One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Let Us Discuss Impeachment
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
May 23, 2019 01:35:48   #
Seth
 
DaWg44 wrote:
I think if a President can be impeached for anything he/she did before being elected, short of major heinous crime, all Senators & Representatives should be quickly impeached for their crimes while in office, not just meaningless censure.

What happened to Statesmen, reckon I better say Statespersons? How did politician become a full time, extremely lucrative job? The original Senators & Representatives worked for nothing, got the job done quickly, & went back home for the year, no retirement plan, free healthcare, no security details, no covey of staff. There were no 10-20,000 page bills.

When one looks at what those people accomplished, compared to what our bunch has accomplished in the last 50 years, we are not getting our money’s worth for sure.
I think if a President can be impeached for anythi... (show quote)


Well said!

Reply
May 23, 2019 01:43:16   #
badbob85037
 
Pennylynn wrote:
President Clinton was NOT impeached for sexual misbehavior. His impeachment was for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. When it got to the Senate, they acquitted him on both charges. They rejected the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50.

President Nixon was not impeached.

Andrew Johnson was impeached on 11 articles, nine of which cite Johnson’s removal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. More interesting is the underlying or real reasons, it was his lenient Reconstruction policy for the defeated South, including almost total amnesty to ex-Confederates, a program of rapid restoration of U.S.-state status for the seceded states, and the approval of new, local Southern governments. In other words they punished him because he wanted to rebuild the Southern states instead of keeping those individuals impoverished and dependent on, and thereby controlled by the North.

To find a way to get rid of Johnson, in March 1867, the Republican-dominated Congress (this is prior to the flip of names (Republicans became Democrats)) passed the Tenure of Office Act over the president’s veto. The bill prohibited the president from removing officials confirmed by the Senate without senatorial approval and was designed to shield members of Johnson’s Cabinet like Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who had been a leading Republican radical in the Lincoln administration. In the fall of 1867, President Johnson attempted to test the constitutionality of the act by replacing Stanton with General Ulysses S. Grant. However, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the case, and Grant turned the office back to Stanton after the Senate passed a measure in protest of the dismissal.

On February 21, 1868, Johnson decided to rid himself of Stanton once and for all and appointed General Lorenzo Thomas, an individual far less favorable to the Congress than Grant, as secretary of war. Stanton refused to yield, barricading himself in his office, and the House of Representatives, which had already discussed impeachment after Johnson’s first dismissal of Stanton, initiated formal impeachment proceedings against the president. On February 24, Johnson was impeached, and on March 13 his impeachment trial began in the Senate under the direction of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. The trial ended on May 26 with Johnson’s opponents narrowly failing to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to convict him.

So, no President has been removed from office, impeached yes, but never removed.

Another thing that some folks do not understand, both Presidents that were impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached for actions while president. Impeachment is set aside for crimes committed as a government official. This is interesting situation, if the House impeaches President Trump for actions he took while a civilian, will this open a can of worms allowing impeachment of past presidents, stripping them of their title as President? Another question, must there be a crime? Some claim that no crime is necessary. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Now, I open this up for civil discussion. Whether you love, only tolerate, or simply hate President Trump does not matter. Consider if he is impeached..... what consequences will it bring for past and future presidents. Do we want a president that serves at the pleasure of Congress? And if he is impeached for "crimes" or "impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." according to Congressman Gerald Ford... will anyone be eligible for the office? Everyone has a skeleton or two in their past, and how far in the past should they be investigated?

All opinions are welcome, but be civil!
President Clinton was NOT impeached for sexual mis... (show quote)


We are in debt trillions. We have been in over 60 armed conflicts since the Korean War. Congress has voted their self full pay till the day they die, immune to sexual harassment and insider trading laws. Never has one left office without being filthy rich. Some like Maxine Waters don't even try to hide it. If Americans followed their duty we would call for the impeachment of all but maybe a few you could count on one hand.

That goes for the Supreme Court too. Government has no power to take money from my pay for retirement, or dictate my health care under penalty of large fines. Every gun law is unconstitutional no matter how much sugar you put on it. None have done anything to stop crime and have left thousands of victims. We all should be impeached.

Reply
May 23, 2019 02:09:37   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
badbob85037 wrote:
We are in debt trillions. We have been in over 60 armed conflicts since the Korean War. Congress has voted their self full pay till the day they die, immune to sexual harassment and insider trading laws. Never has one left office without being filthy rich. Some like Maxine Waters don't even try to hide it. If Americans followed their duty we would call for the impeachment of all but maybe a few you could count on one hand.

That goes for the Supreme Court too. Government has no power to take money from my pay for retirement, or dictate my health care under penalty of large fines. Every gun law is unconstitutional no matter how much sugar you put on it. None have done anything to stop crime and have left thousands of victims. We all should be impeached.
We are in debt trillions. We have been in over 60 ... (show quote)


Okay..... I agree with you. So, why are these people not impeached? Impeachment is not limited to the president but applies to all government officers which includes judges as we saw in 2010 when G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was impeached, removed from office, and barred from ever serving again on on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury. Thing about him and another judge from Texas in 2009, guess who ran the show..... if you said Adam Schiff you would be spot on. And who is pushing to have President Trump impeached?

And I go back to my original question, if they manage to impeach President Trump on weak charges or on issues that happened before he was sworn in, or without any evidence of a crime what about future presidents? When/if a Democrat, Independent, Green Party becomes president and Republicans hold the House, can we expect the same actions taken against them? Just because the House is unhappy that they won?

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2019 02:32:26   #
JW
 
woodguru wrote:
Hillary went through endless Benghazi hearings where nothing was ever found, did she ever say enough and refuse to go to a hearing.


If you ignore the lie she told about the cause of it and the innumerable times her response was that couldn't remember and the fact that she hid all of her emails on the whole Ben Ghazi incident, I guess she cooperated...NOT!

Reply
May 23, 2019 03:28:56   #
Seth
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Okay..... I agree with you. So, why are these people not impeached? Impeachment is not limited to the president but applies to all government officers which includes judges as we saw in 2010 when G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was impeached, removed from office, and barred from ever serving again on on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury. Thing about him and another judge from Texas in 2009, guess who ran the show..... if you said Adam Schiff you would be spot on. And who is pushing to have President Trump impeached?

And I go back to my original question, if they manage to impeach President Trump on weak charges or on issues that happened before he was sworn in, or without any evidence of a crime what about future presidents? When/if a Democrat, Independent, Green Party becomes president and Republicans hold the House, can we expect the same actions taken against them? Just because the House is unhappy that they won?
Okay..... I agree with you. So, why are these pe... (show quote)


What I see happening here, and I believe Pelosi does as well, is exactly what I believe you are speculating on: Would a Trump impeachment set a precedent? I believe it would, and I don't think she wants to go down that road.

It's very clear to me that the "progressives" in the House are living up to the penchant today's Democrats have for not looking any farther ahead than the now, as though they are confident that if they "win this one," they'll be set... As if it doesn't occur to them that the House, the Senate and the White House will continue changing hands into the future and that the precedent they set now will likely be used against them later.

It doesn't even seem to enter their minds that impeachment will be unlikely to result in President Trump's removal, nor that after the entire Mueller debacle the electorate, having expected to move on, will punish them for forcing the country to sit through an impeachment in the aftermath of what they had considered a "done deal."

This entire affair is both profoundly childish on these Democrats' part and utterly counterproductive, and at best will send a message to the American people that everything from the Russia collusion kerfuffle to the brouhaha over the president's tax returns is just as Trump said, a "witch hunt" on the taxpayers' dime.

Reply
May 23, 2019 04:17:37   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Seth wrote:
What I see happening here, and I believe Pelosi does as well, is exactly what I believe you are speculating on: Would a Trump impeachment set a precedent? I believe it would, and I don't think she wants to go down that road.

It's very clear to me that the "progressives" in the House are living up to the penchant today's Democrats have for not looking any farther ahead than the now, as though they are confident that if they "win this one," they'll be set... As if it doesn't occur to them that the House, the Senate and the White House will continue changing hands into the future and that the precedent they set now will likely be used against them later.

It doesn't even seem to enter their minds that impeachment will be unlikely to result in President Trump's removal, nor that after the entire Mueller debacle the electorate, having expected to move on, will punish them for forcing the country to sit through an impeachment in the aftermath of what they had considered a "done deal."

This entire affair is both profoundly childish on these Democrats' part and utterly counterproductive, and at best will send a message to the American people that everything from the Russia collusion kerfuffle to the brouhaha over the president's tax returns is just as Trump said, a "witch hunt" on the taxpayers' dime.
What I see happening here, and I believe Pelosi do... (show quote)


You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump would set a precedent. The Mueller report cleared him and his staff of working with or for the Russians. Now all they have is obstruction of justice. But, justice was not obstructed--there was no crime to hide.

His income taxes before he was sworn in, they can't impeach him on them, but a civilian court can try, find, or jail him if he lied or cheated..... but, only after he is no longer president.

The Constitution is clear, the person being considered for impeachment must be a government official. In the past 40 or more years, presidents held some sort of federal office, so the House could impeach any one of them for actions that happened while in office in their previous job. Not so with Trump, he was a civilian having never held a federal office.

So, here is the problem. If the House moves forward with impeachment they would have to prove that President Trump 1). Committed a crime after he was elected and 2). He intended to cover up that crime. Not liking the President is not sufficient cause. Not liking his policies, again is insufficient. They have to find a indisputable crime to charge him.... Unless Ford is correct and the House can use any excuse. However, when Ford wrote that opinion the vast majority of law makers disagreed.

The start of the impeachment talk all started with Adam Schiff who grew over confident when he successfully had two judges removed from office: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Samuel Kent. He has greater ambitions and driving the impeachment of the President would give him "power" and notoriety, in other words a step to his next position. The judges were easy, they actually were criminals. But, a sitting President that investigation proved no crime, that is different.

Should the House decide and impeach the President, I doubt that he will be removed from office. I think Pelosi knows this and if they go in that direction and fail to remove him from office, 2020 will be another Republican year and those in the House who are up for reelection will go Republican.... thus not only will it ruin the Democrats bid for the Oval Office but they will lose the House too. This then will set off a rush to complete the promises made on immigration, over seas trade, health care....etc.

There may be other consequences. Killary may be retroactively impeached. She was never tried for espionage, although she did knowingly released classified information. So, she could be tried for that crime, she destroyed government property which is punishable as theft, and if she destroyed the equipment to hide a crime...., obstruction and so on. If this happens the government will collect all funds she collected as a retiree from the government. And Bill could be investigated for his cooperation/collaboration in her criminal actions. And that is just for starts.... Bill, Obama, Lynch.... it could get real messy. So.... I think that Nancy has been around long enough to realize the can of worms impeaching Trump would let lose.

This is my thoughts on the issue.

Reply
May 23, 2019 04:55:31   #
Seth
 
Pennylynn wrote:
You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump would set a precedent. The Mueller report cleared him and his staff of working with or for the Russians. Now all they have is obstruction of justice. But, justice was not obstructed--there was no crime to hide.

His income taxes before he was sworn in, they can't impeach him on them, but a civilian court can try, find, or jail him if he lied or cheated..... but, only after he is no longer president.

The Constitution is clear, the person being considered for impeachment must be a government official. In the past 40 or more years, presidents held some sort of federal office, so the House could impeach any one of them for actions that happened while in office in their previous job. Not so with Trump, he was a civilian having never held a federal office.

So, here is the problem. If the House moves forward with impeachment they would have to prove that President Trump 1). Committed a crime and 2). He intended to cover up that crime. Not liking the President is not sufficient cause. Not liking his policies, again is insufficient. They have to find a indisputable crime to charge him.... Unless Ford is correct and the House can use any excuse. However, when Ford wrote that opinion the vast majority of law makers disagreed.

The start of the impeachment talk all started with Adam Schiff who grew over confident when he successfully had two judges removed from office: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Samuel Kent. He has greater ambitions and driving the impeachment of the President would give him "power" and notoriety, in other words a step to his next position. The judges were easy, they actually were criminals. But, a sitting President that investigation proved no crime, that is different.

Should the House decide and impeach the President, I doubt that he will be removed from office. I think Pelosi knows this and if they go in that direction and fail to remove him from office, 2020 will be another Republican year and those in the House who are up for reelection will go Republican.... thus not only will it ruin the Democrats bid for the Oval Office but they will lose the House too. This then will set off a rush to complete the promises made on immigration, over seas trade, health care....etc.

There may be other consequences. Killary may be retroactively impeached. She was never tried for espionage, although she did knowingly release classified information. So, she could be tried for that crime, she destroyed government property which is punishable for theft, and if she destroyed the equipment to hide a crime.... and so on. If this happens the government will collect all funds she collected as a retiree of the government. And Bill could be investigated for his cooperation in her criminal actions. And that is just for starts.... Bill, Obama, Lynch.... it could get real messy. So.... I think that Nancy has been around long enough to realize the can of worms impeaching Trump would let lose.

This is my thoughts on the issue.
You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump ... (show quote)


I totally agree.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2019 05:19:50   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Seth wrote:
I totally agree.


You know that some folks on OPP will disagree, but they rarely give any basis for that disagreement. I was so happy to see your comment, in fact I was ready to give up this thread as being over the heads of many. So, thank you so very much, you give me hope of unemotional discussions on OPP.

Reply
May 23, 2019 06:40:20   #
jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana
 
DaWg44 wrote:
I think if a President can be impeached for anything he/she did before being elected, short of major heinous crime, all Senators & Representatives should be quickly impeached for their crimes while in office, not just meaningless censure.

What happened to Statesmen, reckon I better say Statespersons? How did politician become a full time, extremely lucrative job? The original Senators & Representatives worked for nothing, got the job done quickly, & went back home for the year, no retirement plan, free healthcare, no security details, no covey of staff. There were no 10-20,000 page bills.

When one looks at what those people accomplished, compared to what our bunch has accomplished in the last 50 years, we are not getting our money’s worth for sure.
I think if a President can be impeached for anythi... (show quote)


👍👍👍👍

Reply
May 23, 2019 06:47:56   #
jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana
 
JW wrote:
"Obama's administration cooperated with endless GOP investigations that were far more partisan. "

It's not deflection if you raised the subject. The funny thing is the alternate reality you live in. Obama/Holder/Clinton not only refused all cooperation on Fast and Furious, Ben Ghazi, the IRS/Lerner scandal, just to name a few, but they made up lies and spent taxpayer money to promote those lies. Co-operation? Give me break... After all "at this point what possible difference can it make".

Please explain to me what can possibly be more partisan than the Democrat harassment of Trump. The Republicans never even asked to see Obama's birth certificate. After his 57 state remark, he should have been scrubbed as a candidate. Not a thing was said about a candidate for the Presidency too ignorant of the country to even know what makes it up. But, like Biden said, he was a "well spoken, clean black man". Just the right coverboy for the moronic agenda the Left is watching finally crumbling before their eyes.

Good riddance!
"Obama's administration cooperated with endle... (show quote)


Amen and amen!

Reply
May 23, 2019 06:52:21   #
jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana
 
Pennylynn wrote:
You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump would set a precedent. The Mueller report cleared him and his staff of working with or for the Russians. Now all they have is obstruction of justice. But, justice was not obstructed--there was no crime to hide.

His income taxes before he was sworn in, they can't impeach him on them, but a civilian court can try, find, or jail him if he lied or cheated..... but, only after he is no longer president.

The Constitution is clear, the person being considered for impeachment must be a government official. In the past 40 or more years, presidents held some sort of federal office, so the House could impeach any one of them for actions that happened while in office in their previous job. Not so with Trump, he was a civilian having never held a federal office.

So, here is the problem. If the House moves forward with impeachment they would have to prove that President Trump 1). Committed a crime after he was elected and 2). He intended to cover up that crime. Not liking the President is not sufficient cause. Not liking his policies, again is insufficient. They have to find a indisputable crime to charge him.... Unless Ford is correct and the House can use any excuse. However, when Ford wrote that opinion the vast majority of law makers disagreed.

The start of the impeachment talk all started with Adam Schiff who grew over confident when he successfully had two judges removed from office: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Samuel Kent. He has greater ambitions and driving the impeachment of the President would give him "power" and notoriety, in other words a step to his next position. The judges were easy, they actually were criminals. But, a sitting President that investigation proved no crime, that is different.

Should the House decide and impeach the President, I doubt that he will be removed from office. I think Pelosi knows this and if they go in that direction and fail to remove him from office, 2020 will be another Republican year and those in the House who are up for reelection will go Republican.... thus not only will it ruin the Democrats bid for the Oval Office but they will lose the House too. This then will set off a rush to complete the promises made on immigration, over seas trade, health care....etc.

There may be other consequences. Killary may be retroactively impeached. She was never tried for espionage, although she did knowingly released classified information. So, she could be tried for that crime, she destroyed government property which is punishable as theft, and if she destroyed the equipment to hide a crime...., obstruction and so on. If this happens the government will collect all funds she collected as a retiree from the government. And Bill could be investigated for his cooperation/collaboration in her criminal actions. And that is just for starts.... Bill, Obama, Lynch.... it could get real messy. So.... I think that Nancy has been around long enough to realize the can of worms impeaching Trump would let lose.

This is my thoughts on the issue.
You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump ... (show quote)


Totally agree as well!

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2019 07:31:35   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
jSmitty45 wrote:
Totally agree as well!


Thank you for stopping in. Some good honest remarks so far!!!

Reply
May 23, 2019 08:24:50   #
Seth
 
Pennylynn wrote:
You know that some folks on OPP will disagree, but they rarely give any basis for that disagreement. I was so happy to see your comment, in fact I was ready to give up this thread as being over the heads of many. So, thank you so very much, you give me hope of unemotional discussions on OPP.



Reply
May 23, 2019 09:17:18   #
bahmer
 
Pennylynn wrote:
You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump would set a precedent. The Mueller report cleared him and his staff of working with or for the Russians. Now all they have is obstruction of justice. But, justice was not obstructed--there was no crime to hide.

His income taxes before he was sworn in, they can't impeach him on them, but a civilian court can try, find, or jail him if he lied or cheated..... but, only after he is no longer president.

The Constitution is clear, the person being considered for impeachment must be a government official. In the past 40 or more years, presidents held some sort of federal office, so the House could impeach any one of them for actions that happened while in office in their previous job. Not so with Trump, he was a civilian having never held a federal office.

So, here is the problem. If the House moves forward with impeachment they would have to prove that President Trump 1). Committed a crime after he was elected and 2). He intended to cover up that crime. Not liking the President is not sufficient cause. Not liking his policies, again is insufficient. They have to find a indisputable crime to charge him.... Unless Ford is correct and the House can use any excuse. However, when Ford wrote that opinion the vast majority of law makers disagreed.

The start of the impeachment talk all started with Adam Schiff who grew over confident when he successfully had two judges removed from office: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Samuel Kent. He has greater ambitions and driving the impeachment of the President would give him "power" and notoriety, in other words a step to his next position. The judges were easy, they actually were criminals. But, a sitting President that investigation proved no crime, that is different.

Should the House decide and impeach the President, I doubt that he will be removed from office. I think Pelosi knows this and if they go in that direction and fail to remove him from office, 2020 will be another Republican year and those in the House who are up for reelection will go Republican.... thus not only will it ruin the Democrats bid for the Oval Office but they will lose the House too. This then will set off a rush to complete the promises made on immigration, over seas trade, health care....etc.

There may be other consequences. Killary may be retroactively impeached. She was never tried for espionage, although she did knowingly released classified information. So, she could be tried for that crime, she destroyed government property which is punishable as theft, and if she destroyed the equipment to hide a crime...., obstruction and so on. If this happens the government will collect all funds she collected as a retiree from the government. And Bill could be investigated for his cooperation/collaboration in her criminal actions. And that is just for starts.... Bill, Obama, Lynch.... it could get real messy. So.... I think that Nancy has been around long enough to realize the can of worms impeaching Trump would let lose.

This is my thoughts on the issue.
You are spot on! Yes, impeaching President Trump ... (show quote)


There are two other things that Nancy Pelosi may well be aware of and the others have either forgotten or are pushing it to the back of their minds and that is after the republicans impeached Bill Clinton he went o n to win the next election and the republicans took a huge hit, The other is Harry Reid using the nuclear option in the senate and after he left the senate it came back to bite the democrats when Mitch McConnell used it against the democrats in Judicial appointments from President Trump for the SCOTUS positions. So if they impeach Trump over something minor they could plan on it coming back to bite them big time next.

Reply
May 23, 2019 13:32:29   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
woodguru wrote:
Funny thing about real people, real trump supporters...I know quite a few, they have different degrees of what information sinks in. Several do not agree with the government interfering in abortion. Several say they think Trump is making a mistake refusing to comply with congress, they know that Obama's administration cooperated with endless GOP investigations that were far more partisan. Several say that if Trump can be proved to have obstructed and interfered with investigations he needs to be held accountable, here is where they waffle and bring in the what about Hillary or Obama deflection.
Funny thing about real people, real trump supporte... (show quote)


Let's look at how Obama cooperated with investigations...Eric Holder was held in contempt for NOT turning over records on Fast and Furious. That's NOT cooperation. Obama then pardoned him. That's NOT cooperating. Obama then sealed his own records by executive order. Still NOT cooperating. A lawsuit was filed to get those sealed docs, and when released, were just a pile of black pages.
Is that your idea of cooperation?
And Hillary? She destroyed subpoenaed evidence! And what was HER punishment? Nothing...not a thing.Comey even changed the report on it from criminal to negligent. Her and Bill just recently had a fire that destroyed Clinton Foundation records. How convenient, Huh?
Your side of the aisle has swallowed a camel and and are now straining a gnat.
Just remember, whatever junk charge/charges you finally, after years of scratching for ANYTHING, throw on Trump will equally be thrown at the next democrat candidates. Eventually, we will not be able to elect a president because no one will be found "clean enough" to take the job.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.