Will Trump be impeached?

[Elixir]

Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.

...yet, you are already convinced that "there is no evidence".
Can't have it both ways, 'bot-boy.

 

[horhangi]

This Congress... go with the rules and tradition?!

The procedure is clear. In fact the Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.
Are you suggesting the Senate Link is wrong?

The Writer is a credible Attorney and he begins by saying

The Constitution sets forth the general principles which control the procedural aspects of impeachment, vesting the power to impeach in the House of Representatives, while imbuing the Senate with the power to try impeachments. Both the Senate and the House have designed procedures to implement these general principles in dealing with a wide range of impeachment issues. This short report provides a brief overview of the impeachment process, reflecting the roles of both the House and the Senate during thecourse of an impeachment inquiry and trial.

Do you read what you post? "The Senate and the House have designed procedures to implement these general principles." They make the rules, they can change the rules. See please Nixon v United States, where the USSC refused to rule on n the procedures the senate used to dispose of impeachments of judges because the impeachment process is a political one and the court does not have the authority to intervene. The House decides what constitutes grounds for impeachment, the Sene votes on wether or not to boot the impeached based on rules they themselves enact.
If you still do not get this, I give up because apparantly you either can not understand, or refuse to, either way, not worth my time to beat my head against the wall.

 

[blastula]

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.

No you haven't. But you have had it repeatedly explained to you, and you have repeatedly ignored that information.

 

[blastula]

This Congress... go with the rules and tradition?!

The procedure is clear. In fact the Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.

What investigation?

 

[Treedbear]

According to The Constitutional Rights Foundation: High Crimes and Misdemeanors

The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

1. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
2. If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
3. If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
4. For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “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 convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

 

[Elixir]

The procedure is clear. In fact the Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.

What investigation?

Why, the one with no evidence behind it of course.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.

...yet, you are already convinced that "there is no evidence".
Can't have it both ways, 'bot-boy.

That's not what I said. I said it hasn't gotten to the Judicial Committee yet.
Captain Obvious

 

[Keith&Co.]

The procedure is clear. In fact the Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.

What investigation?

There is no investigation. But this is WP's style.
He has been very wrong on what could be used as the basis for impeachment and tries to distract with the plausibility and likelihood of the current Congress actually using such things.
Now he's moving the goalpost a little more to one side, and talking about where we currently are in the mandatory dance steps to achieve an impeachment.

 

[blastula]

Yes, WP seems to think the point of the FBI investigation has been to find charges for impeachment. It could be used for that, but that's not the purpose of the investigation.

The House could have voted for impeachment already by now if they wanted to.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The procedure is clear. In fact the Investigation hasn't passed the first step yet.
Are you suggesting the Senate Link is wrong?

The Writer is a credible Attorney and he begins by saying

The Constitution sets forth the general principles which control the procedural aspects of impeachment, vesting the power to impeach in the House of Representatives, while imbuing the Senate with the power to try impeachments. Both the Senate and the House have designed procedures to implement these general principles in dealing with a wide range of impeachment issues. This short report provides a brief overview of the impeachment process, reflecting the roles of both the House and the Senate during the course of an impeachment inquiry and trial.

Do you read what you post? "The Senate and the House have designed procedures to implement these general principles." They make the rules, they can change the rules. See please Nixon v United States, where the USSC refused to rule on n the procedures the senate used to dispose of impeachments of judges because the impeachment process is a political one and the court does not have the authority to intervene. The House decides what constitutes grounds for impeachment, the Sene votes on wether or not to boot the impeached based on rules they themselves enact.
If you still do not get this, I give up because apparantly you either can not understand, or refuse to, either way, not worth my time to beat my head against the wall.

You are not actually responding to what I wrote which is about impeachment procedure and not about court procedure

You referred to Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

The Court's unanimous decision was that the Senate had the sole power to try all impeachments which is stated in the US constitution Article 1 Section 3 namely that it held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer.

It's not clear why you brought this up because there is no suggestion of any court intervening.


I quoted the steps required here which were written by TJ Halstead, when serving as assistant deputy director of the American Law Division

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

There is another post which shows a simplified form of this. See Post 165. It is in less detail but still important.

This makes if very clear what the procedure is and at what point the Impeachment would take place.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes, WP seems to think the point of the FBI investigation has been to find charges for impeachment. It could be used for that, but that's not the purpose of the investigation.

The House could have voted for impeachment already by now if they wanted to.

No. It and other bodies will provide the investigation reports. The House could not have voted for an impeachment by now just by wanting to. See the procedure I quoted in the post before this.
Added: See the post below this one:

 

[whichphilosophy]

What investigation?

There is no investigation. But this is WP's style.
He has been very wrong on what could be used as the basis for impeachment and tries to distract with the plausibility and likelihood of the current Congress actually using such things.
Now he's moving the goalpost a little more to one side, and talking about where we currently are in the mandatory dance steps to achieve an impeachment.

Congress will have certain information but first


See
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf
Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment
exist, a resolution impeaching the individual in question and setting forth specific
allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, will be reported to the
full House

There's more

 

[horhangi]

I officially give up. Nothing seems to penetrate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What investigation?

There is no investigation. But this is WP's style.
He has been very wrong on what could be used as the basis for impeachment and tries to distract with the plausibility and likelihood of the current Congress actually using such things.
Now he's moving the goalpost a little more to one side, and talking about where we currently are in the mandatory dance steps to achieve an impeachment.

The goalposts/parameters are unchanged.
Do you have a status of the investigation? Is it with the Judiciary Committee as reported towards the end of May 2017?

 

[blastula]

Do you read what you post? "The Senate and the House have designed procedures to implement these general principles." They make the rules, they can change the rules. See please Nixon v United States, where the USSC refused to rule on n the procedures the senate used to dispose of impeachments of judges because the impeachment process is a political one and the court does not have the authority to intervene. The House decides what constitutes grounds for impeachment, the Sene votes on wether or not to boot the impeached based on rules they themselves enact.
If you still do not get this, I give up because apparantly you either can not understand, or refuse to, either way, not worth my time to beat my head against the wall.

You are not actually responding to what I wrote which is about impeachment procedure and not about court procedure

You referred to Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

The Court's unanimous decision was that the Senate had the sole power to try all impeachments which is stated in the US constitution Article 1 Section 3 namely that it held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer.

It's not clear why you brought this up because there is no suggestion of any court intervening.


I quoted the steps required here which were written by TJ Halstead, when serving as assistant deputy director of the American Law Division

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

There is another post which shows a simplified form of this. See Post 165. It is in less detail but still important.

This makes if very clear what the procedure is and at what point the Impeachment would take place.

He brought up the court case to explain the process, he didn't say impeachment was a court procedure. Your confusion is very confusing. It's all pretty basic and has been explained over and over and over. You still don't get that there is no required set of procedures in the Senate (or House), other than holding some kind of trial and voting on it. There are ways that things have been done in past impeachments, and may well be copied in future impeachments, but any Senate can make up any process they want for a new impeachment trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, WP seems to think the point of the FBI investigation has been to find charges for impeachment. It could be used for that, but that's not the purpose of the investigation.

The House could have voted for impeachment already by now if they wanted to.

No. It and other bodies will provide the investigation reports. The House could not have voted for an impeachment by now just by wanting to. See the procedure I quoted in the post before this.
Added: See the post below this one:

Just stop. An outside investigation is not required. Even your own link says so. Show what would have stopped a vote in the House if they wanted to do so. Be specific.

Admit for once you are wrong. You never knew much about impeachment proceedings until this year, and you are not a quick learner.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no investigation. But this is WP's style.
He has been very wrong on what could be used as the basis for impeachment and tries to distract with the plausibility and likelihood of the current Congress actually using such things.
Now he's moving the goalpost a little more to one side, and talking about where we currently are in the mandatory dance steps to achieve an impeachment.

The goalposts/parameters are unchanged.
Do you have a status of the investigation? Is it with the Judiciary Committee as reported towards the end of May 2017?

More confusing confusion. The DOJ investigation is separate from the House or Senate investigations, and NONE of them are expressly impeachment investigations. There is no reason to be so confused. Just stop.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The House could have voted for impeachment already by now if they wanted to.

No. It and other bodies will provide the investigation reports. The House could not have voted for an impeachment by now just by wanting to. See the procedure I quoted in the post before this.
Added: See the post below this one:

Just stop.... Just stop.

Probably the best response.

 

[Elixir]

The House could have voted for impeachment already by now if they wanted to.

No. It and other bodies will provide the investigation reports. The House could not have voted for an impeachment by now just by wanting to. See the procedure I quoted in the post before this.
Added: See the post below this one:

Just stop.... Just stop.

Probably the best response.

Some people like to try to kill our hopes and dreams. It's really discouraging.
Especially since I was right on the verge of discovering a cure for Teh Stoopid.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some people like to try to kill our hopes and dreams. It's really discouraging.

No damage to my hopes and dreams. His objections are about as effective as an airport made of honey.

A crocheted fire extinguisher...

Invisible binoculars...

 

[Keith&Co.]

A voice-activated gag remover.

Hypno-coins For The Blind.

A horse-drawn submarine.

 

[SLD]

6 pages of talk but only 24 votes.