The Impeachment

[km1125]

Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.

I'd have a smidgen more respect for the process if the democrats in the house quickly executed the impeachment discussion in the House, and then immediately delivered the papers to the Senate for consideration. If this was that important of an issue, they should not have been sitting on their hands for a couple weeks.

Now it is purely a political posturing move and really the DNC should be the ones at the prosecution table, not a few members from the House. THAT would be more accurate.

[audiophile]

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.

The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...

So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.

b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount

Ouch!

[Rate This]

Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.

I'd have a smidgen more respect for the process if the democrats in the house quickly executed the impeachment discussion in the House, and then immediately delivered the papers to the Senate for consideration. If this was that important of an issue, they should not have been sitting on their hands for a couple weeks.

Now it is purely a political posturing move and really the DNC should be the ones at the prosecution table, not a few members from the House. THAT would be more accurate.

At the time they didn’t have the senate. Then a power sharing arrangement had to be worked out and McConnell agreed to the date.

[Rate This]

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.

The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...

So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.

b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount

They were going to March down there and have tea and discuss this reasonably? That was gonna be their fight? No way.

As far as precedent goes there are already a couple of examples of judges being impeached once out of office.

[Bryce]

Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.

There are any number of options in place to try citizens for the, pardon the pun, trumped up charges, Trump is accused of. The main reason these aren't being considered is because they would be laughed out of court.

[km1125]

Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.

I'd have a smidgen more respect for the process if the democrats in the house quickly executed the impeachment discussion in the House, and then immediately delivered the papers to the Senate for consideration. If this was that important of an issue, they should not have been sitting on their hands for a couple weeks.

Now it is purely a political posturing move and really the DNC should be the ones at the prosecution table, not a few members from the House. THAT would be more accurate.

At the time they didn’t have the senate. Then a power sharing arrangement had to be worked out and McConnell agreed to the date.

Thanks for proving my point! If there were truly impeachable offenses it would not matter who held the Senate (or the House!)

[Bryce]

They were going to March down there and have tea and discuss this reasonably? That was gonna be their fight? No way.

As far as precedent goes there are already a couple of examples of judges being impeached once out of office.

That march was pre planned and started well before Trump was finished speaking. By your logic, Bernie Sanders should be impeached because one of his supporters shot up a softball practice.

Judges. Judges are not presidents. Retired judges can preside over judicial matters.

(b)Any judge of the United States who has retired from regular active service under section 371(b) or 372(a) of this title shall be known and designated as a senior judge and may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake, when designated and assigned as provided in subsections (c) and (d).
(c)Any retired circuit or district judge may be designated and assigned by the chief judge or judicial council of his circuit to perform such judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and able to undertake. Any other retired judge of the United States may be designated and assigned by the chief judge of his court to perform such judicial duties in such court as he is willing and able to undertake.

Impeachment is a vehicle to keep less than honorable judges from doing so and completely removing them from "office".

As far as President's go..

Article II
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.

Pretty clear. If a President is not in office, one can not be removed from office.

[Robert Faygo]

Agreed again, and not up for debate.

What is up for debate is if he would be qualified to hold office again under the 14th Amendment (and thus the trial). I'm not smart enough to answer definitively one way or the other which is why I'm in favor of the process playing out and hoping it gets a hearing before the SCOTUS.

I could give a rats patootie about the actual humans and their parties involved. I'm enthralled by the Constitutional aspect of it all.

[Bryce]

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.

The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...

So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.

b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount

Ouch!

Not so sure it was viewed as damaging as you clearly see it.

[Honeyman]

[Bryce]

But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...

[Honeyman]

But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...

If you continue to drink the kool-aid that this was a fraudulent election, then the thread should end right here.

[Bryce]

But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...

If you continue to drink the kool-aid that this was a fraudulent election, then the thread should end right here.

I will stop believing so when someone explains to me why the last minute changes made to the election process in several of the key swing states, that was NOT approved by the state legislators, holds muster with this.

Article I
Section 4
Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[Rate This]

They were going to March down there and have tea and discuss this reasonably? That was gonna be their fight? No way.

As far as precedent goes there are already a couple of examples of judges being impeached once out of office.

That march was pre planned and started well before Trump was finished speaking. By your logic, Bernie Sanders should be impeached because one of his supporters shot up a softball practice.

Judges. Judges are not presidents. Retired judges can preside over judicial matters.

(b)Any judge of the United States who has retired from regular active service under section 371(b) or 372(a) of this title shall be known and designated as a senior judge and may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake, when designated and assigned as provided in subsections (c) and (d).
(c)Any retired circuit or district judge may be designated and assigned by the chief judge or judicial council of his circuit to perform such judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and able to undertake. Any other retired judge of the United States may be designated and assigned by the chief judge of his court to perform such judicial duties in such court as he is willing and able to undertake.

Impeachment is a vehicle to keep less than honorable judges from doing so and completely removing them from "office".

As far as President's go..

Article II
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.

Pretty clear. If a President is not in office, one can not be removed from office.

The crux of it is disqualification from future office holding. That was the point of trying the judges after the fact as well.

[Rate This]

But you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire...

If you continue to drink the kool-aid that this was a fraudulent election, then the thread should end right here.

I will stop believing so when someone explains to me why the last minute changes made to the election process in several of the key swing states, that was NOT approved by the state legislators, holds muster with this.

Article I
Section 4
Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Because in those states the legislature further distilled the practical operations of the elections to the Secretaries of State. It’s not like they have to review every minute change in elections and approve it with a bill. Some of this can be delegated to other elected officials that directly oversee things.