• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

Dude, the articles of impeachment against Trump do not allege a crime just that he misused his office.


Read the articles of impeachment against President Trump

Read the 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. "

The power to decide which offenses are sufficient cause for Impeachment is held by the Legislative Branch, specifically the House of Representatives. In my lifetime they have determined that lying under oath, covering up a crime, and misusing the powers of the Executive Office all meet that bar. No doubt there are more, so this isn't a comprehensive list by any stretch.

If the votes are there, a president can be impeached for anything. It's silly to think there's a bar. Really, what's the remedy if the House impeaches a president for liking Nickleback? The president is still impeached. The Senate still decides what to do about it. But the articles against Trump do not allege a crime. Given that the Dems control the House, and many in the House simply hate Trump, if they wanted to add an article of impeachment alleging a crime they could have. They didn't. Why do you think that is?

Keeping it simple. Going for the low hanging fruit.

There's no point in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" if we are only to hold individuals of high office to the laws of the land we are all subject to. But we do not. People holding high office have powers over the rest of us and therefore are held to a higher standard. So, as long as a majority of the House and a supermajority of the Senate do not like the president, they can pretty much make something up and impeach (fire) him for it.
 
Personally, I think what Trump has done is almost as vile as liking Nickleback so I don't see what the problem is. That Presidents can be impeached for anything isn't exactly news; look at all the stuff teabaggers wanted to impeach Obama over

Given that the Dems control the House, and many in the House simply hate Trump, if they wanted to add an article of impeachment alleging a crime they could have. They didn't. Why do you think that is?

Gee, I dunno. Do you think it might have something to do with the head of the Department of Justice believing a President can't be indicted? Kinda makes the alleging of a crime being committed rather redundant.
 
Democrats have explained this.

The Constitution is law. Violations of the constitution are violations against law. Therefore, these violations are illegal.

In the Nixon impeachment there were also charges of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Nixon's actions weren't as bad since he didn't use a foreign power to overthrow integrity in our elections and Nixon did not wholesale reject the Constitutional ability of Congress to subpoena for purposes of impeachment investigation.

Trump is Nixon x 2. Conservatives are Nixon defenders x 2.

I will add that high crimes and misdemeanors has never meant exactly the same as statutory law.

Parliament has also impeached a good many officers for abuse of power, sometimes criminal, but oftentimes not. When the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, the English-speaking world was riveted by the commencement of impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings, governor general of Bengal, on just such grounds. Few if any of the charges against Hastings were indictable crimes, but that was immaterial to Edmund Burke, the principal parliamentary prosecutor of Hastings. He said the charges “were crimes, not against forms, but against those eternal laws of justice, which are our rule and our birthright: his offenses are not in formal, technical language, but in reality, in substance and effect, High Crimes and High Misdemeanors.”

Americans of the founding generation were familiar with the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” not merely because they were close students of the parliamentary history of the mother country, but also because both the American colonies and the early state governments had conducted impeachments of their own. For example, in 1774, just before the American Revolution, the Massachusetts colonial assembly impeached Chief Justice Peter Oliver for “certain High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” His offense? The decidedly noncriminal act of agreeing to accept a royal salary rather than the stipend appropriated by the Massachusetts legislature. The Oliver impeachment was a cause célèbre in both England and the colonies. John Adams is often credited with the idea of impeaching the judge. Among those voting to impeach Oliver were Sam Adams and John Hancock, as well as Nathaniel Gorham, who in 1787 was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and chaired its early deliberations.

The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” entered the American Constitution because George Mason of Virginia was unhappy that, as the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close, the class of impeachable offenses had been limited to “treason or bribery.” Mason wanted a much broader definition. He illustrated his point by arguing that Hastings’s offenses would not be covered by the proposed skimpy language. Mason’s first suggested addition—“maladministration”—was thought too expansive, whereupon he offered, and the convention accepted, that sturdy old English term of art “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/
 
Last edited:
Double standards anyone? Not a whimper of protest or talk of impeachment during the Obuma era even though article no. 10 on this list was surely grounds for impeachment. Oh, that's right, Obuma was from the left of the political spectrum!

https://gellerreport.com/2020/01/th...4-but-no-one-called-for-his-impeachment.html/


The GAO Ruled Obama Broke The Law in 2014, But No One Called for His Impeachment

There's this thing called Google. You may have heard of it.

 Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

Ah, yes. But the numbers in the House weren't as stacked as they are today. Wasn't it a muzzie newly elected House rep who after the Dems winning the House said: " we'll impeach the MF"?

Furthermore. This article here................https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/dems-...17&tpcc=morning_report&mpweb=755-8539371-7204

says it all.
 
All of those things fall under executive privilege not to arrest people which stems from a concept of liberty and ability to pardon. It's like when a cop gives you a warning. There is discretion but a lot more for the President.

The difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama wasn't violating law in order to undermine democracy. Obama wasn't showing leniency to himself. Trump is drunk with power, using his office and taxpayer money to win elections, not fighting for the little guy.

Whining about Obama is exactly what to expect from conservatives who sold their souls to a billionaire duping them.
 
What will be the story if another Billionaire, this time from the other side of the ledger wins the White House? [Bloomberg]
 
All of those things fall under executive privilege not to arrest people which stems from a concept of liberty and ability to pardon. It's like when a cop gives you a warning. There is discretion but a lot more for the President.

The difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama wasn't violating law in order to undermine democracy. Obama wasn't showing leniency to himself. Trump is drunk with power, using his office and taxpayer money to win elections, not fighting for the little guy.

Whining about Obama is exactly what to expect from conservatives who sold their souls to a billionaire duping them.

It's weird that conservatives think that they are above the law, that it only applies to lesser citizens.
 
Double standards anyone? Not a whimper of protest or talk of impeachment during the Obuma era even though article no. 10 on this list was surely grounds for impeachment. Oh, that's right, Obuma was from the left of the political spectrum!

https://gellerreport.com/2020/01/th...4-but-no-one-called-for-his-impeachment.html/





The GAO Ruled Obama Broke The Law in 2014, But No One Called for His Impeachment

There's this thing called Google. You may have heard of it.

 Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

Ah, yes. But the numbers in the House weren't as stacked as they are today. Wasn't it a muzzie newly elected House rep who after the Dems winning the House said: " we'll impeach the MF"?

Furthermore. This article here................https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/dems-...17&tpcc=morning_report&mpweb=755-8539371-7204

says it all.

So, you think that all Democrats are all the same? The Democratic Party is an extremely diverse party, when it comes to all kinds of things. While I've always liked that about Democrats, it does make it harder for them to agree on much of anything, unlike the party of sheep.

The fact that one newbie made that remark isn't evidence that most of the Democrats in Congress were ready to impeach Trump from day one. That's a pretty stupid. generalization, don't ya think?

The article you posted in just an opinion. Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact?
 
Double standards anyone? Not a whimper of protest or talk of impeachment during the Obuma era even though article no. 10 on this list was surely grounds for impeachment. Oh, that's right, Obuma was from the left of the political spectrum!

https://gellerreport.com/2020/01/th...4-but-no-one-called-for-his-impeachment.html/


The GAO Ruled Obama Broke The Law in 2014, But No One Called for His Impeachment

There's this thing called Google. You may have heard of it.

 Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

Ah, yes. But the numbers in the House weren't as stacked as they are today. Wasn't it a muzzie newly elected House rep who after the Dems winning the House said: " we'll impeach the MF"?

Furthermore. This article here................https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/dems-...17&tpcc=morning_report&mpweb=755-8539371-7204

says it all.

Don't strain your back moving those goal posts.
 
What will be the story if another Billionaire, this time from the other side of the ledger wins the White House? [Bloomberg]

Probably something like:

BLOOMBERG WINS!

Duh.
The difference is that we (the ubiquitous "left") are willing to criticize "our side" (and this part's important) for legitimate issues regarding their performance in office. But not for stupid billshit like a fake child sex ring in a basement that doesn't exist, or you know, wearing a tan suit.

If the (f)rightwing could understand this simple concept, they could go a long way towards at least restoring a pretense of having principles.
 
What will be the story if another Billionaire, this time from the other side of the ledger wins the White House? [Bloomberg]

Probably something like:

BLOOMBERG WINS!

Duh.
The difference is that we (the ubiquitous "left") are willing to criticize "our side" (and this part's important) for legitimate issues regarding their performance in office. But not for stupid billshit like a fake child sex ring in a basement that doesn't exist, or you know, wearing a tan suit.

If the (f)rightwing could understand this simple concept, they could go a long way towards at least restoring a pretense of having principles.
Legitmate: Obama’s use of drone strikes against terrorists without trial is a potential crime against the understood norms of justice globally.

Not legitmate: OMFG, Obama is going to invade Texas!
 
There's an article in 10 Aug 2017, The Palm Beach Post.
A person named Aaron Parnas says he worked on Trump's campain. He also mentions his father Lez who is his hero. There is no such person as Lez Parnas and so it seems like a typo. Additionally, if you look up Lev Parnas, you will find he has a son that age named Aaron. The article says Aaron speaks Russian. Aaron and Lev lived in Boca Raton, FL area whose center is 20 miles from West Palm Beach center where Trump lived, but the West Palm Beach newspaper article calls Aaron a neighbor so maybe the Parnas's lived on the border...i,e. were nearly neighbors of Trump.
 
What will be the story if another Billionaire, this time from the other side of the ledger wins the White House? [Bloomberg]

Probably something like:

BLOOMBERG WINS!

Duh.

The left more than anything else hate the Trump because he's a billionaire, besides he being a buffoon. It's reported that Bloomberg has ten times Trumps worth. That most certainly must get up the socialists noses. What, a president coming from the privileged classes?
 
The left more than anything else hate the Trump because he's a billionaire, besides he being a buffoon. It's reported that Bloomberg has ten times Trumps worth. That most certainly must get up the socialists noses. What, a president coming from the privileged classes?

Why do conservatives think they can read the minds of "the left"? Just because AM Radio blowhards, like Limbaugh are constantly spewing straw man depictions of the left doesn't make it okay. Come on, people. The left is right here, if you want to know what we think, you could just ask us.

Angelo, can you name three people who list Trump's money as the number one reason they hate him? There are more than 300 million people in the US. I only want you to find 3. Can you do it?
 
I don't believe that is Lev Parnas. We need to pump the brakes on posting Memes as evidence.
 
Legal scholars battle it out on the impeachment and what is required for impeachment! Who will win the first battle?

In this corner...

Legal Scholar A
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXr-sfwaDk[/YOUTUBE]



v

And his opponent, in this corner...

Legal Scholar... umm... A

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/xmf2PodFgi4[/YOUTUBE]

 
Legal scholars battle it out on the impeachment and what is required for impeachment! Who will win the first battle?

In this corner...

Legal Scholar A
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXr-sfwaDk[/YOUTUBE]



v

And his opponent, in this corner...

Legal Scholar... umm... A

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/xmf2PodFgi4[/YOUTUBE]


Dershowitz states repeatedly that a president should not be impeached for committing crimes but rather should be impeached for criminal behavior. He is so overcome with his worship of the constitution and his perceived intent of the framers that he doesn't see himself as a part of a process anymore but rather as obedient to the gods that founded our country.
 
Back
Top Bottom