mccarthy and gop Want to Expunge trump's Impeachments

[Nickyjo]

Wrong, as usual. It is Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution that determines what is impeachable, not some mentally-deranged dingbat Speaker of the House.

"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." - Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution

If there is no alleged crime there can be no constitutional impeachment.

They alleged offenses, covered by the last five words in bold.

 

[Razoo]

Look what is still on the table and waiting for the right moment…….

Trump’s 7 Articles of Impeachment ( 5 Articles Still on The Books)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/03/here-are-seven-reasons-trump-should-be-impeached/

Case For Trump Impeachment Goes Beyond Ukraine

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/case-for-trump-impeachment-goes-beyond-ukraine.html

A president of the USA practicing Extortion which is a criminal offense should be prosecuted accordingly.

A president of the USA requesting assistance from a foreign government that could impact an election is against the law. Threatening to withhold tax dollar subsidies if the foreign government refused is extortion which is a criminal offense which should be prosecuted accordingly. Impeachment is the easy way out for Rump.

Could be some conspiracy charges coming out of this as well and of course a certain amount of perjury.

PROSECUTE PERRY/ Giuliani/ BOLTON / MULVANEY / BARR/POMPEO/ TRUMP/ KAVANAUGH/ McConnell! NOW!

 

[Glitch]

How not?

Because they are neither "high crimes" (a.k.a. felonies) nor are they misdemeanors. To be a crime it must be a violation of some law. Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power are not laws that can be violated. Which means that they cannot be crimes.

His impeachment would have prevented him from holding office in the future. Worth doing.

Only if you are a mentally-deranged partisan, which is precisely what Democrats are. As the Supreme Court Chief Justice demonstrated with his very conspicuous absence.

 

[BlueTex]

And there were offenses specified in both cases. It’s amazing to me how some Trumpistas continue to prove Trump right about one thing: as he said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still not lose their support. He’s on tape asking someone to find a specific member of votes in Georgia… his administration’s two bookends were chaos at airports in Jan 2017 and chaos at the Capitol Jan 2021… his lies run into the thousands… he confesses on TV to sexual assault… he calls immigrants poisonous snakes on more than one occasion…

… nothing to see here.

It doesn't even matter...

Nixon v. US

Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BlueTex]

Because they are neither "high crimes" (a.k.a. felonies) nor are they misdemeanors. To be a crime it must be a violation of some law. Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power are not laws that can be violated. Which means that they cannot be crimes.


Only if you are a mentally-deranged partisan, which is precisely what Democrats are. As the Supreme Court Chief Justice demonstrated with his very conspicuous absence.

Think the supreme court will overturn Nixon v. US?

Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Glitch]

Think the supreme court will overturn Nixon v. US?

Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nixon resigned. He was not impeached.

 

[BlueTex]

As the Supreme Court Chief Justice demonstrated with his very conspicuous absence.

Justices preside over trials of presidents.

 

[BlueTex]

Nixon resigned. He was not impeached.

If you actually spent any time learning, you would have noticed this was a different Nixon. Ask for a refund from Trump University law school..

 

[Nickyjo]

Because they are neither "high crimes" (a.k.a. felonies) nor are they misdemeanors. To be a crime it must be a violation of some law. Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power are not laws that can be violated. Which means that they cannot be crimes.

As I understand it, Congress gets to make the decisions as to what constitute high crimes.

Only if you are a mentally-deranged partisan, which is precisely what Democrats are. As the Supreme Court Chief Justice demonstrated with his very conspicuous absence.

Nixon was to be impeached for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

 

[Glitch]

Justices preside over trials of presidents.

Yes they do, but only when the impeachment is constitutional. Which is why the Chief Justice refused to appear for the Senate trial even though he is constitutionally required. It very obviously was not a constitutional impeachment.

 

[Glitch]

As I understand it, Congress gets to make the decisions as to what constitute high crimes.

Nixon was to be impeached for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

It does not matter what Nixon was to be impeached for, he resigned before any impeachment vote took place. Then he was promptly pardoned by the new President. So you could have claimed Nixon "was to be impeached" for anything you want, from spitting on the sidewalk to mass murder. None of it matters since he resigned and was not impeached.

 

[Nickyjo]

Because they are neither "high crimes" (a.k.a. felonies) nor are they misdemeanors. To be a crime it must be a violation of some law. Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power are not laws that can be violated. Which means that they cannot be crimes.


Only if you are a mentally-deranged partisan, which is precisely what Democrats are. As the Supreme Court Chief Justice demonstrated with his very conspicuous absence.

You’re the one who is defending a proven crook (University and Foundation), a serial liar (check the numerous lists of his thousands of lies) a credibly accused molester of women (whose tender response to a rape allegation was “she’s not my type”), and a guy who never fails to cry fraud whenever the results of an election displease
him — 2012, 2016 -twice-, and 2020. …And I’m the mentally deranged partisan?

Wanna place a friendly bet as to whether Trump will cry “it’s rigged” sometime about the 2024 election?

 

[The flaming lib]

mccarthy is actually for this and is looking into how he can do it.

The far right is demanding it.

There is no constitutional process to do this so I don't know how the republicans think they can do it and get away with it.

But then republicans have gotten away with a lot of crimes through the years.

MSN

They need to concentrate on getting Lying Joe, the racist pedo up on impeachment charges first. Get rid of his useless ass as soon as possible need to limit the damage he’s doing. Mommies can’t be any worse and will have less than two years left before RD takes over

 

[element94]

The republican platform is "stroke tRump".

That's the whole thing. The only policy.

Trump was the perfect outlet for their hate, bias and prejudices, and they may never get another chance that good. He has no scruples and neither do they. Their hatred and actions toward their fellow citizens along with their blatant support for lawlessness tells us everything we need to know. It's as clear as day and their denials are nothing more than embarrassing.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes they do, but only when the impeachment is constitutional. Which is why the Chief Justice refused to appear for the Senate trial even though he is constitutionally required. It very obviously was not a constitutional impeachment.

LMAO.. Roberts was signaling Trump lost his ass

 

[BlueTex]

They need to concentrate on getting Lying Joe, the racist pedo up on impeachment charges first. Get rid of his useless ass as soon as possible need to limit the damage he’s doing. Mommies can’t be any worse and will have less than two years left before RD takes over

Joe isn't going anywhere… not even close to enough votes to remove him..

 

[element94]

Impeachment is like an indictment. He has not been found "not guilty" as the Senate refused to hear the evidence and decide he was either not guilty or convict him.

They ignored the evidence because acknowledging it would have been very bad for their plans. I believe it goes as deep as you can imagine, meaning every one of them knew what was planned and are thereby culpable. They should be ceaselessly hounded for the rest of their days or until justice is served. The first thing that needs to be done if we want to see justice served is remove Merrick Garland.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Well, in criminal law in many (if not all) States there are procedures to allow cleaning one's criminal records, whether of simple charges with no convictions or convictions where the punishment has been completed. Expunging the records.

This allows for all records of the charges/convictions to be removed from public view and sealed. It also allows a person to state truthfully is several circumstances (especially in employment) that they do not have a criminal record.

Having said that, I don't believe there is a process for this in the area of impeachment. Nor should there need to be when in fact a President (or other government official) has been UNSUCCESSFULLY impeached.

That's really the point folks. Trump was tried per the Constitutional process, but was NOT convicted.

Yet people keep bringing up his Impeachments despite the fact both attempts were politically motivated, and both attempts failed to actually remove him from office. Which is the whole point of seeking to impeach.

That's like holding a persons "charge sheet" against them when charges were dropped, the case was dismissed, or the individual was not found guilty.

We know the evidence was a pack of lies and the votes were purely political. Personally I think it would be just as fitting to just impeach Biden, lord knows there is enough to use to do it.

 

[911Sparky]

The republicans have lost their minds.

What they want to do isn't constitutional.

How can you say that? trumpers are all about following the constitution, it's their bible. /s

 

[ColdHardTruth]

mccarthy is actually for this and is looking into how he can do it.

The far right is demanding it.

There is no constitutional process to do this so I don't know how the republicans think they can do it and get away with it.

But then republicans have gotten away with a lot of crimes through the years.

MSN

They cannot.

They are making noise to sate the orange anus.

If he is going to try to run again, they do not want to take any chances.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes they do, but only when the impeachment is constitutional. Which is why the Chief Justice refused to appear for the Senate trial even though he is constitutionally required. It very obviously was not a constitutional impeachment.

Who was president when Trump’s second impeachment trial began?

 

[Showtime586]

Only if you are a mentally-deranged partisan, which is precisely what Democrats are. As the Supreme Court Chief Justice demonstrated with his very conspicuous absence.

Calling Democrats "mentally-deranged" with this group of batshit crazy House Republicans is simply hilarious partisanship on your part.
If you were trying to claim non-partisanship, you failed miserably.

 

[independentusa]

Well, in criminal law in many (if not all) States there are procedures to allow cleaning one's criminal records, whether of simple charges with no convictions or convictions where the punishment has been completed. Expunging the records.

This allows for all records of the charges/convictions to be removed from public view and sealed. It also allows a person to state truthfully is several circumstances (especially in employment) that they do not have a criminal record.

Having said that, I don't believe there is a process for this in the area of impeachment. Nor should there need to be when in fact a President (or other government official) has been UNSUCCESSFULLY impeached.

That's really the point folks. Trump was tried per the Constitutional process, but was NOT convicted.

Yet people keep bringing up his Impeachments despite the fact both attempts were politically motivated, and both attempts failed to actually remove him from office. Which is the whole point of seeking to impeach.

That's like holding a persons "charge sheet" against them when charges were dropped, the case was dismissed, or the individual was not found guilty.

It can not happen.

 

[Glitch]

As I understand it, Congress gets to make the decisions as to what constitute high crimes.

Then you do not understand it, because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are already defined by the US Constitution. If there is no alleged crime, then there cannot be a constitutional impeachment.

Nixon was to be impeached for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Nixon was not impeached. Nixon resigned and then was subsequently pardoned. So whatever imaginary crimes you want to manufacture doesn't matter, because it isn't reality.

 

[zincwarrior]

mccarthy is actually for this and is looking into how he can do it.

The far right is demanding it.

There is no constitutional process to do this so I don't know how the republicans think they can do it and get away with it.

But then republicans have gotten away with a lot of crimes through the years.

MSN

Will history books care? No. Will history care if the US starts defaulting on payment obligations because the House "screwed around and found out?" Oh yea...