Some of my less learned posters need a primer on impeachable offences.

As I posted this morning Federalist 65 and 66 give the example of the PRESIDENT (not just a judge) abusing his authority
by a treacherous treaty with a foreign power as an archetype ground for impeachment beyond peradventure.
That is exactly what Trump did, in the attempt to form a secret treaty with Ukraine. The precise example was spelled
out by Plubius as occurred "at bar."

Get literate or STFU, you Republican ignoramuses. :palm:
 
As I posted this morning Federalist 65 and 66 give the example of the PRESIDENT (not just a judge) abusing his authority
by a treacherous treaty with a foreign power as an archetype ground for impeachment beyond peradventure.
That is exactly what Trump did, in the attempt to form a secret treaty with Ukraine. The precise example was spelled
out by Plubius as occurred "at bar."

Get literate or STFU, you Republican ignoramuses. :palm:

No he did not. That is all hearsay and fallacy up to this point. And stop trying to act like a lawyer. You just look dumber than usual.
 
Your copying posts I made earlier today make you look pitiful. Educate yourself, you might have a better life!

This is not hyperbolic. I mean it--sincerely. These people don't have an original thought in their brains. I'm stunned sometimes on the recycled, borrowed, stolen 'INTELLECTUAL' appropriations of EVERYTHING.

Maybe that's why they turned to ancient and more 'modern' (2 WWs) methods of torture to bring into and codify for the 21ST century.
 
This is not hyperbolic. I mean it--sincerely. These people don't have an original thought in their brains. I'm stunned sometimes on the recycled, borrowed, stolen 'INTELLECTUAL' appropriations of EVERYTHING.

Maybe that's why they turned to ancient and more 'modern' (2 WWs) methods of torture to bring into and codify for the 21ST century.

Yep, some of the losers here recycled Clausewitz as if he were relevant post Geneva.:rolleyes:
 
Judges are a poor example

Because Impeachment of a POTUS OVERTURNS THE DIRECT WILL OF THE PEOPLE -a higher bar
( High crimes and Misdemeanors) is used.
Trump was not the choice of the American people.
Hillary Clinton was the choice of the American people.
Hillary Clinton was preferred by the American people by millions more votes than for Trump.

In 2018, the American people also offered a referendum on what they thought of Trump's performance by handing Democrats a historic mid term blue wave victory, with Trump personally being responsible for the GOP losing the House of Reps.
 
You are arguing against a claim nobody is making dumb ass

The House can impeach him for ANYTHING they want. LEGALLY speaking

However they will still have to answer to voters. So they better have a good reason that will fly with voters.

If you and your party think this is it then go for it

You seem to be moving the goal posts. For weeks you have maintained that Trump broke laws. Now you are saying he doesn’t have to have broken laws.

Let’s get on with articles of impeachment. Bring it on


Many of your ignorant compatriots are arguing that tripe.
 
In Federalist 65, one of the principal architects of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses are those that arise from the "misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."He explains that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a common law term used to describe offences that are "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

As you may or not have learned in your provencal schools, the executive is not the only constitutional officer who can be impeached. Judicial officers have more often been the subject of impeachment, using the same standard laid out by the Constitution, and in those cases less than a third have been impeached due to statutorily criminal offences. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf (page 9) Interestingly, Federal Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things,
appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.” ibid. This was not a crime.

President Johnson was specifically impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act, which was not a criminal statute and violation of it was not a criminal act. HE was also impeached for criticizing Congress and questioning its legislative authority. These are not criminal acts.

As you can see, historical precedent illustrates, that while it appears that President Trump has committed several criminal acts, impeachment does not require such.


So PLEASE stop spewing your uneducated crap. Thank you!

SO you admit that the "IMPEACHMENT" CHARADE, is nothing BUT THAT....A CHARADE....we KNOW.
 
"Learn to be a lawyer in just 2 Days!" Send $9.99 and a self addressed envelope to......and just like that, Micawber became a "lawyer"....

Yup. He got a free bat signal flashlight with his diploma. :awesome:



It appears many here are unaware of the law of attempt. I guess they didn't see enough Batman episodes to know
that just because the Penguin and the cool cruel Mr Freeze didn't get away with the jewels, they still went to jail.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...gs-coming-soon-to-a-television-near-you/page4
Post #53
 
Last edited:
Judges are a poor example.
they can be removed for abuse of power because the do not face an election -they are appointed.

Because Impeachment of a POTUS OVERTURNS THE DIRECT WILL OF THE PEOPLE -a higher bar
( High crimes and Misdemeanors) is used.
The text is clear. looking at Parliament isn't useful since a PM can be called on a snap election..


Bottom line impeaching a POTUS is a grave matter that effects the entire country, not just a judge
Because of such high bar, the TEXT makes it clear a crime of Office is needed to remove.

The TEXT is the ultimate authority

Wrong again, dumbfuck.
 
Starting ANOTHER thread on the same topic, eh? You really are OCD. So, you'll get the same answers.
You have no impeachable charges.
There ARE no impeachable charges.
The transcript removes the need for humans to interpret it. The transcript is hard cold black & white
solitary evidence and facts.
President Zelensky + transcript = no need for outside interpretation/translation

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”
____________

Obstruction of justice - 18 USC 1501-1521
Witness intimidation 18 USC 1512
Emoluments - US Constitution
Abuse of power - no statute. Merely reason to be removed from office
Extortion – 18 USC 112
Solicitation of something of value from a foreign entity - 11CFR 110.2 and 11 CFR 300.2

______________

Extortion – 4 elements
Threat – withholding $400 million
Intent – Forcing public announcement of investigations
Fear – of loss of funding for defensive weapons against the Russians
Property – the thing of value is the investigations of 2016 tampering and the Bidens
 
Hello Jarod,



Very interesting.

Thanks.

Didn't know that.

I had heard that basically, an impeachable offense is anything the House says it is.

This guy was doing his own work on our dime. And what he did was actually acting against our common interest. His shadow foreign affairs operation acted AGAINST the policy of the US State Department. Not only was he doing his own work on our dime, but what he did undid what we paid to have done.

And then to realize that this imperiled an ally, and was meant to rig an election in his favor, that an attempt was made to cover it up, and that US House (We the people) was obstructed in it's oversight of the Executive branch, well, I don't care if an actual law was broken or not, though it would be hard to believe all of that is legal, THAT, to me is quite enough to warrant impeachment.

Obstruction of justice is a crime.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Grokmaster View Post
SO you admit that the "IMPEACHMENT" CHARADE, is nothing BUT THAT....A CHARADE....we KNOW.


Hmmm who to believe, a Trumfuck watching his hero with his neck in a noose or our lyin eyes, Trumfuck.
To say there is nothing here makes you a joke. There is CONCLUSIVE evidence and a couple confessions as well
as several percipient witnesses.

Fuck yourself, clown. ;)
 
FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”
____________

Obstruction of justice - 18 USC 1501-1521
Witness intimidation 18 USC 1512
Emoluments - US Constitution
Abuse of power - no statute. Merely reason to be removed from office
Extortion – 18 USC 112
Solicitation of something of value from a foreign entity - 11CFR 110.2 and 11 CFR 300.2

______________

Extortion – 4 elements
Threat – withholding $400 million
Intent – Forcing public announcement of investigations
Fear – of loss of funding for defensive weapons against the Russians
Property – the thing of value is the investigations of 2016 tampering and the Bidens

There are some very filthy low-lives on the right that are driving the conversation within the echo chamber. Listen to what one of the biggest POS in the party admitted to after Nancy Pelosi acquiesced to taking a vote...



This scumbag cares nothing about the rule of law or the oath he took to uphold it.
 
Back
Top