• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

High Crimes And Misdemeanors

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
48,725
Reaction score
9,563
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
128,467
Reaction score
38,158
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
Read the transcript
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
72,576
Reaction score
31,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
Out of curiosity I just googled the nine items listed in Nixon's article of impeachment number 1... trump is 9 for 9.

It's cute that you ask what crime "has he been convicted of" when you ****in well know he can't be convicted of a crime while in office. Did you think none of us would figure out that you invented an impossible goalpost?
 

Superfly

Not Quite The Same
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
36,528
Reaction score
22,937
Location
Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehachapi to Tonapah
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
Why are you even here? You clearly have no intention of engaging in intelligent discourse with the whole “what crime has he committed” garbage, so why are you even here? Are you being paid to be here? If we top it, will you leave?
 

Rexedgar

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
27,952
Reaction score
16,678
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
This post reeks of stupid!
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
2,771
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Googled with your exact words as the search term.

Thank me later.
Looks like 3 of the 4 they looked at are not likely so it would come down to obstruction of justice, which would also likely be a no if Nancy is successful in confining it to the phone call. Sure Trump will probably be impeached, but unless there is some evidence that gets people not already against him against him, it will backfire both in the Senate and in the election.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
64,559
Reaction score
45,977
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i hope that he didn't do something really bad like lie about a blow job.
 

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
22,580
Reaction score
14,381
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
There's been no convictions of anyone yet. There will be articles of impeachment and each article listed, such as abuse of power. Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if its Prime Minister did not investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Using taxpayer dollars to manipulate an important ally against Russia and attack a political rival is a clear abuse of presidential power. Furthermore, Trump's administration tried to conceal the whistleblower complaint that brought this corruption to light and label the civil servant who filed it as partisan. The White House has also obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with this investigation and by prohibiting witnesses to appear to testify.
 

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,764
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?

That is not what high crimes and misdemeanors means.

It can mean something as slight as actions unbecoming a president.

Please try and say with a straight face that trump hasn't crossed that line.

Above and beyond that I have listed many of trumps crimes that unless pardoned he will do time for.

In comparison he makes Nixon look like a saint...
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
105,462
Reaction score
49,634
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
The origins of the phrase go back to the 14th century. It does not require a crime. More recently, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 said of it:

those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself
So you are in fact wrong.

Edit: The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources - Congress.gov Resources
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
69,737
Reaction score
8,964
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
Extortion and bribery
 

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,764
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Looks like 3 of the 4 they looked at are not likely so it would come down to obstruction of justice, which would also likely be a no if Nancy is successful in confining it to the phone call. Sure Trump will probably be impeached, but unless there is some evidence that gets people not already against him against him, it will backfire both in the Senate and in the election.
Now there is some wishful thinking...
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
2,771
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now there is some wishful thinking...
Or objective analysis. The impeachment card is not one to be played on a whim. America will not respond well when this is over. When the stock market turns south as soon as Warren secures the nomination, Trump just has to point at her and say she did it for 3 months.

The lack of a serious Republican challenger jumping into the race is a pretty good indication that Trump will not be removed.
 

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
32,632
Reaction score
22,917
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
Not enough sufficient evidence that the president committed a HIGH crime worthy of an impeachment conviction.

We Shouldn't Impeach Trump On the Basis of Flawed Legal Theory
As the U.S. House of Representatives hurtles toward impeachment ahead of the holidays, it is appropriate to consider, in as dispassionate a way as possible, what really is at issue for the country to decide. One must begin with the words of the Constitution. The removal of the President from office necessarily proceeds only with a determination, through House impeachment and upon conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate following trial, that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” have been proved. What constitutes a “high” crime? Alexander Hamilton provided the answer in the Federalist papers: only those offenses within Congress’s appropriate jurisdiction that constitute “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office.

The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime. Half the country at present does seem prepared to conclude, on the basis of the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House on Sept. 25, that Trump at least raised the prospect of an unlawful quid pro quo. The theory seems to be that Trump proposed an exchange of something of personal benefit to himself in return for an official act by the U.S. government. On one side of that alleged quid pro quo would be the public announcement of an investigation by Ukraine into a rival presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a member of Biden’s family. On the other: the release of temporarily withheld foreign aid, including military assistance.

The problem with this legal theory is that an unlawful quid pro quo is limited to those arrangements that are “corrupt”–that is to say, only those that are clearly and unmistakably improper and therefore illegal. But in the eyes of the law, the specific, measurable benefit that an investigation against the Bidens might bring Trump is nebulous. There is a serious question as to whether it could ever constitute a criminally illegal foreign campaign contribution of personal benefit to President Trump. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel and the Criminal Division at the Justice Department apparently have already concluded it couldn’t. Just as important, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struggled since at least the early 1990s with application of the federal anticorruption laws to situations like this, where an “in kind” benefit in the form of campaign interference or assistance is alleged to be illegal.

In my view, a fair and better legal argument can be made in this context that only an explicit, as opposed to an implied, quid pro quo would be sufficient to find criminal illegality as the result of President Trump’s words on the call with President Zelensky. What’s the difference? Instead of President Trump saying to his counterpart in Ukraine in words or substance, “Do me a favor …” he would have to have said, “Here’s the deal …” and followed up by explicitly linking an investigation of the Bidens to the provision of U.S. military assistance. None of that, of course, is what was said.
About the author:
Robert Ray is a partner at Thompson & Knight LLP and, as independent counsel from 1999 to 2002, issued the final report in the Whitewater investigation.
 
Last edited:

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
128,467
Reaction score
38,158
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,764
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Not enough sufficient evidence that the president committed a HIGH crime worthy of an impeachment conviction.

We Shouldn't Impeach Trump On the Basis of Flawed Legal Theory


About the author:
Robert Ray is a partner at Thompson & Knight LLP and, as independent counsel from 1999 to 2002, issued the final report in the Whitewater investigation.
So did he think that impeachment was necessary for a blowjob?

Because Republicans really lowered the bar for an impeachable action with that one.

Apparently your author is unfamiliar with the term legal precedent...
 
Last edited:

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
32,632
Reaction score
22,917
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The rest of the Times article...continued from Post #15

Importantly, we have also learned in a little-noted aside to the widely reported Oct. 17 press conference by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that the Administration recognized that it had no authority through the Office of Management and Budget to permanently withhold congressional appropriation of aid to Ukraine beyond the 2019 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.

Taken together, these facts mean that whatever your view of whether the President’s call was, in his words, “perfect” or not, the race to impeachment is moving forward on an arguably flawed legal theory of an implied quid pro quo of temporarily withholding foreign aid. It doesn’t help those arguing that the implied and temporary attempt at a quid quo pro necessitates impeachment that the aid was eventually released and disbursed on Sept. 11. Nor does it help them that Ukraine never publicly announced an investigation of the Bidens.

An investigation into the origins of the probe into Russia’s 2016 election meddling, including any Ukrainian matters relating to it, is under way. It is being handled through appropriate channels and with built-in independence by a career prosecutor, John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, and presumably outside of political interference at Main Justice in Washington. If Durham finds actual evidence warranting investigation of the Bidens, that would be entirely appropriate, unless one is prepared to argue, speciously, that a presidential candidate enjoys absolute immunity from investigation during the course of a campaign. So things are finally in the right hands.

That is not to say that the “no harm, no foul” argument excuses the evident lack of judgment exhibited by the White House in attempting to spur action by a foreign government outside of proper channels to investigate a political rival. But it is another thing altogether to claim that such conduct is clearly and unmistakably impeachable. If recent polls are any guide, many fair-minded Americans seem prepared to accept that even if such conduct was wrong, it was not so seriously wrong as to warrant removal from office.

At this point nothing appears to stand in the way of the House’s intemperate and unreasonable vote to impeach. In Hamilton’s words, events are proceeding “more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” It will be left instead to the U.S. Senate sitting as a court of impeachment with the “requisite neutrality” and the nation’s best interests in mind to render judgment and put a stop to what is an undeniably, and all but exclusively, partisan effort to remove this President from office. Only then can the country return to the business at hand, which is the fast-approaching 2020 election, now less than a year away, and the other important and pressing matters before the nation.
 
Last edited:

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
32,632
Reaction score
22,917
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So did he think that impeachment was necessary for a blowjob?

Because Republicans really lowered the bar for an impeachable action with that one.

Apparently your author is unfamiliar with the term legal precedent...
Clinton wasn't impeached for a blowjob. :lol:

I think the author's legal opinion is highly credible. ymmv
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
128,467
Reaction score
38,158
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

Airyaman

Cult of Scotty Kilmer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
8,531
Reaction score
5,578
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
What federal criminal code existed when the impeachment portion of the Constitution was adopted?
 

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,764
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Clinton wasn't impeached for a blowjob. :lol:

I think the author's legal opinion is highly credible. ymmv
You think k trump is an innocent president, a billionaire, a successful businessman, who always tells the truth, so your opinion is highly suspect...
 

Outlook

DP Veteran
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
1,062
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
From my understanding a crime means you have broken the law. I would say that a high crime means you have broken a very serious law. If you commit a misdemeanor it also means you have broken the law. What laws has Trump actually broken? What crime has he been convicted of?
Trump broke the law of being Trump. He broke the law of having a different opinion and different demeanor than the other cookie cutter politicians.
 
Top Bottom