"Congress Should Remove Trump from Office, But Let Him Run Again in 2020"

[Glitch]

You don't consider removal from office punishment?

No. Removal from office is precisely that, nothing more.

But let's get the terms clear. Impeachment applies only to what happens in the House. It's the equivalent of an indictment in normal judicial processes. The trial occurs in the Senate. And like any other trial, there's a verdict: convict or acquit. After conviction comes the punishment and it's not limited to removal from office or is even requires removal from office. It could be removal and a bar to holding any other political office in the future. I could be just the bar to holding any future office which would allow the convicted president to finish his term and never run for it again.

Impeachment is the entire process, not just what happens in the House. The House votes on the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate also votes on those very same Articles of Impeachment that a simple majority of the House passed. Only if two-thirds of the Senate concur on those Articles of Impeachment is the individual removed from office and prohibited from ever holding an office of public trust again. However, that is the full extent of impeachment. No punishments are included, just removal from office.

After they have been removed from office by two-thirds of the Senate (it only requires one Article of Impeachment) then the individual removed from office may be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crimes they may have committed. Assuming they are crimes. Not every Article of Impeachment includes crimes under the US Code. For example, "Abuse of Power" is an Article of Impeachment that appeared under both Clinton's and Nixon's list of Articles of Impeachment, but there is no law within the US Code that prohibits "Abuse of Power" so it is not a crime they can be charged under, assuming they have been impeached and removed from office.

 

[Glitch]

Incorrect.



The Constitution states the maximum, not the minimum.

It might help if you actually took the time to read the US Constitution.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

--- Article I, Section 2, Clause 7 of the US Constitution

 

[digitusmedius]

No. Removal from office is precisely that, nothing more.



Impeachment is the entire process, not just what happens in the House. The House votes on the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate also votes on those very same Articles of Impeachment that a simple majority of the House passed. Only if two-thirds of the Senate concur on those Articles of Impeachment is the individual removed from office and prohibited from ever holding an office of public trust again. However, that is the full extent of impeachment. No punishments are included, just removal from office.

After they have been removed from office by two-thirds of the Senate (it only requires one Article of Impeachment) then the individual removed from office may be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crimes they may have committed. Assuming they are crimes. Not every Article of Impeachment includes crimes under the US Code. For example, "Abuse of Power" is an Article of Impeachment that appeared under both Clinton's and Nixon's list of Articles of Impeachment, but there is no law within the US Code that prohibits "Abuse of Power" so it is not a crime they can be charged under, assuming they have been impeached and removed from office.

I had a feeling you wouldn't budge from your wrongheaded claim. I'll put the definitions taken from the source (US Constitution) but I know it won't make any difference:

Impeachment in the United States is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representatives.

Article I, section 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

[ClaraD]

That second one would require 2/3 of the Senate to convict on impeachment before a majority could affix punishment.

At least 35 Senators according to Flake would vote for impeachment if their vote is behind closed doors

 

[ClaraD]

No. Removal from office is precisely that, nothing more.



Impeachment is the entire process, not just what happens in the House. The House votes on the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate also votes on those very same Articles of Impeachment that a simple majority of the House passed. Only if two-thirds of the Senate concur on those Articles of Impeachment is the individual removed from office and prohibited from ever holding an office of public trust again. However, that is the full extent of impeachment. No punishments are included, just removal from office.

After they have been removed from office by two-thirds of the Senate (it only requires one Article of Impeachment) then the individual removed from office may be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crimes they may have committed. Assuming they are crimes. Not every Article of Impeachment includes crimes under the US Code. For example, "Abuse of Power" is an Article of Impeachment that appeared under both Clinton's and Nixon's list of Articles of Impeachment, but there is no law within the US Code that prohibits "Abuse of Power" so it is not a crime they can be charged under, assuming they have been impeached and removed from office.

Abuse of power is a crime 25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.

 

[Harshaw]

It might help if you actually took the time to read the US Constitution.
--- Article I, Section 2, Clause 7 of the US Constitution

Well, I'm not going to waste any time arguing with someone who says I should "read" the exact clause of the Constitution I just quoted to him. Bye, now.

 

[Glitch]

Abuse of power is a crime 25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.

Not the same as Abuse of Power. The abuse of office is a charge only applies to those with the ability to "arrest, detain, search, seize, mistreat, dispossess, assess, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity." This is a charge that can be brought against law enforcement, but not elected officials because elected officials do not have the power that is described.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am a Green Party voter. So piss off with you personal attacks. If Biden wins, he will face impeachment the second he is sworn in assuming the Senate confirmed the election to begin with. Exactly ZERO would get done in DC for 4 more years.

LOL Green Party...the US Green Party. :lamo

While Greens in the EU and elsewhere have pounded shoe leather for twenty years, building a power base from the bottom up, in local councils, provincial state houses and even in national legislative bodies, even garnering top elected official positions and agency head spots all over, the US Green Party's strategy consists of (A) remaining dormant for 3.5 years, (B) waking up in a fit of pique at both major parties, (C) running Jill Stein for POTUS, (D) disrupting the two major parties and declaring them both non-valid, (E) retiring in another fit of pique when Stein does not win (again) then reverting back to dormancy, with an 800 phone number and a PO Box for the next 3.5 years.

And they think this is a winning strategy for America.
I can count the total number of US Greens in significant office in America on ONE HAND. I don't even need the entire hand!

 

[ClaraD]

Not the same as Abuse of Power. The abuse of office is a charge only applies to those with the ability to "arrest, detain, search, seize, mistreat, dispossess, assess, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity." This is a charge that can be brought against law enforcement, but not elected officials because elected officials do not have the power that is described.

I'd say denying 391 million dollars to the Ukraine is denying the Ukraine several of those items and the US president clearly is over the chief law enforcement as in the DOJ

 

[Glitch]

I had a feeling you wouldn't budge from your wrongheaded claim. I'll put the definitions taken from the source (US Constitution) but I know it won't make any difference:


Article I, section 6:

How does that change anything I posted? You've contradicted nothing. The House takes a simple majority vote on the Articles of Impeachment, and if any pass the Senate must concur with at least a two-thirds majority on at least one Article of Impeachment that passed the House before the individual is removed from office and prohibited from ever holding an office of public trust again. It is one impeachment process. You cannot have a Senate vote on the Articles of Impeachment that didn't pass the House. Furthermore, even upon a two-thirds vote by the Senate impeachment only extends to the removal from office. No punishments are attached since impeachment is purely a political and not a criminal process.

However, once removed from office the individual may be charged, tried, convicted, and punished under the US Code. Assuming the article they were impeached under is a crime.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am a Green Party voter. So piss off with you personal attacks. If Biden wins, he will face impeachment the second he is sworn in assuming the Senate confirmed the election to begin with. Exactly ZERO would get done in DC for 4 more years.

Well, by YOUR metric ALL Democratic presidents would face impeachment the second they are sworn in, which is perhaps why Americans who don't want such a farce should bear that in mind when ALSO VOTING FOR House and Senate.

Yes, as long as the Party of Trump REMAINS in the MAJORITY in either chamber, I agree with you that Instant Impeachment for the crime of being a Democrat MIGHT possibly happen.
The crime is, "being a Democrat in the White House". Yes, I can see that happening.
Here is what I cannot ever see happening: A US Green Party person in the White House.

Know why? Because US Greens are lazy, narrowminded, easily manipulated, naive and largely uneducated, and...worst of all, they don't actually WANT the Green Party to have ANY real power, otherwise they would work to put more of them in office...somewhere...ANYWHERE.

The reason they don't is clear: This is all just a game to them.
There is no way a serious political party could exist for this many years and not have a single person in power.
That is easily proven just by noting the accomplishments of your counterparts overseas.

The US Green Party is a big fat joke, it is ineffective - - 100 percent ineffective.

 

[Mach]

Well, I'm not going to waste any time arguing with someone who says I should "read" the exact clause of the Constitution I just quoted to him. Bye, now.

He did just re-quote you, that was odd!

But it's implicit in impeachment that its removal, that's what impeachment is, removal from office plus maybe some other stuff.
It's in the constitution:
Article II, section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia
Supported further by

. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.

Conviction immediately removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. As the threshold for disqualification is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate has taken the position that disqualification votes only require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority. The Senate has used disqualification sparingly, as only three individuals have been disqualified from holding future office.[27]

 

[Glitch]

I'd say denying 391 million dollars to the Ukraine is denying the Ukraine several of those items and the US president clearly is over the chief law enforcement as in the DOJ

ROFL! One has to be truly insane to try to impeach a President over foreign policy. If you want to ensure a landslide victory for Trump, you run with that idea. Hehehe

 

[Mach]

ROFL! One has to be truly insane to try to impeach a President over foreign policy. If you want to ensure a landslide victory for Trump, you run with that idea. Hehehe

Its abuse of power, or extortion, etc. Its not for "foreign policy".
It was not a matter of inter-agency White House foreign policy Glitch, otherwise we'd be impeaching everyone involved. Maybe that will happen, but doubtful considering Trump was trying to use Rudy to do his dirty work.

Trump tried, again, to get foreign help with his election, and this time he got caught by his own White House.

 

[ClaraD]

ROFL! One has to be truly insane to try to impeach a President over foreign policy. If you want to ensure a landslide victory for Trump, you run with that idea. Hehehe

Getting dirt on your political opponent isn't foreign policy, it's an illegal campaign contribution and soliciting interference in a US election...if this were Obama youd be screaming for his head on a platter

 

[Drawdown]

LOL Green Party...the US Green Party. :lamo

While Greens in the EU and elsewhere have pounded shoe leather for twenty years, building a power base from the bottom up, in local councils, provincial state houses and even in national legislative bodies, even garnering top elected official positions and agency head spots all over, the US Green Party's strategy consists of (A) remaining dormant for 3.5 years, (B) waking up in a fit of pique at both major parties, (C) running Jill Stein for POTUS, (D) disrupting the two major parties and declaring them both non-valid, (E) retiring in another fit of pique when Stein does not win (again) then reverting back to dormancy, with an 800 phone number and a PO Box for the next 3.5 years.

And they think this is a winning strategy for America.
I can count the total number of US Greens in significant office in America on ONE HAND. I don't even need the entire hand!

Good for you. Sorry you lost most of your hand.

 

[Drawdown]

Well, by YOUR metric ALL Democratic presidents would face impeachment the second they are sworn in, which is perhaps why Americans who don't want such a farce should bear that in mind when ALSO VOTING FOR House and Senate.

Yes, as long as the Party of Trump REMAINS in the MAJORITY in either chamber, I agree with you that Instant Impeachment for the crime of being a Democrat MIGHT possibly happen.
The crime is, "being a Democrat in the White House". Yes, I can see that happening.
Here is what I cannot ever see happening: A US Green Party person in the White House.

Know why? Because US Greens are lazy, narrowminded, easily manipulated, naive and largely uneducated, and...worst of all, they don't actually WANT the Green Party to have ANY real power, otherwise they would work to put more of them in office...somewhere...ANYWHERE.

The reason they don't is clear: This is all just a game to them.
There is no way a serious political party could exist for this many years and not have a single person in power.
That is easily proven just by noting the accomplishments of your counterparts overseas.

The US Green Party is a big fat joke, it is ineffective - - 100 percent ineffective.

Is there a yawn emoji?

 

[Glitch]

Its abuse of power, or extortion, etc. Its not for "foreign policy".
It was not a matter of inter-agency White House foreign policy Glitch, otherwise we'd be impeaching everyone involved. Maybe that will happen, but doubtful considering Trump was trying to use Rudy to do his dirty work.

Trump tried, again, to get foreign help with his election, and this time he got caught by his own White House.

You mean like when Obama cut all military aid to Egypt in violation of the 1980 Camp David Accord Treaty? They are both acts of foreign policy, and not subject to scrutiny by the courts. Nor are they impeachable offenses.

Democrats in particular have no room to criticize anyone for using foreign sources, considering Democrat candidates have been receiving campaign contributions from our foreign enemies (particularly China) for decades.

 

[Mach]

You mean like

I mean what I wrote, not something else.
Your whataboutism is irrelevant. Republicans had the House, White House, Senate, and SCOTUS for a time, and didn't launch any impeachment inquiry, because they had no reason to.


Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry based on a credible and urgent whistlblower complaint out of Trump's own White House..
..preliminarily investigated by the Republican AG as credible and urgent
...agreed as credible and urgent by the Republican DNI

And now they are requesting the source records and witness testimony to further flesh out what occurred, beyond the transcript already released that details Trump's wrongdoing.

 

[Glitch]

I mean what I wrote.
I do not mean-like "whataboutism".
Republicans had the House, White House, Senate, and SCOTUS for a time, and didn't launch any impeachment inquiry, because they had no reason to.
Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry based on a credible and urgent whistlblower complaint out of Trump's own White House..
..preliminarily investigated by the Republican AG as credible and urgent
...agreed as credible and urgent by the Republican DNI

And now they are requesting the source records and witness testimony to further flesh out what occurred, beyond the transcript already released that details Trump's wrongdoing.

So you wanted Obama impeached for his illegal actions against Egypt? Somehow I find that impossible to believe.

The reason Republicans didn't impeach Obama for violating the treaty is because they are capable of comprehending that it was a matter of foreign policy, and not a criminal act. A concept the left are clearly not able to grasp. They didn't have to agree with the policy, but that doesn't make it a crime either.

 

[digitusmedius]

Well, I'm not going to waste any time arguing with someone who says I should "read" the exact clause of the Constitution I just quoted to him. Bye, now.

Welcome to the weird world of rightwing certitude never to be daunted by facts.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Good for you. Sorry you lost most of your hand.

Sorry you lost most of your defense strategy for the US Green Party!
Hey, you might be a good person in real life but the Green Party of the US is not a good party.
That's maybe not YOUR fault but can't you see that I am simply making an observation?

When my daughter was thirteen she wanted to be a top singer-songwriter, but she thought that it was unfair that songwriters had to start at the bottom. Eventually she became convinced (for a short time, thankfully) that ALL jobs were unfair because you had to start at the bottom and pay your dues.

The Green Party US thinks it is perfectly normal to start at the White House.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Mach]

The reason Republicans didn't impeach Obama for violating the treaty is because they are capable of comprehending that it was a matter of foreign policy, and not a criminal act. A concept the left are clearly not able to grasp.

It was a Republican AG and Republican DNI that considered the complaint urgent and credible, and referred it to the DOJ for criminal inquiry.

The opposite of what you claim. Enjoy the inquiry.

 

[Condor060]

Congress Should Remove Trump from Office, But Let Him Run Again in 2020 - POLITICO Magazine

This article brings up a fascinating alternative for how the Senate could rule on any article(s) of impeachment that may (or may not) be referred from the House. The author seems to favor removal and then allowing the Republican Party to decide to renominate him next year and, if so, the American people to have a second chance to look at him as a candidate on equal terms with the Dem nominee instead of having the power of the presidency at his back. That would require the two-thirds super majority of the Senate to accomplish, however.

But the other alternative, which this author claims would only require a simple Senate majority, would be to allow Trump to finish out his first term but never be allowed to run for public office again. That would be the best possible course for Dems to pursue. It makes a Senate vote to do so a much more attainable goal and it would actually save Trump the greater humiliation of being turfed out even though it's so richly deserved. It might even be something Ol' ****bag would agree to--after much whining and self-pitying and public blubbering about how unfair he's being treated, of course.

Why is it everytime Dems get beat they need to change the rules? Pretty obvious Dems don't care what the voters want. So lets do away with the constitution and our laws so a Dem has a chance to win?

 

[Mach]

The reason Republicans didn't impeach Obama for violating the treaty is because they are capable of comprehending that it was a matter of foreign policy, and not a criminal act.

Impeachment is for many things, not restricted to criminal acts.
But let's flesh this out with more facts. The republican AG who did a preliminary investigation concluded that the complaint was urgent, defined below:

(U) As a result, I have determined that the Complainant's information would constitute an urgent concern, as defined in 50 U.S.C. provided that I also determine that
the information appears credible, as required by 50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)(B).

(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.
(ii) A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.
(iii) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this paragraph.

And so a Republican interpreted it as more than just foreign policy. And I agree, and the House agrees, and the DNI seems to agree, and well get to the bottom of it or hold them to obstruction/contempt and proceed with a vote if they stonewall.