impeachment

[old2soon]

I've read and heard this term bandied about concerning our current POTUS-Donald Trump. To our Barristers or other Knowledgeable folks on this board has President Trump done Anything impeachable? I'm NOT asking about feelings or your particular rampant hate. Lawfully/Legally can he be impeached for Anything since he became POTUS? Curious minds and likea dat. RIDE SAFE.

[Serk]

Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:

"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."

So, if you believe the "Russia Collusion" fairy tale, I can see that falling under those requirements. (Which is most likely why that fantasy was cooked up in the first place.)

[The emperor has no clothes]

Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:

"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."

So, if you believe the "Russia Collusion" fairy tale, I can see that falling under those requirements. (Which is most likely why that fantasy was cooked up in the first place.)

Obstruction of justice would also fall into the impeachment category.

[Robert]

Nope not done a thing to justify impeachment. Remember its a political ploy, move, by the dems to keep the focus and pressure on Trump as if he was doing something wrong.

If you throw enough st** at the wall maybe something will stick and if it doesn't then at least we have created doubts and falsehoods with accusations even if wrong to create enough doubt for people to think somethings wrong and turned the focus away from the accomplishments that he has done good. It puts a question in people Just exactly the reaction you had.

The real issue is making people loose focus on the IG report and whats happening with the corruption in our government by the past admin, that is the reason, the purpose and a way to manipulate.

You can call it Psychological warfare, propaganda, mind control, any number of names but the game is the same, keep focus away from important issues and facts, that would reflect negatively on your party. Its done all the time by political groups when bad news is on the horizon.

If you listen to Maxine Waters she is yelling the outrageous things that are being talked about behind closed doors but not able to speak with truth since there is not enough there for action on any matter. But enough to rile those with no knowledge of the facts, a pot stirrer to be exact.


This is the play book *************

Rules for Radicals

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is a 1971 book by community activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky about how to successfully run a movement for change.

Once the community was united behind a common symbol, Alinsky would find a common enemy for the community to be united against.

The use of common enemy against a community was another theme of Rules for Radicals, as a uniting element in communities


    "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
    "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
    "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
    "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
    "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
    "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
    "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
    "Keep the pressure on."
    "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
    "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
    "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside"
    "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
    "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[old2soon]

         I was thinking IF he had indeed done something impeachable it would more than likely have come out by now. I guess smoke and mirrors on the part of his opposition would be a fair statement? We'll see where this thread heads fer a bit. With ALL the grains of salt I be taking lately really gotz ta pay tenshun to my blood pressure!  RIDE SAFE.

[Robert]

The tactics are quite dirty but the truth that is being distracted from and to be revealed is so much worse. They will not give up this country without a fight.

[Moonshot_1]

Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:

"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."

So, if you believe the "Russia Collusion" fairy tale, I can see that falling under those requirements. (Which is most likely why that fantasy was cooked up in the first place.)

As I understand it...

Impeachment and subsequent Conviction is a political process, not a criminal one.
In the current environment, a political side, (democrat) with a majority of votes can on the House side bring Impeachment proceedings and vote to Impeach, essentially on a whim. In other words, by majority rule they can DEFINE what Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and misdemeanors mean. The Senate can vote to convict, by a majority, on the charges brought.
This would remove the President from office. No crime needed.

Now a true criminal case would bolster the Impeachment position politically, but it is not required.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:

"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."

So, if you believe the "Russia Collusion" fairy tale, I can see that falling under those requirements. (Which is most likely why that fantasy was cooked up in the first place.)

As I understand it...

Impeachment and subsequent Conviction is a political process, not a criminal one.
In the current environment, a political side, (democrat) with a majority of votes can on the House side bring Impeachment proceedings and vote to Impeach, essentially on a whim. In other words, by majority rule they can DEFINE what Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and misdemeanors mean. The Senate can vote to convict, by a majority, on the charges brought.
This would remove the President from office. No crime needed.

Now a true criminal case would bolster the Impeachment position politically, but it is not required.

Incorrect. Impeachment requires a vote of 2/3’s by th Senate.

[Serk]

Incorrect. Impeachment requires a vote of 2/3’s by th Senate.

Incorrect. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the house of representatives.

A 2/3 super majority of the senate is required to convict and remove someone after they've been impeached.

It's a two stage process, first the house impeaches by a simple majority, then a trial is held in the senate, after which the senate is required to have a 2/3 majority vote to convict, and then remove.

Clinton was impeached by the house, but not convicted and removed by the senate.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Incorrect. Impeachment requires a vote of 2/3’s by th Senate.

Incorrect. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the house of representatives.

A 2/3 super majority of the senate is required to convict and remove someone after they've been impeached.

It's a two stage process, first the house impeaches by a simple majority, then a trial is held in the senate, after which the senate is required to have a 2/3 majority vote to convict, and then remove.

Clinton was impeached by the house, but not convicted and removed by the senate.

I should have stated it more clearly. 

[Pete]

Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:

"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."

So, if you believe the "Russia Collusion" fairy tale, I can see that falling under those requirements. (Which is most likely why that fantasy was cooked up in the first place.)

As I understand it...

Impeachment and subsequent Conviction is a political process, not a criminal one.
In the current environment, a political side, (democrat) with a majority of votes can on the House side bring Impeachment proceedings and vote to Impeach, essentially on a whim. In other words, by majority rule they can DEFINE what Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and misdemeanors mean. The Senate can vote to convict, by a majority, on the charges brought.
This would remove the President from office. No crime needed.

Now a true criminal case would bolster the Impeachment position politically, but it is not required.

It is a shame that you are  very correct in todays political climate.

That was not the original intent, original intent was that a crime must have been committed and the president must have been guilty.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:

"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."

So, if you believe the "Russia Collusion" fairy tale, I can see that falling under those requirements. (Which is most likely why that fantasy was cooked up in the first place.)

As I understand it...

Impeachment and subsequent Conviction is a political process, not a criminal one.
In the current environment, a political side, (democrat) with a majority of votes can on the House side bring Impeachment proceedings and vote to Impeach, essentially on a whim. In other words, by majority rule they can DEFINE what Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and misdemeanors mean. The Senate can vote to convict, by a majority, on the charges brought.
This would remove the President from office. No crime needed.

Now a true criminal case would bolster the Impeachment position politically, but it is not required.

It is a shame that you are  very correct in todays political climate.

That was not the original intent, original intent was that a crime must have been committed and the president must have been guilty.

Andrew Johnson was impeached on mostly political grounds 140 years ago. Unfortunately we are faced with the moral character of Congress in the matter of impeachment.

[Moonshot_1]

yes that should have read 2/3's majority. It is still a political process and not a criminal one. No crimes need be committed to get impeached. Loosely defined acts taken completely out of context and twisted till unrecognizable will do.