Realities of the Impeachment Process

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FAW, Oct 3, 2019.

  1. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted this in another thread, but upon further reflection, decided that it deserves its own thread......

    In truth, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is ambiguous to say the very least. From a practical standpoint, impeachment is nothing more than a political action, and that political action has an extremely high bar that must be cleared prior to actual removal.

    A slim majority in the house, could literally impeach for jaywalking, and nobody could prove that the offense did not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. In that sense, the bar is extremely low in the house in order to technically impeach a president, although there are theoretically political ramifications for frivolous house impeachment. Essentially, impeachment in the house is analogous to indictment, and the Senate then determines guilt and passes sentence which could lead to removal. The bar to "indict" is extremely low, but the bar for removal in the Senate is purposefully extremely high. How is it extremely high?....via the requirement of having a 2/3's majority required for removal. With the knowledge that politicians do what is in their best political interest, in order to get that 2/3's majority, you need to have an extremely high percentage of the population that wants the President removed. One can safely assume that the minority party bringing impeachment charges is going to have near unanimity in their voters wanting removal, which gets you to approximately 50% very easily. In that sense, the desire for in this case Democrat voters to remove Trump means absolutely nothing. It is already baked in the cake. We can automatically assume that all 47 Democrat Senators would vote for removal, because it is in their best political interest to do so. Where the difficulty comes in is that you also need 20 Republican Senators to vote for removal. How would that possibly happen?.....it would require more than a majority of Republican voters wanting removal, because it would take that number in order to politically force those Republican senators to vote against their party. If you give Democrats 50%, and then you need a majority of Republican voters wanting removal, from a practical standpoint, you need to be somewhere around 75% and probably more wanting removal before removal has a chance of happening.

    Getting 75% of the country to support removal is an EXTREMELY high bar. It would require something horrific. An example would be if a President were found to be a pedophile, you would then have enough support to remove if proven. A President being involved in a murder would produce the same results, or perhaps selling top secret weapons to an enemy etc. Those are extreme examples for sure, but i am using them to illustrate that in order to get 75% plus unanimity, it would have to be an inarguably severe offense that is universally condemned and despised by virtually everyone, not just the minority party.

    What is now alleged with Ukraine, has literally a 0% chance of producing that type of unanimity. Leftists may not want to hear that, but it is reality nonetheless.While a slim majority in the house can claim that a minor offense fits the definition of high crime and misdemeanor, the realities of the high hurdle for conviction and removal in the Senate however, dictates that the offense would have to be sufficiently serious that it would lead to near unanimous condemnation. You could prove every aspect of every allegation made by the whistleblower, and you wouldn't be anywhere near what is necessary for removal. Any media outlet or politician that implies otherwise, is lying to you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2019
    Bridget likes this.
  2. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I figured that I would bump this thread from October, because its topic is still very germane to what is happening today. I get the impression that most on the left have yet to come to this undeniable realization.
     
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said, 55% is a reasonable goal. And, in my opinion, would secure a resounding political victory for Democrats in November. Feel free to respond to my post from the other thread here, if you prefer. Just for the sake of "tidiness".

    Up to you, though...
     
  4. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think best option for Democrats is to settle for censuring the president. He did something probably worthy of that. They are hard pressed to prove anything was impeachable.
     
  5. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I responded in the other thread....
     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would actually be the best option for Republicans. Democrats would have no say in the matter.

    Problem is that it would require Trump's approval. And I'm not sure he's going to allow Republicans to do that.
     
  7. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I don't think so.. this goes to the Senate o believe many dems are in big trouble.
     
  8. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still pushing for the democratic abuse of power?
     
  9. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well written post but your prime assertion is incorrect. Knowledge of what high crimes and misdemeanors meant at that time and to the framers, and the reading of the lengthy discussions on impeachment that took place at the convention, notes taken, the Federalist Papers, and some of the debates at the States' ratifying conventions would tell one clearly that impeachment is absolutely not to be used for political processes and impeachment for jaywalking would be the framers worst nightmare. Impeachment is supposed to have a high bar. While it takes only a majority in the House it has very stringent criteria. Only if one reads only the constitution and defines bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors as they wish could there be impeachment for jaywalking or frankly the current impeachment hearings. The current hearings haven't yet brought up jaywalking, but give 'em time.
     
  10. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In regards to the framers intent, I agree with you. In practice however, what I have said is the end result.
     
  11. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are correct. IMO neither Johnson's nor Nixon's impeachment met the framers' criteria, and Clinton's was borderline. Trump's is not even in the ball park.
     
    FAW likes this.

Share This Page