What Exactly are the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Trump Is Being Charged With?

[iceberg]

how do we know a crime was committed? WHAT CRIME AND BY WHAT EVIDENCE.

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause? Did they get their timelines confused and forget she was well on her way of her investigation for emails that (surprisingly) left her possession that she was supposed to be in control of? Has there ever been a candidate that we knew so much through her emails by the time they campaigned for their party's nomination? Yet that was all Trump's doing, after all there was that ONE meeting with a diplomat that caused Mrs Clinton to put a bleachbit to her computer with over 30.000 emails prior to handing over all she thinks she had. Which candidate has the most evidence of wrong doing, who also was directly tied to a secret meeting held with the Attorney General?

Now what do the democrats have in comparison after all this? A meeting, and after 6 months Senator Feinstein says there's no evidence the democratic party can produce. These are just "the facts" rightwinger.

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause? Did they get their timelines confused and forget she was well on her way of her investigation for emails that (surprisingly) left her possession that she was supposed to be in control of? Has there ever been a candidate that we knew so much through her emails by the time they campaigned for their party's nomination? Yet that was all Trump's doing, after all there was that ONE meeting with a diplomat that caused Mrs Clinton to put a bleachbit to her computer with over 30.000 emails prior to handing over all she thinks she had. Which candidate has the most evidence of wrong doing, who also was directly tied to a secret meeting held with the Attorney General?

Now what do the democrats have in comparison after all this? A meeting, and after 6 months Senator Feinstein says there's no evidence the democratic party can produce. These are just "the facts" rightwinger.

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

BINGO !!

 

[Weatherman2020]

The raving lunatics have convinced themselves we are at war with Russia. Hell, even Bernie spent his honeymoon in the USSR and the left applaud him for it.

Of course nobody has said any such thing; only that Russia is our enemy which they are--unless you like having 4,000 nukes pointing at you.

Treason because he talked with Russians!

What Exactly are the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Trump Is Being Charged With?

And of course I never said treason. Do you ever read before you respond?

You never read before responding yet again. The link was to another leftard who posted Trump committed treason by talking to Russians, dufus.

Scientist tell us that you should probably respond to the person whom you’re quoting….

Tossing your comrade under the bus?

 

[rightwinger]

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause? Did they get their timelines confused and forget she was well on her way of her investigation for emails that (surprisingly) left her possession that she was supposed to be in control of? Has there ever been a candidate that we knew so much through her emails by the time they campaigned for their party's nomination? Yet that was all Trump's doing, after all there was that ONE meeting with a diplomat that caused Mrs Clinton to put a bleachbit to her computer with over 30.000 emails prior to handing over all she thinks she had. Which candidate has the most evidence of wrong doing, who also was directly tied to a secret meeting held with the Attorney General?

Now what do the democrats have in comparison after all this? A meeting, and after 6 months Senator Feinstein says there's no evidence the democratic party can produce. These are just "the facts" rightwinger.

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

OK...Trump's discussions with the Russians was bad because his campaign staff was talking to the Russians while hacked emails that helped his campaign, were being released

This leads to something called "suspicion"

Suspicious activities lead to investigation....which is happening

 

[iceberg]

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause? Did they get their timelines confused and forget she was well on her way of her investigation for emails that (surprisingly) left her possession that she was supposed to be in control of? Has there ever been a candidate that we knew so much through her emails by the time they campaigned for their party's nomination? Yet that was all Trump's doing, after all there was that ONE meeting with a diplomat that caused Mrs Clinton to put a bleachbit to her computer with over 30.000 emails prior to handing over all she thinks she had. Which candidate has the most evidence of wrong doing, who also was directly tied to a secret meeting held with the Attorney General?

Now what do the democrats have in comparison after all this? A meeting, and after 6 months Senator Feinstein says there's no evidence the democratic party can produce. These are just "the facts" rightwinger.

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

OK...Trump's discussions with the Russians was bad because his campaign staff was talking to the Russians while hacked emails that helped his campaign, were being released

This leads to something called "suspicion"

Suspicious activities lead to investigation....which is happening

so no laws were broken by trump or anyone on his side that has been verified or proven yet.

got it. which is what i said when all this started.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause? Did they get their timelines confused and forget she was well on her way of her investigation for emails that (surprisingly) left her possession that she was supposed to be in control of? Has there ever been a candidate that we knew so much through her emails by the time they campaigned for their party's nomination? Yet that was all Trump's doing, after all there was that ONE meeting with a diplomat that caused Mrs Clinton to put a bleachbit to her computer with over 30.000 emails prior to handing over all she thinks she had. Which candidate has the most evidence of wrong doing, who also was directly tied to a secret meeting held with the Attorney General?

Now what do the democrats have in comparison after all this? A meeting, and after 6 months Senator Feinstein says there's no evidence the democratic party can produce. These are just "the facts" rightwinger.

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

OK...Trump's discussions with the Russians was bad because his campaign staff was talking to the Russians while hacked emails that helped his campaign, were being released

This leads to something called "suspicion"

Suspicious activities lead to investigation....which is happening

Will you move to Mexico because Trump was never impeached?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Or when we try. Vladamir wants to re-create the USSR. Do you enjoy being that stupid?

Hey Jackass! Does it currently exist? No.

Grow up!

Okay, Russia is not our ally fuck face. Or are you dumb enough to believe those are warheads of love pointing at you and your family, eh fuck stain?

Hey! The 1980s just called and they want their Cold War politics back!

You are just pissed because you fucked up and I called you on it.

The raving lunatics have convinced themselves we are at war with Russia. Hell, even Bernie spent his honeymoon in the USSR and the left applaud him for it.

Of course nobody has said any such thing; only that Russia is our enemy which they are--unless you like having 4,000 nukes pointing at you.

4000 nukes? Please! Get a grip!

The Russians have about 1400 missile warheads, many of which are MIRVed, so the actual number of missiles is far less than that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The thing is that everyone involved in the Trump campaign had some ties to Russia and Trump himself had a beauty pageant there. You Trump lovers could see all kinds of guilty scenarios for Hillary Clinton when they weren't there, but here you now suddenly contract blindness.

so your NOT seeing hillaries crimes and seeing trumps is an example of how this should work to NOT be "contract blind"?

There were no Hillary's crimes. At least 9 investigations showed this.

Oh, there were lots of crimes. They just decided she was too stupid to prosecute. See Comey's testimony.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

yep. people in his campaign seem to be under investigation but i don't see trump on that list.

I don't believe you would, as there were no meetings between Trump and the Russians

Much like any boss involved in criminal activity, they have others to do the dirty work and maintain plausible deniability. The question is....did they order the meetings or were they informed of what was going on

well my main point is that while i think the investigations are made up bullshit by the left mad at losing, look if you must. i agree a ton was spent on hillary and hey - "turn about is fair play" is our mantra anymore. not being smart, not doing the RIGHT thing - but "payback"

so if we need to wait for someone to come in and sort it all out, fine. no issues with that and let them look to verify which side is "right" so the other side can cry FOUL once more.

my only point is to tell people who keep lying and saying TRUMP HIMSELF is under investigation, are wrong.

Which part is "made up bullshit"?

The Russian hacking of DNC computers?
Trump benefitting from the release of information?
That members of Trumps campaign were meeting with the Russians at the time?

show me a link that says for a fact russia did it. not saying they didn't, but the person the leaks came from has said time and again not the russians. since you don't seem to agree with assange, he's a liar i suppose and RUSSIA cause...well i don't know at this point but if you want to believe assange is a liar then what difference does it make? you're going to believe what you want.

benefiting - maybe. except what was the KILLER was more of comey coming back after finding a stockpile of hillarys mail on weiners laptop. (say that with a straight face, go ahead) what came off the DNC hacks that anyone really gave a damn about in the end?

meeting with russians at the time. is meeting illegal?

How many of our intelligence agencies stated that Russia was involved in this and that people with the Trump campaign were involved?

None.

 

[rightwinger]

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

OK...Trump's discussions with the Russians was bad because his campaign staff was talking to the Russians while hacked emails that helped his campaign, were being released

This leads to something called "suspicion"

Suspicious activities lead to investigation....which is happening

so no laws were broken by trump or anyone on his side that has been verified or proven yet.

got it. which is what i said when all this started.

Who says there were?

An investigation is ongoing and we will see where it leads

So far, the only laws broken by Team Trump are failing to identify foreign contacts by Manafort, Flynn and Kushner

 

[rightwinger]

Have the democrats been living under a rock, they all act like this releasing of Hillary's emails just happened, and Trump was the cause?

At least rightwinger can see how rediculous these claims against Trump are when you show the comparisons and disclose all the facts, if anything I found a way to shut rightwinger up.

This just proves that liberals only want to believe what they want to hear, throw a little basic disclosure of the facts into the discussion, comparisons, speculations, and they are hitting their head trying to come up with a response. Amazing isn't it? All this is such a complete 180 from when democrats were so happy to publish hacked documents, back in 2004 showing torture under the Bush administration, to their political advantage. Any way you look at it, it does not look good for liberal democrats, they simply appear as nothing more than unable to graciously handle an election loss.

I'm willing to close this whole thing down right now

Just provide a credible explanation about what Trump's team was talking to the Russians about

how about you provide a credible reason why the talking was bad?

you're allowing assumption to go your way but refuse it the other. that in itself is *not* unbiased now is it?

OK...Trump's discussions with the Russians was bad because his campaign staff was talking to the Russians while hacked emails that helped his campaign, were being released

This leads to something called "suspicion"

Suspicious activities lead to investigation....which is happening

Will you move to Mexico because Trump was never impeached?

?

 

[LaDexter]

?

Translation - rightwinger lives on the West Bank, and isn't moving from there period....

 

[rightwinger]

?

Translation - rightwinger lives on the West Bank, and isn't moving from there period....

How did you know I live on the West Bank of the Chesapeake?

 

[Flopper]

The House draws up the impeachment charges, the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

The Constitution states "high crimes and misdemeanors". That means "laws', not "charges".

"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."

If the votes are there, he's toast. In Andrew Johnson's bill of impeachment it says, he made three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

So because the House of Representatives fucked up in the 1860s, we should fuck up now just for consistency's sake? Gotcha!

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Misdemeanor

the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

There is a mixture of wrong and right in what both of you are saying. Because a President enjoys a thing called "Executive Immunity" it is almost impossible to indict or convict a sitting president. I don't think this has ever been done and there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge if it were attempted. However, should a president find themselves in a situation where evidence suggested they should be indicted or convicted, impeachment becomes an option available to the House of Representatives to remove the president. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the only two presidents ever to be impeached.

You can certainly say that "technically speaking" a president can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk, but this is a scenario that would never happen. The House of Representatives is going to always be reluctant to impeach a sitting president who was duly elected over something trivial. The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Flopper... I want you to pay attention... it does not say "high crimes OR misdemeanors." So while simple misdemeanors back then might not necessarily be violations of laws or "crimes" if they are "high misdemeanors" they certainly would be.

I'm going to stress this point one more time... You have a sitting US president who was duly elected by the people, Trump received 306 electoral votes and over 62 million citizens cast their ballots for him and VP Pence in elections across America. You cannot undo that because certain people don't like the man. If the integrity of our electoral process is put in jeopardy this way, you're going to see a major violent revolution the likes you can't even imagine. Because this would signify that our elections mean absolutely nothing. So now you are all welcome to have your little wet dreams where Trump gets the boot because he's a fat orange clown that no one likes.... that's not going to be a reality in this universe. You're going to have to find a crime that he is clearly guilty of or should be indicted for, and then you're going to have to hope you can convince enough Representatives to cast their vote to impeach him over that.

Unless there is some major bombshell that hasn't yet been revealed, some evidence implicating Trump directly, you're just not going to ever be able to impeach the man. If you want to be a pinhead and sit here pontificating on scenarios that will never happen and making invalid points of technicality, that's up to you. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to argue with you about this. You guys have fun with your fantasy and we'll see how this turns out.

I have never said Trump would be impeached. I've said it's not likely, but certainly possible. Both Clinton and Nixon faced impeachment over lying to congress and obstruction, not their other misdeeds. If such a fate falls on Trump, it will be for the same reasons, misleading statements, lying, and obstruction which have been a part of his normal business activities for many years. All Trump has to do to avoid the possibility of impeachment is do what does not come naturally to him, tell the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution states "high crimes and misdemeanors". That means "laws', not "charges".

"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."

If the votes are there, he's toast. In Andrew Johnson's bill of impeachment it says, he made three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

So because the House of Representatives fucked up in the 1860s, we should fuck up now just for consistency's sake? Gotcha!

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Misdemeanor

the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

There is a mixture of wrong and right in what both of you are saying. Because a President enjoys a thing called "Executive Immunity" it is almost impossible to indict or convict a sitting president. I don't think this has ever been done and there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge if it were attempted. However, should a president find themselves in a situation where evidence suggested they should be indicted or convicted, impeachment becomes an option available to the House of Representatives to remove the president. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the only two presidents ever to be impeached.

You can certainly say that "technically speaking" a president can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk, but this is a scenario that would never happen. The House of Representatives is going to always be reluctant to impeach a sitting president who was duly elected over something trivial. The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Flopper... I want you to pay attention... it does not say "high crimes OR misdemeanors." So while simple misdemeanors back then might not necessarily be violations of laws or "crimes" if they are "high misdemeanors" they certainly would be.

I'm going to stress this point one more time... You have a sitting US president who was duly elected by the people, Trump received 306 electoral votes and over 62 million citizens cast their ballots for him and VP Pence in elections across America. You cannot undo that because certain people don't like the man. If the integrity of our electoral process is put in jeopardy this way, you're going to see a major violent revolution the likes you can't even imagine. Because this would signify that our elections mean absolutely nothing. So now you are all welcome to have your little wet dreams where Trump gets the boot because he's a fat orange clown that no one likes.... that's not going to be a reality in this universe. You're going to have to find a crime that he is clearly guilty of or should be indicted for, and then you're going to have to hope you can convince enough Representatives to cast their vote to impeach him over that.

Unless there is some major bombshell that hasn't yet been revealed, some evidence implicating Trump directly, you're just not going to ever be able to impeach the man. If you want to be a pinhead and sit here pontificating on scenarios that will never happen and making invalid points of technicality, that's up to you. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to argue with you about this. You guys have fun with your fantasy and we'll see how this turns out.

I have never said Trump would be impeached. I've said it's not likely, but certainly possible. Both Clinton and Nixon faced impeachment over lying to congress and obstruction, not their other misdeeds. If such a fate falls on Trump, it will be for the same reasons, misleading statements, lying, and obstruction which have been a part of his normal business activities for many years. All Trump has to do to avoid the possibility of impeachment is do what does not come naturally to him, tell the truth.

Trumps reliance on lying could bring down his presidency if he is called to testify

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Constitution states "high crimes and misdemeanors". That means "laws', not "charges".

"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."

If the votes are there, he's toast. In Andrew Johnson's bill of impeachment it says, he made three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

So because the House of Representatives fucked up in the 1860s, we should fuck up now just for consistency's sake? Gotcha!

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Misdemeanor

the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

There is a mixture of wrong and right in what both of you are saying. Because a President enjoys a thing called "Executive Immunity" it is almost impossible to indict or convict a sitting president. I don't think this has ever been done and there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge if it were attempted. However, should a president find themselves in a situation where evidence suggested they should be indicted or convicted, impeachment becomes an option available to the House of Representatives to remove the president. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the only two presidents ever to be impeached.

You can certainly say that "technically speaking" a president can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk, but this is a scenario that would never happen. The House of Representatives is going to always be reluctant to impeach a sitting president who was duly elected over something trivial. The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Flopper... I want you to pay attention... it does not say "high crimes OR misdemeanors." So while simple misdemeanors back then might not necessarily be violations of laws or "crimes" if they are "high misdemeanors" they certainly would be.

I'm going to stress this point one more time... You have a sitting US president who was duly elected by the people, Trump received 306 electoral votes and over 62 million citizens cast their ballots for him and VP Pence in elections across America. You cannot undo that because certain people don't like the man. If the integrity of our electoral process is put in jeopardy this way, you're going to see a major violent revolution the likes you can't even imagine. Because this would signify that our elections mean absolutely nothing. So now you are all welcome to have your little wet dreams where Trump gets the boot because he's a fat orange clown that no one likes.... that's not going to be a reality in this universe. You're going to have to find a crime that he is clearly guilty of or should be indicted for, and then you're going to have to hope you can convince enough Representatives to cast their vote to impeach him over that.

Unless there is some major bombshell that hasn't yet been revealed, some evidence implicating Trump directly, you're just not going to ever be able to impeach the man. If you want to be a pinhead and sit here pontificating on scenarios that will never happen and making invalid points of technicality, that's up to you. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to argue with you about this. You guys have fun with your fantasy and we'll see how this turns out.

I have never said Trump would be impeached. I've said it's not likely, but certainly possible. Both Clinton and Nixon faced impeachment over lying to congress and obstruction, not their other misdeeds. If such a fate falls on Trump, it will be for the same reasons, misleading statements, lying, and obstruction which have been a part of his normal business activities for many years. All Trump has to do to avoid the possibility of impeachment is do what does not come naturally to him, tell the truth.

Clinton and Nixon did not lie to Congress. Neither testified before Congress, so that is impossible.Get your act together before pontificating on something you apparently know nothing about.

 

[dblack]

"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."

If the votes are there, he's toast. In Andrew Johnson's bill of impeachment it says, he made three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

So because the House of Representatives fucked up in the 1860s, we should fuck up now just for consistency's sake? Gotcha!

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Misdemeanor

the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

There is a mixture of wrong and right in what both of you are saying. Because a President enjoys a thing called "Executive Immunity" it is almost impossible to indict or convict a sitting president. I don't think this has ever been done and there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge if it were attempted. However, should a president find themselves in a situation where evidence suggested they should be indicted or convicted, impeachment becomes an option available to the House of Representatives to remove the president. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the only two presidents ever to be impeached.

You can certainly say that "technically speaking" a president can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk, but this is a scenario that would never happen. The House of Representatives is going to always be reluctant to impeach a sitting president who was duly elected over something trivial. The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Flopper... I want you to pay attention... it does not say "high crimes OR misdemeanors." So while simple misdemeanors back then might not necessarily be violations of laws or "crimes" if they are "high misdemeanors" they certainly would be.

I'm going to stress this point one more time... You have a sitting US president who was duly elected by the people, Trump received 306 electoral votes and over 62 million citizens cast their ballots for him and VP Pence in elections across America. You cannot undo that because certain people don't like the man. If the integrity of our electoral process is put in jeopardy this way, you're going to see a major violent revolution the likes you can't even imagine. Because this would signify that our elections mean absolutely nothing. So now you are all welcome to have your little wet dreams where Trump gets the boot because he's a fat orange clown that no one likes.... that's not going to be a reality in this universe. You're going to have to find a crime that he is clearly guilty of or should be indicted for, and then you're going to have to hope you can convince enough Representatives to cast their vote to impeach him over that.

Unless there is some major bombshell that hasn't yet been revealed, some evidence implicating Trump directly, you're just not going to ever be able to impeach the man. If you want to be a pinhead and sit here pontificating on scenarios that will never happen and making invalid points of technicality, that's up to you. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to argue with you about this. You guys have fun with your fantasy and we'll see how this turns out.

I have never said Trump would be impeached. I've said it's not likely, but certainly possible. Both Clinton and Nixon faced impeachment over lying to congress and obstruction, not their other misdeeds. If such a fate falls on Trump, it will be for the same reasons, misleading statements, lying, and obstruction which have been a part of his normal business activities for many years. All Trump has to do to avoid the possibility of impeachment is do what does not come naturally to him, tell the truth.

Trumps reliance on lying could bring down his presidency if he is called to testify

I wonder if he could even open his mouth in court without perjuring himself?

 

[Flopper]

"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."

If the votes are there, he's toast. In Andrew Johnson's bill of impeachment it says, he made three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

So because the House of Representatives fucked up in the 1860s, we should fuck up now just for consistency's sake? Gotcha!

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Misdemeanor

the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

There is a mixture of wrong and right in what both of you are saying. Because a President enjoys a thing called "Executive Immunity" it is almost impossible to indict or convict a sitting president. I don't think this has ever been done and there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge if it were attempted. However, should a president find themselves in a situation where evidence suggested they should be indicted or convicted, impeachment becomes an option available to the House of Representatives to remove the president. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the only two presidents ever to be impeached.

You can certainly say that "technically speaking" a president can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk, but this is a scenario that would never happen. The House of Representatives is going to always be reluctant to impeach a sitting president who was duly elected over something trivial. The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Flopper... I want you to pay attention... it does not say "high crimes OR misdemeanors." So while simple misdemeanors back then might not necessarily be violations of laws or "crimes" if they are "high misdemeanors" they certainly would be.

I'm going to stress this point one more time... You have a sitting US president who was duly elected by the people, Trump received 306 electoral votes and over 62 million citizens cast their ballots for him and VP Pence in elections across America. You cannot undo that because certain people don't like the man. If the integrity of our electoral process is put in jeopardy this way, you're going to see a major violent revolution the likes you can't even imagine. Because this would signify that our elections mean absolutely nothing. So now you are all welcome to have your little wet dreams where Trump gets the boot because he's a fat orange clown that no one likes.... that's not going to be a reality in this universe. You're going to have to find a crime that he is clearly guilty of or should be indicted for, and then you're going to have to hope you can convince enough Representatives to cast their vote to impeach him over that.

Unless there is some major bombshell that hasn't yet been revealed, some evidence implicating Trump directly, you're just not going to ever be able to impeach the man. If you want to be a pinhead and sit here pontificating on scenarios that will never happen and making invalid points of technicality, that's up to you. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to argue with you about this. You guys have fun with your fantasy and we'll see how this turns out.

I have never said Trump would be impeached. I've said it's not likely, but certainly possible. Both Clinton and Nixon faced impeachment over lying to congress and obstruction, not their other misdeeds. If such a fate falls on Trump, it will be for the same reasons, misleading statements, lying, and obstruction which have been a part of his normal business activities for many years. All Trump has to do to avoid the possibility of impeachment is do what does not come naturally to him, tell the truth.

Trumps reliance on lying could bring down his presidency if he is called to testify

Which is why Trump will claim executive immunity if asked to testify before congress. Anytime a person appears before congress, they can not answer question extemporaneously which is what Trump does. He rarely can stick with any script. People prepare for days or weeks before testifying before congress and often will have a lawyer by their side. Questions will contain landmines and just a bit of misleading testimony or stretching of the truth can quickly turn into perjury.

 

[keepitreal]

while hacked emails that helped his campaign, were being released

Oye vay...Those emails had no bearing on my decision.
Why are you people more concerned about
who dug up the dirt then the dirt that was dug up?

 

[Flopper]

"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."

If the votes are there, he's toast. In Andrew Johnson's bill of impeachment it says, he made three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

So because the House of Representatives fucked up in the 1860s, we should fuck up now just for consistency's sake? Gotcha!

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Misdemeanor

the charges do not have to be laws that Trump has broken, just charges. The Senate then votes on the charges, If enough guilty votes are cast, Trump can be removed. If Trump committed lawful crimes he could later be indicted for any lawful crimes he committed.

In the 1800's misdemeanor in common usage did not mean what it means today. In common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors. Congress can impeach a president for spitting on sidewalk.

There is a mixture of wrong and right in what both of you are saying. Because a President enjoys a thing called "Executive Immunity" it is almost impossible to indict or convict a sitting president. I don't think this has ever been done and there would certainly be a valid constitutional challenge if it were attempted. However, should a president find themselves in a situation where evidence suggested they should be indicted or convicted, impeachment becomes an option available to the House of Representatives to remove the president. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, the only two presidents ever to be impeached.

You can certainly say that "technically speaking" a president can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk, but this is a scenario that would never happen. The House of Representatives is going to always be reluctant to impeach a sitting president who was duly elected over something trivial. The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Flopper... I want you to pay attention... it does not say "high crimes OR misdemeanors." So while simple misdemeanors back then might not necessarily be violations of laws or "crimes" if they are "high misdemeanors" they certainly would be.

I'm going to stress this point one more time... You have a sitting US president who was duly elected by the people, Trump received 306 electoral votes and over 62 million citizens cast their ballots for him and VP Pence in elections across America. You cannot undo that because certain people don't like the man. If the integrity of our electoral process is put in jeopardy this way, you're going to see a major violent revolution the likes you can't even imagine. Because this would signify that our elections mean absolutely nothing. So now you are all welcome to have your little wet dreams where Trump gets the boot because he's a fat orange clown that no one likes.... that's not going to be a reality in this universe. You're going to have to find a crime that he is clearly guilty of or should be indicted for, and then you're going to have to hope you can convince enough Representatives to cast their vote to impeach him over that.

Unless there is some major bombshell that hasn't yet been revealed, some evidence implicating Trump directly, you're just not going to ever be able to impeach the man. If you want to be a pinhead and sit here pontificating on scenarios that will never happen and making invalid points of technicality, that's up to you. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than to argue with you about this. You guys have fun with your fantasy and we'll see how this turns out.

I have never said Trump would be impeached. I've said it's not likely, but certainly possible. Both Clinton and Nixon faced impeachment over lying to congress and obstruction, not their other misdeeds. If such a fate falls on Trump, it will be for the same reasons, misleading statements, lying, and obstruction which have been a part of his normal business activities for many years. All Trump has to do to avoid the possibility of impeachment is do what does not come naturally to him, tell the truth.

Clinton and Nixon did not lie to Congress. Neither testified before Congress, so that is impossible.Get your act together before pontificating on something you apparently know nothing about.

I stand corrected. They gave false and misleading testimony but not to congress. Clinton to a grand jury and Nixon to federal investigators.