Can impeachment be legitimate if no laws are broken?

True, you can't bribe a foreign official. What Trump did was way worse. It’s a breach of the president’s duty to not use the powers of the presidency to benefit himself. That's an abuse of power. So if no one does anything about this, our government falls apart. This just shows that Trump needs to voted out come November 2020. I think that will happen because people are tired of this constant soap opera. I think the farmers and the factory workers who got screwed over by him will say not this time, they will vote for someone better equipped to do this job. And won't have his family working in the White House. Someone who won't be laughed at around the world.

 

Lol, quite. But that's a little different from removing him by force before his term ends.

And don't let that poster mislead you about bribery. He doesn't know the law. That's why Trump is not charged with bribery in the articles of impeachment. If liberal democrats in the House can't even see it, how do you expect the Senate or really anyone else to see it?

 

I proved that you don't understand the law of bribery or the defenses available to one accused of such.

The articles of impeachment have been drafted and are viewable by anyone. They didn't charge Trump with bribery. Why do you suppose that is, since it's so obvious and all?

Hey. I got it ... Trump bribed Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, the dirty dog!

 

Do you really think that the rest of us are blind to the fact that the FBI embraced the most threadbare nothingness of 'cause' in order to investigate the Trump campaign with an electron-microscope -- BUT -- when confronted with Hillary Clinton's blatant, in-your-face breaking of the LAW by receiving, transmitting, and re-transmitting classified information on an UNSECURED communication/computer device, our wonderous FBI simply walked away from it, finding that NO crimes whatsoever had been committed?!

It may be easy to fool a gaggle of liberal Democrats who didn't WANT to know the truth about Hillary Clinton, but it's a hell of a lot harder to fool people who know what the laws are, what high-level security clearances REQUIRE, and that she didn't just break the law -- SHE STOMPED A MUDHOLE IN IT! We have come to expect this kind of hypocrisy from the Left. No surprises there.

But how in the world does a supposedly elite group of noble, honest, professionals in the country's most highly-esteemed law enforcement agency sink to the level that Comey and his clowns submerged it down to by letting Hillary Clinton completely evade ANY definitive scrutiny or examination at all?!

Oh, but when Trump was suggested as a target to the FBI, no clue was too vague... no possibility of malfeasance was too microscopic.... They used that completely fraudulent 'Steele Dossier' to go after Trump like a homing torpedo....

 

What you fail to see is that it IS a president' responsibility to use due diligence in discovering whether or not there is corruption involved in our dealings with foreign countries -- especially when we're shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars on top of hundreds of millions more! And, although you on the radical Left are loathe to admit it, what Joe Biden did was the MOUNT EVEREST of the worst kind of 'quid pro quo' corruption in Ukraine! In essence: "Either you guys fire a UKRAINIAN prosecutor in a UKRAINIAN investigation of a UKRAINIAN corporation, or, I will make certain you UKRAINIANS don't get AMERICAN money!" That sound about right...?

But, playing along with your accusation, please tell us all -- did Trump hold up the distribution of the money to Ukraine beyond the DEADLINE? No? Did Trump try to bribe anybody in Ukraine? No? Did Trump even try to break any laws with his inquiries with the government of Ukraine? NO.

So, what the hell do you guys think you HAVE? I'll tell you what you have -- you have the ability to leverage a majority vote in the House to impeach Trump because of the sheer advantage of numbers. So, sure, do ahead and impeach him if that amuses you... and hope you're still smiling when the sun rises on the morning after the NEXT election day....

Hint: although increasingly poorly-educated for the last forty years, most Americans still aren't totally stupid... they know what Geriatric Joe and his cocaine-huffing kid pulled off in Ukraine... and worse, ol' Joe even BRAGGED about it to make sure that everybody knew!

Link: https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...he-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/

 

Firstly, there have only been TWO presidents(Clinton and A. Johnson) that have actually been impeached by the House of Representatives. Both were acquitted in the Senate. Nixon resigned before the impeachment process could be completed. Seven presidents have been threatened with impeachment, but not impeached(Tyler, Washington, H. Hoover, both Bush's, Reagan, and Obama). The President of the US must have a higher standard of behavior, than any ordinary citizen. His integrity and behavior should be beyond scrutiny. Trump's integrity is a world-class joke. His behavior would even make a White Nationalist blush. I am very proud of my country. I am certainly NOT proud of my President. I personally don't want him removed from office. But, he should be impeached for everything he has done to disgraced the Office of Presidency, and the suffering he has caused the people(shutting down the government, lies and total lack of empathy, separating children from their parents, selective travel bans, immigration reforms, discriminative executive orders, etc.).

Secondly, if you are going to make such arrogant statements like, "Is this really hard to understand?", "It's like claiming the sky is green and refusing to look up", "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", and, "I am not outraged. I am disappointed.", then it seems to me that YOU are the one that needs to "back off" with the insults and fake outrage, or at least expect some "push-back". Personally, I am not here to insult anyone, but I am no ones door mat either.

Trump's comments about the F-35 Stealth fighter being literally invisible, and his business practices based on his proud record of bankruptcies, goes directly to his character and mental and business acumens. Which is very germane to impeachment hearings(and not wildly off-topic). In fact much of the evidence for the impeachment of Trump, comes directly from his own mouth. The narrative I used for smoking weed, was to illustrate the fallacy of Tu Quoque, Appeal to Ignorance, Equivocation, and Faulty Analogies. Trump supporters seem to make the false argument that if Joe Biden can even brag about getting his son a high-paying job in the Ukraine, then why can't Trump ask a foreign leader to investigate, not only Biden's son, but Biden as well? The implication of holding back financial aid, was just to sweeten the pot. The point was, it doesn't matter what Biden did, or his son, or the entire US. Trump is being held responsible for his own actions. The point of my narrative was, that it doesn't matter what other fathers may do, it only matters what you do. So, no more Biden/Trump comparisons. They are all irrelevant, and logically incohesive.

Well, it looks like we might be on the same page regarding the impeachment of Trump. We both agree that it will be the evidence that will impeach him, and not public opinion, or some public or party vendetta? We both agree that all impeachments(2) have been based on some violation of the law(Federal or Domestic), and not on some frivolous non-legal complaint? We both agree, that we should expect the highest standards of moral and ethical behavior from our President, than we would expect from any ordinary citizen? Because the consequences can involve a very high human cost for poor presidential decisions. So, the question we really need to ask ourselves, is just how many more excuses, rationales, spins, convoluted logic, and deflections, will we need to create, before we start accepting the obvious truth about Trump?

Finally, just ask Cohen, Manafort, Gates, Flynn, or Papadopoulos, if campaign finance violations, fraud, and tax evasion, are not really crimes? The are all crimes, and Trump would have joined them, if he weren't 't already a sitting President. So stop saying that campaign finance violations are NOT crimes, when they are. https://billmoyers.com/story/violating-certain-campaign-finance-laws-criminal-offenses/

 

Whether Trump held up the distribution is irrelevant. It is only relevant if he used it as leverage. Is your argument that if someone else gets away with a crime, that we should use that as grounds to excuse others who commit the same crime? So, if OJ gets away with murder, then others are entitled to get away with it as well? If the banks are ripping us all out of our money, we should not prosecute anyone for trying to get their money back?. Does anyone see the obvious slippery slope, this line of reasoning can lead to?

It doesn't matter what Biden, or his entire family has done. Biden is not responsible for Trumps actions, no matter how convoluted you need to twist your reasoning to fit your own bias. Even if the DNC, fundamentalist Dems, and neolibs, made a very public pact to get rid of Trump, it would be totally irrelevant to the charges against him. They are all entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. So, is there any FACTS and EVIDENCE, that you are disputing? One Trump supporter said, that as long as he does not end the world, or completely bankrupt America, that he should never be impeached. Do you think that he is right?
​

Why don't we just let the evidence answer these questions, and not our biases? Impeaching a sitting President, is not a frivolous pursuit.

 

Removal from office is the purpose of impeachment. So I don't know what you want. Perhaps a censure resolution would be best.

I apologize for my tone, but I have been citing that law on affirmative defense over and over in this thread and posters keep saying "Where? What law? You haven't cited no law!!" and it's tiresome having to point it out over and over.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that one can just say "affirmative defense" and thereby save Trump. An affirmative defense has to be proved by the defendant, like insanity (He did it, but was insane). Just as one can't just accuse someone of "bribery" and convict him without trial, Trump can't say "affirmative defense " and defeat the prosecution. You have to prove it to a non biased jury.

Which is funny in a way because there is no one who is not prejudiced either for or against Trump so he cannot get a fair trial.

This is all academic anyway, because the House has not charged Trump with bribery, either under the bribery statute or this ridiculous commerce code argument I have been wasting my time demolishing.

 

Of course you can! omg lol

 

I proved you do not understand that bribing somebody as in asking for a service for money is still a crime. I even sourced that this not just covers companies but also people.

That's probably because raping the constitution, as in one does when they abuse power, is a way more serious offense.

 

I never said it was okay to bribe, abuse power, or rape anybody, including foreign agent. I said Trump's phone call is not a crime under the bribery statute nor the securities code you cited, and that even if it were, there are affirmative defenses under title 15 that the accused can invoke, and basic fairness says the accused gets his opportunity to at least say so in court or in the Senate if he issuing impeached, before he is condemned. ( Due process for the win.)

All this explains why literally no one -- except you -- is still banging on about bribery, not even representatives Schiff or Nadler.

There is not even a generalized bribery claim, as contemplated in the constitution, made in the articles of impeachment. That is unfortunate for you, as it would have at least temporarily (until the senate trial and acquittal ) validated your claim of bribery.

 

I am surprised that so many responders believe impeachment can only be done when a law has been broken. In Federalist Paper#65, Alexander Hamilton said:

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

This article provides some historical background on the term "high crimes and misdemeanors," and also relates that the very first person who was ever impeached and removed from office had not actually committed a crime:

"The first person who was successfully impeached and removed was federal judge named John Pickering in 1803. He was impeached because, as the University of Missouri’s Bowman says, “He was both an alcoholic and probably insane....neither was a crime, but led him to abuse his office."

Is there any historical or scholarly analysis that supports the view that impeachment requires an actual law to be broken?

 

We'll never get to the bottom of this.

The federalist papers were not written by god, and they only reflect the views of some of the founders before the convention.

Also, the standard for impeachment of a President and Vice president is in Art. 2 , section 4, and that section only applies to the Presidentand Vice President, and it specifically says treason, bribery d other high crimes and misdemeanors. So the reference to the insane judge is interesting but irrelevant.

Harvard law professors Tribe and Dershowitz are both distinguished scholars, and friends, and even they don't agree on this.

There are obvious problems impeaching for non criminal activity. It turns into what we have now ... a political dispute. But the other side (mine) has a problem too. If treason were not against the law, one might argue that you can't impeach for treason because the prohibition hasn't been codified yet. Obviously one can be impeached for treason even if the statute making it a crime were repealed.

It is telling that founder Mason's proposal to add maladministration as an impeachment ground was expressly rejected, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" substituted in its place. As a result, there are no impeachment grounds listed in the constitution that are not crimes, so it surprises me that one would want to find something (abuse of office) that just isn't there.

If the framers wanted it to be a wide open subjective free for all they would not have limited impeachment grounds in any way.

 

wut? I sourced the foreign corrupt practicing act. It even goes as far as:
Because the Act concerns the intent of the bribery rather than the amount, there is no requirement of materiality. Offering anything of value as a bribe, whether cash or non-cash items, is prohibited.

Seriously. You actually think an American citizen is allowed to just bribe foreign political leaders to gain iffy deals? You got to be kidding me.

You really need to wake up. There is no court proceedings in an impeachment. And what you on about with due process? The process is going correctly.

Again, you can name anything in the constitution that that he didn't break. It's what laws he did break that counts. And in the end, you can claim that he did bribe the Ukrainian president, and that is abuse of power. You really need to wake up with this bs. It's like Donald ran a red light and you're whining that it's not a biggy, but never minding it was a fatal car crash.

 

If I had said that, yes, I would be kidding. But I didn't.

Lots of other errors in your post. I'll try to help.

First, I'm not complaining about lack of due process in the current proceedings. The case will go to the Senate and Trump will get a fair hearing (due process). I am concerned that if someone like you were in charge, he would go into the proceeding with an agenda to impeach for bribery and ignore the parts of the law that didn't fit his narrative, in this case, ignoring the reality that if the requested action is legal under Ukrainian law, it is an affirmative defense to bribery under the law you are citing with no understanding. All Trump has to say to defeat your claim ( and literally no one but you is making it) is "It is obviously legal under Ukrainian law to investigate iffy deals (as you would say) between Ukrainian companies and American citizens," and he wins because that is an affirmative defense under the very law that you cited. There may well be another law out there that fits these facts and your narrative. You haven't produced it yet other than parroting the FCPA after a shallow and selective reading of it.

Next, your proposition is too vague ("iffy deals") to comment on. I said specifically several pages ago that I would be open to consider how bribery of a foreign official might be unlawful under American law. It clearly is not under the 18 usc 201 (Bribery of Public Officials). Congress wrote it that way, not me.

The term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror[.]"

Why do you think they defined "public official" narrowly like that if they meant to make bribery of foreign officials illegal under American federal law? (The answer is that Ukraine can prosecute bribery of their officials, and we can prosecute bribery of ours.)

I suppose you could impeach Trump for violating the bribery laws of Ukraine or even Tajikistan, but it isn't going anywhere. Not in American courts or in this impeachment proceeding. I remind you that everyone else has moved on from bribery, even Schiff.

Now, a bribery charge under the FCPA would also fail because you can't come close to proving the elements. "Cash or non cash items" are verboten, sure, but they must at least be items, LOL, and they must be part.of a business deal, not an act of even evil foreign policy. And they mean there that you can't give speed boats and jewelry (nor cash) to a foreign official in furtherance of a business deal. There are lots of other limitations (withholding or granting foreign aid, for exmple, isn't close to what they mean), but I don't have time to educate you in all of the finer points.

You are regrettably citing a law that doesn't apply to these facts and straining to make it fit. If you burglarize a home, get caught in the act, and you get charged with robbery, I will defend you all the way because you are charged with the wrong offense. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to burglarize homes, LOL.

I am awake, thank you, and I know more about bribery law than you do. So do Schiff and Nadler. That's why there ain't word one about bribery in the articles of impeachment. If there were, they'd be laughed out of town.

 

Fine. Name one. So far, you haven't. My defense to the one you did name has been very effective. I don't expect you to agree with me, of course. But Schiff and Nadler do. That's why they didn't charge Trump with bribery, as defined anywhere.

 

Impeachment is only the first step, before a President can be removed from office. It is also a statement by the people, representing the confidence and respect they have for his performance. I want Trump impeached because of all the damage he has done to the American people, and the office of the Presidency. I want Trump to have "impeached" added to his business resume, alongside bankruptcy, business failures, and corruption. Unlike impeachment, a government censor has no basis in the Constitution. It only applies to the House and Senate(23 from the House, and 10 from the Senate).

When you speak about an "affirmative defence", aren't you just talking about "mitigating circumstances?". Such as, self-defence, insanity plea, duress, ignorance of the law, and justification. In other words, an affirmative defence is a defence that raises an issue SEPARATE from the elements of the crime. I call this, in the case of Trump, a distraction. Since you keep raising the issue of an affirmative defence, what are these elements(separate from the crimes) of affirmative defence, that you want to raise? Other than that people don't like him, they want revenge, or they just want this world-class embarrassment to just go away. What are the affirmative defence elements of Trumps bribery accusations?

Do you really think that Bribery is the only crime Trump is being accused of? What about all the other crimes I have listed? You must also look up the meaning of intent, as it relates to Bribery. Whoever told you that it is not a crime, for a President to try an bribe ANYONE. Common sense should tell you otherwise. This reminds me of the woman who thought cruise control, would control the car without the driver present. Hopefully, she only represents the exception, and not the rule.

All of Trump's actions are expected, for a person of his character. He took advantage of an opportunity(on the advice of his crooked counsel), to obtain a political advantage. Just like Nixon. Spare a thought of what would have happened, if he got away with it? Thank God for our checks and balances. I do agree with you, in that you have been truly wasting your time. Especially, sine he is just not worth the effort, and the evidence is overwhelming.

 

No. Mitigating circumstances are presented and argued to reduce punishment of a person who has been found guilty or who pleads guilty. An affirmative defense, if proved, results in acquittal, and then there is no punishment hearing.

 

I answered that too many times to count. Sorry but I'm getting tired of re-chewing my cud. Read the thread.

I didn't say bribery either was or wasn't a crime. There is a crime called bribery, of course, but it has specific elements. You don't just point to a quid pro quo (which is not a crime, no matter what CNN tells you), and scream "bribery". Sometimes it is, sometimes not. Sometimes people disagree because it's arguable either way. That's what juries are for. But they deliberate AFTER the defense gets a chance to tell its side of the story.

If you think what Trump did was bribery, you show me the law and I'll give my opinion as to whether the facts meet that particular law
But I don't have the burden of proving anything, much less a negative.

I'm not answering any more questions unless I'm satisfied you've read the whole thread
But since Trump isn't being impeached for bribery anyway, you're really wasting your and my time.

 

Sorry, but it is your responsibility to insure that the reader clearly understands your ideas. Even dummies like myself. Otherwise, you could just continue speaking gibberish, and then claim that you are tired of repeating the same gibberish. In a normal defense, the defense attorney tries to prove that you did not commit the crime that you are accused of. In an affirmative defense, guilt is not in question, but the mitigating circumstances(under the influence, duress, heat of passion, trickery, etc.), and the legal justifications(self-defense, mental deficiency, war, etc.) are. Claiming that, "An affirmative defense, if proved, results in acquittal, and then there is no punishment hearing", is at best a half-truth, and at worst more disinformation. A wife killing her husband while protecting her children, might be acquitted of manslaughter, using an affirmative defense of self-defense(which must include mitigating circumstances). But, a citizen(Dan White) who kills the Mayor and Supervisor of SF, can avoid a capital crime(Murder with three special circumstances), by an affirmative defence, "The Twinkie Defense", for the reduced charge and sentence of 2nd degree manslaughter. So, unless you are claiming that Trump is admitting to the crimes of Abuse of Presidential Power, and the Obstruction of Congress, then this distraction of "affirmative defense" has absolutely zero relevance.

You, like Trump, are insulting our intelligence, by assaulting the facts(bullying) and trying to expand the limitations of the office, that he is accused of abusing. Since the day the Democrats proposed two articles of impeachments against Trump(ABUSE OF POWER and OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS), he and his courtiers, have tried to lay down a fresh fog of legal semantics, to obscure any evidence that would incriminate him. Trump even claimed that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are "not even a crime.". Trump's never-ending stream of misinformation, disinformation, half-truths and conspiracy theories, is only designed to confuse voters, create ambiguity and uncertainty, and to exhaust critical thinking. This can leave even the closest observer unsure about the facts. He has been doing this all his life, and continues to get away with it.

Whether you agree or disagree that Bribery is a crime is totally irrelevant. We are not talking about the behavior of any private citizen. We are talking about the behavior of the President of the US. Does anyone think that there is nothing wrong with a president who has already admitted, to asking the President of the Ukraine to take actions against an American citizen, that would benefit him politically? Maybe all Presidents should be allowed to solicit foreign leaders to help achieve some personal gains. This is normal practice in many African and S. American countries. This is a betrayal of his Oath of Office. He is suppose to shield the integrity and sustainability of our Constitution, from both external and internal threats. He now represents a betrayal of our Election Integrity, and our National Security. Why would such an egomaniac need the help of a foreign leader, to discredit someone who doesn't even know where he is most of the time? Is Trump this insecure and paranoid?

Let's just say, if Trump was impeached, there would not be one person living outside of the US, that would ask why. Also, there are others who are reading these posts, so my time is NOT entirely wasted on you.

 

Sorry, but we disagree. What if I just kept posting "you aren't making any sense" over and over. At some point, one has to move on.

 

Well... so there you go, buddy. Stop complaining.

Ukrainian law is totally irrelevant. It's like... yeah sure I made child porn which is illegal in the US, but I send it to Ukraine where it's legal... so you know... there is no problem now.
/facedesk

I sourced how it is myself. You previously admitted in your last post that you would be kidding me to claim bribing a foreign leader is legal, to now attempt to kid me around by nitpicking around words.

They way you're ranting YOU could even think Trump could be fined for not complying with Iranian law ways to censure criticism on it's regime. Utter total nonsense. You really need to gear up here.

 

I already have. I even cited the text. Where you think breaking foreign laws could be an impeachable act in the US. If that was so, than North Korea would have made it possible to oust Trump in 24 hours. lol

 

Unfortunately you can't get a single solitary soul, even a Democrat, to agree with you. I don't think you're LOL-ing. I think you're boo-hoo-hooing.

 

If you did, then you would be just another nincompoop, proving that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Only children who repeat the same argument over and over again, would expect a different response. Do you even consider that the onus for editorial clarity, should be on the poster, not the reader? You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I spend a lot of time making sure that my post are not ambiguous, biased, illogical, inconsistent, and do not distort the facts. I give anecdotes, sites, and common-sense examples, to highlight and illustrate all my conclusions. So I expect this same level of intellectual honesty. I am not here to simply "go the distance", and makeup excuses to ignore what is being said. Anyone can simply spew out nonsense, speak gibberish, makeup and defend their own straw man, just to avoid the substance of their argument from being scrutinized.

You are simply wrong in claiming that an affirmative defense is not part of the mitigating circumstances, that is argued by the defense. I have listed examples of what mitigating circumstances are, and how and why they are used as an affirmative defense. I have shown you specific examples of how an affirmative defense, uses mitigating circumstances, to acquit, reduce sentencing, or even change the charges. You are also part-wrong, in that an affirmative defense, if proven, would ONLY result in an acquittal. I have also demonstrated the difference between a normal defense, and an affirmative defense. Would you like more examples? Since Trump has not admitted that he has done anything wrong, why are you talking about an affirmative defense anyway? Why are you also talking about Bribery crimes? He is not being charged with bribery. So either show me where I am wrong(other than just asserting it), or just move on spreading more disinformation.

Clearly it seems to be your way, or the highway. And, that is not how I conduct any honest discourse. Until you can back up your statements like, "First, I'm not complaining about lack of due process in the current proceedings. The case will go to the Senate and Trump will get a fair hearing (due process)". This implies an unfair hearing in the House. Also, "I would be open to consider how bribery of a foreign official might be unlawful under American law.". Why would anyone waste their time, trying to convince anyone who believes that bribing anyone is NOT a crime? The crime of Bribery applies to everyone, and convincing you of this, is certainly not a necessary prerequisite.

You are a person who believes in a man, whose entire life is based on lies, corruption, ego, immorality, apathy, fame, vanity, power, money, and self-indulgence. Why can the rest of the world see this, and we can't? What does Trump need to tell us to our face, before we can begin to see the obvious? How many more soldiers need to be wasted, before we begin to realize that WE are the Corporate terrorists? Why do we keep electing people with money and power, to help those without either? And, expect a different outcome?

The only person who cares, is someone who is corporate America's greatest threat. Someone who is the most attacked candidate by MSM. Someone who must be buried under smears and lies, to silence her message. This is our only hope for a systemic change. Otherwise, in 4 more years, we will just keep repeating and rationalizing the same mistakes we have made, for the last 60 years. It seems that one generation doesn't really learn from the previous.

​