Will Trump be impeached?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that Trump just raised the chances of impeachment this morning.

Did he? We knew this was exactly who was running for office. The trouble I have with this latest incident is that Trump isn't the acting President. He is spending more time seeing how people talk about him and how great he is than leading the nation. And then he publicly castigates the people who dare to tell him his Presidency isn't that good. He is a self-glorified PR man with nuclear weapons.

But I don't see this having any affect on him. It is once he interferes with the Republican agenda that he'll get into trouble.

 

[Opoponax]

The sloppy orange pig has managed to disgrace the office and the nation once more.

And this isn't some attempt at "distraction." He's not smart enough for that. Besides, it's not like the investigations stop when he does things like this. They'll go on, the report will get issued, and in the meantime he'll remain an impulsive baby-man wholly unfit for the job in every material way.

People better get out and vote next year. At this time, I hold Republicans and Trump fans responsible for this monstrosity first; third party voters and those who didn't show up run a close second. If the Republicans don't get ran the fuck out of office next year, then it's almost a sure indication that the Orange Menace will win re-election in 2020. We won't survive that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

The misunderstanding is you may feel that convicted applies to a court trial only which would be reinforced when looking it up in a normal dictionary (which I tend to do anyway) However in the case of an impeachment convict(ed) will still apply but only in the context of the allowed procedures.

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

 

[Artemus]

I think that Trump just raised the chances of impeachment this morning.

Did he? We knew this was exactly who was running for office. The trouble I have with this latest incident is that Trump isn't the acting President. He is spending more time seeing how people talk about him and how great he is than leading the nation. And then he publicly castigates the people who dare to tell him his Presidency isn't that good. He is a self-glorified PR man with nuclear weapons.

But I don't see this having any affect on him. It is once he interferes with the Republican agenda that he'll get into trouble.

We knew who he was as did most republican congress members, but a large percentage of people who voted for him thought that he was an incredibly astute business man who built a huge fortune through his exceptional leadership skills that he would apply to the presidency, and that his behavior during the campaign was just a show to get elected. With every tweet it's becoming apparent to more people that what they saw in the campaign is all they were getting. Every irrational outburst digs the hole deeper. And, IMO anyway, he is already interfering with the Republican agenda by doing things like sponsoring attack ads against Republican Senators who won't support a bad bill. His divisive incompetence and petty vindictiveness is preventing the party from accomplishing anything. And based on the more commonly public comments, the appears that the GOP leadership has noticed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I really really really really really want to agree with you. Polling disagrees to this point. The people that support Trump are bitterly partisan to the point of being anti-democratic governance. They thought Eric Cantor and Jim Boehner were RINOs.

 

[Artemus]

I really really really really really want to agree with you. Polling disagrees to this point. The people that support Trump are bitterly partisan to the point of being anti-democratic governance. They thought Eric Cantor and Jim Boehner were RINOs.

Yeah, I was badly wrong on my belief that there was no way Trump would get elected in the first place. But Republican members of Congress are starting to get vocal. It still may not happen, but I think that Mueller's report needs to have a little less today than it did yesterday to put it over the edge. Honestly, I still think that the current situation is about the best we could have hoped for...a stagnated GOP agenda while Trump flays around the room and everyone else tries not to get seriously injured.

 

[Malintent]

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.

I agree with this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I really really really really really want to agree with you. Polling disagrees to this point. The people that support Trump are bitterly partisan to the point of being anti-democratic governance. They thought Eric Cantor and Jim Boehner were RINOs.

Yeah, I was badly wrong on my belief that there was no way Trump would get elected in the first place. But Republican members of Congress are starting to get vocal. It still may not happen, but I think that Mueller's report needs to have a little less today than it did yesterday to put it over the edge. Honestly, I still think that the current situation is about the best we could have hoped for...a stagnated GOP agenda while Trump flays around the room and everyone else tries not to get seriously injured.

Seems odd, Trump's shit helps deflect attention from GOP and their crap agenda... and the GOP's inability to govern deflects from Trump's inability to govern.

 

[Opoponax]

... but a large percentage of people who voted for him thought that he was an incredibly astute business man who built a huge fortune through his exceptional leadership skills that he would apply to the presidency, and that his behavior during the campaign was just a show to get elected.

This is precisely what I heard from people I know that voted for him. It was the equation of wealth with leadership, intelligence, tenacity, and foresight. Of course, a brief look behind the curtain instantly belied that notion, but this American ideal that wealth = quality human being was, and largely still is, unshakeable. I suppose it's not a uniquely American phenomenon, but it's manifestation could not be more clear than with Trump.

With every tweet it's becoming apparent to more people that what they saw in the campaign is all they were getting. Every irrational outburst digs the hole deeper.

I sure fucking hope so, but on my brief tour of other boards, the Trump faithful haven't blinked. He's acting the way they want him to, as in, "If Trump gets hit, he hits back!"

As someone else said, these types disdain a democratic form of government. They think Democrats are obstructing Trump despite the fact that, for example, not a single Democrat action has impeded the GOP's healthcare bill. To them, what would be best was if either 1) The Democrats weren't allowed to exist, or 2) neither the GOP or another other party were permitted to exist, which in turn would allow Trump to truly lead the country. Does it matter that Trump seems to not be in possession of any notion of how to lead any government? Of course not: they just know he's great at it and no evidence to the contrary, no matter how damning, will dissuade them.

IMO anyway, he is already interfering with the Republican agenda by doing things like sponsoring attack ads against Republican Senators who won't support a bad bill. His divisive incompetence and petty vindictiveness is preventing the party from accomplishing anything. And based on the more commonly public comments, the appears that the GOP leadership has noticed.

Until Trump's approval numbers fall to somewhere in the low 20% range (or lower), they won't even think about it. He's their blank rubber stamp. Put it in front of his face, he'll sign it, ask few questions, and never wonder about the effects. It's going to take an election giving Dems a majority in the House, and a super majority in the Senate to get him removed. Frankly, I think there's a better chance he just resigns on his own before such proceedings could even be instituted.

 

[jab]

And the 2017 World Series Champions haven't really accomplished much so far this year!

This doesn't detract from the fact that the investigation has produced nothing of worth. Subjective opinion is also of no worth to man nor beast, fish nor fowl.

Which investigation are you talking about--and how do you come to have full access to the confidential, not-yet made-public aspects and information of whichever investigation you are referring to, to know that it has produced nothing of worth?

 

[jab]

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.

This is simply as laid down in the English language and in Law texts.

As shown below an impeachment is an accusation against a public official before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal.

http://thelawdictionary.org/impeachment/
A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasipolitical court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment;" forbexample, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer



http://thelawdictionary.org/article/impeaching-a-president/
Law Dictionary: What is IMPEACHMENT? definition of IMPEACHMENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

The impeachment process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives on the formal accusation or charge giving rise to the call for impeachment. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the members of the House, but this is just the first step of a two-step process.
A successful impeachment vote by the House is a formal accusation or charge against the president or other official. It does not, however, result in the removal of the person from public office. The second step in the process is a trial in the Senate presided over by the vice president in cases involving any public official other than the president. Presidential impeachment trials are presided over by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A CHARGE IS REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT

no--the exact wording is "accusation or charge"--accusation is lighter than a "charge"

 

[Elixir]

This is simply as laid down in the English language and in Law texts.

As shown below an impeachment is an accusation against a public official before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal.

http://thelawdictionary.org/impeachment/
A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasipolitical court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment;" forbexample, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer



http://thelawdictionary.org/article/impeaching-a-president/
Law Dictionary: What is IMPEACHMENT? definition of IMPEACHMENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

The impeachment process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives on the formal accusation or charge giving rise to the call for impeachment. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the members of the House, but this is just the first step of a two-step process.
A successful impeachment vote by the House is a formal accusation or charge against the president or other official. It does not, however, result in the removal of the person from public office. The second step in the process is a trial in the Senate presided over by the vice president in cases involving any public official other than the president. Presidential impeachment trials are presided over by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A CHARGE IS REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT

no--the exact wording is "accusation or charge"--accusation is lighter than a "charge"

...like exact wording matters to him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A CHARGE IS REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT

no--the exact wording is "accusation or charge"--accusation is lighter than a "charge"

The way he was using charge in the previous post was to indicate a brief list of the acceptable charges upon which to base an article of impeachment.
It's the only way his statement of 'there is no charge of pissing off congress' would work.
But that ignores the fact that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is a blank check, made purposefully vague because they knew they couldn't imagine all the ways a Pres might work to demand that he be removed from the office.

 

[Elixir]

no--the exact wording is "accusation or charge"--accusation is lighter than a "charge"

The way he was using charge in the previous post was to indicate a brief list of the acceptable charges upon which to base an article of impeachment.

Sheee-hitt. And I though he meant you had to have a bunch of Kazakhs running up a hill on horseback.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is simply as laid down in the English language and in Law texts.

As shown below an impeachment is an accusation against a public official before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal.

http://thelawdictionary.org/impeachment/
A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasipolitical court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment;" forbexample, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer



http://thelawdictionary.org/article/impeaching-a-president/
Law Dictionary: What is IMPEACHMENT? definition of IMPEACHMENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

The impeachment process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives on the formal accusation or charge giving rise to the call for impeachment. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the members of the House, but this is just the first step of a two-step process.
A successful impeachment vote by the House is a formal accusation or charge against the president or other official. It does not, however, result in the removal of the person from public office. The second step in the process is a trial in the Senate presided over by the vice president in cases involving any public official other than the president. Presidential impeachment trials are presided over by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A CHARGE IS REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT

no--the exact wording is "accusation or charge"--accusation is lighter than a "charge"

A charge is a formal accusation. In the context I meant there are a few processes required before the charges are made.

In the Cambridge dictionary a charge is a statement that someone is accused of something. You will hear the word accused in courts instead of defendant. If someone is in a court accused of wrong doing or charged with wrongdoing the meaning will be the same.

If someone stands in a court accused of murder or charged with murder it would be the same thing.

An accusation is a close simile so as you say there is a difference. That is to say the media may accuse someone in various articles but a court would charge the person who would be than standing there accused of.....

See also earlier where I made 2 Law Dictionary references which is in the post you replied to.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The way he was using charge in the previous post was to indicate a brief list of the acceptable charges upon which to base an article of impeachment.

Sheee-hitt. And I though he meant you had to have a bunch of Kazakhs running up a hill on horseback.

If you look at the 2005 CRS Report for Congress it may help

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

Horses, Donkeys, Monika and Orangutans are not specifically mentioned

 

[whichphilosophy]

no--the exact wording is "accusation or charge"--accusation is lighter than a "charge"

The way he was using charge in the previous post was to indicate a brief list of the acceptable charges upon which to base an article of impeachment.
It's the only way his statement of 'there is no charge of pissing off congress' would work.
But that ignores the fact that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is a blank check, made purposefully vague because they knew they couldn't imagine all the ways a Pres might work to demand that he be removed from the office.

Bribery, Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanours cover a wide sphere of activities rather than vague. The charges would have to fall within these parameters.

 

[horhangi]

The way he was using charge in the previous post was to indicate a brief list of the acceptable charges upon which to base an article of impeachment.
It's the only way his statement of 'there is no charge of pissing off congress' would work.
But that ignores the fact that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is a blank check, made purposefully vague because they knew they couldn't imagine all the ways a Pres might work to demand that he be removed from the office.

Bribery, Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanours cover a wide sphere of activities rather than vague. The charges would have to fall within these parameters.

I am going to say this one last time:"High crimes and misdemeanors" means WHATEVER THE HOUSE SAYS IT MEANS. They can impeach him for tweeting that they are stupid, and that would be a "high crime and misdemeanor." There is no one to protest to; there is no judicial review of the charges in articles of impeachment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Bribery, Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanours cover a wide sphere of activities rather than vague. The charges would have to fall within these parameters.

Except that nothing actually denotes the parameters of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Thus, there's no way to tell if something is within the sphere of those imaginary parameters.
Therefore, the term is vague.

A number of legal scholars have listed the parameters they think are supportable, but those opinions have not been legislated. At no point has an amendment been made to the Constitution to specify the parameters of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

Congress was even unable (or at least unwilling) to set down rules of evidence for impeachment hearings, exactly because they couldn't figure out all the possible forms the impeachment articles might come in, and decided to leave it up to Congress each and every time the subject comes up.

 

[Elixir]

I am going to say this one last time:"High crimes and misdemeanors" means WHATEVER THE HOUSE SAYS IT MEANS.

But until you can put up three utterly inane posts in a row like the moron you're addressing, you can't win an argument - let alone teach him anything.