Right to Prove His INNOCENCE

[PsyOps]

Agree with all, but Clinton was processed outside of the impeachment trial. His law license was suspended for five years (not much of a punishment since he certainly was not practicing law) and he was fined $25,000. Additionally, the Supreme Court threatened to disbar him, but he chose to resign from ability to try cases in front of the Supreme Court instead (sort of a mini-Nixon thing).

Civilly, he paid $850,000 because he did not do anything wrong (that's what most people who don't do anything wrong do, they pay their accusers $850,000).

So, he was essentially found guilty of at least some parts of the crimes, and faced a certain amount of punishment for them ($25,000 isn't chicken feed, especially when you're "dead broke").

It pays to be impeached:

 

[Barabbas]

that line in COTUS is not a limit on why an official can be impeached

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Other than Treason, Bribery, high Crimes, and Misdemeanors, what shall an official be impeached over?

 

[Midnightrider]

​

Other than Treason, Bribery, high Crimes, and Misdemeanors, what shall an official be impeached over?

Go look up the history. Officials have been impeached for everything from drunkenness to mental problems to abuse of office.
an official can be impeached for anything a majority of the house determines. The same official can be removed from office for anything a majority of the senate agrees to.

 

[Barabbas]

Go look up the history. Officials have been impeached for everything from drunkenness to mental problems to abuse of office.
an official can be impeached for anything a majority of the house determines. The same official can be removed from office for anything a majority of the senate agrees to.

Would you consider those extra-constitutional, since the list is provided in the constitution?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

what shall an official be impeached over?

Abuse of Power, for one.

 

[Barabbas]

Abuse of Power. As past impeachments indicate.

"We did it before" is not really a good reason.

That's ridiculous. Would you assume no person is able to have a firearm because the Constitution says "militia"?

Would you make the argument that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a cell phone because it's not specifically listed in "persons, houses, papers, and effects"?

There's no requirement for a militia to have a firearm. The constitution doesn't even imply that.

A cell phone is specifically listed in "and effects".

If the argument is, "we consider an abuse of power (to be defined on a case by case basis) to be covered under 'misdemeanors'" I would understand your and MidnightRider's point.

But, the "we did it before" argument is really a bad one. We had SCOTUS opinions that said "separate but equal" was a legit thing, and one that said a slave is not a person (that one was never overturned), so, "the government did it before" is really a bad argument. Really bad. Like, horrible bad. Disgustingly bad. High rankingly stunningly bad.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

"We did it before" is not really a good reason.


There's no requirement for a militia to have a firearm. The constitution doesn't even imply that.

A cell phone is specifically listed in "and effects".

If the argument is, "we consider an abuse of power (to be defined on a case by case basis) to be covered under 'misdemeanors'" I would understand your and MidnightRider's point.

But, the "we did it before" argument is really a bad one. We had SCOTUS opinions that said "separate but equal" was a legit thing, and one that said a slave is not a person (that one was never overturned), so, "the government did it before" is really a bad argument. Really bad. Like, horrible bad. Disgustingly bad. High rankingly stunningly bad.

Are you really "This_Person" with a new MPD?

You asked what other reason someone shall be impeached for. Abuse of Power is the answer. And not solely "because we've done it before".

 

[Midnightrider]

Would you consider those extra-constitutional, since the list is provided in the constitution?

Nope. Again, that list is not a limit on the reasons an official can be impeached. The important part of that section is ‘the house shall have sole authority’.

BTW, ‘we did it before’ is called precedent.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Nope. Again, that list is not a limit on the reasons an official can be impeached. The important part of that section is ‘the house shall have sole authority’.

BTW, ‘we did it before’ is called precedent.

Precedence was only an argument allowed during the House investigations I guess.

 

[Barabbas]

You asked what other reason someone shall be impeached for. Abuse of Power is the answer. And not solely "because we've done it before".

Ok, so what is the reason? Is that a high crime? Is that treason? Is that a misdemeanor? Is it something not listed but "understood" to be in the list?

 

[PsyOps]

it’s funny, the left hasn’t been droning on about crimes, that has been trumpers.

Wow! You're just something. Another example of "because you say it, doesn't make it true".

Are you telling me Pelosi didn't accuse Trump of bribery?
Are you telling me Schiff didn't accuse Trump of bribery?
Are you telling me CNN and MSNBC didn't run with that narrative until it failed?

Are you telling me democrats didn't accuse Trump of a quid pro quo?
Are you telling me democrats didn't accuse Trump of collusion?
Are you telling me Maxine Waters didn't call for Trump to be put in prison and solitary confinement?

 

[Barabbas]

Nope. Again, that list is not a limit on the reasons an official can be impeached. The important part of that section is ‘the house shall have sole authority’.

BTW, ‘we did it before’ is called precedent.

Actually, "The House shall have sole authority" is a whole different Article, let alone Section (Article One, Section Two, to be exact).

Precedent is great! I agree with precedent. So, since we used to ignore Democrats in the KKK hanging black guys for looking at a white woman's legs, that's PRECEDENT and we should continue to follow it, right?

As a reason for a lower court to rule based on a superior court's precedent is generally a good thing. When you get to the pinnacles of each branch of government, precedent is really confoundingly stupid. Hitting your head with a hammer because you did it before kind of stupid.

If the list in the constitution is not the constitutional process, what is the constitutional process' guiding document?

 

[Barabbas]

Precedence was only an argument allowed during the House investigations I guess.

Stupid to argue it there, too.

 

[PsyOps]

​

Other than Treason, Bribery, high Crimes, and Misdemeanors, what shall an official be impeached over?

Being Trump.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Ok, so what is the reason? Is that a high crime? Is that treason? Is that a misdemeanor? Is it something not listed but "understood" to be in the list?

Abuse of Power is the reason.

It's an "other high crime or misdemeanor".

Let's look at a hypothetical example no one else is willing to discuss:

Trump is found guilty of a federal crime based on the Mueller report. Trump, as President, pardons himself. There's no law broken there, but is that not an abuse of power worthy of impeachment?

Rudy seems to think so.

You know he’s, the guy, the president of the United States pardoning himself would just be unthinkable. And it would lead to probably an immediate impeachment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-june-3-2018-n879611

Trump's own legal team member, Alan Dershowitz makes it clear that "it doesn't have to be a crime" to get impeached.

"If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."

Hell, Dershowitz has his own hypothetical:

Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory… That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable?

https://hillreporter.com/alan-dershowitz-scotus-protecting-donald-trump-impeachment-3551

Would you believe that allowing another country to seize US territory was not an impeachable offense either? Because there's no statutory law that doesn't "allow" Russia to re-take Alaska? That's Dershowitz's belief and I think that's wrong. I believe that limiting impeachment solely to statutory crimes and misdemeanors allows Presidents to arguably violate the Constitution without issue.

 

[PsyOps]

Abuse of Power, for one.

In what specific way did Trump abuse his power?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

In what specific way did Trump abuse his power?

Come on, Psy. You can read the articles of impeachment like everyone else.

Me repeating those isn't changing your mind.

 

[Barabbas]

Abuse of Power is the reason.

It's an "other high crime or misdemeanor".

Clearly, it's not a crime, so I take it your answer is that it is a misdemeanor - the "catch all" phrase that allows for everything the House wants.

I do not necessarily disagree - and I certainly agree it is not a necessity for a crime to have been committed (thus the catch all wording). What I was looking for is clarification. MidnightRider said the list was not a complete list; literally he argued it's a constitutional process, then argued the constitution was not complete in what is on the list of things. Obviously, that's idiotic. Your argument that it is a misdemeanor at least has a constitutional basis. It's arguable, but I would be on your side of that argument.

Let's look at a hypothetical example no one else is willing to discuss:

Trump is found guilty of a federal crime based on the Mueller report. Trump, as President, pardons himself. There's no law broken there, but is that not an abuse of power worthy of impeachment?

If Trump is alleged to have committed a crime, the constitutional answer to that, by congress, is impeachment. If he's found guilty and removed from office, then he could be tried in court over it (specifically what the constitution allows for, and suggests is what should happen).

Because that is the process, Trump could not pardon himself. He would no longer be president. He specifically cannot pardon himself from impeachment (again, spelled out clearly in the constitution).

So, your hypothetical has procedural misunderstandings.

Let's take it to something more reasonable - let's pretend there's actually evidence that Trump said, "I'm going to use the power of my office to harm my political opponent. I'm not going to tap his phones, I'm going to use the intelligence community to set up a guy he might talk to on the phone, tap that guy's phones, then when he talks to Trump I'll have reason to tap Trump's phone, but only for the purposes of watching the other guy (wink, wink)". THAT would actually be an abuse of power. THAT would be, arguably, the misdemeanor category and impeachable. Not necessarily a crime that one could put a pin into (maybe FISA court abuse, but that would be underlings, for example). But, abuse of power that would justify impeachment.

Would you believe that allowing another country to seize US territory was not an impeachable offense either? Because there's no statutory law that doesn't "allow" Russia to re-take Alaska? That's Dershowitz's belief and I think that's wrong. I believe that limiting impeachment solely to statutory crimes and misdemeanors allows Presidents to arguably violate the Constitution without issue.

Trying to re-take Alaska would be a geopolitical thing that would involve a lot more than a president. That's what Congressional authority for war is for. The president does not have the authority to just sign it over. That's why Obama's deal with Iran was meaningless - it was never a ratified treaty.

But, I would say that violating the Constitution is, in and of itself, a crime. When FDR rounded up people because of the slant of their eye and the coloration of their skin - imprisoning US citizens for racist reasons - was worse than impeachable. But, that would be a high crime, not a misdemeanor or "arguably" a crime - it IS a crime.

 

[PsyOps]

Come on, Psy. You can read the articles of impeachment like everyone else.

Me repeating those isn't changing your mind.

You're right. My mind isn't changed that Trump's phone call with Zelenski was somehow an abuse of power and for personal gain. The wording is in the transcript. He used the words "us" and "we" when asking for Zelenski's help. Not once did he threaten to withhold aid in that call. But, somehow you people found some mysterious way to connect dots that don't even exist.

Every president does this. Now suddenly that Trump does it, it's impeachable. People buying into the believe that what he did is impeachable are duped by left-wing propaganda. What Biden did was far more egregious, yet the left turns a blind eye to that. Obama did it no less than 5 times.

I mean abuse of power?

Obama weaponizing the IRS to go after conservatives groups
Holder and that Fast and Furious disaster
Benghazi
Spaying Rosen
Wiretapping the AP
Abusing the FISA court with false information gathered on Trump to justify spying on his campaign
Using a private server to process classified at the highest level
Obstructing justice by smashing evidence with hammers and bleach-bitting

And we're worried about Trump asking Zelensky a favor to look into corruption? You people live in backwards world when it comes to defining who is a criminal and who isn't.

 

[Barabbas]

You're right. My mind isn't changed that Trump's phone call with Zelenski was somehow an abuse of power and for personal gain. The wording is in the transcript. He used the words "us" and "we" when asking for Zelenski's help. Not once did he threaten to withhold aid in that call. But, somehow you people found some mysterious way to connect dots that don't even exist.

Every president does this. Now suddenly that Trump does it, it's impeachable. People buying into the believe that what he did is impeachable are duped by left-wing propaganda. What Biden did was far more egregious, yet the left turns a blind eye to that. Obama did it no less than 5 times.

I mean abuse of power?

Obama weaponizing the IRS to go after conservatives groups
Holder and that Fast and Furious disaster
Benghazi
Spaying Rosen
Wiretapping the AP
Abusing the FISA court with false information gathered on Trump to justify spying on his campaign
Using a private server to process classified at the highest level
Obstructing justice by smashing evidence with hammers and bleach-bitting

And we're worried about Trump asking Zelensky a favor to look into corruption? You people live in backwards world when it comes to defining who is a criminal and who isn't.

To be fair, whether or not other presidents abused their power does not excuse Trump from abusing his power.

There's absolutely no evidence Trump abused his power, but that has nothing to do with any other presidents.