Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't believe anyone still quotes this. It's been debunked from here to the moon. Unless of course the intent is to sway uninformed low-info people who don't know better.
Repeat after me: It is not, say again, it is not, the role of Congress to prove that a statutory crime has been committed. Impeachment does not require that a specific crime be committed. Criminal prosecution, if any, is handled by the justice system AFTER the president is removed from office and is an ordinary citizen.
Source: Constitution, court rulings, law texts
Apparently they have no defense strategy.
Quote:
The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1]
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[6] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[6] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[7][1]
The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][8] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[9][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[9][7][1]
In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one-third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word "criminal" or "crime" to describe the conduct alleged.[1]
Because Trump illegally and unconstitutionally ordered key witnesses to ignore subpoenas
No he did not.
The House could have argued this in front of SCOTUS for a ruling but they withdrew 1 Subpoena and did not take the others to court.
It's only Illegal and Unconstitutional if he goes against a court order and there were none.
Pelosi did not take it court because she knew she would lose not because she was in a hurry.
The Obstruction Charge is the biggest hoax of the 2 charges.
The House could have argued this in front of SCOTUS for a ruling but they withdrew 1 Subpoena and did not take the others to court.
It's only Illegal and Unconstitutional if he goes against a court order and there were none.
Pelosi did not take it court because she knew she would lose not because she was in a hurry.
The Obstruction Charge is the biggest hoax of the 2 charges.
There are 2 impeachment related cases currently under review before the DC Court of Appeals.
There are 3 Trump related cases on the calendar to be reviewed in March before the SCOTUS.
Hopefully, all of these will clarify some of these issues.
& by the way, all of those subpoenaed to appear at the House hearings were ordered by the Court to appear. The White House instructed them not to appear.
He also instructed his officials to defy subpoenas by not providing documents, & other testamentary evidence.
Because Trump illegally and unconstitutionally ordered key witnesses to ignore subpoenas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
No he did not.
The House could have argued this in front of SCOTUS for a ruling but they withdrew 1 Subpoena and did not take the others to court.
It's only Illegal and Unconstitutional if he goes against a court order and there were none.
Pelosi did not take it court because she knew she would lose not because she was in a hurry.
The Obstruction Charge is the biggest hoax of the 2 charges.
Unfortunately Elliot what Rakin says is true. Except for the last sentence.
Speaker Pelosi’s gameswomanship reminds me a lot of R.E. Lee’s negotiating position at Appomattox. Out of bullets and food, yet still insisting he can hold out.
And, generally won on appeal. It is easy to judge shop at the District level, though less so after 36 months of the Trump administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
The Trump administration has lost every case in the lower courts.
They have appealed every time they’ve lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Optics. Now that we have a war time president ...
