Trump question
- Thread starter Merlin99
- Start date
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
LOLOL
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Don't forget "twice impeached adulterer felon".
Yep, serving up them BS talking points.
Like anyone with intelligence believes them. But I'm glad you have somethings to keep your little pea occupied.
The number of times a poltician is impeached is irrelevant if they are not subsequently convicted.
If someone kept taking YOU to court - and never getting a conviction - I think eventually you could sue them for harassment.
If someone was impeached dozens of times, it far more strongly suggests highly partisan political lunacy than an indication of cirminality.
It's like a nosy neighbor endlessly trying to convince the cops you're guilty until eventually the cops realize - the neighbor is just nuts - and needs help.
Bear in mind, they were discussing impeaching Trump before he even got the NOMINATION. The point of impeachment is to charge someone with a crime - subsequently, there were a dozen or more efforts to impeach him over anything - which never made it to a vote.
That's just the last time. They've already begun the process again - and no one has wherewithal to even BOTHER this time. There's a collective sentiment of oh just give it up already among the entire Congress on both sides.
If someone kept taking YOU to court - and never getting a conviction - I think eventually you could sue them for harassment.
If someone was impeached dozens of times, it far more strongly suggests highly partisan political lunacy than an indication of cirminality.
It's like a nosy neighbor endlessly trying to convince the cops you're guilty until eventually the cops realize - the neighbor is just nuts - and needs help.
Bear in mind, they were discussing impeaching Trump before he even got the NOMINATION. The point of impeachment is to charge someone with a crime - subsequently, there were a dozen or more efforts to impeach him over anything - which never made it to a vote.
That's just the last time. They've already begun the process again - and no one has wherewithal to even BOTHER this time. There's a collective sentiment of oh just give it up already among the entire Congress on both sides.
BOP
Well-Known Member
The so-called "Teflon Don," NYC mob boss, John Gotti, ain't got nothin' on the real Teflon Don, President Donald J. Trump.
PJay
Well-Known Member
yep
Nude dark skinned young girl. Her picture is blacked out but you can find on Google. One of not sure how many from the Laptop from Hell.
Last edited:
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives.
The fact that the Senate dismissed the charges does not change the fact that he was impeached, twice.
"Donald Trump is the third U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Before Trump, Johnson was the only president to be impeached in his first term."
President Donald Trump was impeached twice during his single term in office. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate.
The first impeachment trial stemmed from a call President Trump had with the President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine in which President Trump asked the Ukrainian President to announce two investigations: one involving his potential opponent in the upcoming 2020 presidential election and a second into unsubstantiated allegations that entities within Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election.1
116-346
, at 81–83 (2019). At the time of the call, the Office of Management and Budget had frozen $400 million in military aid to Ukraine at the direction of the President.2 The contents of the call initially came to light through an intelligence community whistleblower report, but a summary of the call was later made public by President Trump.3
The House investigation proceeded in two phases. The fact-finding portion of the investigation was primarily handled by the House Intelligence Committee, in cooperation with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.4 The early stage of this phase of the investigation saw some controversy over whether the House must explicitly authorize the initiation of an impeachment investigation. Although the Speaker of the House had announced that the committee investigations constituted an “official impeachment inquiry,” the White House counsel objected to the investigations on the ground that the investigation lacked “the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding” and violated the Due Process Clause.5 As a result, the President instructed members of his administration not to cooperate with the House’s “unconstitutional inquiry.” 6
The House later took action to explicitly approve the impeachment investigation by adopting a resolution authorizing the House committees “to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist . . . to impeach Donald John Trump.” 7 Nevertheless, the White House and other Executive Branch offices generally refused to comply with the House investigators requests for information, including subpoenas. Some Executive Branch officials, however, made the individual determination to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry and, as a result, the Intelligence Committee was able to hold a number of investigative hearings and issue a report outlining their findings. The record established in the fact finding phase was then provided to the Judiciary Committee.
Phase two of the impeachment investigation was conducted by the Judiciary Committee. This phase focused on whether the President’s conduct, as uncovered in the fact finding phase of the inquiry, constituted an impeachable offense.8
116-346
; Report by the Majority Staff of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 116th Cong. (Comm. Print 2019). Following a series of hearings, the Committee recommended two articles of impeachment against the President, both of which were ultimately approved by the House. The first charged the President with abuse of power, alleging that he had used the powers of his office to solicit Ukraine’s interference in the 2020 election and had conditioned official acts, such as the release of military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit, on President Zelenskyy agreeing to announce the investigations.9 “President Trump,” the article alleged, “engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.” 10 The second article charged the President with obstruction of the House impeachment investigation by directing the “unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives.” 11 “This abuse of office,” the article alleged, was “subversive of constitutional government” and “nullif[ied] a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.” 12
Although the impeachment articles were adopted by the House on December 18, 2019, the managers were not appointed and the articles not delivered to the Senate until January 15, 2020.13
The Senate trial was characterized by deep partisan divides and complicated disagreements over questions of law and fact, including presidential motive. But one clear constitutional conflict that arose during the trial involved the proper relationship between impeachment and criminal law. Trial briefs and debate made clear that the House managers and President Trump’s attorneys reached very different conclusions on the question of whether “high crimes and misdemeanors” require evidence of a criminal act or other legal violation.14 The House, consistent with past impeachment practice, asserted that for purposes of Article II “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” “need not be indictable criminal offenses.” 15 In response, however, the President’s attorneys asserted that an “impeachable offense must be a violation of established law,” and that the articles “fail[ed] to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.” 16 The acquittal provided no clear resolution to these conflicting positions, but the debate over a link between illegal acts and impeachable acts appears to have had some impact on individual Senators. Indeed, the House’s managers’ failure to allege an explicit criminal act appears, along with criticism of the House investigation and failure of the House to prove its case, to have been among the primary reasons given for acquittal.17
As the Senate trial proceeded, it became apparent that a major point of contention would be whether the Senate would call its own witnesses. The House managers asked that the Senate authorize subpoenas for relevant Executive Branch documents and for testimony from various White House officials including former National Security Advisor John Bolton.18 With only forty-nine Senators voting in favor, the Senate chose not to approve that request, and the record was limited to the evidence provided by the House.19
Ultimately, the Senate acquitted President Trump on both counts. Article I failed by a vote of 48-52 while Article II failed by a vote of 47-53.20
The second Trump impeachment occurred a year later in the waning days of the Trump presidency following the events on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in which some supporters of President Trump attempted to disrupt the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election as having been won by Joseph Biden. The House moved quickly following those events. Passing on an investigation, the Judiciary Committee staff compiled publicly available evidence relating to the President’s actions on January 6 and within one week had introduced and approved a single article of impeachment charging the President with “incitement to insurrection.” 21 Specifically, the article alleged that in the months running up to January 6th the President had consistently “issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people.” 22 He then repeated those claims when addressing a crowd on January 6, and “willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol. . . .” 23 Notably, although the House ultimately impeached President Trump prior to the expiration of his term, the Senate did not commence a trial until after President Trump had left office.24
The Senate trial saw the chamber make two important threshold determinations regarding trials of former Presidents. First, although the Constitution clearly requires the Chief Justice to preside over presidential impeachment trials, the Senate implicitly determined that that requirement does not extend to the trial of a former President. At the opening of the trial, Senator Patrick Leahy, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, was sworn in as presiding officer without objection.25
The Senate also made the threshold determination of whether it had the constitutional authority to try a former President. After briefing and debate on the question of whether the Senate had jurisdiction over a former President for acts that occurred during his tenure in office, the Senate explicitly determined by a vote of 56-44 that it did.26 Thus a majority of Senators, as they have on previous occasions, determined that former officials may be tried by the Senate and, though not removable, remain subject to disqualification from holding future office if convicted.27
With respect to whether the President had committed an impeachable offense, the main substantive question during the trial arguably revolved around the proper application of the First Amendment. The former President’s attorneys invoked the First Amendment as a defense to the impeachment charge, asserting that free speech protections apply and limit the conduct that can be considered an impeachable offense.28 The President’s political statements at the rally, his attorneys argued, constituted “core free speech under the First Amendment” and thus not an impeachable offense.29 The House managers disagreed, arguing that “The First Amendment has no application in an impeachment proceeding” because impeachment “does not seek to punish unlawful speech, but instead to protect the Nation from a President who violated his oath of office and abused the public trust.” 30 Moreover, even if the First Amendment did restrict the impeachment power, “it still would not protect President Trump’s calls to violence,” which the managers asserted fell within the well-established category of unprotected speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” 31 In the end, the First Amendment arguments made by the former President’s attorneys do not appear to have had an impact on Senators, as only one Senator who voted to acquit the former President mentioned the First Amendment in the formal explanation of his vote.32
Although a majority of Senators voted to convict, former President Trump was ultimately acquitted by a vote of 57-43.33
www.law.cornell.edu
The fact that the Senate dismissed the charges does not change the fact that he was impeached, twice.
"Donald Trump is the third U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Before Trump, Johnson was the only president to be impeached in his first term."
President Donald Trump was impeached twice during his single term in office. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate.
The first impeachment trial stemmed from a call President Trump had with the President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine in which President Trump asked the Ukrainian President to announce two investigations: one involving his potential opponent in the upcoming 2020 presidential election and a second into unsubstantiated allegations that entities within Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election.1
116-346
, at 81–83 (2019). At the time of the call, the Office of Management and Budget had frozen $400 million in military aid to Ukraine at the direction of the President.2 The contents of the call initially came to light through an intelligence community whistleblower report, but a summary of the call was later made public by President Trump.3
The House investigation proceeded in two phases. The fact-finding portion of the investigation was primarily handled by the House Intelligence Committee, in cooperation with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.4 The early stage of this phase of the investigation saw some controversy over whether the House must explicitly authorize the initiation of an impeachment investigation. Although the Speaker of the House had announced that the committee investigations constituted an “official impeachment inquiry,” the White House counsel objected to the investigations on the ground that the investigation lacked “the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding” and violated the Due Process Clause.5 As a result, the President instructed members of his administration not to cooperate with the House’s “unconstitutional inquiry.” 6
The House later took action to explicitly approve the impeachment investigation by adopting a resolution authorizing the House committees “to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist . . . to impeach Donald John Trump.” 7 Nevertheless, the White House and other Executive Branch offices generally refused to comply with the House investigators requests for information, including subpoenas. Some Executive Branch officials, however, made the individual determination to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry and, as a result, the Intelligence Committee was able to hold a number of investigative hearings and issue a report outlining their findings. The record established in the fact finding phase was then provided to the Judiciary Committee.
Phase two of the impeachment investigation was conducted by the Judiciary Committee. This phase focused on whether the President’s conduct, as uncovered in the fact finding phase of the inquiry, constituted an impeachable offense.8
116-346
; Report by the Majority Staff of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 116th Cong. (Comm. Print 2019). Following a series of hearings, the Committee recommended two articles of impeachment against the President, both of which were ultimately approved by the House. The first charged the President with abuse of power, alleging that he had used the powers of his office to solicit Ukraine’s interference in the 2020 election and had conditioned official acts, such as the release of military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit, on President Zelenskyy agreeing to announce the investigations.9 “President Trump,” the article alleged, “engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.” 10 The second article charged the President with obstruction of the House impeachment investigation by directing the “unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives.” 11 “This abuse of office,” the article alleged, was “subversive of constitutional government” and “nullif[ied] a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.” 12
Although the impeachment articles were adopted by the House on December 18, 2019, the managers were not appointed and the articles not delivered to the Senate until January 15, 2020.13
The Senate trial was characterized by deep partisan divides and complicated disagreements over questions of law and fact, including presidential motive. But one clear constitutional conflict that arose during the trial involved the proper relationship between impeachment and criminal law. Trial briefs and debate made clear that the House managers and President Trump’s attorneys reached very different conclusions on the question of whether “high crimes and misdemeanors” require evidence of a criminal act or other legal violation.14 The House, consistent with past impeachment practice, asserted that for purposes of Article II “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” “need not be indictable criminal offenses.” 15 In response, however, the President’s attorneys asserted that an “impeachable offense must be a violation of established law,” and that the articles “fail[ed] to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.” 16 The acquittal provided no clear resolution to these conflicting positions, but the debate over a link between illegal acts and impeachable acts appears to have had some impact on individual Senators. Indeed, the House’s managers’ failure to allege an explicit criminal act appears, along with criticism of the House investigation and failure of the House to prove its case, to have been among the primary reasons given for acquittal.17
As the Senate trial proceeded, it became apparent that a major point of contention would be whether the Senate would call its own witnesses. The House managers asked that the Senate authorize subpoenas for relevant Executive Branch documents and for testimony from various White House officials including former National Security Advisor John Bolton.18 With only forty-nine Senators voting in favor, the Senate chose not to approve that request, and the record was limited to the evidence provided by the House.19
Ultimately, the Senate acquitted President Trump on both counts. Article I failed by a vote of 48-52 while Article II failed by a vote of 47-53.20
The second Trump impeachment occurred a year later in the waning days of the Trump presidency following the events on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in which some supporters of President Trump attempted to disrupt the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election as having been won by Joseph Biden. The House moved quickly following those events. Passing on an investigation, the Judiciary Committee staff compiled publicly available evidence relating to the President’s actions on January 6 and within one week had introduced and approved a single article of impeachment charging the President with “incitement to insurrection.” 21 Specifically, the article alleged that in the months running up to January 6th the President had consistently “issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people.” 22 He then repeated those claims when addressing a crowd on January 6, and “willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol. . . .” 23 Notably, although the House ultimately impeached President Trump prior to the expiration of his term, the Senate did not commence a trial until after President Trump had left office.24
The Senate trial saw the chamber make two important threshold determinations regarding trials of former Presidents. First, although the Constitution clearly requires the Chief Justice to preside over presidential impeachment trials, the Senate implicitly determined that that requirement does not extend to the trial of a former President. At the opening of the trial, Senator Patrick Leahy, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, was sworn in as presiding officer without objection.25
The Senate also made the threshold determination of whether it had the constitutional authority to try a former President. After briefing and debate on the question of whether the Senate had jurisdiction over a former President for acts that occurred during his tenure in office, the Senate explicitly determined by a vote of 56-44 that it did.26 Thus a majority of Senators, as they have on previous occasions, determined that former officials may be tried by the Senate and, though not removable, remain subject to disqualification from holding future office if convicted.27
With respect to whether the President had committed an impeachable offense, the main substantive question during the trial arguably revolved around the proper application of the First Amendment. The former President’s attorneys invoked the First Amendment as a defense to the impeachment charge, asserting that free speech protections apply and limit the conduct that can be considered an impeachable offense.28 The President’s political statements at the rally, his attorneys argued, constituted “core free speech under the First Amendment” and thus not an impeachable offense.29 The House managers disagreed, arguing that “The First Amendment has no application in an impeachment proceeding” because impeachment “does not seek to punish unlawful speech, but instead to protect the Nation from a President who violated his oath of office and abused the public trust.” 30 Moreover, even if the First Amendment did restrict the impeachment power, “it still would not protect President Trump’s calls to violence,” which the managers asserted fell within the well-established category of unprotected speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” 31 In the end, the First Amendment arguments made by the former President’s attorneys do not appear to have had an impact on Senators, as only one Senator who voted to acquit the former President mentioned the First Amendment in the formal explanation of his vote.32
Although a majority of Senators voted to convict, former President Trump was ultimately acquitted by a vote of 57-43.33
President Donald Trump and Impeachable Offenses
L'Town.girl
Well-Known Member
TDS? Are you okay? Can I get you anything?
He’s guilty of making Democrats cry like little bitches.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
The house is responsible for bringing articles of impeachment.
The senate is separate.
Or do you agree Clinton was not impeached?
... you're the one that wrote "President Donald Trump was impeached twice during his single term in office. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate."....
Go argue with yourself.
After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachmentagainst President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term.
See above paragraph...
The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments …
Gee, guess he wasn't guilty of any impeachable actions... Imaging that!
Last edited:
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
God you are stupid.
Clinton was also acquitted by the senate.
So you just proved my case that the House is solely responsible for impeachment.
If you think Clinton was impeached then Trump must also have been impeached. Twice