Impeachment does NOT require a crime

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by HereWeGoAgain, Jan 20, 2020.

  1. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But, in the criminal justice system, if new evidence is discovered during a trial, and it is ruled relevant and made available to both the prosecution and the defense, it's admirable, no? Are you taking the position that the Senate has no power to call for such?
     
  2. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    7,445
    Likes Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rod, it plainly has that constitutional authority. Do you know what the word "sole" means?

    "As I've posted many times---". You're no expert on these issues, and your posts seem to be your own unfounded musings. If you had any legal training, and any support for these claims, you'd address it.
     
  3. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you insist on playing these sophomoric semantic games?
     
  4. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I asked for actual stuff, not propaganda.
    "Pertinent"????? Now there is a slippery squishy get-out-the-back-door word if there ever was one.
     
  5. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Geesh, what a steaming pile.
     
  6. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Feel free to prove anything I wrote is not factually correct. (But we both know you can't)

    For example, were Repubs able to participate in the questioning of witnesses during their closed door depositions? Yes or no?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  7. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They might for your first example if only it were true. They would only scratch their heads in wonderment at your 2nd example. And they would heartily cheer the president on in your third example as the only party upholding the Constitution and the separation of powers.
     
  8. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you believe the President may withhold funding appropriated by Congress and approved by him previously without notice or cause?
     
  9. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Geesh, why are you embarrassing yourself with this bogus interpretation of the separation of powers argument?
     
  10. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I asked for actual stuff, not propaganda.
    "Pertinent"????? Now there is a slippery squishy get-out-the-back-door word if there ever was one.


    Feel free to prove anything I wrote is not factually correct. (But we both know you can't)

    For example, were Repubs able to participate in the questioning of witnesses during their closed door depositions? Yes or no?

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trial-pat-cipollone-was-wrong-gop-access-sc/
     
  11. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, you are correct, congress can make whatever demands they want. But nobody, let alone the president, is obligated to necessarily honor those demands. To repeat, there is no such thing as obstruction of congress by the executive branch; it is a figment of the House's vivid imagination. I don't recall any president actually cooperating with any impeachment inquiry.
     
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll try it once more and slowly so maybe you can get it (but this is getting tiresome.) I said BEFORE THE TRIAL. If you want to refute what I say try a little to refute what I actually say.
     
  13. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you claiming that if additional evidence comes up during a trial and it is ruled "relevant" to the case being tried, and made available to both the prosecution and defense, it is inadmissible?
     
  14. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,875
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh please. Life in prison for murder does not leave the door open to the same punishment for running a stop sign simply because it is not specifically excluded in the text of the law.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  15. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all..... I agree. My post said BEFORE THE TRIAL. And in any case the new witnesses or evidence is called by the prosecution or the defense, never by the judge or the jury.
     
  16. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It ain't rocket science. Point to the words in the Constitution that says the president has to relinquish his executive independent power in the face of an impeachment inquiry. Should be a snap since you are presumably so expert in the field.
     
  17. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    'Nother NEWSFLASH: The Constitution does not play semantic games.
     
  18. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is that all you it??? You're wasting everybody's time.
     
  19. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only with Schiff's approval, and that throws due process out the window...... or whatever one throws things out of in Schiff's secret dungeon basement meeting room.
     
  20. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, he is obligated to give congress notice, although not cause -- cause is unilaterally his to make.
     
  21. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is not much better than your last vapid response.
     
  22. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was derived from English common law, with which most of the flounders (being lawyers themselves) were quite familiar. One of them suggested the term "maladministration," which Madison felt to be too vague. He suggested instead "high crimes and misdemeanors." So, to look to original intent, we have to look at the types of transgressions which were prosecuted under "high crimes and misdemeanors." Others (constitutional scholars) have already done that and written books about their findings. If you do that, I believe you'll find that many of those impeached under that charge were related to the misappropriation (or non-distributed) of funds, appropriated by the legislative branch of government, by the "executive." As such, it is a crime not against a citizen of the state or other person, but the people as a whole and the state itself, which acts in the interests of the people, via their grant of individual sovereignty, via representative government, which in fact is the definition of a republic.
     
  23. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have an appalling lack of knowledge about the country's history.

    "During the 1998 to 1999 impeachment proceedings involving President Bill Clinton, three witnesses testified in the trial phase via videotaped deposition. Just as importantly, multiple witnesses testified before a grand jury during the special counsel’s investigation, including Clinton, who voluntarily appeared. In stark contrast to Trump, Clinton gave the House Judiciary Committee a sworn affidavit responding to 81 committee questions. And 60,000 pages of documentary evidence were submitted with the special counsel’s report to the House Judiciary Committee, with 3,000 pages deemed most relevant. Submitted documents included materials from the White House and Department of Defense.

    Even President Richard Nixon—who resigned before being impeached—allowed senior aides to testify in the Senate’s Watergate investigation, and he produced a number of documents in response to the House’s investigatory subpoenas."
    https://www.americanprogress.org/is...chment-trial-must-include-important-evidence/
     
  24. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    20,767
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So...........you think referring to the separation of powers without showing how it empowers the prez to ignore lawful congressional subpoenas proves anything?
     
    Nemesis likes this.
  25. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all. During the trial new evidence is admissible usually without question so long as it is relevant and probative. Before the trial it is not, though in impeachment trials there is some flexibility left up to the Senate. But after the trial the new evidence is always provided by either the prosecution or the defense, never by the judge or the jury -- especially if the prosecution (or the defense) asks the judge to go find some additional evidence to help bolster their anemic case.
     

Share This Page