Will Trump be impeached?

[barbos]

Failing IQ test should be a reason for impeachment too.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Failing IQ test should be a reason for impeachment too.

Sure.
"High Crimes" is not the same as felony. All impeachment means is that a majority of the House doesn't want this person to be President any more.

 

[Terrell]

Failing IQ test should be a reason for impeachment too.

Sure.
"High Crimes" is not the same as felony. All impeachment means is that a majority of the House doesn't want this person to be President any more.

^ Exactly this. High Crimes & Misdemeanors is whatever the House has the political will to say it is. The Courts will not, maybe cannot, review the House's reasons for doing so. Removal is whatever the Senate thinks is worthwhile. The consequences against the House & Senate, either way, come from the voters. It doesn't remove Impeachment from the President's record, and in the case of removal with or without disqualification, it doesn't put him back in office.

It really depends on whether or not the Republicans think he's way more trouble than he's worth. I think the most likely way he would get impeached & removed is if he starts being named as an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies. If the public is sufficiently outraged that the Reps & Senators think they'll be fired by the voters if they don't fire the president, they'll fire the president.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No one has the full information but based on what has happened different people give different views. I've merely stated that the investigation hasn't produced anything of worth yet. One can also base an opinion iinasmuch that there are insufficient facts from the evidence to form an indefeasible viewpoint.

There are loads of facts but insufficient to complete the big picture.

Again, that is false. You DO NOT KNOW what the investigation has revealed. Not knowing what exists is not grounds for holding an opinion on what exists. Just because some information has allegedly "leaked", or wild (or even educated) guesses are being made that you like to hear, or from a person you would like to trust, does not make any undisclosed information non-existent.

Facebook / twitter post, or it didn't happen? That's not how anything actually works.

Our whole systems in Europe, the UK and the USA are evidence based. If there is no evidence presented by the accuser/claimant nothing can take place.

Whether a smoking gun exists but is not revealed; until such time as it is known it can be taken as non existent.

 

[Elixir]

Again, that is false. You DO NOT KNOW what the investigation has revealed. Not knowing what exists is not grounds for holding an opinion on what exists. Just because some information has allegedly "leaked", or wild (or even educated) guesses are being made that you like to hear, or from a person you would like to trust, does not make any undisclosed information non-existent.

Facebook / twitter post, or it didn't happen? That's not how anything actually works.

Our whole systems in Europe, the UK and the USA are evidence based.

Wrong again - you're batting 1000.
Impeachment does not have the same standards as criminal conviction. If the House decided they simply didn't like what he was doing, they could decide the Cheato is failing to fulfill his duties as President - or any number of other non-criminal transgressions - and enter impeachment proceedings and if the Senate agreed they could impeach him. Nothing that you demand as "evidence" is necessary.
Of course that won't happen as long as we have this congress, but keep bleating, please - you make a great poster child for the delusions of conservatidiots.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Our whole systems in Europe, the UK and the USA are evidence based.

Wrong again - you're batting 1000.
Impeachment does not have the same standards as criminal conviction. If the House decided they simply didn't like what he was doing, they could decide the Cheato is failing to fulfill his duties as President - or any number of other non-criminal transgressions - and enter impeachment proceedings and if the Senate agreed they could impeach him. Nothing that you demand as "evidence" is necessary.
Of course that won't happen as long as we have this congress, but keep bleating, please - you make a great poster child for the delusions of conservatidiots.

I didn't say an impeachment is the same as a criminal proceedings.
An impeachment will remove the President from office only.
An investigation is required and the evidence is handled in the same manner as a court, the difference being is that the trial is in the Senate and a 2/3 vote is required.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/18/punishment-for-impeachment
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7

 

[whichphilosophy]

Let's see the Impeachers in the house (s) support their case instead letting the public grasp on new media titbits and inconclusive investigations, or facts which are established but confidential. What is required is evidence based conclusions to go forward.

Yes. Exactly. Try to actually DO THIS.

Look at what is known to be true. Ignore what is not known to be true. If sufficient data is available, form an opinion.

Two factually known pieces of information are (correctly) driving the "impeachers":

1) Russian state-sponsored hacking has been, is, and continues to occur around the world, attempting to disrupt elections. Publically disclosed reports from all intelligence communities (both US and non-US) clearly confirm this was aggressively done in our last election.
2) Multiple instances of Trump-appointed cabinet members have had unprecedentedly consistent and illegal omissions of disclosure of Russian agent contact
3) Trump publically "egged-on" threat actors to continue hacking his political enemies
4) Trump has, is, and continues to be unprecedentedly silent, and even supportive, of Russia... also is the only person left on Earth that has access to intelligence data that continues to deny Russian interference with elections
5) Trump is publically decrying investigations into our national security, but only in regard to Russia.

Those are the reasons to be concerned... and the justification for an investigation... and the reason to hold the opinion that there is something very fishy going on.

Here are the reasons to deny anything is fishy:

1) no one has tweeted or posted on facebook any highly confidential "nail-in-the-coffin" information about the currently ongoing investigation

The above points would in any investigation be 'threads to pull' and see if there is anything further. They are not in themselves adequate building blocks for a case. However what may be at the end of the thread may or may not be.
An investigation may well look at long shots also to see what transpires.

The media has confused a lines of investigation with indictable offences. Incidentally the Russians, Germans, US, UK, Chinese and Israelis and so forth are making hacking attempts daily.

US government websites get millions of attempted intrusions per day.

 

[Elixir]

the evidence is handled in the same manner as a court

Wrong. I and others have explained it to you several times. Why are you so averse to the truth?

All impeachment means is that a majority of the House doesn't want this person to be President any more.

Get it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

the evidence is handled in the same manner as a court

Wrong. I and others have explained it to you several times. Why are you so averse to the truth?

I think he's overimpressed by the fact that the Supreme Court justice presides at the trial. This is not all that important, though, as he really has no power at the trial. He's just picked because the president of the senate, the Vice President, may have a conflict of interest in running the trial.
He has no vote on the conviction of the President (or whoever is being impeached). If he makes a ruling, such as about whether or not evidence is required for one of the charges, the Senate can vote to override his decision.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Our whole systems in Europe, the UK and the USA are evidence based.

Wrong again - you're batting 1000.
Impeachment does not have the same standards as criminal conviction. If the House decided they simply didn't like what he was doing, they could decide the Cheato is failing to fulfill his duties as President - or any number of other non-criminal transgressions - and enter impeachment proceedings and if the Senate agreed they could impeach him. Nothing that you demand as "evidence" is necessary.
Of course that won't happen as long as we have this congress, but keep bleating, please - you make a great poster child for the delusions of conservatidiots.

This is not on the basis of a criminal conviction but a removal from office. Weight of evidence is required. The indictment procedure (lower house) and the trial (upper house) are parallel to a court though of course it is not an actual court since the trial is held in the Senate. I've already quoted this.

If what you are saying is correct, then there is no need for an investigation; just a vote, followed by a vote in the Lower House to proceed, then one in the Senate after some posturing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wrong. I and others have explained it to you several times. Why are you so averse to the truth?

I think he's overimpressed by the fact that the Supreme Court justice presides at the trial. This is not all that important, though, as he really has no power at the trial. He's just picked because the president of the senate, the Vice President, may have a conflict of interest in running the trial.
He has no vote on the conviction of the President (or whoever is being impeached). If he makes a ruling, such as about whether or not evidence is required for one of the charges, the Senate can vote to override his decision.

The Justice does not decide since the Senate which conducts the trial is also the Jury voting on a 2/3 basis. That doesn't exclude them from reviewing the evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. I and others have explained it to you several times. Why are you so averse to the truth?

All impeachment means is that a majority of the House doesn't want this person to be President any more.

Get it?

It is; in this case weight of evidence. Again as I said a 2/3 majority is required.

 

[Ford]

Wrong again - you're batting 1000.
Impeachment does not have the same standards as criminal conviction. If the House decided they simply didn't like what he was doing, they could decide the Cheato is failing to fulfill his duties as President - or any number of other non-criminal transgressions - and enter impeachment proceedings and if the Senate agreed they could impeach him. Nothing that you demand as "evidence" is necessary.
Of course that won't happen as long as we have this congress, but keep bleating, please - you make a great poster child for the delusions of conservatidiots.

This is not on the basis of a criminal conviction but a removal from office. Weight of evidence is required. The indictment procedure (lower house) and the trial (upper house) are parallel to a court though of course it is not an actual court since the trial is held in the Senate. I've already quoted this.

If what you are saying is correct, then there is no need for an investigation; just a vote, followed by a vote in the Lower House to proceed, then one in the Senate after some posturing.

What Elixir said is correct. Impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is the method of removing the President as well as other officials from office. Let's check in with the Constitution, shall we?

Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

There is nothing in the Constitution which outlines the requirements for an investigation leading up to impeachment, or a requirement that there be a preponderance of evidence, nor that the standards be the same as a criminal trial because - again - the Constitution explicitly states that impeachment is only for removal from office. If you can get the votes, you can impeach.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is not on the basis of a criminal conviction but a removal from office. Weight of evidence is required. The indictment procedure (lower house) and the trial (upper house) are parallel to a court though of course it is not an actual court since the trial is held in the Senate. I've already quoted this.

If what you are saying is correct, then there is no need for an investigation; just a vote, followed by a vote in the Lower House to proceed, then one in the Senate after some posturing.

What Elixir said is correct. Impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is the method of removing the President as well as other officials from office. Let's check in with the Constitution, shall we?

Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

There is nothing in the Constitution which outlines the requirements for an investigation leading up to impeachment, or a requirement that there be a preponderance of evidence, nor that the standards be the same as a criminal trial because - again - the Constitution explicitly states that impeachment is only for removal from office. If you can get the votes, you can impeach.

You are repeating what I have been saying. You said, If you can get the votes, you can impeach. There's only one Capt. Obvious here you know

I didn't say it's a criminal trial but a trial in the Senate to remove in this case the president if voted guilty after presentation of the evidence and deliberation. I also said numerous times it is for the removal from office and can extend to exclusion from further office.

The investigation precedes the vote in the Lower house will vote for an impeachment trial.
The Lower House members are not likely to vote on a whim. This is the 'indictment.'

The trial is in the Senate and a 2/3 vote which is what I have been saying and you are repeating.

How does one argue with someone who they are in agreement? Simple, post on this forum as an exercise in parrotry.

 

[Ford]

You are repeating what I have been saying.

So you concede that this:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage.

Was an incorrect assertion on your part?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So you concede that this:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage.

Was an incorrect assertion on your part?

We were talking about the procedure so at least we are sort of on the same page.

However more is needed to move to a vote in the Lower House which is the reason for the statement. Whether he should be impeached or not is not the issue; the house needs beef on the table.

 

[Ford]

So you concede that this:





Was an incorrect assertion on your part?

We were talking about the procedure so at least we are sort of on the same page.

Not really, no. Trump is absolutely impeachable. He is currently President, therefore he can be impeached. Period.

However more is needed to move to a vote in the Lower House which is the reason for the statement. Whether he should be impeached or not is not the issue; the house needs beef on the table.

I know that you're deliberately being obtuse, but I'm sure that (though you won't admit it) you know no amount of "beef on the table" will be enough for the GOP to impeach their own President.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If we look at the two earlier impeachments (Nixon's never went to court) the senators will just vote with their party. So if the Republicans control the senate Trump will be impeached. If they don't he won't.

The Republicans control the senate, so this is dead in the water. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we look at the two earlier impeachments (Nixon's never went to court) the senators will just vote with their party.

There's a few more than that. Judges are also impeached. There've been a few.

So if the Republicans control the senate Trump will be impeached. If they don't he won't.

House. Not Senate.

The Republicans control the senate, so this is dead in the water. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not.

Again, guilt isn't the issue. Votes are the issue. If he's 'guilty' of pissing off enough people in House and Senate, he will be.

 

[Opoponax]

There's a few more than that. Judges are also impeached. There've been a few.

A judge named "Nixon" as a matter fact.

Votes are the issue. If he's 'guilty' of pissing off enough people in House and Senate, he will be.

I don't think there's any level of Trump-fuckery that can piss them off enough because he's a rubber stamp for them. It's not like he's able to muster the mental faculties to contribute ideas beyond extra crispy or traditional recipe when ordering a bucket of KFC. He's certainly not capable of forming his own policies besides what the average Trump voter is capable of. What that means is that they can put anything in front of his face, use some multi-syllabic words, wait for his eyes to glaze over, and seconds later he's scratching his serial killer signature onto whatever it was they wanted him to sign.

To not tolerate his outrageous incompetence would demonstrate something beginning to approach a pale shade of integrity. Come on, this is the GOP we're talking about.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So you concede that this:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage.

Was an incorrect assertion on your part?

I've said this all along but also stated at this time no or insufficient evidence has been submitted to date to forward a vote in the lower house.