No, A "Crime" Need Not Be Comitted

[Obscurity]

Alot of mouthbreathing going on over this, so I wanted to make a thread here dedicated to the constitutional interpretation of the impeachment process.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “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.”

As 2nd amendment advocates will clearly agree with this interpretation, I suspect Turtledude to change his opinion directly. The constitution's original intent is quite clear as the founders understood it. It's quite clear the founders had used the terminology best known to them to describe abuses of power and other damaging acts for the trust of the public.

I would suggest everyone read this article and specifically the highlighted portion. The founders intent is paramount; if impeached, the SCOTUS would never dare overturn it; as an originalist court would and indeed must interpret the constitution as the founders intended.

Discuss.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Interesting, but moot.

Trump did nothing wrong.

This turbo-witch hunt will end badly for the Democrats...

 

[Obscurity]

Interesting, but moot.

Trump did nothing wrong.

This turbo-witch hunt will end badly for the Democrats...

Incorrect.

The president absolutelty betrayed the public's trust, which is an abuse of power, and as the founders understood it, would and should lead to impeachment.

You've been wrong on this issue since you started spewing garbage about it, and you know it, hence your avoidance of my replies.

I am interested "Trump" would like your comment but not reply here; newsflash, I've got you deniers by the balls, and you know it.

 

[Mycroft]

Alot of mouthbreathing going on over this, so I wanted to make a thread here dedicated to the constitutional interpretation of the impeachment process.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation



As 2nd amendment advocates will clearly agree with this interpretation, I suspect Turtledude to change his opinion directly. The constitution's original intent is quite clear as the founders understood it. It's quite clear the founders had used the terminology best known to them to describe abuses of power and other damaging acts for the trust of the public.

I would suggest everyone read this article and specifically the highlighted portion. The founders intent is paramount; if impeached, the SCOTUS would never dare overturn it; as an originalist court would and indeed must interpret the constitution as the founders intended.

Discuss.

I don't see anything in there about "I don't like you and I'm gonna get you, mother****er!"

Watch: Rep. Rashida Tlaib prompts protesters with controversial “impeach the motherf—er” line https://bit.ly/2mXRJlw pic.twitter.com/ZdhjEKz3nK

— Roll Call (@rollcall) September 26, 2019​

 

[ChezC3]

Trump's not going anywhere, get over it, and grow up

 

[3leftsdoo]

Incorrect.

The president absolutelty betrayed the public's trust, which is an abuse of power, and as the founders understood it, would and should lead to impeachment.

You've been wrong on this issue since you started spewing garbage about it, and you know it, hence your avoidance of my replies.

I am interested "Trump" would like your comment but not reply here; newsflash, I've got you deniers by the balls, and you know it.

Naw.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I don't see anything in there about "I don't like you and I'm gonna get you, mother****er!"

Watch: Rep. Rashida Tlaib prompts protesters with controversial “impeach the motherf—er” line https://bit.ly/2mXRJlw pic.twitter.com/ZdhjEKz3nK

— Roll Call (@rollcall) September 26, 2019​

AND she gonna "educate" her constituents about the need to impeach the ************ too.

But anyhoo, yeah, the OP is entirely without merit except as an interesting interpretation which doesn't apply to this situation.

Basically, a CIA spy spied & then lied.

They should be charged, no one else.

:shrug:

 

[ttwtt78640]

There are two phases to the impeachment process: impeachment charges (articles of impeachment) may be agreed upon and leveled by the House (requiring a simple majority vote) and a trial is conducted in the Senate (requiring a 2/3 supermajority for conviction).

Unlike most trials, an impeachment trial does not require (as noted in the OP) the violation of any particular statute (law) - making it a (purely?) political contest of losing the trust of (at least) 67 US Senators who are not bound by any legal standards (either a preponderance of the evidence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) to make their determination.

This (political?) impeachment process allowed Bill Clinton, while openly admitting to perjury (thus losing his law license), to be excused from any Senate sanctions for that criminal behavior.

 

[3leftsdoo]

There are two phases to the impeachment process: impeachment charges (articles of impeachment) may be agreed upon and leveled by the House (requiring a simple majority vote) and a trial is conducted in the Senate (requiring a 2/3 supermajority for conviction).

Unlike most trials, an impeachment trial does not require (as noted in the OP) the violation of any particular statute (law) - making it a (purely?) political contest of losing the trust of (at least) 67 US Senators who are not bound by any legal standards (either a preponderance of the evidence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) to make their determination.

This (political?) impeachment process allowed Bill Clinton, while openly admitting to perjury (thus losing his law license), to be excused from any Senate sanctions for that criminal behavior.

Yup.

That's why we need to start talking about impeaching Warren NOW.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Interesting, but moot.

Trump did nothing wrong.

This turbo-witch hunt will end badly for the Democrats...

Yesterday he threatened witness's involved in his impeachment inquiry with threats of death. That's witness tampering and in and of itself is impeachable. He really is like a dizzy blindfolded child playing ping the tail on the donkey, but since the impeachment inquiry it's like they've thrown in LSD.
Wednesday he implicated VP Pence in the phone calls. This is twilight zone madness.

Yup.
That's why we need to start talking about impeaching Warren NOW.

For miss-claiming she's and indian? PLEASE! :2rofll: That wouldn't make it into committee much less out.

 

[Obscurity]

AND she gonna "educate" her constituents about the need to impeach the ************ too.

But anyhoo, yeah, the OP is entirely without merit except as an interesting interpretation which doesn't apply to this situation.

Basically, a CIA spy spied & then lied.

They should be charged, no one else.

:shrug:

Another garbage reply from you.

The constitution and original intent are very clear. Tell me otherwise, please. You're becoming insufferable about this issue.

The president actively used his position for political gain. That is not acceptable. And, according to this statute, he SHOULD be impeached.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Trump's not going anywhere, get over it, and grow up

He's going back to NYC in 2021; for sure. Maybe sooner … possibly on his way to jail. He threw VP Pence under the bus Wednesday … so IF Pence doesn't get impeached too do you think a pardon for Don Vito will be forthcoming?

 

[Obscurity]

Yup.

That's why we need to start talking about impeaching Warren NOW.

I do enjoy the anti-corruption candidate having her daughter buy the WFP endorsement.

 

[Obscurity]

Trump's not going anywhere, get over it, and grow up

That's not my point, and frankly, I don't want him to be impeached, and I don't want him removed. HOWEVER. My thread is SIMPLY to educate the masses of denialists who insist criminal action is required for impeachment. It is NOT required.

 

[ocean515]

Alot of mouthbreathing going on over this, so I wanted to make a thread here dedicated to the constitutional interpretation of the impeachment process.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation



As 2nd amendment advocates will clearly agree with this interpretation, I suspect Turtledude to change his opinion directly. The constitution's original intent is quite clear as the founders understood it. It's quite clear the founders had used the terminology best known to them to describe abuses of power and other damaging acts for the trust of the public.

I would suggest everyone read this article and specifically the highlighted portion. The founders intent is paramount; if impeached, the SCOTUS would never dare overturn it; as an originalist court would and indeed must interpret the constitution as the founders intended.

Discuss.

I'll have to do some research to see what is necessary to bring Adam Schiff, and the rest of the Democrats participating in this attempted coup, up on charges, and removed from office.

 

[vegas giants]

I'll have to do some research to see what is necessary to bring Adam Schiff, and the rest of the Democrats participating in this attempted coup, up on charges, and removed from office.

Just file an impeachment. What are you waiting for?

 

[trouble13]

Another garbage reply from you.

The constitution and original intent are very clear. Tell me otherwise, please. You're becoming insufferable about this issue.

The president actively used his position for political gain. That is not acceptable. And, according to this statute, he SHOULD be impeached.

Why is it unacceptable to use your position for political gain? The left does it all the time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

Why is it unacceptable to use your position for political gain? The left does it all the time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Then have trump file charges

 

[Obscurity]

Why is it unacceptable to use your position for political gain? The left does it all the time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Because the ****ing founders said so, that's why.

I swear it's like the "constitution party" never read the damned document.

 

[Obscurity]

I'll have to do some research to see what is necessary to bring Adam Schiff, and the rest of the Democrats participating in this attempted coup, up on charges, and removed from office.

Go on. In the interim, please continue to ignore the constitutional perspective on this issue.

You've all been had - I've got every one of you here - and you KNOW IT, thus the non-reply.

 

[trouble13]

I'll have to do some research to see what is necessary to bring Adam Schiff, and the rest of the Democrats participating in this attempted coup, up on charges, and removed from office.

If ising your position for political gain is an impeachable offense adam schiff has to be a prime candidate

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

If ising your position for political gain is an impeachable offense adam schiff has to be a prime candidate

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Then file charges. What are you waiting for?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Interesting, but moot.

Trump did nothing wrong.

This turbo-witch hunt will end badly for the Democrats...

Obscurity’s post is valid and applicable to numerous Trump actions.

 

[trouble13]

Then have trump file charges

Are you missing a comma or a period?
Should it read; They have Trump. File charges?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Because the ****ing founders said so, that's why.

I swear it's like the "constitution party" never read the damned document.

I dont think the constitution says what you think it does.

Your essentially arguing that the president does not have the authority or a responsibility to root out snd bring to jistice criminal activity.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk