Is the recent Trump impeachment the most politically motivated ever?

[ecco]

Trump is corrupt. Prove it, the house can't.

The first two from the left pertain to you.

You won't find fault in Trump any more than you find fault with Jesus.

 

[ecco]

No their goal is to make a bloodless coup attempt to remove a standing president in this country.

That's a very ignorant and/or naive comment.

You should know, but apparently don't, that the number of Senators needed to find Trump guilty and removed from office is 66.

You should know, but apparently don't, that the Democrats are aware of this burden and have no hopes or beliefs, in their wildest dreams, of turning 17 Republican Senators.

This is not about removing Trump from office. If you actually believe that, it must be because you've been listening to Trump and his Sheeples nonsensically claim the Dems want to overturn the election. That's nonsense because it's not practical. In any case, trading Trump for Pence gains nothing.

 

[ecco]

The Constitution says Treason, Bribery or OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason, and bribery are statutory crimes, so OTHER has to mean statutory crimes.

Specifically...

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.
​

Nowhere does the Constitution use the term "statutory". So, we should go with what the Constitution states, not what shmogie says.

The Constitution makes clear that Treason and Bribery are high crimes. It also makes clear that these are just two of the high crimes that are impeachable and that there are "other high Crimes". It also makes clear that Misdemeanors are impeachable. Beyond Treason and Bribery, it lists no other specifics, so the door is wide open to including anything and everything. If bribery is so important that it was listed, then it's first cousins, extortion and attempted extortion, certainly are.

The charge of abuse of power is about the extortion.

 

[ecco]

Did you watch Professor Dershowitz's presentation at the senate trial last night?

Hr made a very powerful history of impeachment going back to English common law, and why the Founders demanded statutory crimes for impeachment.

OK, but before he became senile...

Chris Wallace Questions Dershowitz With Clinton-Era Clip Of Him Arguing Crime Not Necessary For Impeachment

During an interview with Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday," Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Trump's legal team for his impeachment trial explained his shifting position on whether or not a president has to commit a crime to be impeached.

Wallace played a clip of Dershowitz discussing President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 in which Dershowitz argued that "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 technical crime."

Wallace also cited Alexander Hamilton who said about impeachment: "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct, misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."​

On Fox no less!

 

[ecco]

No.

It's. ..

Testimony without evidence to back up that testimony. Bad




Testimony with evidence. Good.

Just to make it clear.

Don't you remember what you wrote or are you flip-flopping like Dershowitz?

Allegations and testimony are not real evidence.

Why do you now find it necessary to "adjust" what you meant?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Don't you remember what you wrote or are you flip-flopping like Dershowitz?

Why do you now find it necessary to "adjust" what you meant?

Suppose I should of had more foresight in thinking you already knew the difference between substantiated and unsubstantiated testimonials.

My apologies.

 

[SoyLeche]

Doesn't really matter. Since a Trump re-election is in the country's best interest, anything he does to that end is fine...

Dershowitz: Trump pursuing quid pro quo to help re-election is not impeachable

Someone should have let Nixon know about this. Turns out he resigned for no reason.