Why do we impeach?

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Green wasted a lot of words to just tell us that he hates Trump, as if we didn't know a member of the black caucus would hate him. Because, you know, racciss and all.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
We impeach because that's the means to remove a sitting President in the Constitution.

All this talk about Trump being guilty of a crime by people that don't seem to understand that impeachment does not require provable statutory violations. "High crimes and misdemeanors" include violations of public trust and the House feels that if the allegations against Trump are true, he abused his power for personal gain in the call with Ukraine and violated the separation of powers by withholding military aid, and that is enough to justify impeachment.

Al Green has called for Trump impeachment since day 1. He's a nut case and I would hesitate to apply his feelings to the 220 House Members who voted yay on the impeachment inquiry.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I'm happy and relieved that they are moving ahead with impeachment. I hope they devote a LOT of time and energy to it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
We impeach because that's the means to remove a sitting President in the Constitution.

Initially that was the intent, and then warring parties turned it into a majority-rules weapon to thwart their political opposition. Andrew Johnson's impeachment 150 years ago is the blueprint for what's happening today with the Democrats and Trump.

FUN FACT: There has never been an American President removed from office through impeachment.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Link? As far as I know the Speaker simply announced it without any vote.

You're correct. There was no official vote (there's also no obligation to have one). The 220 (apparently 221) I mentioned said they support an impeachment inquiry. I shouldn't have said they "voted yay".
https://time.com/5687380/house-support-trump-impeachment-inquiry/

I really don't think Pelosi wants to go through impeachment proceedings and is doing things very incrementally and slowly on purpose.

Some folks on the House have called for suspending recess to deal with the inquiry so we'll see if this is the dire situation they make it out to be. If the left really thinks Trump is bad enough for the country to impeach him then they should do it with some gusto. It's like having a leaking water pipe in your house then going on vacation before fixing it.

Initially that was the intent, and then warring parties turned it into a majority-rules weapon to thwart their political opposition. Andrew Johnson's impeachment 150 years ago is the blueprint for what's happening today with the Democrats and Trump.

FUN FACT: There has never been an American President removed from office through impeachment.

I don't expect them to actually follow through with impeachment and/or removal. It's something for the Democrats to latch on to until the election.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I don't expect them to actually follow through with impeachment and/or removal. It's something for the Democrats to latch on to until the election.

Question for you:

Do you, personally, think this impeachment hysteria will hurt Trump or the Republicans in 2020?

No gotcha or anything like that, I'm simply curious what you think.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Question for you:

Do you, personally, think this impeachment hysteria will hurt Trump or the Republicans in 2020?

No gotcha or anything like that, I'm simply curious what you think.
I have a feeling it will be a wash. The Dems don’t have a candidate that can beat trump, but this is likely to rouse their base. It will also rouse trump’s. Most likely it will play out just like Clinton’s.
The only way trump gets removed via impeachment is the unlikely case the Dems win the senate and they can control the trial.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Question for you:

Do you, personally, think this impeachment hysteria will hurt Trump or the Republicans in 2020?

No gotcha or anything like that, I'm simply curious what you think.

No. I think history shows that it'll hurt the Democrats. I believe that's why Pelosi is so reluctant to jump, feet first, into the impeachment pool. She's been around the block. She knows the long-term ramifications of getting it wrong.

I discussed it a bit back in May in this thread also:
https://forums.somd.com/threads/president-stompy-foot-ii.342254/
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ch_this_president_he_will_get_re-elected.html

So there you have it. They're doing it not for law and order or the Constitution, they're doing it to wreck his re-election.

Maybe there are others who are abusing their power and need to be impeached.


Did you read the whole article? Or just the title? (Doesn't appear that you need to answer based on your comments.)

Did you notice that the article was written in May of 2019 and that the transcript section is about Trump comments from July of 2018?

Did you bother to read the question in which the MSNBC host points out the Rep Green is an outlier and not in line with the consensus thinking of his party or the populace? Did you bother to read the full response from Rep Green?

Your conclusion of "So there you have it. They're doing it not for law and order or the Constitution, they're doing it to wreck his re-election." is complete bullshit.

Next time, read the article...not just the headline.

MSNBC HOST: You have been calling for starting articles of impeachment since 2017, but a new Quinnipiac poll taken after the release of the redacted Mueller report said 66% say Congress should not start impeachment proceedings, there's a sharp partisan divide, with only 4% of Republicans favoring impeachment. Are you afraid this talk will help the president's re-election?

REP. AL GREEN: I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don't impeach him, he will say he's been vindicated. He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and didn't take up impeachment. He will say we have a constitutional duty to do it if it was there and we didn't. He will say he's been vindicated.

Here's what I say, we're confronting a constitutional crisis as I speak to you. As I look at the people of America in the eye, I'm telling you, we have a constitutional crisis. The chief executive office of the president of the United States refuses to comply with subpoenas and says he will order others to do so, this creates a constitutional crisis. But this isn't the genesis of it. It started when the president decided he would fire Mr. Comey for his failure -- pardon me, as a result of his desire not to be investigated. And when he decided to do this and went on national TV at primetime and indicated he was thinking about this Russia thing, that was the genesis of it. We have a constitutional crisis.

I regret I'm the canary in the coal mine. I regret I was the person who had to first say there's some obstruction taking place here. I regret it had to be me but it had to be somebody. I take my duties seriously. I love my country and want you to know this, we must impeach this president. If we don't, it's not the soul of the nation that will be at risk only, it is the soul of the Congress that's at risk. Congress has a duty, a responsibility, an obligation that only it can fulfill. No one else can no. Other entity can. It is Congress that will have to act. If we put people above party, we'll act properly. But if we allow a party to be above principle, we will not. If we allow political expediency to trump moral imperative, we will have created a shameful situation that this Congress will never live down. History won't be kind to us. We must impeach him.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
No. I think history shows that it'll hurt the Democrats. I believe that's why Pelosi is so reluctant to jump, feet first, into the impeachment pool. She's been around the block. She knows the long-term ramifications of getting it wrong.

I agree with all of the above. I'm thinking that's why they're doing an "impeachment inquiry" rather than going full bore with the process - it's a half-measure to appease the radicals, yet buy the Party some time to figure out how to get out of this mess (that they made) with their jobs intact.

The CA reps, they're solid. No matter how dumb they are, their constituents are dumber and their jobs are secure. Green, Johnson, Lee, Waters, AOC, Omar, Tlaib - their re-election is in the bag no matter what they do. But the reps in more moderate districts....they better figure it out quick because 2020 will be here before you know it.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I agree with all of the above. I'm thinking that's why they're doing an "impeachment inquiry" rather than going full bore with the process - it's a half-measure to appease the radicals, yet buy the Party some time to figure out how to get out of this mess (that they made) with their jobs intact.

The CA reps, they're solid. No matter how dumb they are, their constituents are dumber and their jobs are secure. Green, Johnson, Lee, Waters, AOC, Omar, Tlaib - their re-election is in the bag no matter what they do. But the reps in more moderate districts....they better figure it out quick because 2020 will be here before you know it.

The Inquiry must happen first. It's part of the process.

Procedure
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.
  • First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
  • Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
  • Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Procedure
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
We impeach because that's the means to remove a sitting President in the Constitution.

All this talk about Trump being guilty of a crime by people that don't seem to understand that impeachment does not require provable statutory violations. "High crimes and misdemeanors" include violations of public trust and the House feels that if the allegations against Trump are true, he abused his power for personal gain in the call with Ukraine and violated the separation of powers by withholding military aid, and that is enough to justify impeachment.

Al Green has called for Trump impeachment since day 1. He's a nut case and I would hesitate to apply his feelings to the 220 House Members who voted yay on the impeachment inquiry.

So in your mind, what violations of public trust has Trump committed? I mean besides just not liking the guy? What person gain has Trump achieved by doing anything he is alleged to have committed?
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
Seems like it's a good way to 'appear' that they are doing something because they sure as hell aren't doing their jobs of legislating. Either that or they are harboring false hopes of being able to retake the WH in 2020 with these delaying tactics.

What the lefty Impeachment rage harpies do not understand is the fact that "impeachment" =/= "removal from office". Most of them are too young to have experienced or remember the Clinton impeachment and Lord knows that Civics in school is no longer taught it seems.

Besides, if by some impossible stretch Trump is forced from office neither Hillary nor Nancy will be president. They will then go the warpath for Mike Pence which will also be an exercise in futility. What the extreme left does not realize is the fact that Mike Pence is infinitely more electable as a Republican than Trump ever was or will be.

So, if Trump is gone before end of term, Pence will take over to finish the term AND will definitely destroy which ever candidate comes out of that clown car that the Dems are putting around in. (And he will still only dine alone with his wife)
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The Inquiry must happen first. It's part of the process.

I understand how the impeachment process works. I watched it with Bill Clinton.

But that's what the Mueller report was supposed to be: an inquiry into whether or not the President committed an impeachable offense. Once the Starr report was concluded, the House moved right into impeachment proceedings against Clinton. It was a quick process:

Sept 1998 - Starr report concluded
Oct 1998 - impeachment proceedings begin
Dec 1998 - Clinton formally impeached
Jan 1999 - Senate trial began
Feb 1999 - boom, over, no conviction
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Do you think there's a path for the Dems to get 2/3 of the needed votes for removal?
Ask said, it’s unlikely they will win the senate, so it’s less likely they win that many seats. However, there is always the chance you get some moderate Rs to flip once things get going.
 
Top