Offical Impeachment Thread

[AzogtheDefiler]

I'm reopening at Faun's request, but keep it to impeachment, please, as opposed to trolling back and forth about term limits

I need listen to your advice more often...especially the advice on engaging crazy people.

 

[Faun]

Slobbers the USMB lying fucking moron. You're not capable of keeping up, lying fucking moron. Remember? You keep asking me to post the same law over and over. My advice to you is to buzz the attending nurse to come change your drool cup and go back to staring at the wall.

None of the criteria advocated by the experts appear in the text of the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

^^^ too stupid.

It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.

LOLOL

If you think calling you out for saying something completely stupid is a victory for you, then more power to ya.

Something stupid is subjective. I am only stating facts here. The FACT that this is 100% partisan should worry us all.

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

None of the criteria advocated by the experts appear in the text of the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

^^^ too stupid.

It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.

LOLOL

If you think calling you out for saying something completely stupid is a victory for you, then more power to ya.

Something stupid is subjective. I am only stating facts here. The FACT that this is 100% partisan should worry us all.

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach a foregone conclusion before the trial.

You didn't think it was pathetic in 1998, when the house charged the President with actual federal felonies, the veracity of which was questioned by no one -- how is it pathetic now?

Clinton to not compromise national security and sell out the country for personal political gain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach a foregone conclusion before the trial.

You didn't think it was pathetic in 1998, when the house charged the President with actual federal felonies, the veracity of which was questioned by no one -- how is it pathetic now?

Clinton to not compromise national security and sell out the country for personal political gain.

Correct - Clinton, without question from or by anyone, committed two federal felonies while in office, both for personal and political gain.
Why don't you see this as worse?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

 

[Faun]

^^^ too stupid.

It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.

LOLOL

If you think calling you out for saying something completely stupid is a victory for you, then more power to ya.

Something stupid is subjective. I am only stating facts here. The FACT that this is 100% partisan should worry us all.

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

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...​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

Because you say so? I'm calling an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy on that one

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

In todays news:

House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

POLITICS
12/16/2019 08:50 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges
The report said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

Lisa Mascaro and Jonathan Lemire

• 
  

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bolstering its case for impeaching President Donald Trump, a House panel released a lengthy report Monday detailing its rationale for the charges and accusing Trump of betraying the nation for his own political gain.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment by House Democrats: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They point to Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden while withholding as leverage military aid the country relies to counter Russia as well as his efforts to block the House investigation.

Last chance to become a HuffPost founding member!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
Yes, I want to support HuffPost
The House will vote Wednesday on the impeachment articles approved last week by the House Judiciary panel. The vote is all but certain to result in Trump’s impeachment, though he’s expected to be acquitted in a Senate trial.

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
They are coming for him!!

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. leaves a House Judiciary Committee markup after passing both articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstruction of Congress, Friday, Dec. 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The panel summarized the evidence for impeachment compiled by the House intelligence committee, and said Trump “has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, violated the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the report said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In todays news:
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Yeah? So?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.

LOLOL

If you think calling you out for saying something completely stupid is a victory for you, then more power to ya.

Something stupid is subjective. I am only stating facts here. The FACT that this is 100% partisan should worry us all.

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

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...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

Because you say so? I'm calling an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy on that one

I am not a lawyer. I believe Alan Dershowitz, who is and probably one of the best of our generation. Well yours. He is old like you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

In todays news:

House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

POLITICS
12/16/2019 08:50 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges
The report said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

Lisa Mascaro and Jonathan Lemire

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bolstering its case for impeaching President Donald Trump, a House panel released a lengthy report Monday detailing its rationale for the charges and accusing Trump of betraying the nation for his own political gain.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment by House Democrats: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They point to Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden while withholding as leverage military aid the country relies to counter Russia as well as his efforts to block the House investigation.

Last chance to become a HuffPost founding member!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
Yes, I want to support HuffPost
The House will vote Wednesday on the impeachment articles approved last week by the House Judiciary panel. The vote is all but certain to result in Trump’s impeachment, though he’s expected to be acquitted in a Senate trial.

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
They are coming for him!!

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. leaves a House Judiciary Committee markup after passing both articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstruction of Congress, Friday, Dec. 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The panel summarized the evidence for impeachment compiled by the House intelligence committee, and said Trump “has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, violated the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the report said.

You are no patriot.


DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.

 

[bripat9643]

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

Because you say so? I'm calling an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy on that one

That isn't what an appeal to ignorance is.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

If you think calling you out for saying something completely stupid is a victory for you, then more power to ya.

Something stupid is subjective. I am only stating facts here. The FACT that this is 100% partisan should worry us all.

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

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...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Something stupid is subjective. I am only stating facts here. The FACT that this is 100% partisan should worry us all.

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

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...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

 

[Faun]

You actually claimed impeachment is limited to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's retarded. It's not limited to statutes. "High crimes and misdemeanors" applies to a violation of public trust, such as abuse of power.

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

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...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No. Not "I".

That was a quote from Alan Dershowitz. I am not an attorney. My bad if I did not state it was a quote.

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

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...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

 

[Billiejeens]

Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

In todays news:

House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

POLITICS
12/16/2019 08:50 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges
The report said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

Lisa Mascaro and Jonathan Lemire

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bolstering its case for impeaching President Donald Trump, a House panel released a lengthy report Monday detailing its rationale for the charges and accusing Trump of betraying the nation for his own political gain.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment by House Democrats: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They point to Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden while withholding as leverage military aid the country relies to counter Russia as well as his efforts to block the House investigation.

Last chance to become a HuffPost founding member!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
Yes, I want to support HuffPost
The House will vote Wednesday on the impeachment articles approved last week by the House Judiciary panel. The vote is all but certain to result in Trump’s impeachment, though he’s expected to be acquitted in a Senate trial.

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
They are coming for him!!

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. leaves a House Judiciary Committee markup after passing both articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstruction of Congress, Friday, Dec. 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The panel summarized the evidence for impeachment compiled by the House intelligence committee, and said Trump “has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, violated the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the report said.

They are coming for him - I laugh.

I laugh hardest at the Obstruction of Congress

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One has to be a total moron to believe that one.
I know that the Maddow guy didn't tell you that the President can do that- so you don't believe it.
Tis true.

The other charge is simply crazy talk.