Can impeachment be legitimate if no laws are broken?

or a transcript of them asking for a favor and many witnesses that confirm it

 

I don't think that constitutes a crime but I also think the House can Impeach for any reason or no reason. At this point, I hope the house Impeaches. And then, the other shoe drops.

 

trying to get a foreign government to go after your political opponent is a crime, but the President can not be indicted, impeachment is the only alternative

 

Instead, the House could have 'censured' Trump and achieved approximately the same partisan benefit that they hoped to gain with impeachment. In any event, Trump will not (NOT) be removed from office by the Senate, and that's all that really matters....

Democrats should have devoted their efforts exclusively on discrediting Trump and making him some variety of 'pariah', but they've chosen to go for a pyrrhic 'victory' instead... an exercise known in our contemporary American vernacular as "shoveling sh!t against the tide"....

. "Yeh, but it IS a >misdemeanor< to spit on the sidewalk in lots of places! STRING HIM UP!"

 

Yes, 400 pages of opinion and presumption. No actual hard evidence of Trump wanting Biden investigated for political reasons.

 

Actually it is not a crime to have a foreign government investigate your political opponent for a crime. Being a political opponent does not prevent you from being investigated. What would be illegal is if Trump did it for political gain. And that is something that you, and all other people wanting Trump impeached, has yet to prove. You can assume that he is doing that. But you have yet to prove it.

You can prove that Trump asked for a foreign company to investigate Biden. And that did happen. But its not a crime.
You can prove that Trump held up military aide on the condition that they investigate Biden. This has not been proved as it was never brought up in any of the meetings with Zelensky or his staff. But, even if it did happen, that is not a crime. Such things happen all the time and is a natural part of politicking.

What you have not proved is whether Trump did it for personal, political gain. That would be illegal, but you have yet to prove it.

 

But, what is hypothetical 'political-gain' if there was, in fact, enormous quid pro quo corruption in what BIDEN bragged about, and, what BIDEN actually DID...?!

Fact: Trump did not (NOT) threaten to keep appropriated money from Ukraine! They got their money before the deadline, and there were no (NO) threats.
Fact: Biden did (DID) threaten to keep appropriated money from Ukraine! They bowed to the direct threat from Biden, and only after doing what he demanded did they get the money.

Now... who is guilty of WHAT?! Only a radical Democrat would have any difficulty in seeing through this....

. "Well, 'son of a bitch'! Some people are just BLIND as bats, aren't they...?"

 

I'm not surprised at the Dems playing all or nothing in Congress, but remain totally shocked the DNC couldnt come up with a single viable opponent to beat Donald Trump in 2020. Talk about having ones priorities out of sync. The whole party will come out of this impeachment fiasco with nothing but their tally-whacker in their hand. No impeachment, no candidate, no hope. Bless their stupid little hearts.

 

When you mash all the air bubbles out of this thing, Joe is RUINED. There's no way in hell that he's going to be their nominee now, although he'll wait to withdraw until after all the 'impeachment' hooptie has been milked for its maximum effect and then blown out the back door of the Senate. Joe shot himself in both feet with his arrogance, his stupidity, and his MOUTH.... His candidacy will never really 'walk' again.

THAT is why the Democrats have induced Bloomberg to run all of a big sudden! Bloomberg has lots of liberal cred, and, he's also the only big-league, big-money Democrat running now who has the slightest idea of what a national economy is and what it does. Forbes calculates Bloomberg's net worth right now at $54.1 billion dollars! The rest of the Democrat field consists of little but shrill, doctrinaire piss-ants who 'wanna-be' leaders of some kind of socialist-lite movement, etc., etc. But make no mistake -- Bloomberg's in this thing now to win it, and he's got the money to do it....

 

Nay, it's documented evidence, not at all opinion and presumption. You'd know that if you'd bothered to read any of it.

 

Don't have to read it. I watched the witness testimony for myself.

 

See, you've just admitted to ignoring the documented evidence, as though testimony could replace that. It can't.

 

If the Dems are for sale, Bloomberg will buy 'em, no doubt. Heard rumbling of Michelle Obama again recently. Now she's the kind of brainless candidate Dems really love... shed be a contender.

 

I am not so easily manipulated by gaslighting narcissists. I am also not swayed by Ad Populum, Ad Verecundiam,, or the fallacy of Mass Appeal. I simply asked that you present the legal clause and text, "that requires a reference to foreign law for purposes of determining the validity of an affirmative defense to the American law". Nothing on page 3, or the reference you cited supports your assertion. We are talking about a President, violating his oath of office, his Presidential powers, and his representing the government. Not any organization, any corporations, any business owner or shareholder, engaging in foreign trade or commerce. Using common sense alone, no president should solicit the assistance of any foreign leader, to find dirt on any political rival, for his own personal gain. But, also withholding billions of dollars in aid to the country, for their compliance, is just criminal. It does not matter when the money was released. It doesn't matter what other Presidents have done. It doesn't matter what the party has done before. It only matters what Trump has done. He is responsible for his own action. Right? If your kid told you that he should be allowed to smoke weed, because Timmy's father lets him smoke weed. What would you tell your kid, presenting such a silly argument? So why present the same argument regarding Trump?

I have heard so many silly things, from people grasping at straws. I have heard people say that until Trump completely destroys the economy, or the world, that he should not be impeached. I have heard people say that there is no real laws that have been broken, or any oaths of office being violated, so there is no grounds for impeachment. I listed 8 grounds for impeaching Trump, that only have to do with his actions. What if other heads-of-states asked Trump to use our resources to investigate relatives of their political rivals? Does anyone see the slippery slope that this practice can lead to? Lets look at the facts.

Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government
Bribery
Misappropriation of taxpayers money
Conspiracy
Abuse of Presidential Power
Violations of Sanctions against Russia
Violation of the Emolument Clause
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Fraud
Witness Intimidation(Obstruction of Justice)
Campaign Finance Laws
Violation of the Hatch Act(1939)
Tax evasion, and Bank and Insurance Fraud

Trump has decided to sell arms to the home of terrorists, Saudi Arabia. Congress has said no. Yet he is still selling arms to a terrorist country. Is their a law that makes it illegal for the President to illegally sell arms to terrorists? Trump has so far remained just inches from breaking the law completely. If he wasn't a sitting President, he would be in jail where this social predator belongs. Only those with TDS could just ignore all the impeachable things he has done. https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/

We are talking about a man who has built his entire career on bankruptcy fraud and illegal housing discrimination, and whose avocation is sexual assault. I’m not sure whether he breaks the law on purpose or whether he just doesn’t care, but his entire life is a history of lawbreaking. If you want to simply enable and excuse this level of complete moral bankruptcy, then Trump will always be above the law in your view. Therefore, truth will never stand in the way of blind loyalty. Do you really think we should all just ignore his over 8000 blatant lies, his racists and discriminatory executive orders, his attempts to cover-up information and intimidate officials, his references to invisible planes and racially demonizing rhetoric, or his being the first world-wide joke? Anyone who wants him back for 4 more years, is a "mini Trump", lacks empathy, and is in total denial. The only positive thing we can say about Trump, is that he is the yardstick that our nations checks-and-balances system, was specifically made for.

 

This is unbelievable. It was poster "Not Me" who, on page 3, cited the Foreign Corrupt Trade Practices Act in an attempt to show that Trump had violated the law by bribing a foreign official. I pointed out that paragraph (c) of that act, that HE CITED, provides the affirmative defense I describe.

Here it is again:

(c) Affirmative defensesIt shall be an affirmative defense to actions under subsection (a) or (g) 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.

I have a hard time believing that you can't read or won't understand that.

I see no need to respond to the rest of your post, which is wildly off topic. Invisible planes and bankruptcy?

And this: "If your kid told you that he should be allowed to smoke weed, because Timmy's father lets him smoke weed. What would you tell your kid, presenting such a silly argument? So why present the same argument regarding Trump?" LOL. Whatever I did, it wouldn't be grounds to remove him as president of the United States, which is what we are trying to discuss here, not whether Trump is a good president or a good person.

 

So, those tasked with protecting the US from treachery or abuse may not do their job if the subject is a potential political opponent? I don't think so but there is political fallout to abuses. Right now, we're finding that foreign powers, particularly in the Ukraine sided with the 2016 Democrats. That the FBI lied to the FISA court using a mask of reason to wiretap Trump allies. They busted into Trump's lawyer's office. What Trump did to Biden? Blatant problem. The guy is on camera boasting of his abuses. So Trump asks Ukraine to look into this apparent abuse. I think it his job to have done so.

 

I don't disagree, but Trump sort of served this up to Democrats on a silver platter. The smarter thing to do was refer his concern to the FBI. Though that would have enraged the left just as much. "He's using the FBI to attack his opponents!!"

 

Impeachment is a political process. If a majority of the HoR want to promulgate an action as impeachable, there is no restriction from preventing them from doing so. That’s why the framers wanted 2/3 of the Senate to convict on such charges. It’s an internal check to counteract an arbitrary maneuver by the House.

 

Dunno how true it is but I've read the Democrats were contacting the Ukraine telling them to obstruct US requests for data on Ukraine corruption, particularly if coming from Guilliani or Barr.

 

That is correct. If there is a hankering for impeachment for any reason, such as the way that the president parts his hair is unliked by a simple majority in the house who vote yay's, and if in the senate there is a two-thirds majority vote for conviction on such a whimsical basis, a president can be removed from office.

Impeachment is primarily a political act.

 

I think a reasonable case can be made that if the House impeaches for a frivolous reason then that could be part if the defense in the Senate trial, even if the allegation is true that he doesn't part his hair correctly.

BTW, I am reading today that bribery will not be one of the articles of impeachment. LOL, looks like they've been reading my excellent posts on that subject.

Don't applaud, just throw money.

 

True, but if you actually can get 67 votes for uneven ear lobes and a pustule on the nose, the president is removed.

 

Rather than suffer through your fake outrage over my comprehension and reading skills, or your feigning ignorance regarding shifting partisan blames(Biden did the same, so why wasn't he impeached also?), could you just answer a few question?

Do you think that Trump should be impeached, If the evidence proves(beyond a reasonable doubt) that Trump has committed any of the criminal offences I have listed?

Do you think that there has ever been an illegitimate impeachment, where NO laws were broken?

Do you think that Trump is being attacked by the left, only because he won the election?

Do you think that any evidence against the actions of Trump, will only be fake, and should be ignored?

I'm sorry you didn't understand my examples, my question, or any of my points. For example, it is illegal for us to sell arms to a terrorist government (SA). It doesn't matter what the written laws and regulations of the foreign official’s, political party’s, party official’s, or candidate’s country, is, it is still illegal. I am sorry that you can't see the dangers inherent in this abuse of power.

I never claim to be the brightest bulb in the box, so spare me your shrouded arrogance. The claim, "Is impeachment legitimate, if no laws are broken?", makes the assumption that impeachment is possible, if no laws are broken. Since there is no empirical or historical evidence, to even justify this assertion, the answer is obvious. I simply provided the laws that Trump has been accused of breaking. Just because Trump tells his followers that he has not broken any laws, does not mean that he hasn't. For these people, even if Trump told them himself, that they were mindless blind loyalists, they would cheer even louder.

 

It would probably be difficult to convince anyone the President was guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor because of the way he parted his hair.

 

But it is possible, and would be effective with 67 votes in the senate.