Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

[TopDeadSenter]

17 hours ago, mogandave said:

Which ones hate Trump? 

The ones that dumped their stock portfolios when Trump won his historic victory against Clinton? 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The ones that dumped their stock portfolios when Trump won his historic victory against Clinton? 

Trillions lost. You’d think some would have learned a lesson about Democrat/MSM propaganda but here we are. Impeaching Trump on speculation after a failed Mueller report.

 

[JHolmesJr]

It's funny really.

 

Dems can't find a crime (or prove a crime) committed by Trump.

 

So the natural response is....we don't need a crime for impeachment.

 

Oh yes you do...you need to prove a high crime/misdemeanour....good luck with that.

 

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

It's funny really.

 

Dems can't find a crime (or prove a crime) committed by Trump.

 

So the natural response is....we don't need a crime for impeachment.

 

Oh yes you do...you need to prove a high crime/misdemeanour....good luck with that.

 

So you don't understand what impeachment is, right, and that it is NOT the same thing as a criminal process? 

 

 

 

[JHolmesJr]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So you don't understand what impeachment is, right, and that it is NOT the same thing as a criminal process? 

 

Then why does it require "high crimes and misdemeanours" to be enacted?

 

Why not just say impeachment can be pursued on the grounds of baseless grouses by a losing party?

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Then why does it require "high crimes and misdemeanours" to be enacted?

 

Why not just say impeachment can be pursued on the grounds of baseless grouses by a losing party?

Watch the hearings with the constitutional specialists. High refers to high office. The founders were not talking about literal crimes on the books. 

 

Background on this for all to read. I realize the facts don't matter to 45 cult of personality members:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/
 

Quote

 

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

 

 

[JHolmesJr]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Watch the hearings with the constitutional specialists. High refers to high office. The founders were not talking about literal crimes on the books. 

 

Background on this for all to read. I realize the facts don't matter to 45 cult of personality members:

 

 

Why use the word crimes at all then? Why not rebrand it to "high whims and imagined infringements"?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Why use the word crimes at all then? Why not rebrand it to "high whims and imagined infringements"?

I gave you a link that you won't read. This is over. 

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I gave you a link that you won't read. This is over. 

 

LOl....I think I know what a HC&M means without having to wade through some academic verbiage.

And it's certainly not what you accuse Trump of. Lets not equate questionable judgement with 

treason eh?

 

 

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

LOl....I think I know what a HC&M means without having to wade through some academic verbiage.

And it's certainly not what you accuse Trump of. Lets not equate questionable judgement with 

treason eh? 

The formal articles of Impeachment are coming soon. I can assure you that one of them will not be a charge of questionable judgment. 

 

But you're obviously not interested in facts so why bother. 

[JHolmesJr]

Just now, Jingthing said:

The formal articles of Impeachment are coming soon.

 

Look, we all know what this sham impeachment really is.

Just a anti trump made for tv campaign designed to run all though 2020

to blunt his chances at re-election.

 

Why? Cos the Dems got nothin by way of candidates...or policies.

 

The articles may be coming but the senate will be sending them back where they

belong...to the dustbin of obscurity.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Then why does it require "high crimes and misdemeanours" to be enacted?

 

Why not just say impeachment can be pursued on the grounds of baseless grouses by a losing party?

Because its whatever congress says it is. There does not need to be an actual crime. Abuse of power is not a crime. But is impeachable.

 

I know its hard for you to understand but the president cannot be charged with a crime.

 

Putting personal interests instead of country first is not a crime also. But is impeachable.

 

Why dont you just say you dont agree with the constitution. Its easier.

[JHolmesJr]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Because its whatever congress says it is. There does not need to be an actual crime.

 

Riiiiiight.....but surely you mean what a highly partisan % of congress (ie. only Dems) says it is.

 

Anyway, when the shoe is on the other foot, this will serve as a good precedent.

Carry on!

[Sujo]

54 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Why use the word crimes at all then? Why not rebrand it to "high whims and imagined infringements"?

Because crimes change with the times. Do you think the founding fathers had a crystal ball to know we had internet and such. They left it open for congress to determine.

 

Did you watch the scholars testify at all? Even the republican witness agreed.

[Sujo]

50 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

LOl....I think I know what a HC&M means without having to wade through some academic verbiage.

And it's certainly not what you accuse Trump of. Lets not equate questionable judgement with 

treason eh?

 

 

Its obvious you dont.

[rabas]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Because its whatever congress says it is.

Thus congress, the senate, and judge John Roberts will say this is political mumbo-jumbo. 

 

[Sujo]

19 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Look, we all know what this sham impeachment really is.

Just a anti trump made for tv campaign designed to run all though 2020

to blunt his chances at re-election.

 

Why? Cos the Dems got nothin by way of candidates...or policies.

 

The articles may be coming but the senate will be sending them back where they

belong...to the dustbin of obscurity.

But you said this was good for trump. So stop complaining.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Thus congress, the senate, and judge John Roberts will say this is political mumbo-jumbo. 

 

Impeachment is political. A 10 year old knows this.

[JHolmesJr]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Because crimes change with the times. Do you think the founding fathers had a crystal ball to know we had internet and such. They left it open for congress to determine.

 

Exactly. The FF said it wasn't ok to ask a foreign government to investigate a rival.

But they also didn't have the crystal ball to know that one day a VP would be 

mired in some very questionable, possibly corrupt acts. That a current president absolutely 

needs to know. All this ^^%$ that he only wanted an announcement made is only hearsay.

No one has spoken to trump or heard him say it....it's a fabrication.

 

Its a contradiction they (the FF) could not anticipate....and this will be the vein that will be explored richly

in the senate trial...before the senate throws out the case.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Riiiiiight.....but surely you mean what a highly partisan % of congress (ie. only Dems) says it is.

 

Anyway, when the shoe is on the other foot, this will serve as a good precedent.

Carry on!

Its always been that way. You do know this isnt the first impeachment dont you.

[Sujo]

Just now, JHolmesJr said:

 

Exactly. The FF said it wasn't ok to ask a foreign government to investigate a rival.

But they also didn't have the crystal ball to know that one day a VP would be selling

mired in some very questionable, possibly corrupt acts. That a current president absolutely 

needs to know. All this ^^%$ that he only wanted an announcement made is only hearsay.

No one has spoken to trump or heard him say it....it's a fabrication.

 

Its a contradiction they (the FF) could not anticipate....and this will be the vein that will be explored richly

in the senate trial...before the senate throws out the case.

The vp can be criminally charged. The president cannot. Get it?

[JHolmesJr]

Just now, Sujo said:

The vp can be criminally charged. The president cannot. Get it?

 

The VP will be shielded by the swamp, if only to protect the sanctity of the office...but he is

politically finished....a mumbling, stumbling, creepy, angry mess.

 

As to the Prez, I have no doubt he will weather this. 

 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

The VP will be shielded by the swamp, if only to protect the sanctity of the office...but he is

politically finished....a mumbling, stumbling, creepy, angry mess.

 

As to the Prez, I have no doubt he will weather this. 

 

Good for you. He will not be convicted for sure.

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, rabas said:

Thus congress, the senate, and judge John Roberts will say this is political mumbo-jumbo. 

 

Roberts is obligated to run a serious trial even though the outcome is largely predetermined. 

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Its always been that way. You do know this isnt the first impeachment dont you.

There was another impeachment where no one in one party voted to impeach? 
 

When?

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Roberts is obligated to run a serious trial even though the outcome is largely predetermined. 

Yes, and that's good. But he is not obligated to seriously consider dirty partisan plots and politics. He's there to separate the wheat from the chaff. You may think its all good wheat, a lot of people think it's a nothing burger.

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

Yes, and that's good. But he is not obligated to seriously consider dirty partisan plots and politics. He's there to separate the wheat from the chaff. You may think its all good wheat, a lot of people think it's a nothing burger.

 

He will have a very minimal role.

[J Town]

16 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Dems can't find a crime (or prove a crime) committed by Trump.

Yes, they did.

[Tounge Thaied]

16 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

It's funny really.

 

Dems can't find a crime (or prove a crime) committed by Trump.

 

So the natural response is....we don't need a crime for impeachment.

 

Oh yes you do...you need to prove a high crime/misdemeanour....good luck with that.

 

I agree... there is no crime. But the way I read the impeachment process, they don't require a crime to impeach. And this is precisely, IMO, the avenue that is being taken for purely political reasons. A dog and pony show in the critical moments of the next elections cycle. Ultimately, this will play out in a show trial in the Senate, for which a 2/3 majority to act on impeachment will not be reached. It's high stakes now and will be MSM ratings gold for the republicans, as they will now have the opportunity to subpeona witness on their side of this ^(&*( show.