Abuse of power not impeachable? Think again...

[joko104]

Are you on the Trump legal team, and will be arguing this before the Senate?

Are you on Schiff's team and will be arguing before the Senate? :roll:

 

[tres borrachos]

Progressives are too easily triggered to possess firearms

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That must explain why it's Republicans using guns to blow up schools, churches and outdoor concerts?

 

[tres borrachos]

Are you on Schiff's team and will be arguing before the Senate? :roll:

No, and I don't even know why you'd ask me that, considering I'm not on this board or this thread arguing a legal point.

I wouldn't expect subtlety to make sense to a Trump devotee. You do what Master tells you to do.

 

[Slavister]

Only extra stupid people don't know the meaning of the words "crimes" and "misdemeanors".

Nixon committed actual crimes under federal statutes. Bill Clinton committed crimes under state and federal statutes. Committing crimes as president could be describes as "abuse of power," but abuse of power without a crime is just a political slogan, basis to seek a court order, or to claim political corruption. Democrats furiously demand that Joe Biden's "abuse of power" was not criminal, so therefore is A-OK.

As was already explained "high crimes and misdemeanors" has nothing to do with US state and federal statutes, and has existed for 100s of years before USA itself. The phrase definitely includes outrageous abuse of power.

Nixon and Clinton had "abuse of power" as one of their articles of impeachment.

In fact Nixon's "abuse of power" article only talks about refusal to "produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas". Sound familiar?

Wow, is Schiff stupid! The president no more has the ability to give away Alaska than I do, so that is a nonsensical statement. Overall, it is extra stupid for Schiff to have to make up non-existence events to make his point - because he can't make the point with the Articles of Impeachment.

If Trump gave Putin Alaska and Putin annexed it like he did with Crimea, with Republican's interpretation of Constitution, it would be just fine because it's not a crime under any laws apparently.

I think Schiff's second example is more likely and relevant though - Trump eases sanctions on Russia in order to ask or compel them to interfere in 2020 - under Republican's "abuse of power is not an impeachable offense" nonsense theory, that would be just fine.

 

[joko104]

Joe Biden committed "abuse of power." If he won the election he should be immediately impeached for "abuse of power." Certainly all Democrats agree with that. He used taxpayer money to extort and bribe foreign governments for the financial benefit of his family and accordingly his own political benefit.

What Joe Biden did is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. Otherwise, elected officials could say "give my kid $50 million dollars and I'll give you Alaska" - to use Schiff's bizarre logic.

 

[joko104]

When Obama gave Putin Crimea like Obama did, with Democrat's interpretation of Constitution, it was grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

When Hilary Clinton gave Putin 20% of our uranium in exchange for over $100 million dollars plus a $500,000 bonus to Bill Clinton, it was the high crime of abuse of office.

Fixed your message for you.

 

[joko104]

It is hysterical the Adam Schiff can't even use his own articles of impeachment to make his point. He has to make up something that didn't happen instead. That is how worthless the articles of impeachment are. Even Schiff himself can't used it to make his point! :lamo

 

[joko104]

This really is simple. "Abuse of power" is not in the US Constitution as basis for impeachment. A billion "but what ifs" doesn't change that. Congress can not summarily rewrite the Constitution to suit their agenda, regardless of the merits of the agenda otherwise. Period. That is how CONSTITUTIONAL government works.

 

[joko104]

In fact Nixon's "abuse of power" article only talks about refusal to "produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas". Sound familiar?

Nixon wasn't impeached. Congress went to court to get documents and tape recordings. That is the correct course of action, not for Congress to claim it is the also the Judicial and Presidential branch of government like the Democrats in Congress are doing now.

Clinton was impeached for the specific CRIMES of perjury - specific federal and state violations of specific federal and state criminal statutes.

 

[Thoreau72]

Nixon's 'Abuse of Powers' ( part of the impeachment articles ) were crimes. not Trumps

10 Crimes of the Nixon Administration
Richard Nixon’s crimes went far beyond Watergate. His abuse of power, his use of the IRS, FBI and CIA against his perceived enemies, his obstruction of justice, payment of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, are just a few of the crimes he committed while President and while trying to become President. Most of his criminal activities are forgotten, other than the Watergate scandal, itself not one crime, but a lengthy series of criminal behavior by the President and his underlings.

Nixon, a dishonest man, at least had the sense and dignity to resign when the writing was on the wall.

Trump, also a dishonest man, has no such sense or dignity.

I still see this impeachment effort as pure political theater, and where I once was against conviction in the Senate, I am now in favor of conviction.

 

[joko104]

That must explain why it's Republicans using guns to blow up schools, churches and outdoor concerts?

It was Democrats who shot up an LGBT nightclub - over 100 people including murdering someone we know very well and often at our home. It was Clinton supporter and 1st generation son of a Muslim refuge family - and a Democrat who set off bombs at a marathon in Boston - a Bernie Sanders supporter. It was a Democrat who open fired on Republican members of Congress - and Democrats who have shot up churches.

The vast majority of mass murderers have been Democrats and liberals. This is well known as a fact.

No Republican shot up any outdoor concert, that is a lie.

 

[joko104]

Nixon, a dishonest man, at least had the sense and dignity to resign when the writing was on the wall.

Trump, also a dishonest man, has no such sense or dignity.

I still see this impeachment effort as pure political theater, and where I once was against conviction in the Senate, I am now in favor of conviction.

Why is it that Democrats nearly always rely upon lying to make a point? Nixon resigned because Goldwater in the Senate supported Nixon's removal for covering up and paying off criminal burglars - which was criminal acts by Nixon. Nixon said that is why he gave up. It had nothing to do with a sense of dignity. But then what do facts and truth matter to you?

 

[Thoreau72]

Why is it that Democrats nearly always rely upon lying to make a point? Nixon resigned because Goldwater in the Senate supported Nixon's removal for covering up and paying off criminal burglars - which was criminal acts by Nixon. Nixon said that is why he gave up. It had nothing to do with a sense of dignity. But then what do facts and truth matter to you?

Let's face it Joko--this is a government under which blatant perjury is not punished, but rewarded. This is a country in which war criminals run the government.

So I ask you the same question--what do facts and truth matter to you?

 

[tres borrachos]

It was Democrats who shot up an LGBT nightclub - over 100 people including murdering someone we know very well and often at our home. It was Clinton supporter and 1st generation son of a Muslim refuge family - and a Democrat who set off bombs at a marathon in Boston - a Bernie Sanders supporter. It was a Democrat who open fired on Republican members of Congress - and Democrats who have shot up churches.

The vast majority of mass murderers have been Democrats and liberals. This is well known as a fact.

No Republican shot up any outdoor concert, that is a lie.

Then tell your fellow Trump Fan that he lied.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Most Democrats now openly hate the US Constitution. They claim the authors of the Constitution were wrong, so they took a pen and scratched out "high crimes and misdemeanors" and wrote in "abuse of power."

"Abuse of power" is just a political slogan, nothing else. It is not a crime. It is not a misdemeanor.

Well, it's a "political slogan" often used in the past as justification for impeachment, as this discussion of Federalist 65, by Wiki, indicates.

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment. 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. 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.
…

Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office". Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Slavister]

It is hysterical the Adam Schiff can't even use his own articles of impeachment to make his point. He has to make up something that didn't happen instead. That is how worthless the articles of impeachment are. Even Schiff himself can't used it to make his point! :lamo

What's hysterical is all the nods you have to tie yourself in. How would that imaginary argument go? "We must impeach Trump for extorting Ukraine to perform smear campaign on Trump's primary political opponent in upcoming election, because we do not, then it would be Ok to extort Ukraine to perform smear campaign on Trump's primary political opponent in upcoming election"?

Impeachment already makes that argument. So now he presents other cases that would be Ok under Republican "logic" to make the point crystal clear.

This really is simple. "Abuse of power" is not in the US Constitution as basis for impeachment. A billion "but what ifs" doesn't change that. Congress can not summarily rewrite the Constitution to suit their agenda, regardless of the merits of the agenda otherwise. Period. That is how CONSTITUTIONAL government works.

Another nod you are trying to hang yourself with. Clearly, Constitution cannot possibly predict all possible specific situations that would quality. That's why it generalizes. None of the articles of ANY impeachment were EVER titled explicitly "high crimes and misdemeanors". "Abuse of power" is just one example of that. Just like prior impeachments listed exact same as well as other ones but never by the exact words you'd want them to say.

 

[anatta]

Are you on the Trump legal team, and will be arguing this before the Senate?

lol.. hi tres! no i'm just interested in politics like we all are. I've been posting here for years,but only now and then.
I've chatted with you before,and we are friendly

 

[tres borrachos]

lol.. hi tres! no i'm just interested in politics like we all are. I've been posting here for years,but only now and then.
I've chatted with you before,and we are friendly

We are friendly posters on here. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But you were making a legal argument. Not a political one.

 

[anatta]

We are friendly posters on here. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But you were making a legal argument. Not a political one.

impeachment requires a crime -the Constitution enumerates this- right?
There may be some disagreements about "high crimes and misdemeanors" -but even there examples of "treason" and "bribery" show that a crime must be grave enough to allow removal.

Certainly "maladministration" ( Madison's term for abuse of power) doesn't come close to that high bar.

While impeachment is a political process, there has to be an underlying "high crime" to fulfill Constituitional requirements

 

[tres borrachos]

impeachment requires a crime -the Constitution enumerates this- right?
There may be some disagreements about "high crimes and misdemeanors" -but even there examples of "treason" and "bribery" show that a crime must be grave enough to allow removal.

Certainly "maladministration" ( Madison's term for abuse of power) doesn't come close to that high bar.

While impeachment is a political process, there has to be an underlying "high crime" to fulfill Constituitional requirements

High crime or misdemeanor. It also addresses abuse of power.

 

[anatta]

High crime or misdemeanor. It also addresses abuse of power.

The text of the Constitution does NOT say anything about abuse of power. It specifically say "crimes" - and gives examples of high crimes

Off topic a bit, but I thought you were a Trump supporter? not that it matters for purpose of discussion

 

[tres borrachos]

The text of the Constitution does NOT say anything about abuse of power. It specifically say "crimes" - and gives examples of high crimes

Off topic a bit, but I thought you were a Trump supporter? not that it matters for purpose of discussion

Oh dear God no, I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't know who I'm supporting it 2020 yet. Voting for Bill Weld in the NH primary.

 

[anatta]

Oh dear God no, I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't know who I'm supporting it 2020 yet. Voting for Bill Weld in the NH primary.

lol...Weld is a grumpy old has been . Maybe you'd like Kasich or some other #neverTrump who hasn't a clue.

I actually supported Hillary back in '08 ( my mistake) on the "experience" thing -but she proved to be a non-repentant warmonger who didn't learn from Iraq, and was instrumental in killing Qaddafi ( regime change).

I voted for Obama in '08,and then 3rd party in '12. Trump came along with just the right ideas at the right time
(curbing Chinese malign practices, and de-regulating the economy, and getting out of ME land wars ) -so for once I'm happy and will vote to re-elect.
I'm sure you'll find someone to support as well. good luck!

 

[tres borrachos]

lol...Weld is a grumpy old has been . Maybe you'd like Kasich or some other #neverTrump who hasn't a clue.

I actually supported Hillary back in '08 ( my mistake) on the "experience" thing -but she proved to be a non-repentant warmonger who didn't learn from Iraq, and was instrumental in killing Qaddafi ( regime change).

I voted for Obama in '08,and then 3rd party in '12. Trump came along with just the right ideas at the right time
(curbing Chinese malign practices, and de-regulating the economy, and getting out of ME land wars ) -so for once I'm happy and will vote to re-elect.
I'm sure you'll find someone to support as well. good luck!

Kasich was my second choice in 2016. Behind Rubio. Kasich has a lot of clues. A lot more than Trump does.

Trump also voted for Obama and Clinton. That was when he didn't pretend to be a Republican.

I'm glad you found your guy. I will be happy to vote against him in 2020. The economy is still regulated. We just sent more troops to the Middle East. But why be honest?

 

[anatta]

Kasich was my second choice in 2016. Behind Rubio. Kasich has a lot of clues. A lot more than Trump does.

Trump also voted for Obama and Clinton. That was when he didn't pretend to be a Republican.

I'm glad you found your guy. I will be happy to vote against him in 2020. The economy is still regulated. We just sent more troops to the Middle East. But why be honest?

Kasich is a liberal - Medicade expansion is killing the ability to fund Medicade.Of course the economy is regulated, but Trump took off the over-regulations.

I completely agree we should not be in Syria -Trump tried to get out and was excoriated for it.
Trump wanted a "Russian reset" -but the damn 'deep staters' made sure that wouldn't happen with their false "Russian collusion" crappola, and now we are spending a ****load of money on NATO that need not be.

We are in a Cold War 2.0 - and the other result is Russia is closer then ever to China because of this. They have a unified command structure and war game together as a unified force ( VOSTOK 2018)..

on the other hand both the Dems and Repubs have spent us into an unsurmountable debt. Neither party are adults in the room