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

[Richard-H]

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!

First, if you knew anything about the impeachment of Sen. Blount, you'd know that the impeachment was triggered by a letter from President John Adams to the House of Representatives requesting that they impeach Blount.

President John Adams believed that the House of Representatives DID have the authority to impeach a Senator as did the members of the House of Representatives.

So apparently you believe that you understand the U.S. Constitution better than John Adams!

The only thing that's simply fucked up seems to be your brain!

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Democrats can't impeach him soon enough.

What are they waiting for? They've been screaming "impeachment" for over 2 years not -- and now what?

Nothing?

Cowards.

 

[daveman]

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!

Well, no, that's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution says what the Federal government can do. If it's not mentioned as allowable to the FedGov, it's reserved to the States or to individuals.

 

[daveman]

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!

First, if you knew anything about the impeachment of Sen. Blount, you'd know that the impeachment was triggered by a letter from President John Adams to the House of Representatives requesting that they impeach Blount.

President John Adams believed that the House of Representatives DID have the authority to impeach a Senator as did the members of the House of Representatives.

So apparently you believe that you understand the U.S. Constitution better than John Adams!

The only thing that's simply fucked up seems to be your brain!

...says the leftist who believes he understand the Second Amendment better than the men who wrote it.

 

[hjmick]

Option 5



I don't care if he's impeached

Option 5



I don't care if he's impeached

"Option 5" is implicit. You don't vote.

I am none of those things, and I don't care.

But it is time to shit or get of the pot...



And I have voted at every opportunity for the last 37 years.

 

[imawhosure]

"If impeaching meant removing Trump, I would have voted for it yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not." Rep Gregory Meeks

Queens congressman: Impeaching Trump ‘does not make any sense'

It would be better to impeach trump - even if the Senate refuses to remove him from office, then it would be not to impeach him.

Hey, and to think your poll is pretty accurate, who would have thunk it-)

It almost mirrors EXACTLY what the American people are saying, but you go ahead and carry on-)

 

[Faun]

The Democrats can't impeach him soon enough.

What are they waiting for? They've been screaming "impeachment" for over 2 years not -- and now what?

Nothing?

Cowards.

Impeach him for what?

 

[Auld Phart]

Option 5



I don't care if he's impeached

Option 5



I don't care if he's impeached

"Option 5" is implicit. You don't vote.

I am none of those things, and I don't care.

But it is time to shit or get of the pot...



And I have voted at every opportunity for the last 37 years.

2016 was the first time in nearly 50 years I didn't cast a vote for president.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, no, that's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution says what the Federal government can do. If it's not mentioned as allowable to the FedGov, it's reserved to the States or to individuals.

Correct. Nowhere is Congress given the power to forcibly remove an elected official other than the President.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

First, if you knew anything about the impeachment of Sen. Blount, you'd know that the impeachment was triggered by a letter from President John Adams to the House of Representatives requesting that they impeach Blount.

President John Adams believed that the House of Representatives DID have the authority to impeach a Senator as did the members of the House of Representatives.

So apparently you believe that you understand the U.S. Constitution better than John Adams!

The only thing that's simply fucked up seems to be your brain!

Yes, I understand the Constitution better than John Adams and YOU! John Adams did not write the Constitution. That would be James Madison. Neither did you!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, no, that's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution says what the Federal government can do. If it's not mentioned as allowable to the FedGov, it's reserved to the States or to individuals.

Correct. Nowhere is Congress given the power to forcibly remove an elected official other than the President.

They can remove a Vice President.

 

[Hale]

Your results may be somewhat misleading. I voted conservative/impeach because I think it's best that the Democrats complete their self-destruction.

 

[peach174]

Impeach with no evidence will not go well for the Dems.

No evidence? Where have you been?

Right from Mullers report.
the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[Faun]

Well, no, that's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution says what the Federal government can do. If it's not mentioned as allowable to the FedGov, it's reserved to the States or to individuals.

Correct. Nowhere is Congress given the power to forcibly remove an elected official other than the President.

Dayum, you conservatives sure are dumber than shit.

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.​

 

[Wry Catcher]

Impeach with no evidence will not go well for the Dems.

No evidence? Where have you been?

Right from Mullers report.
the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard, with countless numbers of his Trump's tweets, words and behaviors, IMO, and that of millions of others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

No. It did not.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

It does,. Stop lying to yourself.

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

And so, Mueller's statement that the investigation does not exonerate Trump of obstruction has absolutely no meaning.
Good to see you've finally seen the light.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard.

This is another lie, as you, like Mueller, are fully aware of the fact it is impossible to concretely demonstrate that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

No. It did not.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

It does,. Stop lying to yourself.

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

And so, Mueller's statement that the investigation does not exonerate Trump of obstruction has absolutely no meaning.
Good to see you've finally seen the light.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard.

This is another lie, as you, like Mueller, are fully aware of the fact it is impossible to concretely demonstrate that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

I have an opinion, based on facts; you have an opinion, based on ignorance and wishful thinking.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

No. It did not.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

It does,. Stop lying to yourself.

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

And so, Mueller's statement that the investigation does not exonerate Trump of obstruction has absolutely no meaning.
Good to see you've finally seen the light.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard.

This is another lie, as you, like Mueller, are fully aware of the fact it is impossible to concretely demonstrate that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

I have an opinion, based on facts; you have an opinion, based on ignorance and wishful thinking.

Your statement, above, is another lie.
You have nothing but hateful, spiteful, hyper-partisan bigotry.

 

[peach174]

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

No. It did not.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

It does,. Stop lying to yourself.

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

And so, Mueller's statement that the investigation does not exonerate Trump of obstruction has absolutely no meaning.
Good to see you've finally seen the light.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard.

This is another lie, as you, like Mueller, are fully aware of the fact it is impossible to concretely demonstrate that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

I have an opinion, based on facts; you have an opinion, based on ignorance and wishful thinking.

Can you accept that this fake dossier might possibly have been a hoax from Russia all along

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

No. It did not.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

It does,. Stop lying to yourself.

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

And so, Mueller's statement that the investigation does not exonerate Trump of obstruction has absolutely no meaning.
Good to see you've finally seen the light.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard.

This is another lie, as you, like Mueller, are fully aware of the fact it is impossible to concretely demonstrate that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

I have an opinion, based on facts; you have an opinion, based on ignorance and wishful thinking.

You have an opinion based on spins and very biased opinions.
We need to find out how this dossier began and if it was a hoax by Russians or a witch hunt to get Trump out of office.

 

[Richard-H]

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!

First, if you knew anything about the impeachment of Sen. Blount, you'd know that the impeachment was triggered by a letter from President John Adams to the House of Representatives requesting that they impeach Blount.

President John Adams believed that the House of Representatives DID have the authority to impeach a Senator as did the members of the House of Representatives.

So apparently you believe that you understand the U.S. Constitution better than John Adams!

The only thing that's simply fucked up seems to be your brain!

Yes, I understand the Constitution better than John Adams and YOU! John Adams did not write the Constitution. That would be James Madison. Neither did you!

If you seriously think that you understand the Constitution better than John Adams, you are more of a fool I thought you were! You just keep getting stupider and stupider!