Will Trump be impeached?

[horhangi]

This is the part you are missing: "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean whatever the House wants them to mean.

High Crimes and Misdemeanours are defined in US statutes and precedent where a 2/3 vote after the proceedings are completed will determine guilt or not. In full the vote will be whether or not treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours were committed.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

- - - Updated - - -

This is the part you are missing:

And more to the point, JOHNSON WAS IMPEACHED on that article. Conviction was a separate issue from "CAN THEY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR PISSING OFF CONGRESS?"

Only if this fell within treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours.

High crimes and misdemeanors are no where defined. They are whatever the House says they are when they vote on articles of impeachment.
Johnson giving speeches which tend to cause disrespect of congress was declared a high crime and misdemeanor because the house voted to impeach him for it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If Pissing Off congress was a crime, then perhaps Trump may have been impeached before even swearing office.

wow, that's a lot of stupid.

First off, you can't impeach someone who isn't President, vice president or a civil officer of the US government. Trump had no position in the government before being sworn in, so, no, he could not have been preemptively impeached.
Second, and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, impeachment need NOT be for a crime. At this point, it simply must be willful stupidity, not a difficulty learning.

Impeachment is political, not the prosecution of a violation of law.

Congress decides what 'high crimes' are when they draft the articles of impeachment.

 

[horhangi]

Keith my applause for either the patience to type, "and again" over and over, or equally for having the discipline to stop hitting paste.

 

[ZiprHead]

Keith my applause for either the patience to type, "and again" over and over, or equally for having the discipline to stop hitting paste.

Welcome to the forum, horhangi. Why don't you stop in the Lounge and tell us a little about yourself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith my applause for either the patience to type, "and again" over and over, or equally for having the discipline to stop hitting paste.

I cheated, stole the whole thing from the transcript of a Trump speech...

 

[horhangi]

Keith my applause for either the patience to type, "and again" over and over, or equally for having the discipline to stop hitting paste.

Welcome to the forum, horhangi. Why don't you stop in the Lounge and tell us a little about yourself.

Done.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Pissing Off congress was a crime, then perhaps Trump may have been impeached before even swearing office.

wow, that's a lot of stupid.

First off, you can't impeach someone who isn't President, vice president or a civil officer of the US government. Trump had no position in the government before being sworn in, so, no, he could not have been preemptively impeached.
Second, and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, impeachment need NOT be for a crime. At this point, it simply must be willful stupidity, not a difficulty learning.

Impeachment is political, not the prosecution of a violation of law.

Congress decides what 'high crimes' are when they draft the articles of impeachment.

Did you take me literally???

Like Elixir and Ford you are repeating what I have said earlier.

I've said repeatedly that an impeachment is not a criminal case but a political case.
They do define what the parameters are namely bribery, treason, high crimes and demeanors and then vote on it after the proceedings. That is to say by a majority they will vote whether the accused (President) is guilty of the charges.

As an analogy during a court session by jury, that jury will decide once the proceedings are closed.

Is this in agreement as I was commenting on the term pissing off congress for which there is no definition in legal proceedings? However the act of the said infractions could piss off congress.

 

[whichphilosophy]

High Crimes and Misdemeanours are defined in US statutes and precedent where a 2/3 vote after the proceedings are completed will determine guilt or not. In full the vote will be whether or not treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours were committed.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

- - - Updated - - -

This is the part you are missing:

And more to the point, JOHNSON WAS IMPEACHED on that article. Conviction was a separate issue from "CAN THEY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR PISSING OFF CONGRESS?"

Only if this fell within treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours.

High crimes and misdemeanors are no where defined. They are whatever the House says they are when they vote on articles of impeachment.
Johnson giving speeches which tend to cause disrespect of congress was declared a high crime and misdemeanor because the house voted to impeach him for it.

If you look in legal dictionaries and law articles will find definitions of high crimes, or misdemeanours and the phrase high crimes and misdemeanours. There is also a lot of room for disparity when it comes to interpretation as to whether certain acts fit the charges or do not.

To put it more appropriately the Senate will vote (needing 2/3 majority) after the trial is concluded. That is to say in the light of evidence it is up to the Senate to vote depending on how they see interpret and analyse the evidence before them. Bear in mind many Senators are lawyers but often have different views.

Do you want me to post references to High Crimes and Misdemeanours.

There is an excellent lesson on the Johnson Impeachment giving the pro's and cons as whether he was guilty or not. Shall I provide a link or not.

Do you understand why an impeachment is described as an analogy to a court case?

I will also repeat again that an impeachment is a political trial held in the senate.

 

[LordKiran]

So you concede that this:





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.

Is it really so hard for you to say "I was wrong, let's move on."? Why all these word games and mental gymnastics just to avoid copping to your fallible human nature?

 

[LordKiran]

You are not listening, or simply want to deny the truth of what you have been told.
Read for comprehension:

No
"charge"
is
required
for
impeachment.

Actually a charge is required for impeachment, though the House can make the charge anything they want it to be.

Practically then the charges might as well not be there, the house could just have a vote of no confidence and leave it at that.

 

[Elixir]

You are not listening, or simply want to deny the truth of what you have been told.
Read for comprehension:

No
"charge"
is
required
for
impeachment.

Actually a charge is required for impeachment, though the House can make the charge anything they want it to be.

Right. But WP insists that it must be a criminal charge, which is not true, has never been true and continues to be his personal idiosyncratic spin on the requirement for impeachment..

 

[horhangi]

And WP can choose to be wrong, both in insisting it be a criminal charge, and in insisting that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is defined in US law. Some people just choose to be wrong for some reason.....

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Is it really so hard for you to say "I was wrong, let's move on."? Why all these word games and mental gymnastics just to avoid copping to your fallible human nature?

I stated the obvious no obvious.

no or insufficient evidence has been submitted to date to forward a vote in the lower house.

Until such time as this is put to the vote this above indefeasible statement remains.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actually a charge is required for impeachment, though the House can make the charge anything they want it to be.

Right. But WP insists that it must be a criminal charge, which is not true, has never been true and continues to be his personal idiosyncratic spin on the requirement for impeachment..

Here is my post No 107

I've said repeatedly that an impeachment is not a criminal case but a political case.
They do define what the parameters are namely bribery, treason, high crimes and demeanours and then vote on it after the proceedings. That is to say by a majority they will vote whether the accused (President) is guilty of the charges.

For avoidance of doubt, under impeachment procedures, the president cannot be convicted of these as a crime.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And WP can choose to be wrong, both in insisting it be a criminal charge, and in insisting that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is defined in US law. Some people just choose to be wrong for some reason.....

A high crime and misdemeanour charge is what it is and the rules of impeachment. A president could be convicted of such in a Senate vote but removed from office. He will not be sentenced to jail. Do you understand this to be the meaning?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actually a charge is required for impeachment, though the House can make the charge anything they want it to be.

Practically then the charges might as well not be there, the house could just have a vote of no confidence and leave it at that.

A no confidence vote is of symbolic value.

For impeachment there is sequence of investigative and subsequent actions that will lead up to a vote on whether there are grounds for impeachment.

 

[Malintent]

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.

yes. and for clarity, "high crimes" refers to the "height" of the perpetrator, not the 'severity' of the crime. If the president spits on the sidewalk, while a misdemeanor offense, it would still be a "high crime" if the president did it. Silly example, I know, but the point is that the president is (rightfully) held to the highest standard... in theory.

 

[Malintent]

And WP can choose to be wrong, both in insisting it be a criminal charge, and in insisting that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is defined in US law. Some people just choose to be wrong for some reason.....

A high crime and misdemeanour charge is what it is and the rules of impeachment. A president could be convicted of such in a Senate vote but removed from office. He will not be sentenced to jail. Do you understand this to be the meaning?

close.... "convicted" is not the correct term. Unless you meant to say, "could not be convicted". Correct that a sitting (not yet impeached) president can simply pardon themselves of any crime. If impeached, then indictment can proceed (and the next president - Pence - would pardon him anyway). It is hard to imagine a situation where Trump sees any jail time for money laundering or the like. Treason, on the other hand, would be hard for a new president to pardon, I think.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Treason, on the other hand, would be hard for a new president to pardon, I think.

Just blame the media for creating a fake-treason story, and the Democrats for hounding him unfairly out of office.
And now we try to be a joiner, a uniter. Let's get past this dark stain on the US and move forward into a bright and new future, without looking back at Trump and his legacy of lies and accusations and finger pointing...

 

[Artemus]

I think that Trump just raised the chances of impeachment this morning. WP's protestations not withstanding, there is already sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice for the House to justify their actions. More and more Republicans are recognizing that Trump's horribly inappropriate behavior and attacks on their own party is going to bring the party (not to mention the country, but they don't seem to care) down with him and are speaking out publicly. I don't expect anything to happen before Mueller's final report, but I'd be willing to guess that a number of Republicans in Congress are hoping that an even a stronger case against Trump than what we already know about is found so they can move without being questioned.