marinevet73

There have been 19 impeachments so far. 2 presidents, both acquitted, 1 senator, 1 secretary of war, and the rest a bunch of judges. Roughly half were found guilty and removed from their office. I think the process is pretty constitutional.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Uh so , the story is the same , one side says this , the other says that.
The corruption was under investigation before Hunter was on the board. Hunter was doing the same as Trump when he gave his name to the different companies. The main difference is that Trump actually has some experience
while Hunter did not. Questionable yes but is not illegal. Biden statement was stupid. The same as with some statements made by Trump. Yes the investigation was reopened and the result was that Hunter did not do anything illegal. Now when everything get settled the shit will hit the fan and the effect will be dramatic. So like I've said before it may be because of the bias. But when the statement made by Trump on the phone that he needs a favor and then Biden's name it was reported.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I am not saying that the impeachments this country has had were unconstitutional. I am not saying that the checks and balances written in the constitution are not constitutional. What I am saying is that there is a process for impeachment. This process must be protected at all costs to ensure the protections of the federal government on the people. What I am saying is that every American is protected from governmental tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison, all agreed that the only attack on the constitution that will cause it to fall is a faction of men.

Thomas Jefferson started a war against the lobbyists that hovered like bees around the white house when he was president. Jefferson was the third president that these united States had. Jefferson won a brutal fight against John Adams his friend and fellow founder of these United States. But it wasn't until 1787 when the Constitution took effect.

James Madison is considered the father of the Constitution. The Constitution does work, it has brought colonies to a nation, to the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. These geniuses, or as we call them, forefathers of the constitution, bestowed upon us, a system of governmental checks and balances which protects the people, protects the states, protects the federal government. This system is now under attack through this impeachment threat to the democracy.

First we have unhappy people with the 2016 election. John McCain once said in 2016, "There has been a long tradition of peaceful transfer of power..." Where is that tradition today. Where is the due process here?

If the Democrats used due process, then there would be no argument that the white house could use to stop the process. It would go to the senate, almost automatically. Then it would be up to the Senate to decide the president's fate. That is not what is happening here. Instead through conversations behind closed doors, they have already decided that the president is guilty before trial. Do you know what that is called? Harassment, discrimination, and prejudice. The true definition. Due process is defined in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th, 15th and 16th amendments.

Let's examine the situation for a moment from the president's point of view:

1. He was unjustly investigated through the FBI, State Department, and other agencies under his control. The result of the investigation has proven that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the president. Therefore, by policy, the president could not be charged with a crime he did not commit or plainly put, could not be charged with a crime where there was insufficient evidence to prove that a crime was committed. Since there was no crime, what purpose would there be in charging the president with a crime that was unprovable? Since the findings of two FBI investigations, two Congressional investigations, and the Mueller Report, found insufficient evidence, there is no obstruction of justice. For two and a half years, these investigations went on destroying the lives of our fellow Americans, and all they came up with is insufficient evidence, with no presumption of innocence, I would say the man is innocent.

2. The president recommended Bill Barr for attorney general. The Senate held hearings to confirm Barr for the position. During the conversation, Bill Barr suspected that the Trump Campaign was spied upon. This is what sparked the promise by Bill Barr that as attorney general he would look into the investigation and get to the bottom of it. The Senate confirmed Barr as Attorney General of the United States.

3. The president had a conversation with the president of Ukraine. According to the Constitution, the president, like a sheriff can appoint anyone to investigate a criminal case. Also the president can appoint his personal attorney to be involved in the investigation. Look the prosecution had its chance, and they held a two and a half year investigation, beginning with the FBI and reaching into the State Department, and some ambassadors too. So acting as the "Sheriff" as president, he is well within his right to ask the president of Ukraine to look into the origins of the collusion that occured in the 2016 election. The focus was not Joe Biden, as it was reported, but rather to investigate what happened in the 2016 election. What was found as collateral evidence was the issue with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

4. [Has anyone ever played Dungeons and Dragons, put out by TSR and now Wizards of the Coast? If you did play the game, there is an issue of Out of Character knowledge which could not be used when playing your character. OCK is very bad and under minds the game. Now, I know Adam Schiff is the chairman of the intel community, but OCK will undermind his judgement. Plus, OCK could also undermine Trump's judgement too.] Looking at the conversation of Donald Trump and the Ukraine President, I have found that many people in the press, news, and even many Democrats including Adam Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi, were inaccurate to what was said.

a. Looking at the transcript which is the official White House Transcript, it appears that the president was looking for information on behalf of his defense attorney, Guilenoni, his Attorney General, William Barr, and Barr's investigator, Duram. He introduced these men to the president of Ukraine and asked the president to look into dealings with the country and put to rest rumors that the previous Vice President brought up, that was reported in the News. Now this is a different take on the transcript, that I gathered from reading the transcript. It is true that this request somewhat confirms the whistleblower complaint. However the motives as described in the transcript and the motives described in the complaint are different. Now, this is where Out of Character knowledge comes into play. (Let's put this on hold for a moment)

5. Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry that "is fair....". The Constitution already established a fair process when an American citizen is accused in any court within the powers of the federal government. Federalist papers establish the reasons why this process must be followed. Otherwise it can be considered a mistrial. At this point, if Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate, the Senate could send the bill back to the House and declare a mistrial. The reason is because the president was denied his constitutional rights within the process.

What I have written above, 1-5 is from the president's point of view. Now, lets look at the other point of view:

1. The investigations showed obstruction of justice.
-A point of fact. If a person is innocent of a charge, the accused actions may be considered an obstruction of justice. Let's say for example, a person accused of murder. After the supposed murder had taken place, the accused sold the murder weapon. Now, in this hypothetical situation, let's assume that you are in the jury. The prosecution says the accused is guilty of obstruction of justice because he sold the murder weapon that the police can't find. The defense argues that the murder weapon sale was because the accused was broke and he needed the money. The sale at the time was legal. But since the sale the weapon was destroyed because the metal was used to make another product. So ballistics was impossible. ---at this point, it looks bad for the accused, because the evidence that was presented seems that way, but then new information comes out, that the accused wasn't even in the country at the time of the murder. So the accused is innocent of the charge of murder, therefore is he still guilty of obstruction? Most would say yes. Then the question becomes, is the actions of the accused, done wittingly or unwittingly. Upon further examination it was found that the sale of the weapon was done unwittingly. For the investigation occured after the weapon was sold. Therefore there was insufficient evidence to bring the charge of murder and obstruction. The Mueller Report defined their decision on obstruction as not enough evidence to charge Trump.

2. Whistleblower report(to be continued.....)

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Yep!
They are going to feel how shooting themselves in the foot feels in Novembr 2020.

They will be renamed the Limping Party.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

I agree with you up a point but you seem to be following the impreachment as a criminal case which it is not it more political. The impreachment is being based on presumed unethical actions.

If the the person who is being charged while on a criminal case the following admendments can they protect the person. As explained by you due process is defined in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th, 15th and 16th amendments. Since impeachment isn't a criminal case because of separation of powers congress can't try a criminal case the admendments don't apply. Due process which does apply is defined in the House Procedures. The house investigates using committees the same way the police investigators look at a case. The investigator looks at what is presented and decides if what is seen is good enough to pass on to the house for a vote.

4th deals with police officers

5th criminal and civil
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law.

Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants,

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", maybe in a grey area he is a citizen. We are talking impeachment not criminal.

The 15th deals with the ability to vote may not be applicable.

The 16th deals with taxes.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"This push for impeachment is being decided by one faction of the American community, that community is called the 'far left', the liberals, or the Democrats. As history has shown in the past few years, they will not quit. This is their choice. However, We, the people and citizens of these United States, are watching this soap opera play out. Before you decide whether or not Trump is guilty or innocent remember that the president is still an American Citizen.

Now being an American Citizen first, he enjoys the protections of the Constitution in all cases. Which means he has the following rights:...."

Bravo!!!
The elections in 2020 should reflect what the Left is attempting now.
A land slide for Republicans.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Criminal I agree but the impreachment is not considered criminal if he is removed from office he doesn't lose any rights or previlges except for one which with his removal from office means he was not fit to serve.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Incidentally impeachment is criminal because before Wilson and Roosevelt (their congresses) changed the law, there was only criminal suit. And according to Alexander Hamilton, a judge or a president can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" these are criminal actions that make the subject suceptable to impeachment and recall. Hamilton and Madison did not want the check on the executive to be weaponized by any faction, Democrat, Whig, Republican, etc. It was only to be used in extreme cases.

Technically one could say, Joe Biden is guilty of bribery. Does that make him ineligible for federal office? There is no statue of limitations on treason or bribery.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Also by house rules to fit the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, the subject has to be guilty of an immoral, unethical, illegal act such was the case with Nixon, Johnson and Clinton, it was not all three. Nixon knew it so he resigned and Ford pardoned him. So they couldn't charge tricky Dick.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

In the case of Trump, the house Democrats are looking for a crime, in the other three presidents the special council found the crime. And in the other three cases, the justice department investigated the matter, Congress just reviewed the matter. This is one reason why the process against Trump is in fair and unconstitutional.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

The Dems need their witch hunt.
What else can they use to stop american progress being made by Trump and Republicans.

Steve Hilton: The truth about impeachment
https://youtu.be/fIwaJNb0ghQ

Ingraham: Premature poll positioning
https://youtu.be/_mo-3RWKMGQ

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Steve Hilton: The truth about impeachment
https://youtu.be/fIwaJNb0ghQ

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

What is the process? If we follow presentant, then any evidence gathered before the House votes can be suppressed and cannot be used in trial in the Senate. It is called fruit from the poisonous tree.

The resolution presented for tomorrow, is not a vote for investigation, (Congressional inquiry), but rather a resolution to grant one political party, the power to bring witnesses and not allow the accused to defend themselves. It is a vote for Republicans to have no congressional privilege to bring witnesses on the President's behalf to rebut the testimony of the witnesses brought by the Democrats. It is a vote to shut the mouths of the American People and undue the 2016 election.

If this continues, the Republicans should filibuster the House until the results of the 2020 election is known. And if Trump is reelected continue to filibuster this effort until either the House is changed by vote of the people, or until the democrats give up.

When there is no precedent the rules of fairness apply. When there is precedent, then the precedent must be upheld unless the precedent is determined unfair.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Which version are you referring to the one I'm reading dosen't mention any definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are past charges on the other impeachment and again due to separation of powers congress can't follow through on criminal cases. This is my read on 65 and 66 since all that was mentioned was that the house is solely responsible for the investigation for impeachment charges. Which no where in constitution does it give a detailed method or guidelines to follow that was what caused the objections written.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

The only hope the Demons have is removal of Trump from office. Fighting America's success on sooo many fronts, is a Bitch!