Can impeachment be legitimate if no laws are broken?

I really don't know what you're talking about, but inasmuch as you are still stuck on bribery, you might benefit from this objection to the bribery charge, which largely mirrors my own:

To that end, House Democrats—including Speaker Nancy Pelosi—have begun calling Trump’s conduct “bribery.” I can see why that is an attractive label for Trump’s misconduct. The average American knows what bribery is but has never heard of “abuse of power.” But Democrats should be careful about doing so, because while Trump’s conduct resembles bribery, as a technical legal matter it doesn’t quite fit. It’s true that demanding a thing of value in exchange for an official act (like aid to Ukraine) is solicitation of a bribe, but Trump’s allies would have a reasonable argument to make that an announcement of an investigation is not itself a “thing of value.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/25/trump-impeachment-democrats-073540

by Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

 

It says so right in the freaking article that Pelosi is dumbing it down for the average American who doesn't follow the legal lingo. And here you are, saying the dumbed down words doesn't quiet fit the legal label. Oh really? lol

 

I'll get a few more legal minds supporting my position and post them for you when I get time. They may help you, buy only if you think about the issue critically and not from a position of partisanship.

 

Not to mention that Trump made no mention to Zelensky about withholding funding if he didn't fulfill his wishes about investigating Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

 

It's really clear... the link I posted:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions: one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials. // Covers both enterprises and individuals

You claimed you can bribe a foreign official according to some definition.
I posted that you can't. Such is the law in the US. Really really simple.

 

That is a wilfully dishonest post. What I said, as you well know, was that the federal statute prohibiting bribery does not consider foreign officials to be public officials for purposes of the law criminalizing bribery. In other words, it doesn't fit the legal definition of bribery, not in the USA, not under federal law. (Hey, maybe they can impeach Trump for violation of Ukrainian law.)

This was explained by an anti-Trump prosecutor I just cited above. You may not like the law, but it is inarguably the law.

I also said that a promise by Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is not a "thing of value" for purposes of the statute, though that defect in your case is at least somewhat subtle. The first problem (Ukrainian officials are not public official) is not even subtle.

Of course, if you count among those who don't even think commission of a crime is necessary for impeachment, then don't worry about whether it's bribery or not. Just "Impeach fawty five!"

 

And I sourced that bribing foreign officials is still a no no according to the law.
It starts to be dishonest why you claim Trump is above those parts of the law when he breaks it.

 

You purposefully attributed to me an argument I did not make. I don't debate dishonest people.

 

That might not be entirely true. If a Congress impeaches a President for properly executing his constitutional authority and they disagreed with that policy it would not meet the requirements as stated in the Constitution. Go to court and SCOTUS rules as such. Who knows. That is NOT what the founders intend impeachment to be, just a political difference.

 

Irrespective of what the Founders intended, it is true that the House can impeach a president for any reason it likes. All it takes is a majority vote of the House members in order to do so. Valid reason? Invalid reason?

As you say, "who knows"? Who cares... the House will do whatever it wants, for any reason it wants... and SCOTUS cannot stop it.

 

That has never been tested. The Constitution DOES set out the reasons. If there is a constitutional disagreement between the two branches the SCOTUS settles the matter. Not saying it is going to that far but would be interesting to see how the courts ruled and if the other two branches would accept their decision. The founders made it difficult to accomplish for a reason, to avoid impeachments like the one we are seeing.

 

I can agree with you that the Founders would never have imagined anything quite like the rotten, corrupted situation we have had thrust on us today, but, aside from the rather vacuous, imprecise description of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (found in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4), the House is free to cobble together anything it wants to impeach a president.

Schiff and Nadler, et al, can continue to advance the "bribery" angle, although that's already been discarded as a useful tactic by even the more enthusiastic House Democrats. That leaves the "High Crimes/Misdemeanors" area -- and it is VAST. So, you can count on energetic, imaginative Democrats to continue on with Herculean efforts to 'fill in the blanks'!

Afterthought: did you know that in a number of places in the U. S. it is a misdemeanor crime to spit on the sidewalk?

. "Yeah, see? Now -- IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!"

 

Actually there were laws in each individual State. So yes, there were laws. It's not like we had complete anarchy before the US was formed.

As for your main point. The Constitution says that the President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". It doesn't state what those are or what can be considered as such, nor does it say that it is exclusively only those reasons. So if you want to be technical then the President could be impeached simply for having a bad hair day that Congress didn't like.

That said, Congress is still beholden to The People so they'd better make sure that The People make sure they agree with Impeachment or there's going to be hell to pay.

Personally I think that the President should only be impeached based on an egregious violation of actual implemented law. Piddly stuff like jay walking should not be an impeachable offense.

 

The Constitution states "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." It also states the "House shall have sole power of impeachment."

So it is the house that determines what is a crime or misdemeanor that warrants impeachment. If the house warrants a president spitting on the sidewalk is an impeachable offense, it is an impeachable offense.

 

Thank you. At some point, combining the efforts of those of us on both the Left and the Right, we'll be able to convey the reality to everyone that the House of Representatives can impeach a president for any reason imaginable -- "valid" or "invalid".

Reality: the House Democrats will probably settle for a "Censure" (a form of public humiliation), after creating as much additional drama and intrigue as they can out of what is, so far, not much more than 'a puddle full of cold piss' (and with no attention paid at all to Biden's infamous "son of a bitch" power-play). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States

The ONLY thing that really matters would be the result of a trial in the SENATE for 'removal', if it were to even get that far....

 

That's really a misunderstanding some reporters and pundits put out. The founders debated heavily on whistleblower should and should not be grounds for impeachment. Specific offenses were left out and not acceptable.

"
While Hastings had not yet stood trial in London, in Philadelphia Mason spoke of the Hastings impeachment with approval. He wanted the U.S. Constitution to include a similarly broad scope for impeachable offenses, covering everything that could “subvert the Constitution.”

Mason failed. The Framers rejected terms ranging from “corruption,” obtaining office by improper means, betraying one’s trust to a foreign power, “negligence,” “perfidy,” “peculation” and “oppression.” All these were rejected along with “maladministration” and kept off the Constitution’s list of impeachable offenses.

Notably, perfidy means dishonesty and peculation means self-dealing—two common allegations in today’s Trump hearings. The Framers dropped these terms, however, as too broad and undefined. Indeed, in arguing against the inclusion of maladministration, Madison remarked that “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate,” an outcome repugnant to him. Mason then substituted “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which was approved."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/adam-s...ied-in-1787-11574966979?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

And BTW the article is about Schiff's attempt to use "bribery" and how that fails.

 

I agree for the most part. I do think the democrats have no other choice than to bring up the articles of impeachment. Their base wouldn't have it any other way. Although I think Pelosi would be most agreeable to a censure. I keep thinking about those 40 seats the democrats picked up in 2018, 31 were won by moderate democrats in districts Trump won back in 2016. Perhaps that has nothing to do with the final decision of voting on the articles or not. But as a numbers guy, I do think Pelosi thinks they are relevant, perhaps one of the reason she waited and fought the official impeachment hearings for so long.

There's no way to get 20 Republican senators to vote to convict and remove. In fact you may have two democratic senators vote not guilty, meaning the democrats in reality need 22. Jones, Alabama is up for reelection in 2020, Trump has a 60% approval rating there. A Jones vote to convict would doom whatever slim chances he has for reelection. Manchin, West Virginia isn't up. But Trump approval in West Virginia is at 61%. I don't see Manchin voting to convict and remove either.

 

"what".....my autocorrect has fallen in love with the word "whistleblower"

 

Yeah I never understood what a "high misdemeanor" is supposed to be. Maybe they meant.to give the congress the right to debate it and the senate to convict for it and everybody arguing.

They sure got their wish.

 

Exactly

https://i.imgflip.com/3hjivz.gif

 

should be.

 

Can't you use google or wiki? Allow me to inform you.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

 

You jumped in on an conversation, defending a position that bribing a foreign official is legal.
And I debunked that with a source. There is nothing dishonest about this.
You just lost the argument.

 

You debunked nothing. I said that Trump didn't violate the federal bribery statute in 18 USC 201, and I separately cited the FCPA Act (before you did indirectly with a Wiki article) and I explained why he didn't violate that either. All you have cited is Wiki discussing the FCPA, which controls trade practices (trade as in commerce, not "Ï'll trade you my burger for your fries.") Trump was not engaged in trade or "commerce" as the law understands those terms, which is why not even the most deluded Democrat on the Hill is invoking the Commerce Code. This is also why Schiff's witnesses were unable to cite a crime, any crime, that Trump committed. They were asked this point blank. It's also why Harvard Emeritus professor Dershowitz can't see where a crime was committed.

The law that you think (and you alone, as far as I know) carries the day aimed at corruption in foreign trade practices, like Exxon (or one of its officers) paying something of value to a minister of a foreign country to get drilling rights. For example, and this is from your own wiki article:

In January 2014, ALCOA paid $175 million in disgorgement of revenues and a fine of $209 million to settle charges that its Australian bauxite mining subsidiary retained an agent that made bribes to government officials in Bahrain and to officers of Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. to secure long-term contracts to supply the company with bauxite ore.

Trump was not engaged in a commercial venture. (He was either conducting foreign policy, at best, or engaged in bare knuckle politics, at worst, but not commerce.)

Here's another problem with your citation to WIKI, which is always, always, a dubious to invalid source of law.

(c) Affirmative defensesIt shall be an affirmative defense to actions under subsection (a) or (i) that—
(1) the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value that was made, was lawful under the written laws and regulations of the foreign official’s, political party’s, party official’s, or candidate’s country. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-1

No one, not even you, I hope, thinks there was something unlawful under Ukraine law about the promise of a meeting or the provision of defensive weapons isn exchange for a lawful investigation of young Biden. It's not even illegal under U.S. law, but I've already explained that. Anyway, even if you had a prima facie case for a violation of the Commerce Code you cite (and you don't), Trump would have the affirmative defense I cite here. This is the problem with trying and conviction a person without giving then accused a right to present a defense.

All this explains, again, why not even Adam Schiff is citing the federal commerce and trade code (Title 15) in his impeachment inquiry.

Please cite specific law if you want to make a legal argument, not a generalized and irrelevant Wikipedia article.