Poll: To Impeach Or Not To Impeach? (Liberals and Conservatives)

[Third Party]

And I wasn't even talking to you, so why are you taking personal offense? You must see yourself in that other dude. My remarks were reserved for him.

Its the big brother syndrome. Guys will jump in to save someone who is being picked on (or losing an argument).

 

[Deno]

I want him impeached ASAP.

First, because he deserves to be impeached and it's Congresses responsibility to impeach him and remove him from office.

Second, because the sooner he's removed from office, the sooner Pence can become President and the American public can forget all about Trump.

Third, so American politics can return to 'normal':

If Trump runs in 2020, I'd have to support Biden - the most likely to win against Trump. I'd prefer to support Warren - she's the best leader among the Dems, but she has much less of a chance of beating Trump.

I'd like to see Pence vs. Warren in the next election. I'd like to think that it's somewhat less critical for the Dems to win.

Trump is an asshole and a mobster who should NEVER have become President. Those who support him are absolute assholes who don't have a clue what the Office of the Presidency is.

You spout all this Holier than thou bull shit then

you voice your support for a woman who lied about

her race for the benefits of affirmative action...

You say you want American politics to return to normal.......

TRANSLATION- You want republicans that just bend over,

Pull down their pants and take it.....

Those days are gone forever..

You call Trump a mobster with no thought of the danger posed

by obozo and his deep state banana republic....

obozo and the left weaponized every agency of the federal government

to defeat their political rivals......

You TARDS are no doubt the biggest threat to America and our Freedom...

You Commie Nazi Bastards must be defeated by whatever means necessary

 

[Harpy Eagle]

After suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...

I twill be interesting to find who is more in favor of impeachment

I am ...

you know...there is more in the world than just Liberals and Conservatives.

I am neither and I am against impeachment.

Many view it as, there is the Swamp and then there is Trump.

Yes, there is Trump who has dug the swamp deeper and surrounded himself with swamp critters.

 

[BluesLegend]

What the HELL did Trump do to warrant being impeached??? That he whooped the Dem's ass and won? Americans in 30 states elected Trump president you can't undo that just because you people are butthurt over losing.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What the HELL did Trump do to warrant being impeached??? That he whooped the Dem's ass and won? Americans in 30 states elected Trump president you can't undo that just because you people are butthurt over losing.

Very true. There was no underlying crime of collusion. Impeachment for what? For winning the election, I guess.

 

[BluesLegend]

What the HELL did Trump do to warrant being impeached??? That he whooped the Dem's ass and won? Americans in 30 states elected Trump president you can't undo that just because you people are butthurt over losing.

Very true. There was no underlying crime of collusion. Impeachment for what? For winning the election, I guess.

These hack politicians and government employees in Washington need to be reminded that WE THE PEOPLE are their boss. We are in charge. We elected Trump president and if they don't like it tough shit.

 

[JWBooth]

#6 I am a Libertarian and I double dog dare you to go for it.

 

[Richard-H]

As usual you're wrong. In 1797 the House impeached a Senator. It is only the Senate that has determined that the House can not impeach a Senator. It is not a rule of the House, nor is it forbidden in the Constitution.

Uh, yes it is. The entire House of Representatives fucked up and didn't read the Constitution, just like you obviously have not.

"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."

Member of the House and Senate are elected by voters, are members of the Legislative branch, and thus are NOT civil Officers of the United States.

Have a nice fucking day, dumbass!

As usual your argument is too stupid for words!

Senators are very much 'Civil Officers of the United States' as much as the President and Vice-President are.

If your idiotic enough to believe that you understand the Constitution better than the Congress of 1797, keep deluding yourself.

You've already proven, over and over again, that you are a person with no integrity whatsoever, so I'm not going to continue this conversation.

You are a sleaze bag and not worth my time.

In other words: I'm triggered, lost my argument, and will be ungracefully bowing out by insulting you.

civil officer

CIVIL OFFICER

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and 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. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.

Enjoy your walk of shame out of the thread!

How about reading the Constitution before posting your BULLSHIT!

Article 2 Sec. 4 of the Constitution DOES NOT make any exception for Senators.

I don't know where you got the above OPINION, but it has NEVER been decided by the courts. Only the Senate has stated that members of congress can not be impeached, however since the Senate's opinion on the matter is obviously biased, it doesn't count for much.

The House of Representatives DID impeach a Senator in 1797, so there has been a precedent set. The only reason why the Senate's decision NOT to hold an impeachment trial for the impeached Senator in 1797 is that the Senate REMOVED the Senator using other Senate rules so that an impeachment trial became mute.

If the House impeached a Senator again and the Senate refused to honor that impeachment, the courts would have to decide. It seems unlikely that they would agree that Senators are exempt since the Constitution does not explicitly exempt them.

If the authors of the Constitution wanted Senators to be exempt, they would have stated it in the Constitution.

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that the House was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Uh, yes it is. The entire House of Representatives fucked up and didn't read the Constitution, just like you obviously have not.

"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."

Member of the House and Senate are elected by voters, are members of the Legislative branch, and thus are NOT civil Officers of the United States.

Have a nice fucking day, dumbass!

As usual your argument is too stupid for words!

Senators are very much 'Civil Officers of the United States' as much as the President and Vice-President are.

If your idiotic enough to believe that you understand the Constitution better than the Congress of 1797, keep deluding yourself.

You've already proven, over and over again, that you are a person with no integrity whatsoever, so I'm not going to continue this conversation.

You are a sleaze bag and not worth my time.

In other words: I'm triggered, lost my argument, and will be ungracefully bowing out by insulting you.

civil officer

CIVIL OFFICER

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and 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. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.

Enjoy your walk of shame out of the thread!

How about reading the Constitution before posting your BULLSHIT!

Article 2 Sec. 4 of the Constitution DOES NOT make any exception for Senators.

I don't know where you got the above OPINION, but it has NEVER been decided by the courts. Only the Senate has stated that members of congress can not be impeached, however since the Senate's opinion on the matter is obviously biased, it doesn't count for much.

The House of Representatives DID impeach a Senator in 1797, so there has been a precedent set. The only reason why the Senate's decision NOT to hold an impeachment trial for the impeached Senator in 1797 is that the Senate REMOVED the Senator using other Senate rules so that an impeachment trial became mute.

If the House impeached a Senator again and the Senate refused to honor that impeachment, the courts would have to decide. It seems unlikely that they would agree that Senators are exempt since the Constitution does not explicitly exempt them.

If the authors of the Constitution wanted Senators to be exempt, they would have stated it in the Constitution.

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

I give up! You are too fucking stupid because you simply cannot read. It is not up to the courts as the Constitution is very explicit.

You are one dumb MF!

 

[Richard-H]

As usual your argument is too stupid for words!

Senators are very much 'Civil Officers of the United States' as much as the President and Vice-President are.

If your idiotic enough to believe that you understand the Constitution better than the Congress of 1797, keep deluding yourself.

You've already proven, over and over again, that you are a person with no integrity whatsoever, so I'm not going to continue this conversation.

You are a sleaze bag and not worth my time.

In other words: I'm triggered, lost my argument, and will be ungracefully bowing out by insulting you.

civil officer

CIVIL OFFICER

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and 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. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.

Enjoy your walk of shame out of the thread!

How about reading the Constitution before posting your BULLSHIT!

Article 2 Sec. 4 of the Constitution DOES NOT make any exception for Senators.

I don't know where you got the above OPINION, but it has NEVER been decided by the courts. Only the Senate has stated that members of congress can not be impeached, however since the Senate's opinion on the matter is obviously biased, it doesn't count for much.

The House of Representatives DID impeach a Senator in 1797, so there has been a precedent set. The only reason why the Senate's decision NOT to hold an impeachment trial for the impeached Senator in 1797 is that the Senate REMOVED the Senator using other Senate rules so that an impeachment trial became mute.

If the House impeached a Senator again and the Senate refused to honor that impeachment, the courts would have to decide. It seems unlikely that they would agree that Senators are exempt since the Constitution does not explicitly exempt them.

If the authors of the Constitution wanted Senators to be exempt, they would have stated it in the Constitution.

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

I give up! You are too fucking stupid because you simply cannot read. It is not up to the courts as the Constitution is very explicit.

You are one dumb MF!

Yes, the Constitution IS very explicit - and if Senator's were exempt from impeachment the Constitution would EXPLICITLY say so. IT DOES NOT!

Dumbass!

 

[jwoodie]

I voted for impeachment (not conviction). I love it when the Dems overplay their hand.

 

[toobfreak]

After suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...
I twill be interesting to find who is more in favor of impeachment
I am ...

The problem remains. Aside from the fact that impeachment would fracture the Democratic Party beyond repair and likely ASSURE Trump a 2020 victory,

ONLY ONE TINY DETAIL REMAINS:

What was the crime? What is the basis of the charges?

For obstruction to happen, there has to be something to obstruct about.

You've been stealing from the company and cooking the books to conceal it. They get suspicious and want to investigate. You OBSTRUCT the investigation by refusing to turn over the books or try to destroy them in order to HIDE DISCOVERY of your guilt!

BUT HOW DO YOU OBSTRUCT an investigation where the only thing that can be found is that you are innocent?

And that WAS the findings of Mueller in regards to the real investigation on collusion. All of the "Part 2" crap about Trump obstructing only had to do with his unwillingness to see his presidency wasted on something he knew from the git go as totally political and frivolous with an investigator HE KNEW to be prejudiced and was exploring his options as president! Since when is defending yourself a crime by not willingly cooperating with your own public lynching?

Well, it ISN'T. And at that, your unwillingness to bend over and spread your cheeks has to come with a proven corrupt intent; something you stood to gain by the obstruction, and all Trump had to gain was his being shown INNOCENT of collusion. Cooperate or not, obstruct or not, the outcome was the same: innocent of collusion. There was no corrupt intent in anything Trump tried to do because there was no underlying guilt to conceal and Mueller has admitted that. Ergo, you cannot prove criminal obstruction.

So of the three categories all impeachments have ever come under, all that leaves for the Dems is the one thing they can't and don't want to admit:

They are impeaching because THEY DON'T LIKE HIM, didn't like the outcome of 2016 and don't think they can beat him in 2020 in an open and fair election either!

And fucked they are if they go after that!

 

[Marion Morrison]

After suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...

I twill be interesting to find who is more in favor of impeachment

I am ...

I favor the Dims impeaching him, but not so that they will actually go through with it.

No, I just want them to do what they said they would do in order to get elected, but because they know that they are full of poo, they refuse to impeach a man they have repeatedly said all evidence proves he was guilty that he has sold out to the Russians.

Imagine, they are essentially saying that they would rather have Putin in the White House than impeach Trump, which I think is treasonous, is it not?

When will these twats back up what they say rather then just sling poo around?

Hey dipshit we just got to start our investigations a couple months ago. I believe the House will perform its oversight duties that had been completey abandoned by republicans. I believe they will vote to impeach Trump; but Trump will be saved by a Senate that is hungry to profit further from Trump’s crimes. Until November 2020. Trump will serve time in prison when he leaves office.

You're delusional dude. Let's say impeachment has twice as much support as before..which would be 116/435 votes in the House. Impeachment is going nowhere fast. It's not making it to the Senate.

Trump impeachment vote fails overwhelmingly

 

[Silver Blooded]

As usual your argument is too stupid for words!

Senators are very much 'Civil Officers of the United States' as much as the President and Vice-President are.

If your idiotic enough to believe that you understand the Constitution better than the Congress of 1797, keep deluding yourself.

You've already proven, over and over again, that you are a person with no integrity whatsoever, so I'm not going to continue this conversation.

You are a sleaze bag and not worth my time.

In other words: I'm triggered, lost my argument, and will be ungracefully bowing out by insulting you.

civil officer

CIVIL OFFICER

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and 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. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.

Enjoy your walk of shame out of the thread!

How about reading the Constitution before posting your BULLSHIT!

Article 2 Sec. 4 of the Constitution DOES NOT make any exception for Senators.

I don't know where you got the above OPINION, but it has NEVER been decided by the courts. Only the Senate has stated that members of congress can not be impeached, however since the Senate's opinion on the matter is obviously biased, it doesn't count for much.

The House of Representatives DID impeach a Senator in 1797, so there has been a precedent set. The only reason why the Senate's decision NOT to hold an impeachment trial for the impeached Senator in 1797 is that the Senate REMOVED the Senator using other Senate rules so that an impeachment trial became mute.

If the House impeached a Senator again and the Senate refused to honor that impeachment, the courts would have to decide. It seems unlikely that they would agree that Senators are exempt since the Constitution does not explicitly exempt them.

If the authors of the Constitution wanted Senators to be exempt, they would have stated it in the Constitution.

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

I give up! You are too fucking stupid because you simply cannot read. It is not up to the courts as the Constitution is very explicit.

You are one dumb MF!

I find his signature VERY ironic!

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I think that impeachment would be a boon for Trump and a detriment for the Democrats especially when it relates to the next election. If they try to impeach him between now and the election and fail to even do that then they enter the election with no successes to show for their work and no real reason to vote for the Democratic candidates other than them not being Trump. For the people that could vote either way and aren't totally Trump supporters or totally Trump haters you aren't going to really sway those undecided voters towards the Democratic candidates with more of just "Trump bad" and collusion. The Democrats have to pull themselves back towards a more rational center with realistic goals for the country if they want to have any shot at undecided voters going with them in the next election in my opinion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In other words: I'm triggered, lost my argument, and will be ungracefully bowing out by insulting you.

civil officer

CIVIL OFFICER

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and 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. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.

Enjoy your walk of shame out of the thread!

How about reading the Constitution before posting your BULLSHIT!

Article 2 Sec. 4 of the Constitution DOES NOT make any exception for Senators.

I don't know where you got the above OPINION, but it has NEVER been decided by the courts. Only the Senate has stated that members of congress can not be impeached, however since the Senate's opinion on the matter is obviously biased, it doesn't count for much.

The House of Representatives DID impeach a Senator in 1797, so there has been a precedent set. The only reason why the Senate's decision NOT to hold an impeachment trial for the impeached Senator in 1797 is that the Senate REMOVED the Senator using other Senate rules so that an impeachment trial became mute.

If the House impeached a Senator again and the Senate refused to honor that impeachment, the courts would have to decide. It seems unlikely that they would agree that Senators are exempt since the Constitution does not explicitly exempt them.

If the authors of the Constitution wanted Senators to be exempt, they would have stated it in the Constitution.

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

I give up! You are too fucking stupid because you simply cannot read. It is not up to the courts as the Constitution is very explicit.

You are one dumb MF!

Yes, the Constitution IS very explicit - and if Senator's were exempt from impeachment the Constitution would EXPLICITLY say so. IT DOES NOT!

Dumbass!

It does. It said impeachment was for the President, Vice President, and civil officers. Civil officers, with the exception of the President and Vice President, and not elected. Therefore, Senators and members and the House were specifically excluded from the impeachment clause.

There! It that plain enough for you, or you need a swift kick in the ass to jumpstart your brain?

 

[Chuz Life]

After suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...

I twill be interesting to find who is more in favor of impeachment

I am ...

I favor the Dims impeaching him, but not so that they will actually go through with it.

No, I just want them to do what they said they would do in order to get elected, but because they know that they are full of poo, they refuse to impeach a man they have repeatedly said all evidence proves he was guilty that he has sold out to the Russians.

Imagine, they are essentially saying that they would rather have Putin in the White House than impeach Trump, which I think is treasonous, is it not?

When will these twats back up what they say rather then just sling poo around?

This!

 

[Richard-H]

How about reading the Constitution before posting your BULLSHIT!

Article 2 Sec. 4 of the Constitution DOES NOT make any exception for Senators.

I don't know where you got the above OPINION, but it has NEVER been decided by the courts. Only the Senate has stated that members of congress can not be impeached, however since the Senate's opinion on the matter is obviously biased, it doesn't count for much.

The House of Representatives DID impeach a Senator in 1797, so there has been a precedent set. The only reason why the Senate's decision NOT to hold an impeachment trial for the impeached Senator in 1797 is that the Senate REMOVED the Senator using other Senate rules so that an impeachment trial became mute.

If the House impeached a Senator again and the Senate refused to honor that impeachment, the courts would have to decide. It seems unlikely that they would agree that Senators are exempt since the Constitution does not explicitly exempt them.

If the authors of the Constitution wanted Senators to be exempt, they would have stated it in the Constitution.

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

I give up! You are too fucking stupid because you simply cannot read. It is not up to the courts as the Constitution is very explicit.

You are one dumb MF!

Yes, the Constitution IS very explicit - and if Senator's were exempt from impeachment the Constitution would EXPLICITLY say so. IT DOES NOT!

Dumbass!

It does. It said impeachment was for the President, Vice President, and civil officers. Civil officers, with the exception of the President and Vice President, and not elected. Therefore, Senators and members and the House were specifically excluded from the impeachment clause.

There! It that plain enough for you, or you need a swift kick in the ass to jumpstart your brain?

As usual you're being a total jackass that refuses to admit that you're dead wrong.

The House of Representatives has already impeached a Senator. The extremely weak argument that Senators are not 'Civil Officers' is nonsense. It has only been asserted by the chair of the Senate during the the trial of Sen. Blount. It has never been instantiated by any authority.

I realize that reading thru the impeachment of Sen. Blount is way beyond your intellectual level, but as I said before the determination was that the Senate "had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against...a Senator". A very, very weak argument. It did not say that the House impeachment of Senator Blount was invalid.

But I suppose that understanding the difference is way, way over your head.

 

[longknife]

What the HELL did Trump do to warrant being impeached??? That he whooped the Dem's ass and won? Americans in 30 states elected Trump president you can't undo that just because you people are butthurt over losing.

I'm going to post a separate thread on impeachment I think you will find interesting.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I was hoping you'd come back.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

"Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.* A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress—impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction."

* See case of Senator William Blount (Tenn.), expelled July 8, 1797, found not subject to impeachment. Asher Hinds, HINDS’PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [HINDS’PRECEDENTS], Vol. III, §§2294-2318 (1907).

The first article that you posted discusses expulsion and recall. Impeachment is mentioned only in passing. It does NOT say that members of congress can not be impeached, it only says that expulsion is the more common practice. The words 'are not' and ' can not be' have a very different meaning.

Secondly, in reading thru 'Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives', where he very explicitly describes THE IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR BLOUNT, it is clear that the House of Representatives DID IMPEACH SENATOR BLOUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

As I said earlier, it was the Senate and only the Senate that decided that a Senator could not be impeached - and that was ONLY after the Senate had expelled Sen. Blount.

From Hind's text:

"The Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against William Blount, a Senator."

So effectively the House of Representatives CAN IMPEACH A SENATOR AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

The fact that was satisfied by Blount's expulsion from the Senate and did not challenge the Senate's refusal to "try an impeachment against Senator Blount", means that the issue of the Senate's obligation to try an impeachment HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED.

Anyone who's imterested in reading a detailed description of Sen. Blunt's impeachment can do so at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

Pages 644-678

So the House of Representatives CAN impeach Sen. McConnell. The Senate, may if they choose, expel him from office, and I'm sure the the House of Representatives would be satisfied. However, if they did not expel him, it would be up the the courts to decide whether an impeachment trial was an obligation or optional.

I give up! You are too fucking stupid because you simply cannot read. It is not up to the courts as the Constitution is very explicit.

You are one dumb MF!

Yes, the Constitution IS very explicit - and if Senator's were exempt from impeachment the Constitution would EXPLICITLY say so. IT DOES NOT!

Dumbass!

It does. It said impeachment was for the President, Vice President, and civil officers. Civil officers, with the exception of the President and Vice President, and not elected. Therefore, Senators and members and the House were specifically excluded from the impeachment clause.

There! It that plain enough for you, or you need a swift kick in the ass to jumpstart your brain?

As usual you're being a total jackass that refuses to admit that you're dead wrong.

The House of Representatives has already impeached a Senator. The extremely weak argument that Senators are not 'Civil Officers' is nonsense. It has only been asserted by the chair of the Senate during the the trial of Sen. Blount. It has never been instantiated by any authority.

I realize that reading thru the impeachment of Sen. Blount is way beyond your intellectual level, but as I said before the determination was that the Senate "had no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against...a Senator". A very, very weak argument. It did not say that the House impeachment of Senator Blount was invalid.

But I suppose that understanding the difference is way, way over your head.

The part you failed to realize because you apparently cannot read is the Senate realized that they had no right to try an impeachment on their own member because the House did not have the authority to impeach a member of the Senate.

You need to remove your head from your ass and realize that the House simply fucked up, just like you!