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means, the historical context, as well as Federalist 51, 64, 64, 66, and 69... then get back to us. 

It's the analysis provide by one individual......which many, many, many people agree with. 

Didn't the Democrats just call some Law Professors as "Expert Witnesses" to help us understand when impeachment is appropriate?   So, why are you so quick to reject the opinion of a Harvard Law Professor on this same topic?  

 

Read the Federalist Papers?  are those things self-evidence and never argued over?   No thanks.   Some "Expert Witnesses" have already done that for me, and provided a summary.  (no need to repeat their work).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

If we at least are not going to look for a crime, then you have no goal post whatsoever.  That is fine.  The Constitution is fairly vague here.

I can't remember all of the testimony verbatim, but I thought Mulvaney admitted it was his assumption this was the case and he was not told this by Trump or by the Administration in general.  So, it was his opinion.  Not saying he was not right, but it was his opinion....not proof.  We should have proof if we are going to impeach presidents.  Otherwise presidents are going to be impeached every time their party does not control the congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified there wasn't yet a federal criminal code so the writers of the document did not base the impeachment provision on that statute. Furthermore, insofar as the two are similar, the Constitution was based mainly on English common law of the time. Of course, given that the very existence of the revolution was the perceived tyranny of the king, they clearly did not adopt the English common law doctrine of sovereign immunity. Indeed that issue is rebutted by the very existence of the impeachment provision. So when Trump said the criminal law did not apply to him, he was absolutely incorrect.

As to "proof," the proverbial smoking gun hasn't been found but that's quite difficult to do where the chief executive orders his subordinates not to appear before the decision making body to testify. In any event there is ample circumstantial evidence to conclude that Trump committed bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

It's the analysis provide by one individual......which many, many, many people agree with. 

Didn't the Democrats just call some Law Professors as "Expert Witnesses" to help us understand when impeachment is appropriate?   So, why are you so quick to reject the opinion of a Harvard Law Professor on this same topic?  

 

Read the Federalist Papers?  are those things self-evidence and never argued over?   No thanks.   Some "Expert Witnesses" have already done that for me, and provided a summary.  (no need to repeat their work).

Okay, forgive me for considering that you were actually attempting to engage in actual discussion instead of concern trolling. You've set me straight there. Please continue on with your trolling, I'm sure you find it very amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×