Apparently “high crimes and misdemeanours” includes perjury of oath.
http://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".
The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath"
The oath of office would be meaningless if there were no repercussions for violating it. Removal from office by impeachment is the repercussion.
Interestingly, two of the articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson were ‘Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States”’ and ‘Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions’. They’re not crimes (as far as I know) but evidently are impeachable offences.
The oath of office would be meaningless if there were no repercussions for violating it. Removal from office by impeachment is the repercussion.
The repercussions were supposed to be up to God. That's why the preacher and the copy of the Bible are there. We can't see into Donald Trump's heart so as to know if he's intentionally abandoned allegiance to the US.
We need to have evidence of a crime to even think of impeaching him.
We can't see into Donald Trump's heart so as to know if he's intentionally abandoned allegiance to the US.
Okay, hold up your horses before we get way too far away from the ranch.
I agree with you that we cannot see into President Trump's heart and that is where allegiance lays so I would back away from impeachment as far as possible if I were a democrat.
Think about the true repercussions of impeaching the current sitting President.
I am not saying 'this' is a sound proof reason to dismiss the idea of the probability of successfully impeaching the President but that would make: Mike Pence current Vice President of the USA :fear:
President Pence is a very scary idea so please, be very careful what you wish for and strive for litigiously.
There will be no impeachment without some evidence of a crime.
What will happen is unknowable. But precedent and one interpretation of the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanours” shows that evidence of a crime is not required.
What will happen is unknowable. But precedent and one interpretation of the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanours” shows that evidence of a crime is not required.
Reply to frank Andrew Johnson, as I said earlier. One article of impeachment for bringing disgrace to the Presidency and one for trying to disgrace Congress.
Surely Trump got his knowledge of running a nation from Hitler. I am blown away that his hijacking of the presidency is not recognized as the ancient meaning of a tyrant, and that his shutting down of our democratic government is being tolerated! :gasp:
Because until OUR laws protect the free will of ALL of our citizens, including the freedom to chose who we love, despite any gender acknowledgements, I will stand up to this shit as long as I live.
His running mate, Pence, publicly opposed the Obama administration's repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “There’s no question to mainstream homosexuality within active duty military would have an impact on unit cohesion,” Pence wrote on his website. He added that“Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a 'discrete and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities."
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 26, 2018 at 17:53#2406340 likes
Really, and how did Hitler come to power and what did he do when he got in the seat of power? If you can not answer those questions then your opinion is not based on facts.
annefrank:Hitler the autocrat
After taking power, Hitler and the Nazis turned Germany into a dictatorship. Time and again, they used legal means to give their actions a semblance of legality. Step by step, Hitler managed to erode democracy until it was just a hollow facade. Things did not end there, though. During the twelve years that the Third Reich existed, Hitler continued to strengthen his hold on the country.
https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 26, 2018 at 18:08#2406400 likes
I respectfully choose to disagree with you that it is in anyway "off topic". Quoting Athena
The topic here is what Trump is doing to our democracy and I hope that is where the discussion stays.
Once again, my cited point made by our current Vice President's position, is not something I agree with at all. I am 100% against it and to not be able to see the far reaching implications, of what regressing back to when ALL of our citizens rights were not protected is VERY short sighted.
Please do not derail it with your homosexual agenda.
We really need a "head spinning" emoticon. If MY standing up for the right of every citizen expressing their own free will is an "agenda" to you? Than have at it. My position is reason based and will remain so until facts are presented to the contrary and then I will reconsider my position.
Andrew Johnson, as I said earlier. One article of impeachment for bringing disgrace to the Presidency and one for trying to disgrace Congress.
Those who pressed to impeach Johnson did believe they had evidence of a crime. Michael, to begin a trial without evidence would signal that a blatant show trial is pending. The US might occasionally have show trials, but they at least manufacture evidence prior to bringing charges. There is no precedent in the US for what you're describing.
The Democrats ideal 2020 strategy is to continuously paint Trump as impeachable while never actually impeaching him, the attempt which (unless Trump does something to alienate significant numbers of Republicans) would certainly fail. That way they retain the high moral ground while eroding Trump's support among independents who are likely to be turned off by a partisan impeachment process (which may give fresh wings to the anti-establishment image Trump played on so well to get himself elected in the first place).
Michael, to begin a trial without evidence would signal that a blatant show trial is pending.
Impeachment trials aren’t criminal trials. Being removed from office is just being fired, not being thrown in prison. You can be fired without breaking the law, President or not.
As I’ve said before, the Constitution explicitly states that a President can be removed for “high crimes and misdemeanours”, which isn’t usually interpreted to mean only serious criminal activity:
Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.
There is no precedent in the US for what you're describing.
They had evidence that he disgraced Congress and the Presidency which they decided to be impeachable offences. And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office, which is apparently an impeachable offence.
They had evidence that he disgraced Congress and the Presidency which they decided to be impeachable offences. And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office, which is apparently an impeachable offence
The House's primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in March 1867
You may be right that Congress could theoretically impeach a president without any evidence of a crime. If so, I didn't realize that. It's never happened, and I don't think it's likely in the case of Trump.
Reply to MichaelReply to frankReply to tim wood Richard Nixon was impeached for "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress" while Bill Clinton was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice".
You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, but the proceedings were broadcast (for weeks on end) and the process of evidence gathering was extensive. By the time Nixon resigned, the case against had been very well built.
Operatives in Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP) burglarized the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel. What followed was an elaborate cover-up, proving again that covering up a relatively minor crime can self-inflate into a major disaster. Another thing that has been proved is that once investigators start digging, remarkable finds can be brought to the surface.
I think we can count on sufficient evidence being available to impeach President Trump. What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Shutting down the government is not a violation of his oath?
Congress has to appropriate funds for the government to operate. While a debt ceiling has been in place for quite a long time, the use of it as a political tool arose in the 1990s. Congress establishes the debt ceiling and either lifts it, or doesn't -- in which case non-essential government operations can be suspended.
The President can decide how much of the government to shut down, but whether shutdowns can happen is in the hands of Congress.
Deleted UserDecember 26, 2018 at 20:48#2406800 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Shutting down the government is not a violation of his oath?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
A man who destroys our democracy is surely in violation of an oath to defend it.
I think it was a huge mistake to drop history in favor of technology because now we do not have the perspective that history can give us. The concept of a tyrant is very old and I will argue Trump is a tyrant. The kind of tyrant that we must keep out of the presidency if our democracy is going to be preserved and that it is imperative that we impeach Trump. It is men like him who made the power of impeachment necessary. This perspective comes from history and knowing what happened when men like him help power.
Britannica:https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrant
Tyrant, Greek tyrannos, a cruel and oppressive ruler or, in ancient Greece, a ruler who seized power unconstitutionally or inherited such power. In the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, monarchy was the usual form of government in the Greek states. The aristocratic regimes that replaced monarchy were by the 7th century BCE themselves unpopular. Thus, the opportunity arose for ambitious men to seize power in the name of the oppressed.
His nature as a tyrant was obvious in his TV shows. Fitting the definition of someone who takes power illegitimately was obvious during the campaigning when he avoided the debates with other candidates and put on his own circus.
Part of the problem was media corruption.
Fortune:How Media Giants Are Profiting from Donald Trump's Ascent - Fortune
fortune.com › Entertainment › Election 2016
Mar 21, 2016 - Media giants have benefitted from the Trump ascent and the presidential circus. ... Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. ... There has been much debate over the media's relationship with Donald Trump. ... news media is not the culprit for Trump's ascent and that networks like his own are simply ...
I find the explanation that this person is popular with the discontents who want to overthrow the establishment a serious warning sign. Hitler and the Nazi party also came to power by appealing to the discontents. For years before elections the Nazi's were a canvasing rural neighborhoods finding out what made people the most angry. Then they rented halls and inticed people to come with entertainment, and gave them a lecture using the gathered information about what made them angry and promising to resolve all these problems. Trump came to power the same way, catering to the same discontents, and if the liberals do not see the threat to our democracy they are naive. Not only did he follow the strategy Hitler used but once he got in office he began eliminating everyone who disagrees with him, and finally, like Hitler, he used his power to shut down our government to force our democracy to do something that the majority do not want done. This is a clear abuse of power and a threat to our democracy and I can not understand there being doubt of this.
Repeatedly in history the discontents have risen and slaughter the intellectuals. Not just in communist China but in Rome and France. We have taken our democracy for granted with this is a mistake. Only when it is defended in the classroom is it defended and we stopped doing that in favor of education for the Military Industrial Complex that sells arms to the likes of the Prince of Saudia Arabia, not because it is the right thing to do, but it is good for the profits and employees of the industry. Our democracy was hijacked long ago. It is just a question of will we gain awareness and take the necessary action soon enough?
Bitter Crank
6.9k
?Michael ?frank ?tim wood Richard Nixon was impeached for "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress" while Bill Clinton was impeached for "perjury and obstruction of justice".
You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, but the proceedings were broadcast (for weeks on end) and the process of evidence gathering was extensive. By the time Nixon resigned, the case against had been very well built.
Operatives in Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP) burglarized the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel. What followed was an elaborate cover-up, proving again that covering up a relatively minor crime can self-inflate into a major disaster. Another thing that has been proved is that once investigators start digging, remarkable finds can be brought to the surface.
I think we can count on sufficient evidence being available to impeach President Trump. What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Great post Bitter Crank. I am so glad you are posting!
By refusing to sign an appropriations bill that doesn't fund border security? None. Certainly nothing more egregious than congress is doing by not giving him a bill that includes the funding.
(Didn't we see this whole thing in reverse a few years ago when the Republicans in congress wouldn't vote for a budget that Obama would sign? The Republicans eventually caved as I recall. But nobody suggested that Obama's refusal to sign the budget they sent him was an impeachable offense.)
There's no Constitutional requirement that a President sign every appropriations bill that crosses his desk. Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that congress only pass bills that the President is willing to sign.
So an impasse is what we get. Ideally both sides will compromise a bit. The President has already said that he'd accept less money for border security, but the open-borders democrats refuse to budge off zero.
Regarding impeachment, it's a two-step process. The House of Representatives can vote to impeach by a simple majority. Democrats will soon hold a small majority, but it isn't clear if all democrats would join in an impeachment vote. (Some of these democrats were recently elected as moderates and even conservatives in districts that Trump won in 2016 and where a vote for impeachment wouldn't be popular with voters.) But a House vote for impeachment doesn't decide anything. It just means that the whole circus goes to the Senate which then votes on whether or not to remove the President from office. That requires a 2/3 Senate vote and Republicans have a majority in the Senate. So removal from office isn't likely to happen.
There's no Constitutional requirement that a President sign every appropriations bill that crosses his desk. Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that congress only pass bills that the President is willing to sign.
Yes. I'm a liberal who realizes the President is a clown. My first thought about the OP was: "Don't you realize you're exactly the same as the Obama bashers? Just in reverse? How does anyone conclude that this is the best time to become completely unreasonable? As if we need more of that right now?
This is as close to a public forum, or space, as some of us will get. Trump has apparently tweeted, "No wall, no government." To me this is a crystal clear violation of his oath of office.
The oath of the President is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Where does it say that the President has to agree to the budget submitted by Congress?
The oath of all congressmen and Senators states: "“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Does that oath require Congress to provide a budget to the President that he'll agree to sign?
It seems if two parties can't come to terms, there's equal blame from both. Does everyone get impeached when there's an impasse?
I think what might actually be occurring here is that you think Trump is an idiot and that his border wall idea will be a a multi-billion dollar moron useless erection and you think that Congress shouldn't have their arm twisted into agreeing to something that stupid. It's for that reason that you don't want to impeach Congress for not cooperating, but you do want to impeach Trump. All of this is to say that none of this has anything to do with violations of oaths, dereliction of duty, or pissing on the Constitution. It has to do with your continued disappointment that Hillary lost. The remedy is not in litigating your way into having the guy you want in office, but it's in winning the next election.
OMG is this something that is legal yet immoral? It's everywhere!
"any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities" So things can be legal and wrong, so wouldn't it work the other way too?:brow:
Technically some Mexicans were already settled when America made its borders. I wonder what those politics are and how they feel about the issue.
Wall or not what do we do about illegal immigration? Since it is illegal?
Deleted UserDecember 27, 2018 at 22:38#2411020 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserDecember 27, 2018 at 22:42#2411050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
You cannot tell any difference between Obama and Trump, and the Republican congress and Democrat congress? Do you think Chuck Schumer just is Mitch McConnell?
Mitch McConnell is an honorable man as far as I can tell. Obama was. Trump is obviously not. But what is accomplished by becoming a perfect reflection of an Obama basher? It seems to me that it's energy wasted.
Deleted UserDecember 28, 2018 at 03:01#2411740 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
After weighing it up, I think I'm against impeachment for the practical reason that it would lead to Pence becoming president, and for the ideological reason of opposing his political views - even more so than the current president's.
After weighing it up, I think I'm against impeachment for the practical reason that it would lead to Pence becoming president, and for the ideological reason of opposing his political views - even more so than the current president's.
And we are again, walking on the same side of the street of absurdity~ :hearts:
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 28, 2018 at 22:23#2413900 likes
What is whack doodle is always having to weigh up the lesser of two evils, the less repugnant, the slightly better, and the obviously unsuitable.
It hasn't always been this way. Going back to to 1952, Stevenson/Eisenhower, Kennedy/Nixon, Goldwater/Johnson, Humphrey/Nixon, McGovern/Nixon, Ford/Carter, and Carter Reagan, Mondale/Reagan, Dukakis/Bush, Bush/Clinton, Dole/Clinton, which takes us up to this century, most of the candidates from both parties were at least adequate candidates and performed more or less satisfactorily. Goldwater was a little scary, but he was competent. Nixon had a large following of people who disliked him, but not for incompetence. Reagan may have been losing his competency over the 8 years of his 2 terms, owing to alzheimers. No president up to Trump has come close to being as unprepared for the job, as impulsive, as ill-informed, as willfully uninformed, as Trump. If his pre-election years were morally compromised, he'd fit in with Nixon, whose bad reputation came out of his California campaigns.
The opposing party has not liked its opposing candidate, of course. Eisenhower was obligated to campaign against Stevenson. The public enthusiastically voted for one candidate over another. Not all of the presidents listed were good. Stevenson would probably have made a better president than Eisenhower, Humphrey would probably have been better than Nixon, Carter was better than Reagan, and so on -- but whether McGovern would have been better, hard to say. I liked McGovern, but didn't have much company. Dukakis? Can't remember much of anything about him. Clinton managed the federal budget better than the Republicans before or after him (actually balancing federal spending and taxes), but on other points I'd fault him (and not for getting blow jobs from Monica).
Pence is worse than Trump? Pence may have flaws - no doubt he does - but do you aver he is a bad man? Think about the full spectrum - width, breadth, and depth - of Trump's badness: does Pence compare at all? My answer: I don't think he compares at all. Maybe one problem: can he withstand the pressure from the wackdoodle right. Mother's milk to Trump; maybe not to Pence.
It's more of an ideological thing than a character thing. Trump obviously has a bigger stain on his character. There's no publicly available footage that I'm aware of of Pence doing anything as shockingly distasteful as making a comment of the "grap 'em by the pussy" kind or mocking a disabled person, for example.
An example of a useless erection is when you awake and gather the morning wood for the fire, erect that morning wood so it will rage when lit, but others have no immediate interest in it, so instead of it casting copiuos emissions, it just wanes, sputters, and sits uselessly.
There will be no impeachment without some evidence of a crime.
Gotta agree, and it's going to have to be rock solid evidence of a serious crime, so that the Republican Senate has no choice but to convict. The next election will likely be here before any of that can happen. If Trump wins the next election, then we may need to start discussing things which are illegal to discuss. I have no idea what that could be, no idea at all, not even the slightest clue, it's a total mystery, but we may find ourselves there at some point.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 29, 2018 at 22:56#2416680 likes
An example of a useless erection is when you awake and gather the morning wood for the fire, erect that morning wood so it will rage when lit, but others have no immediate interest in it, so instead of it casting copiuos emissions, it just wanes, sputters, and sits uselessly.
I suppose it would be a moron who would spend multi-billions of dollars on such an erection. The question I guess, is why wouldn't the border wall wane, sputter, and sit uselessly, as a useless erection?
I wonder what you would do with the Spanish president... He has secret meetings with Soros in the presidential palace, was invested with the votes of all fascist separatist parties (including the ETA party, Bildu) and the Pro-Venezuela communist party that is financed by Iran, Podemos; the Gibraltar strait is totally controlled by narcos and the military is not permitted to go and reestablish order; the number of pateras (boats with illegal immigrants from not-at-war countries like Morocco or Senegal) this year is higher than the previous eight years combined; he supports the Coup d´etat in Barcelona to divide the country into several smaller new nations controlled by fascist (literally fascist as they were born from the fascist movements in Europe, not fascist as progressive millennials use the term) organizations. He promotes its consolidation nationwide.
He paid for his PhD with an ad-hoc tribunal of friends and the people who actually wrote the thesis; he later used the fraud title of doctor to work as one. Half of his cabinet is proved to be involved in fraud, blackmail and other crimes; his deputy Carmen Calvo says that he´s not obliged to what he said before he enter office, quote: "since he was not president yet, so the Sánchez who said those things was a differentman." He uses the presidential aircraft to go to concerts with friends. He promised to call elections the day he was elected, and he says now that he´s not even thinking of it. Economy is declining after several years of growth.
Deleted UserDecember 29, 2018 at 23:34#2416810 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserDecember 29, 2018 at 23:40#2416830 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood Please explain this: if the South wall has been being built since Bush senior´s years and most of if was erected with Obama why is such an issue that Trump wants to reinforce it and finish it? What´s the difference between the existing wall and the new plan? What do states that border Mexico (California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas) want?
I don´t understand what the problem is with the wall any ways; if it is conceived to protect better the southern border and prevent illegal traffic of goods and people in a very sensitive region of the world. Among the things that Trump promised, this one seems to belong with the small number of rational and wise ones. Do members of Congress who oppose the wall reform think that is not well designed or will not be enough to stop illegal immigration and smuggling at the border?
Deleted UserDecember 30, 2018 at 00:16#2416940 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Do you imagine that person of similar conviction will be kept out by a wall? -Tim Wood. Okay, it does has a deterrent effect, proved by the fact that the wall built so far has provoked a reduction of traffic and the traffic that exists goes to dangerous areas without any wall. On the other hand, a wall it´s not just the physical construction, it is also all the defences implemented to protect it: police force, weaponized drones, surveillance etc. The illegals and drug dealers that come by commercial airliners can be dealt with very differently, because no humanitary catastrophes are associated with regular flights unless the aircraft crashes or is hijacked. The wall´s humanitary purpose is to end the "cross or die" lethal contest, and to end a very strategic source of income for the maras that control and terrorise Mexico; something that Mexicans should be very grateful for.
I can´t help thinking that what is wrong with the wall is that "evil" Trump wants to build it. If Obama wanted to build it, many protesters would at least stop and think if the wall is a good idea or not.
Comments (69)
Quoting tim wood
It’s a political thing.
http://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
The oath of office would be meaningless if there were no repercussions for violating it. Removal from office by impeachment is the repercussion.
Interestingly, two of the articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson were ‘Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States”’ and ‘Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions’. They’re not crimes (as far as I know) but evidently are impeachable offences.
The repercussions were supposed to be up to God. That's why the preacher and the copy of the Bible are there. We can't see into Donald Trump's heart so as to know if he's intentionally abandoned allegiance to the US.
We need to have evidence of a crime to even think of impeaching him.
No, it just needs the majority of the House to vote to remove him (and then two thirds of the Senate to convict).
Remove him?
Okay, hold up your horses before we get way too far away from the ranch.
I agree with you that we cannot see into President Trump's heart and that is where allegiance lays so I would back away from impeachment as far as possible if I were a democrat.
Think about the true repercussions of impeaching the current sitting President.
I am not saying 'this' is a sound proof reason to dismiss the idea of the probability of successfully impeaching the President but that would make: Mike Pence current Vice President of the USA :fear:
President Pence is a very scary idea so please, be very careful what you wish for and strive for litigiously.
There will be no impeachment without some evidence of a crime.
The Senate has a lower approval rating than President Trump and so who are they to judge?
Why do you say that?
What will happen is unknowable. But precedent and one interpretation of the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanours” shows that evidence of a crime is not required.
What precedent?
Surely Trump got his knowledge of running a nation from Hitler. I am blown away that his hijacking of the presidency is not recognized as the ancient meaning of a tyrant, and that his shutting down of our democratic government is being tolerated! :gasp:
The same crime Hitler commented when he took control of Germany and shut down its democratic government.
Because until OUR laws protect the free will of ALL of our citizens, including the freedom to chose who we love, despite any gender acknowledgements, I will stand up to this shit as long as I live.
:shade: :down: :roll:
:up:
I think I misread the intention of your post. But would like homosexual concerns to be a different thread.
Really, and how did Hitler come to power and what did he do when he got in the seat of power? If you can not answer those questions then your opinion is not based on facts.
I respectfully choose to disagree with you that it is in anyway "off topic".
Quoting Athena
Once again, my cited point made by our current Vice President's position, is not something I agree with at all. I am 100% against it and to not be able to see the far reaching implications, of what regressing back to when ALL of our citizens rights were not protected is VERY short sighted.
Quoting Athena
We really need a "head spinning" emoticon. If MY standing up for the right of every citizen expressing their own free will is an "agenda" to you? Than have at it. My position is reason based and will remain so until facts are presented to the contrary and then I will reconsider my position.
Quoting Athena
I am very comfortable with my logic, though I am not in a position to say the same for yourself, that is for you to deal with.
Those who pressed to impeach Johnson did believe they had evidence of a crime. Michael, to begin a trial without evidence would signal that a blatant show trial is pending. The US might occasionally have show trials, but they at least manufacture evidence prior to bringing charges. There is no precedent in the US for what you're describing.
Okay, my error. I am now seeing the connection with the Hitler takeover of Germany and the intolerance of homosexuals.
Impeachment trials aren’t criminal trials. Being removed from office is just being fired, not being thrown in prison. You can be fired without breaking the law, President or not.
As I’ve said before, the Constitution explicitly states that a President can be removed for “high crimes and misdemeanours”, which isn’t usually interpreted to mean only serious criminal activity:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors
Quoting frank
They had evidence that he disgraced Congress and the Presidency which they decided to be impeachable offences. And tim wood is saying that we have evidence that Trump is violating his oath of office, which is apparently an impeachable offence.
Quoting Wiki
You may be right that Congress could theoretically impeach a president without any evidence of a crime. If so, I didn't realize that. It's never happened, and I don't think it's likely in the case of Trump.
Tim is wrong.
You all may not have been around for the Watergate hearings, but the proceedings were broadcast (for weeks on end) and the process of evidence gathering was extensive. By the time Nixon resigned, the case against had been very well built.
Operatives in Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP) burglarized the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel. What followed was an elaborate cover-up, proving again that covering up a relatively minor crime can self-inflate into a major disaster. Another thing that has been proved is that once investigators start digging, remarkable finds can be brought to the surface.
I think we can count on sufficient evidence being available to impeach President Trump. What will be needed for impeachment is the ability of the House Democrats to successfully carry out the proceedings, so well that the Senate would be compelled to try and convict. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Congress has to appropriate funds for the government to operate. While a debt ceiling has been in place for quite a long time, the use of it as a political tool arose in the 1990s. Congress establishes the debt ceiling and either lifts it, or doesn't -- in which case non-essential government operations can be suspended.
The President can decide how much of the government to shut down, but whether shutdowns can happen is in the hands of Congress.
If I had had Senate Republicans' testicles in a box, I would have fed them to the cats already.
A man who destroys our democracy is surely in violation of an oath to defend it.
I think it was a huge mistake to drop history in favor of technology because now we do not have the perspective that history can give us. The concept of a tyrant is very old and I will argue Trump is a tyrant. The kind of tyrant that we must keep out of the presidency if our democracy is going to be preserved and that it is imperative that we impeach Trump. It is men like him who made the power of impeachment necessary. This perspective comes from history and knowing what happened when men like him help power.
His nature as a tyrant was obvious in his TV shows. Fitting the definition of someone who takes power illegitimately was obvious during the campaigning when he avoided the debates with other candidates and put on his own circus.
Part of the problem was media corruption.
I find the explanation that this person is popular with the discontents who want to overthrow the establishment a serious warning sign. Hitler and the Nazi party also came to power by appealing to the discontents. For years before elections the Nazi's were a canvasing rural neighborhoods finding out what made people the most angry. Then they rented halls and inticed people to come with entertainment, and gave them a lecture using the gathered information about what made them angry and promising to resolve all these problems. Trump came to power the same way, catering to the same discontents, and if the liberals do not see the threat to our democracy they are naive. Not only did he follow the strategy Hitler used but once he got in office he began eliminating everyone who disagrees with him, and finally, like Hitler, he used his power to shut down our government to force our democracy to do something that the majority do not want done. This is a clear abuse of power and a threat to our democracy and I can not understand there being doubt of this.
Repeatedly in history the discontents have risen and slaughter the intellectuals. Not just in communist China but in Rome and France. We have taken our democracy for granted with this is a mistake. Only when it is defended in the classroom is it defended and we stopped doing that in favor of education for the Military Industrial Complex that sells arms to the likes of the Prince of Saudia Arabia, not because it is the right thing to do, but it is good for the profits and employees of the industry. Our democracy was hijacked long ago. It is just a question of will we gain awareness and take the necessary action soon enough?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Great post Bitter Crank. I am so glad you are posting!
By refusing to sign an appropriations bill that doesn't fund border security? None. Certainly nothing more egregious than congress is doing by not giving him a bill that includes the funding.
(Didn't we see this whole thing in reverse a few years ago when the Republicans in congress wouldn't vote for a budget that Obama would sign? The Republicans eventually caved as I recall. But nobody suggested that Obama's refusal to sign the budget they sent him was an impeachable offense.)
There's no Constitutional requirement that a President sign every appropriations bill that crosses his desk. Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that congress only pass bills that the President is willing to sign.
So an impasse is what we get. Ideally both sides will compromise a bit. The President has already said that he'd accept less money for border security, but the open-borders democrats refuse to budge off zero.
Regarding impeachment, it's a two-step process. The House of Representatives can vote to impeach by a simple majority. Democrats will soon hold a small majority, but it isn't clear if all democrats would join in an impeachment vote. (Some of these democrats were recently elected as moderates and even conservatives in districts that Trump won in 2016 and where a vote for impeachment wouldn't be popular with voters.) But a House vote for impeachment doesn't decide anything. It just means that the whole circus goes to the Senate which then votes on whether or not to remove the President from office. That requires a 2/3 Senate vote and Republicans have a majority in the Senate. So removal from office isn't likely to happen.
Yes. I'm a liberal who realizes the President is a clown. My first thought about the OP was: "Don't you realize you're exactly the same as the Obama bashers? Just in reverse? How does anyone conclude that this is the best time to become completely unreasonable? As if we need more of that right now?
The oath of the President is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Where does it say that the President has to agree to the budget submitted by Congress?
The oath of all congressmen and Senators states: "“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Does that oath require Congress to provide a budget to the President that he'll agree to sign?
It seems if two parties can't come to terms, there's equal blame from both. Does everyone get impeached when there's an impasse?
I think what might actually be occurring here is that you think Trump is an idiot and that his border wall idea will be a a multi-billion dollar moron useless erection and you think that Congress shouldn't have their arm twisted into agreeing to something that stupid. It's for that reason that you don't want to impeach Congress for not cooperating, but you do want to impeach Trump. All of this is to say that none of this has anything to do with violations of oaths, dereliction of duty, or pissing on the Constitution. It has to do with your continued disappointment that Hillary lost. The remedy is not in litigating your way into having the guy you want in office, but it's in winning the next election.
"any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities" So things can be legal and wrong, so wouldn't it work the other way too?:brow:
Technically some Mexicans were already settled when America made its borders. I wonder what those politics are and how they feel about the issue.
Wall or not what do we do about illegal immigration? Since it is illegal?
Mitch McConnell is an honorable man as far as I can tell. Obama was. Trump is obviously not. But what is accomplished by becoming a perfect reflection of an Obama basher? It seems to me that it's energy wasted.
Mitch McConnell is a slime ball. (In the spirit of bi-partisanship, so is Nancy Pelosi.) As far as I can tell.
No, Tim is right here. He was wrong in the other thread. Maybe that was what you were thinking of.
I can't. It burns my brain.
OK then. Happy New Year, S.
And we are again, walking on the same side of the street of absurdity~ :hearts:
How would you define "useless erection"?
What is whack doodle is always having to weigh up the lesser of two evils, the less repugnant, the slightly better, and the obviously unsuitable.
It hasn't always been this way. Going back to to 1952, Stevenson/Eisenhower, Kennedy/Nixon, Goldwater/Johnson, Humphrey/Nixon, McGovern/Nixon, Ford/Carter, and Carter Reagan, Mondale/Reagan, Dukakis/Bush, Bush/Clinton, Dole/Clinton, which takes us up to this century, most of the candidates from both parties were at least adequate candidates and performed more or less satisfactorily. Goldwater was a little scary, but he was competent. Nixon had a large following of people who disliked him, but not for incompetence. Reagan may have been losing his competency over the 8 years of his 2 terms, owing to alzheimers. No president up to Trump has come close to being as unprepared for the job, as impulsive, as ill-informed, as willfully uninformed, as Trump. If his pre-election years were morally compromised, he'd fit in with Nixon, whose bad reputation came out of his California campaigns.
The opposing party has not liked its opposing candidate, of course. Eisenhower was obligated to campaign against Stevenson. The public enthusiastically voted for one candidate over another. Not all of the presidents listed were good. Stevenson would probably have made a better president than Eisenhower, Humphrey would probably have been better than Nixon, Carter was better than Reagan, and so on -- but whether McGovern would have been better, hard to say. I liked McGovern, but didn't have much company. Dukakis? Can't remember much of anything about him. Clinton managed the federal budget better than the Republicans before or after him (actually balancing federal spending and taxes), but on other points I'd fault him (and not for getting blow jobs from Monica).
It's more of an ideological thing than a character thing. Trump obviously has a bigger stain on his character. There's no publicly available footage that I'm aware of of Pence doing anything as shockingly distasteful as making a comment of the "grap 'em by the pussy" kind or mocking a disabled person, for example.
An example of a useless erection is when you awake and gather the morning wood for the fire, erect that morning wood so it will rage when lit, but others have no immediate interest in it, so instead of it casting copiuos emissions, it just wanes, sputters, and sits uselessly.
Gotta agree, and it's going to have to be rock solid evidence of a serious crime, so that the Republican Senate has no choice but to convict. The next election will likely be here before any of that can happen. If Trump wins the next election, then we may need to start discussing things which are illegal to discuss. I have no idea what that could be, no idea at all, not even the slightest clue, it's a total mystery, but we may find ourselves there at some point.
I suppose it would be a moron who would spend multi-billions of dollars on such an erection. The question I guess, is why wouldn't the border wall wane, sputter, and sit uselessly, as a useless erection?
He paid for his PhD with an ad-hoc tribunal of friends and the people who actually wrote the thesis; he later used the fraud title of doctor to work as one. Half of his cabinet is proved to be involved in fraud, blackmail and other crimes; his deputy Carmen Calvo says that he´s not obliged to what he said before he enter office, quote: "since he was not president yet, so the Sánchez who said those things was a different man." He uses the presidential aircraft to go to concerts with friends. He promised to call elections the day he was elected, and he says now that he´s not even thinking of it. Economy is declining after several years of growth.
I don´t understand what the problem is with the wall any ways; if it is conceived to protect better the southern border and prevent illegal traffic of goods and people in a very sensitive region of the world. Among the things that Trump promised, this one seems to belong with the small number of rational and wise ones. Do members of Congress who oppose the wall reform think that is not well designed or will not be enough to stop illegal immigration and smuggling at the border?
I can´t help thinking that what is wrong with the wall is that "evil" Trump wants to build it. If Obama wanted to build it, many protesters would at least stop and think if the wall is a good idea or not.
As long as it doesn't involve bloodshed. Maybe a cell at Guantanamo.