Impeach Trump for the Good of the Country

[NKBJ]

More

What can he do in his last days off office, at least by the Constitution.
Declaring war is supposed to be Legislature.
Making a law is supposed to be Legislature.

Maybe people need to stop giving Presidents of either Party more power.

Yep. Not likely though seeing as the centralization of power is needed.

 

[NKBJ]

Can we please impeach LBJ now?
The country still cannot look at the Americans maimed and slaughtered on the USS Liberty.
Isn't it about time the truth was admitted?

 

[bwframe]

At least this farse goes right in line with all the rest of the actions the libs are taking.

Bringing us all back together in unity...

 

[Doug]

This trial is based on hatred of Trump. The Dems would happily sentence him and his family to death by slow torture.

 

[actaeon277]

Also, if the Pres does something illegal before leaving office, and you need to do something, we have a court system.

 

[Mikey1911]

Can we please impeach LBJ now?
The country still cannot look at the Americans maimed and slaughtered on the USS Liberty.
Isn't it about time the truth was admitted?

If you’re going to impeach Little Brown Jug, you need to impeach Strange Robert McNamara, too. They got us into ‘Nam for no legitimate reason.

 

[KG1]

Also, if the Pres does something illegal before leaving office, and you need to do something, we have a court system.

Exactly but that would require actual admissible proof in a court of law.

None of what the Democrats have presented would pass muster in a fair trail.

 

[jamil]

He already was impeached while president. Your opinion offers a troubling realization, if you are correct in thinking this trial is invalid because Trump is out of office. It almost certainly mean, that in the waning months of a presidency, the president can essentially commit all types of high crimes and misdemeanors, and if he resigns or runs out the clock; he can’t be held liable for certain penalties associated with impeachment. Do you think the founders intended it to be that way, or was it something they hadn’t considered?

If he actually committed crimes while in office then as a private citizen he could be charged for those crimes.

 

[Doug]

Exactly but that would require actual admissible proof in a court of law.

None of what the Democrats have presented would pass muster in a fair trail.

Proof implies facts and facts don't matter.
Leftists believe their moral superiority absolves them from needing proof or facts for their assertions.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If he actually committed crimes while in office then as a private citizen he could be charged for those crimes.

Is it really that simple? Are impeachable offenses only things that carry a criminal penalty? Idk, I have my own opinion, you tell me what you think.

 

[Doug]

Bill Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his law license to head off being charged for lying under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinski. So, at least Bill Clinton thought he could be charged.

 

[Libertarian01]

You just proved the point then that this is no longer an impeachment trial as act has pointed out. The Chief Justice pretty much made a defacto statement as to Senate jurisdictional de-legitimacy by not presiding.

No, what I believe I pointed out is that the Senate is acting within Constitutionally legal framework. It does not require the the CJ to continue. His presence is not by the Constitution required for this impeachment, presuming the impeachment itself is legal.

I question whether he can be legally impeached now that he has already been fired from his job by the American people. Presuming I am in error and a former president is being impeached then the CJ is not required for any part of that process.

In 2010 former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached. The CJ did not take part, rather then Senator Inouye presided. Nothing wrong there, nothing proceduraly wrong here.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Doug]

To be precise, what is happening now is a trial. The Impeachment is the bringing of charges.
The primary punishment is removal from office. He's already out of office.
This trial is like a murder trial and trying to decide whether or not to give the death sentence to a man who is already dead.

 

[jamil]

Is it really that simple? Are impeachable offenses only things that carry a criminal penalty? Idk, I have my own opinion, you tell me what you think.

An “impeachable offense” that isn’t a crime would be something the person should be removed from office for. If he’s out of office then it’s really just political theater.

And I strongly suspect if things were flipped, and it were, say, Obama being impeached as he left office, as a private citizen, for that same purpose, you’d be quite capable of seeing that side of the argument.

Impeachment is a political tool. And they’re definitely using it politically now.

 

[NKBJ]

If you’re going to impeach Little Brown Jug, you need to impeach Strange Robert McNamara, too. They got us into ‘Nam for no legitimate reason.

The actual reasons... What do you think?

 

[jamil]

To be precise, what is happening now is a trial. The Impeachment is the bringing of charges.
The primary punishment is removal from office. He's already out of office.
This trial is like a murder trial and trying to decide whether or not to give the death sentence to a man who is already dead.

It’s about more than that. They’re doing it so that they can vote to prevent him from holding office again. And I really don’t want him ever to run again. But making **** up is the wrong way to do that.

But more importantly than that, it’s also so that petty politicians like Pelosi can say “neener neener, you will now be impeached twice FOREVER.” The latter is the primary goal though, because getting 67 Senators to convict him will be a longshot. So it’s really mostly about the neener neeners, and being able to politically punish the Republicans for not convicting.

 

[NKBJ]

This is a battle between factions and our elected representatives are front line grunts.
Don't get it? Don't get why the centerpiece needs to be taken down? Oh well.

 

[KG1]

The bottom line here is that Senate Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) have decided to expand their Constitutional authority not specifically granted to them to include a trial of a former President.

 

[KG1]

One other thing to consider is if we're going this route claiming the impeachment process started while Trump was in office and should therefore be able to proceed to a Senate trial after office should we then revert back to the the make up of the Republican majority controlled Senate also and let them dictate the rules and preside until this thing is over?

 

[KLB]

He already was impeached while president. Your opinion offers a troubling realization, if you are correct in thinking this trial is invalid because Trump is out of office. It almost certainly mean, that in the waning months of a presidency, the president can essentially commit all types of high crimes and misdemeanors, and if he resigns or runs out the clock; he can’t be held liable for certain penalties associated with impeachment. Do you think the founders intended it to be that way, or was it something they hadn’t considered?

Your question is silly. If a President were to do these things and resign, what would an impeachment do to him?

Yes, I think they designed it exactly that way, and they thought of those things.

Impeachment for an elected official is different than for an appointed official. I do not think that they intended for impeachment to be a tool to stop someone for running for office, but rather to remove someone from office that heinously misused their power in office. They would have left it up to the constituents to determine if said person should be elected again.

An appointed official would be different, as the people never chose that person.