1000s of impeachment documents

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Except, of course, that you are reading in what isn't there. And I think that the wording in the Constitution is important, in that it quite specifically does allow for non-statutory offenses, if they are offensive enough, to serve as reason for impeachment. After all, the legal meaning of the word misdemeanor is: "a nonindictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony."

Click to expand...

I am not reading in anything. How can a crime, be a crime, if it is not stated as such, and defined as such, in some type of code or statute ?
A misdemeanor has changed in meaning from the time of the founders, when it was more serious than now, nevertheless, then or now it is still found in statutes or penal codes. How can a high crime, or misdemeanor mean an act that is nowhere defined as a crime ?

The Constitution lists two statutory crimes then says or other high crimes or misdemeanors. OTHER clearly means like those listed, i.e. statutory crimes.

It does not say, treason, bribery or crimes that aren't crimes but are decided to be criminal. Anybody can decide anything.

shmogie said:

I am not reading in anything. How can a crime, be a crime, if it is not stated as such, and defined as such, in some type of code or statute ?
A misdemeanor has changed in meaning from the time of the founders, when it was more serious than now, nevertheless, then or now it is still found in statutes or penal codes. How can a high crime, or misdemeanor mean an act that is nowhere defined as a crime ?

The Constitution lists two statutory crimes then says or other high crimes or misdemeanors. OTHER clearly means like those listed, i.e. statutory crimes.

It does not say, treason, bribery or crimes that aren't crimes but are decided to be criminal. Anybody can decide anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Constitution lists two statutory crimes. And then since that was not enough a category that was broader that did not include acts that were necessarily crimes. Read up on the history of the phrase
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

shmogie said:

I am not reading in anything. How can a crime, be a crime, if it is not stated as such, and defined as such, in some type of code or statute ?
A misdemeanor has changed in meaning from the time of the founders, when it was more serious than now, nevertheless, then or now it is still found in statutes or penal codes. How can a high crime, or misdemeanor mean an act that is nowhere defined as a crime ?

The Constitution lists two statutory crimes then says or other high crimes or misdemeanors. OTHER clearly means like those listed, i.e. statutory crimes.

It does not say, treason, bribery or crimes that aren't crimes but are decided to be criminal. Anybody can decide anything.

Click to expand...

The fact is, the framers always knew that this would be a political question, and only a political question.

I have the advantage of living in a country governed by a parliamentary democracy, in which we can (and have) dismissed a government over tea. Nothing more is necessary than to have a vote on a motion of confidence fail -- and the government is defeated and we're on to another election. The last time this happened, by the way, was in 1979, when the Conservative government of PM Joe Clark was defeated in December of 1979, leading to the election of January 1980. And yes, this was an entirely political decision.

That is, I think, what the framers had in mind -- that in order not to have anything even remotely like a "king" in the White House, there must be a political means for his removal if he was not satisfying those ultimately concerned in a democracy -- the electorate.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

The fact is, the framers always knew that this would be a political question, and only a political question.

Click to expand...

And yet we see bitter complaints that our system will function as designed.
Same thing for the electoral college.
Each side complains when it works against their own, but is OK when benefited.

Revoltingest said:

And yet we see bitter complaints that our system will function as designed.
Same thing for the electoral college.
Each side complains when it works against their own, but is OK when benefited.

Click to expand...

Naturally! I was very upset when the last Conservative government was elected in Canada, but I accepted it, because it was the will of the electorate -- which included me (I never neglect to vote). Our Conservative party is in the process of choosing a new leader, and if (as I hope) that leader is one Peter Mackay, I may very well vote Conservative in the next election (though I'm not a natural conservative). I do respect that gentleman, though.

And even then, I may lose! Them's the breaks, I'm afraid.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

The fact is, the framers always knew that this would be a political question, and only a political question.

I have the advantage of living in a country governed by a parliamentary democracy, in which we can (and have) dismissed a government over tea. Nothing more is necessary than to have a vote on a motion of confidence fail -- and the government is defeated and we're on to another election. The last time this happened, by the way, was in 1979, when the Conservative government of PM Joe Clark was defeated in December of 1979, leading to the election of January 1980. And yes, this was an entirely political decision.

That is, I think, what the framers had in mind -- that in order not to have anything even remotely like a "king" in the White House, there must be a political means for his removal if he was not satisfying those ultimately concerned in a democracy -- the electorate.

Click to expand...

Well, the electorate gets it's voice in an election. Hamilton wrote that a purely political impeachment ( one party against the other. One party acting because it doesn't like the policies of the other parties president ) was not at all what the Framers intended. Impeachment was not to be used for this purpose.

That is why the process is tied to specific crimes and not just " if you don't like him, get rid of him".

Previous impeachments both had statutory crimes in the articles, and were bi partisan, as the Founders intended.

This current circus is neither. It is simply one party trying to overturn the results of an election. They began before Trump was inaugurated and have spent years in the process, yet they really came up with nothing that meets the Constitutional threshold.

My fear is that this precedent will be used to tie up any and all presidents, at the will of the opposite party.

I hated Obama's policies, I hated many of his acts, yet I don't know of anything he did that reached the level of impeachment.

Now apparently, that may change. Impeach them all and let God sort them out.

Riders said:

i maybe wrong but I don't think this is good for Trump.
Lev Parnas, Giuliani associate, turns over thousands of pages of documents to impeachment investigators - CNNPolitics

Click to expand...

But Trump's defenders really don't want to hear of read this, so shame on you!

You should know that Trump is far more important than the Constitution and our own "rule of law", so why waste time having witnesses and turning over documents. And certainly Putin must be right as we most assuredly can trust him but not our own 17 intelligence agencies. And no doubt Giuliani, Putin, and Trump have our best interest in mind and are only doing what they've been doing for the best interest of the country.

[/sarcasm]

shmogie said:

I am not reading in anything. How can a crime, be a crime, if it is not stated as such, and defined as such, in some type of code or statute ?
A misdemeanor has changed in meaning from the time of the founders, when it was more serious than now, nevertheless, then or now it is still found in statutes or penal codes. How can a high crime, or misdemeanor mean an act that is nowhere defined as a crime ?

The Constitution lists two statutory crimes then says or other high crimes or misdemeanors. OTHER clearly means like those listed, i.e. statutory crimes.

It does not say, treason, bribery or crimes that aren't crimes but are decided to be criminal. Anybody can decide anything.

Click to expand...

And now that the GAO has said that it was, in fact, a crime? Will you change your stance?

I'll bet not, actually. 'Twas ever thus.