What is the threshold to be met to warrant the removal of a President?

I admit to have somewhat revised my position of this as a result of valid points that posters have made in other threads.

Here's what I have concluded.

I think the answer to this should be based on the opinion of We The People. But, of course, we can't hold a referendum to decide this. This is why the framers left the decision to Congress. Who are our closest representatives.

I believe that, in order to Impeach a President, the evidence should convince at least half the population. And to remove him, it should convince two thirds. This is consistent with what the Constitution dictates. A simple majority to impeach, and two thirds to remove.

But in order for this to work, the process should work like the Consitution demands. The House has the sole power to Impeach, and the Senate the sole power to remove the President. This means with all the evidence. The Executive Privilege nonsense corrupts the process. It has no validity whatsoever in an impeachment. Most especially not in the Senate Trial, where the fundamental question if whether there is enough evidence to remove that would convince two thirds of Americans will be evaluated.

 

You have consistently de-emphasized a major part of the equation. It is not only the evidence, but does the act itself justify removal.

Executive privilege is a reality. You can't disregard it, just because it hinders the verdict you desire.

It should be left up to the people, not a bunch of partisan hacks. This close to the election, let the people decide. I believe ultimately, the people will decide anyway because there will be no removal by the senate.

 

The opposition party must have control of the House. It's helpful if the opposition party also has control of the Senate. In Nixon's case, a Republican must be have shoved Progressive policies down the throats of Americans leaving him with no allies on either side of the aisle.

Case in point: Democrats voted almost unanimously in the House to undo the 2016 election with two articles of impeachment, neither of which are impeachable offenses. They did so leaning heavily on testimony from a witness who changed his story when his hotel chain was threatened. Even the tampered testimony didn't allege anything impeachable.

Another case in point, Impeachment proceedings were called for in April 2016, before the victim of the attack on American voters was even nominated.

 

No, we can't hold a referendum on impeachment. However in 10 months we're going to hold an election.

Given that these impeachment proceedings are soooooo politically tainted, the Senate, as expected, should just quickly acquit the President and then let the people decide in November.

Personally, I think Trump may be defeated in November, rendering impeachment moot. And if he wins, the People will have spoken.

Seth

 

Our entire electoral process and government system is designed to compensate for the ignorance of the average citizen.

 

That's what the OP is about. It justifies removal if the evidence convinces two thirds of Americans. But only if the evidence is made available to Americans so they can be convinced. If the President being impeached refuses to provide the evidence and conspires with the Senate majority in order to hide it from the public, that right there should warrant removal. The fact that he's not removed does not mean that removal is not warranted.

Not applicable in cases of impeachment.

The system is imperfect but we must assume that two thirds of the senate are not partisan hacks. Partisan hacks are any who impede the above process. If they succeed, then at least two thirds of the people will know that they are. Not the perfect outcome, but it is what it is.

 

When you cannot get 1 republican vote in the house, you are dead in the water. Pelosi knew this but she has been dominated by the youngster revolutionary crowd, reminds me of Castro's rise in cuba.

 

Abuse of power is not progressive or conservative. Nor is the constitution and the laws.

That's a common mistake made by many people because they are not familiar with what Impeachment is. So you're not alone. But impeaching the President does not undo the elections. Even removing them doesn't mean Hillary will become President or that the 2016 elections will be repeated.

Now you know.

 

Not relevant.

Where is that stated? Just because you do not like it, does not mean it does not exist. The chief justice, which you say has no part, will decide.

Assume what you want. The fact remains, that the two houses are purely partisan.

 

One of the main reason Democrats chose these articles of Impeachment, above all the many other High Crimes and Misdemeanors that Trump has committed is that the framers addressed this one specifically in their discussions. Trump is being impeached for cheating. If he is quickly acquitted, what do you think he'll do? It's obvious: keep abusing his powers to cheat himself into winning the elections.

As I said,the framers discussed this explicitly.

I see no way he can be defeated if the Senate gives him the green light to continue cheating.

A sitting President always has advantages over their challengers. That's unavoidable. But a blanket license by Senate to cheat as he pleases would just about ensure the outcome.

 

That's true. And it's the reason why Trump has chosen to bypass the electoral process and just cheat himself into re-election. With McConnell holding the government system at bay he can't lose.

 

Newsflash: Trump was Impeached! Yes... by the House! The House completed its job! We don't know if the Senate will complete theirs but...

You never inform yourself much, do you? You did the same when we debated the Mueller Report and it didn't go well for you.

You should have learned. Here you need to be at least minimally informed here.

 

In 2016 Trump won by a substantial Electoral College lead owing to victories in swing states by very, very small margins. For all the reasons that have been discussed over and over on PF, some Democrats wouldn't vote for Hillary. I think 2020 will be different. I think Dems who stayed home in 2016 will vote in 2020. I think Dems who voted third party in 2016 will vote Democrat in 2020. So I think Trump could lose those swing states and therefore lose the election. Red states will vote red, blue states will vote blue, but the election will be decided by the swing states. This is why I think he could lose.

I called it wrong in 2016, thinking Hillary would win handily. I was wrong. So I'm not predicting this time. But I do think Trump could lose.

Seth

 

You live in a very bazaar world. You are making two assumptions, at least. One you are assuming that he will cheat. Second, you are assuming that the American people are not smart enough to decide for themselves.

You are not wanting to understand. The impeachment in the house failed to get one republican vote. That is why, it is dead in the water. It has no credibility.

 

Not relevant to what? It's what the OP is about! If you don't find any relevance, then what are you doing here?

Constitution of the United States.

 

Start your own country and propose this to all those who choose to join you.

 

I've never seen a group of people so determined to remove a duly elected President for the sole reason that they hate him.

 

Just because that is what the OP is about, doe snot make it relevant. You talk about convincing two thirds of Americans. Two thirds of the senate. Convincing two thirds of Americans is not relevant, even if it were true.

Quote it. That is a new one.

 

If you cant tally a valid vote of the electorate then your idea falls drastically short.. I suppose that's why we have elections every four years remove the sitting president then unless it's solid evidence of real crimes and not because one party can't stand to lose ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

purely on a partisan basis with 0 republican votes, DEAD ON ARRIVAL at senate door.

They actually will do their job, dismiss this garbage and hopefully quick. The senate will try and bring back some respectability to congress by acting like adults, something the house is incapable of doing.

yeah, this is why democrats don't even bring up Mueller anymore, it's an embarrassing loss for them, AND YOU.

Mueller russia HOAX was a humiliating loss for you and here you are now holding your breath for dear life, hanging by a thread on Ukraine.

 

It's obvious their entire existence is consumed with idea's of how to remove a sitting President.. I think the U.S. should be more concern with the DNC then anything else for the simple fact that the DNC cant even recognize this unhealthy obsession they are afflicted with

 

Is this for real? You want a defendant to provide evidence? Not to put you down or anything of that nature, but I hope you’re not considering a career as a defense attorney.

 

Progressive Elites on both sides of the aisle are not concerned one second about the optics of what they are trying to pull off.

They know darn well what they are pushing is a simple two tier social class system where they control just about everything across the entire landscape.

 

Separation of powers is the process. Pelosi could have challenged Trump on that point and it ultimately would have been decided in the courts. The House Committees started abusing their powers in January 2019, requesting testimony and documents they didn't need to perform their oversight duties.

I can't remember the last time Democrats accepted the results of an election they lost. It is not in their DNA to admit to themselves that there are better leaders than those they nominate. This applies to the more radical Democrats who fashion themselves as progressive. As the radicals have gotten violent, the Democrat Party has taken a sharp turn left.

Getting back to the point at hand, we had an election. As the Founders intended the candidate who won the most electoral college votes won the Presidency. To now say that the Constitution doesn't count --- we are going to revoke the decision based on a popular vote is clearly not what was intended. Alot of thinking went into the creation of a Republic as opposed to a pure Democracy, including the desire to avoid tyranny of the majority that had historically led to failure.

The House should either come up with crimes and evidence and testimony to support their claim or step aside and let the Senate hear their case for impeachment. As Schiff stated, he didn't have to allow witnesses from Republicans because his committee was acting as the prosecutors and the House, as Grand Jury, stated they had the evidence to indict. The Senate will let the House Managers make their case. If more information about the alleged crimes is needed, then it should be up to the Senate and Senate alone to vote on calling witnesses --- just as the Constitution states.

 

Born since Clinton was in office??