What Is Impeachment?

According to Merriam-Webster, to impeach is " to charge with a crime or misdemeanor." Specifically, it is "to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal [emphasis added] with misconduct in office." With that said, logically, until Trump is charged "before a competent tribunal" (in this case, the Senate), he is not technically impeached. It is this logic that Harvard professor Noah Feldman, characterized as a scholar of the US Constitution, uses.

"Trump isn't impeached until the House tells the Senate," Professor Feldman says in his piece in Bloomberg. "Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment." In other words, the House, in order to fully impeach Trump, have to send the charges to the Senate, the "competent tribunal," in order to technically impeach Trump.

The fallacious argument to this is the emphasis on the quote that the "House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." This is a non sequitur. Yes, this is true that the power to impeach solely rest in the hands of the House. And they solely must present the charges before a competent tribunal in order to officially impeach Trump.

What is so hard to understand about this logic?

Sorry, Democrats, the only impeached presidents remain Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton--both Democrats, which is an illustrative microcosm of the corruption of the Democrat party. Sorry to get facts in front of your feelings. You may feel really hard that Trump is impeached, but, factually, he is not.

 

Merriam-Webster goes on to illustrate that only two presidents have been impeached.

"Only two presidents have faced an impeachment trial, both of them Democrats and both of them acquitted. The first was Andrew Johnson, who in 1868 was acquitted by one vote of violating the previous year’s Tenure of Office Act. The second was Bill Clinton, who in 1998 was acquitted by a much larger margin of perjury and obstructing justice in relation to the Monica Lewinsky scandal."​

 

Impeachment is simply indictment or pre trial. They judge whether there's enough evidence to go to trail and then the actual trial takes place in the Senate. Trump is already impeached, he now stands trail in the Senate.

 

With no “new” witnesses to be called.

The Senate needs to vote up or down on the current available evidence.

 

Interesting argument two points:
1. Merriam Webster has no legal standing so it may or may not be true. If it is true it is a technicality that means little.
2. Don't you think that the House will send forward the Articles of Impeachment?

 

Why? If new evidence is found it can't be pursued?

 

Impeachment is when articles passed by the House is given to the Senate.

 

The House does the investigating. It would be a shame if they didn't do a thorough job.

 

Sorry, but trump is officially impeached and will forever remain so. He was officially impeached on 12/18/19. The senate has no relevance to that. The only function the senate has is removal from office, or not. That’s it.

 

You are confused. Apparently, you don't know the difference between being charged and a trial where the alleged criminal's guilt or innocence is determined.

Impeachment can be compared to a grand jury.

I seriously doubt it. No doubt Feldman knows the difference.

 

Trump blocked all current and former members of his staff with direct knowledge and all White House documents from the House. Ask yourself a question. Why would an innocent man do that?

The answer is, an innocent would not do that. An innocent man would want those closest to him to testify to prove his innocence. But that is not happening.

Do you agree? If not, why not and be specific. Don't characterize.

That said, there is overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, much of it comes from Trump himself and his chief of staff.

 

The definition of the term impeachment that I use comes from their law dictionary, so it is a specialized source that has been reviewed by legal experts. Furthermore, your point rests on the basis that lexicographers simply just purely make up the senses and subsenses for entries within the dictionary. That is not how it works. They come up with these definitions based on how the words have been used in their complete context.

Furthermore, you mention a technicality. If you agree that Trump technically has not been impeached, it means you agree that he has not been impeached.

I'm not sure what Pelosi is going to do. She is, as I have said on this forum before, a political idiot savant. She is very calculating when it comes to politics, and she plays the game well. If I had to put my money on it, she'll transmit the articles at the last minute, before she loses the House in 2020, or just before Trump leaves office in 2024, just so she can stain his legacy with the mark of impeachment.

 

No I do not agree.

After the Russia Collusion investigation it is clear that the establishment just wants to investigate in order to find a reason to impeach. If someone is after you, you do not open yourself up to such nonsense.

By your same logic, why are the dems in an uproar about having the Bidens investigated? What are they hiding? Does Joe Biden still beat his wife?

 

That is not true but you already know that don't you?

 

and they can continue to investigate and add information during the trial
and they can impeach a second time if new evidence is found...
One cannot limit the evidence that can be introduced
You sound unsure as to why no new witnesses should be allowed, why?

 

uh, it's a matter of objective reality. Trump was officially impeached on 12/18/19

 

'Impeached' doesnt mean anything more than 'we have enough votes against you to Impeach.' Unless and until the Senate convicts, Trump has only lost a partisan popularity contest in the House. Which is hardly a big deal.

 

The House votes on each of the articles of impeachment separately and can approve them with a simple majority of those voting. If all 435 House members vote, then just 218 votes would be needed. If the articles are adopted, the accused has formally been impeached.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

 

Impeached from what?

 

Again impeached from what?



From your own link..

 

Read the first sentence; that is impeachment, the bringing of charges. The Senate does not impeach it tries according to the articles of impeachment and finds innocent or convicts.

One is not impeached from something; one is impeached for something.

 

Impeachment is just an accusation

Think logical, if it doesn't go to trial its meaningless, hell I wished I was impeached a few times and never went to court and faced a judge


I never would of served a day in jail.

 

It doesn't matter.

Bloomberg & Steyer have combined to spend $200M on the nomination race. How they have done should provide an asterisk. Democrats have enlisted the aid of prison inmates to make phone calls into California for the nomination. This appears to be a continuation of the slave labor they are known for. An asterisk is in order.

 

The House can call all the witnesses they want. I have nothing against that. But the Senate should not be expected to clean up and complete what the House didn’t do.

 

eww.google.com