Late Stage Impeach Phase: Trump Doesn’t Have to Break a Law to Be Impeached

[Weatherman2020]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Trump can be fired from his job like everyone else.

Yep, 12 months you get your chance. Then you have to wait until 2025.

 

[IM2]

That's a fact. No crime required to impeach. BTW, "high" crimes refers to high office - not the severity of the crime.

Dream on.
Article 2, Section 4:
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.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...

From your own link;

". . . Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.. . . "

I think, at worst, the POTUS could only, at this point, be guilty of this. This is what you don't like, and refuse to admit, because these proceedings, are, in the end, just political in nature and a violation of the separation of powers.

No, it's far worse than that. And had it not been for Trump getting away with obstruction of justice relative to Mueller, you would understand just exactly how valid this potential impeachment is.

The definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Seek professional psychiatric healthcare.

Yep, supporting trickle down economics time and time again and expecting different results is insanity.

Therefore you are insane.

 

[IM2]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Trump can be fired from his job like everyone else.

Yep, 12 months you get your chance. Then you have to wait until 2025.

Trump has fired himself.

 

[Camp]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Trump can be fired from his job like everyone else.

Yep, 12 months you get your chance. Then you have to wait until 2025.

Trump has fired himself.

Seek professional psychiatric healthcare.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

 

[Faun]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

You poor, demented thing. Now you're lying as I myself showed you.

 

[The Original Tree]

That's actually true.

The House defines what offense is impeachable.

IOW, the Constitution gives them the rope to hang themselves.

Actually not true since The Constitution gives them a guideline, and reading any of the writings of the founding fathers, further tells you that impeachment is only meant for extreme cases of treason, and heinous crimes, essentially Gross Treason, and Bribery, selling The Office of The Presidency like Joe Biden, Clinton and Obama did.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

You poor, demented thing. Now you're lying as I myself showed you.

I asked for a crime. That’s not a crime.
Enjoy.

Pelosi: It’s Not An Impeachment Resolution We’ll Vote On

 

[The Original Tree]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

You poor, demented thing. Now you're lying as I myself showed you.

There is no evidence. Mueller spent 2.5 years looking for evidence he knew before the crooked bastard took the job with his buddy Strozk, Page, Bhara, and Weinstein that there was no evidence. He harassed The President with 2,500 Subpoenas, and the White House submitted and complied with 1 Million document requests and 250 interviews.

Mueller go nothing but Obama's Pubic hairs stuck in his teeth.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

It's happening, dope. Regardless of your weak spin attempts.

 

[jameny5]

Yes - the GOP knows this document by the book when it benefits themselves. Why are we "deciding" what the interpretation of the Constitution means? Oops - did I say decide? Sorry President Bush. Let the Congress decide.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's a fact. No crime required to impeach. BTW, "high" crimes refers to high office - not the severity of the crime.

Dream on.
Article 2, Section 4:
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.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...

From your own link;

". . . Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.. . . "

I think, at worst, the POTUS could only, at this point, be guilty of this. This is what you don't like, and refuse to admit, because these proceedings, are, in the end, just political in nature and a violation of the separation of powers.

Nope, at this point, he could be guilty of violating...

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals​

O.K.

Sure. . .

Prove it in such a way that the Clinton's or Al Gore or Obama weren't guilty of doing the same thing.

fer fucks sake. . . really?

No. You prove that the Clintons or Gore solicited a foreign govt for assistance in gaining personal political advantage over their opponents in a presidential election, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...

From your own link;

". . . Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.. . . "

I think, at worst, the POTUS could only, at this point, be guilty of this. This is what you don't like, and refuse to admit, because these proceedings, are, in the end, just political in nature and a violation of the separation of powers.

Nope, at this point, he could be guilty of violating...

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals​

O.K.

Sure. . .

Prove it in such a way that the Clinton's or Al Gore or Obama weren't guilty of doing the same thing.

fer fucks sake. . . really?

Clinton WAS impeached, idiot.
Not for taking money for favors, not for getting a blow job, but for lying under oath about getting a blow job.

Ken Starr turned over every fucking rock he could find about Clinton and finally ended up with Clinton getting a blow job.

Trump is holding out Congressionally approved funds to a country in a hot war in order to get info to benefit his fucking 2020 campaign.
Why don't you redneck idiots SEE THIS?
It's right in front of you.
Mick Mulvaney ADMITTED TO IT ON CAMERA.
Trump released the TRANSCRIPT with "I need a favor, though."
Why did he do that?
Because somebody inside that White House got it through his thick skull that if it can be proved, he wouldn't want to be impeached for lying under oath.

isn't that what biden did with urkraine? I mean really, are you going to out yourself that easily? I hope so, but still, we have it on video in here about fifty times now. need again? I'm happy to post that idiot bragging about his quid pro quo. here anyway, please show all your hypocrisy

isn't that what biden did with urkraine?

No, retard.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Here's my argument:

Of course, loser.

 

[Camp]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

Nonsense and untrue. The question has been continuously asked and answered here on these pages. Evidence for obstruction of justice is found in the Mueller Report. Testimony for campaign finance violations provides evidence. Evidence of Emolument Claus violations is contained in several pending lawsuits. Evidence of abuse of power is contained in various testimonies regarding Trump's phone call to Ukraine's leader.

 

[DOTR]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Another Trumper who has not read the constitution

Yes you can be important reached without breaking a law

Article 2, Section 4:
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.

These are people who see abortion and homosexual marriage in the constitution...but can’t see gun rights.
Why would you argue with such corrupt individuals?
These are people who hate the Founding Fathers then quote them in their organs of power.
They have to be defeated. Not convinced.

 

[IM2]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Trump can be fired from his job like everyone else.

Yep, 12 months you get your chance. Then you have to wait until 2025.

Trump has fired himself.

Seek professional psychiatric healthcare.

You do that. I'm just fine.

 

[IM2]

That's actually true.

The House defines what offense is impeachable.

IOW, the Constitution gives them the rope to hang themselves.

Actually not true since The Constitution gives them a guideline, and reading any of the writings of the founding fathers, further tells you that impeachment is only meant for extreme cases of treason, and heinous crimes, essentially Gross Treason, and Bribery, selling The Office of The Presidency like Joe Biden, Clinton and Obama did.

Lunacy. Just pure nutcase.

 

[IM2]

The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.

You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.

Another Trumper who has not read the constitution

Yes you can be important reached without breaking a law

Article 2, Section 4:
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.

These are people who see abortion and homosexual marriage in the constitution...but can’t see gun rights.
Why would you argue with such corrupt individuals?
These are people who hate the Founding Fathers then quote them in their organs of power.
They have to be defeated. Not convinced.

Dumb. Straight stump stupid.