Can you imagine how things might look if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, and, two years later ?
• Five of her campaign advisers had been convicted of crimes — one of them implicating her — and a sixth indicted.
• A prosecutor documented numerous instances in which Clinton had interfered with investigators.
• Clinton refused to let aides cooperate with subpoenas and dismissed an unfavorable court ruling as “crazy” and partisan.
• She directed the Justice Department to investigate the front-runner for the Republicans’ 2020 nomination.
• She directed the White House counsel to lie about her deceit, then ordered him not to testify.
Can anybody imagine, in those circumstances, a Republican speaker of the House and the Republican presidential front-runner (the one Clinton ordered investigated) steadfastly resisting calls for impeachment?
Using the same circumstances with Hillary WHY would you not proceed the
same way with Trump ? Go ahead, we want to hear your explanation!
I believe Trump needs to be impeached, and this is not directly on topic, but just want to say that, today, Trump took away one of the oft-stated reasons why Democrats should not pursue impeachment. He emphatically stated that he will not work with Democrats as long as they are investigating him. If he is not going to work with them on legislation, it frees up their time to pursue impeachment. In other words, pursuing impeachment will not take time away from other business, since Trump has clearly stated there will be no other business.
He's brilliant, isn't he?
Generally speaking, the president has to commit a crime to be impeached. President Trump has committed no crime. Now if Trump had deleted 30,000 emails that had been subpoenaed, destroyed all his associates' Blackberrys with hammers, and used BleachBit to wipe his servers clean, gave our country's uranium to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars, sold military secrets to China for personal gain, I would say yes, impeach him. Oh wait, that was Hillary.
Just FYI: Here in the USA, a "CRIME" is not a requirement to be impeached although there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence in both the public domain and within the pages of the Mueller Report that indicates he has committed crimes and there are a MOUNTAIN of former prosecutors from all sides of the isle who would love to prosecute him now or when he's finally removed: The EVIDENCE to this day is STILL mounting by the way:
Donald could be IMPEACHED for his erratic mad behavior and serial lying alone which investigative reports have tallied at about 10,000 so far;
Certainly he can be impeached for a crime or, with Democrats willing to go to any lengths at all, for nothing at all.
But you DO realize that impeachment means nothing changes? That it takes a 2/3rds majority of the Republican Senate to remove him from office? That a Democratic impeachment simple means Democrats don't like Republicans, which we already know?
You DO know and understand these things?
Like I said, Donald could be impeached for his erratic mad behavior and serial lying alone which investigative reports have tallied at about 10,000 so far: Amendment 25 should have been invoked long ago as well:
I see nothing in your comment which challenges my previous comment so my previous comment stands:
Wilderness, a president can only be removed from office for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." This is a legal concept I've not seen a liberal or someone from the left show they comprehend. When they speak of impeachment, it is so painfully obvious how much they don't know. There is no substance on the left, there is only putting on a show of their ignorance. It's entertaining at times, but now their ignorance is becoming very annoying.
Mike you should look into "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It may be a "legal concept," but it is very definitely not a legal concept that is constrained by any legal statute-type applications. It could, (and was intended to), encompass something as vague as abuse of office.
There are several good sources that look at the original meaning as considered by the Founders in their precise construction of the wording in the Constitution, and, there are other good sources that trace the meaning to Old English Common law, (which was the Founder's basis for their choice), but here is a brief in-a--nutshell explanation;
"English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court."
GA have to disagree with you. All things in the Constitution are legal concepts. I agree that there is no legal statutes that cover impeachment.
Neil J. Kinkopf is recognized as one of the top Constitutional scholars in the US. His view on the subject is as follows:
"If the Constitution means to allow impeachment on any ground whatsoever, then why would the Constitution bother to set forth that impeachment and removal may be based only on conduct that rises to the level of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”? In fact, the Framers debated this phrase and settled on this formulation precisely to prohibit Congress from impeaching officers for any reason at all."
I would like to help people on the left by letting them know that "High Crimes" does not refer to drug usage, crimes that occur on airplanes in flight or on a mountain top. It also does not refer to constructing a building above the height of the local zoning ordinance. Just so they know.
Do the people on the left forget what happened when Bill Clinton was impeached in 1997? He won in a landslide in 1998. I wonder if they realize how impeaching Donald Trump will result in no conviction in the Senate and him being unstoppable in 2020. Will history repeat itself?
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact … ment-power
We may not be in complete disagreement Mike. I did agree that high crimes and misdemeanors was a legal concept, and I did not mean to imply that they could be interpreted to include just any reason.
I understood your comment to imply they were tied to statute-type violations, and that, I disagreed with. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent?
To your point about Mr. Kinkopf, and drawing from what looks to be the same source you found; What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Neil J. Kinkopf, he prefaced your quoted statement with this:
"...but the concluding phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” is anything but clear.
It is open-ended for the reason many constitutional provisions are vague and open-ended."
"In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed.
Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
So like you, I stand by my original comment.
You are right. So, what is and is not high crimes and misdemeanors is and continues to be a topic of debate.
Aside from legal theory, which I could debate all day.
The practical application of impeachment is an entirely different legal interpretation. It is not a matter of crime and punishment as much a part of political positioning. A sitting president has never been successfully removed from office using the impeachment process.
President Donald Trump's approval rating are too high for impeachment to succeed. In the political arena, Senators who would be presiding over such a trial, would not want to be on record of impeachment, with these approval numbers.
Again, Clinton was impeached in 97' and won in a landslide in 98.
A Trump impeachment will be a different animal than either Nixon's or Clinton's, Mike. Neither of them were suspected of colluding with a foreign Govt. or being in their pocket. Sure Nixon ran into trouble with his taxes, but he nor Clinton never threatened to not do his constitutional duty as Trump did yesterday.
"Neither of them were suspected of colluding with a foreign Govt. or being in their pocket."
Nor is Trump...except in the minds of those that allow their hatred and emotions to overcome reason, truth and fact, and who cares what they suspect?
So the only people who suspect Trump is a criminal are those who are emotional and hate him? What about those who already knew he was snake oil salesman before he became POTUS?
Or those he's ripped off with his fake university promos or his failed businesses where some of the people in construction only got paid pennies on the dollar. Or his fake charity he was using for his own bank account?
Yes Dan, those people have no reason to hate Trump or be over emotional about him.
Truth and fact lead one to see all the circumstantial evidence that leads one to the conclusion that Trump could easily be compromised by Russia. Those like you, who choose to willfully ignore all that evidence, aren't even worth arguing with about the topic.
We've seen it over and over again that you lack the ability to do independent research on the topic and just come here to parrot conservative news' talking points. It'd be sad if it wasn't such a concern to national security.
"Truth and fact lead one to see all the circumstantial evidence that leads one to the conclusion."
I will go with the 18 attorneys who investigated the allegations against President Donald Trump. They are the ones who read all the subpoenas, the entire report as well as all the investigative materials. Their opinion has more weight than any others.
I'll take the 800 former federal prosecutors who have signed a letter stating that the only thing standing between felony charges for obstruction of justice is the title of president. Any other American would have been charged and based on those opinions, convicted.
Especially when Mueller clearly stated that based on DOJ guidelines, as a DOJ employee, he was unable to render charges and asked Congress to look into them further, which Trump is now....wait for it...obstructing.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/ … gned-a-le/
None of those 800 former prosecutors were part of the investigation, their opinion has very little if any value.
Mueller didn't clearly ask congress to look into anything. Depending on you read it, he made a vague recommendation at best.
The investigation is over President Donald Trump has been cleared. It's time to get over it and move on.
The actions of the left is only making the resolve of the supporters of President Donald Trump even stronger.
You need to deal with 2020 resulting in President Donald Trump being elected once again.
This behavior is not hurting President Donald Trump, it is only helping him. Does anyone on the left realize it?
So Trump has everything to gain by letting the Democrats finish their investigations which will show him to be completely honest then? You should want them to go ahead if you really believe that, Mike.
So 800 experts in the field who read the facts of the investigation and determined from what was listed in the redacted version that it would have been more than enough to prosecute every other American, has no value to you? Your brainwashing is worse than I could have believed.
Trump has been far from cleared. Mueller couldn't prove a conspiracy. He listed many examples of Trump aides having contact with Russians, as well as being willing to accept help from them. Quite literally the definition of colluding. And in regards to obstruction of justice, he literally defined Congress' role in oversight. Why mention that if not to spur them to action that he could not take based on DOJ guidelines.
Trump supporters are a cult. It's really not surprising to see them dig in to defend their leader. How they think a guy with a history of fraud, cheating on his wives, and lies is the beacon for honesty is laughable.
Haven't seen you for awhile. I hope all is well with the Georgia farming community.
There have been enough investigations. There has been enough time and effort and money spent on investigations that have produced nothing. It's over, time to let it go and move on.
I do believe continuing down this path will really hurt the Democrat chances in 2020.
Good to be back, Mike. Fortunately I'm retired from farming but my cousins are renting the farm now. Farmers cannot make any long term crop plans until they see if they have a market or not.
Most farmers are land and equipment poor, that is, the majority of their money is tied up in land and machinery. They normally have to borrow money to make a crop because of this. When tractors, combines and other items run as much as a quarter million apiece--and the upkeep is horrifying as well--you can understand the angst Trump's tariffs is causing.
Fortunately for this part of the country, there's a few other moneymaking crops to be grown, unlike the vast Midwest.
I disagree with the investigations hurting the Dems. I think it will hurt those who've been helping Trump stonewall.
lol: I guess CONservatives are unwilling to even search words in our constitution for their definitions because if they did, they would find this as it relates to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
Learn to pronounce
a minor wrongdoing.
"the player can expect a lengthy suspension for his latest misdemeanor"
synonyms: wrongdoing, evil deed, crime, felony, criminal act; More
a nonindictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony.
ABANDONING his job as Donny did yesterday after Nancy made him cry in a fragile little state, is a much higher OFFENSE than a "Misdemeanor":
But don't you all worry none, the IMPEACHMENT process has essentially already begun if you haven't noticed or simply refuse to accept reality, and Donny's ARTICLES will include much more egregious offenses than "MISDEMEANORS"
As Nancy "POWERHOUSE" Pelosi said a while ago, and I paraphrase, Donald is "Self Impeaching" kinda like a rump roast that makes its own gravey only this is a "TRUMP Roast" making its own bed, in prison, next to CRUSHER the 400 pounder who despises pedophiles and those idiots who endorse pedophiles for U.S. Senate:
How many of those lies were as consequential as this one: "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan"?
Sad rationalization. This question has been asked and answered so many times I can't believe you haven't seen it.
Haven't seen it, sorry. Please provide.
Even so, it's a legit question. Obama lied not once but repeatedly in order to get legislation that HE wanted, and that impacted millions negatively. Some of Trump's lies, and possible obstruction, MIGHT be grounds for impeachment.
I'll be watching. If I believe that Trump can't be allowed to serve another term, I'll not vote for him in November 2020. Count on it.
As Pretty said, this has been answered ad nauseum. Google it!
I might, but I'm not the one claiming it's already been answered!
To add, I'm not justifying Trump's lies. I AM truly curious though about this: Where was the freakin' outrage on the Left when he did that? Everyone wants to know why the Right and Republicans won't reject Trump for his many lies. I believe my question is exceedingly fair.
Most US President in America's history have had the people attempted to impeach the Presidency, yet none have successfully done it.
Since Trump has no conscious, he won't step down. The system is ridged, so let the abuse run its course. The bright lights of the internet will heat up so intensely hot. Then all Trump's volcano piles of BS will self- implode. Then the universe will stop evolving around him.
Interesting. If what you say about Hillary's alleged crimes is true, I wonder why the Republican White House and Republican Congress didn't put her in jail.
That's what Rush and Hannity claim on Faux News, James. Day after day after day.....
I suppose that makes it okay if Donnie breaks the law? Hillary did it! Hillary was never the POTUS, James. Do you want Trump to be better than Hillary, or not?
It's clear there are grounds for impeachment. What is also clear is that a McConnell-led Senate cannot be trusted to do an impartial investigation of the reasons for an impeachment. The leaders in the Senate are Trump loyalists and are willing to let Trump get away with his crimes to achieve policy goals. That is the sad statement of the political landscape today.
by crankalicious 15 months ago
It's pretty clear that many conservatives do not believe that President Trump's latest actions are worthy of impeachment.So this begs the question, what is worthy of impeachment?Let's remember some things from history:1. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
President Trump can't fire Mueller directly. Instead he needs to get the person, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him (or his replacement) to fire him. If he refuses, Trump can fire him and keep appointing people until he finds one who will. (Nixon did this)While hiring and firing by...
by Sharlee 2 hours ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar...
by Ralph Schwartz 13 months ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
by Army Infantry Mom 10 years ago
Why did Clinton get impeached for getting a BJ (That didn't hurt America) However Obama seems to be untouchable when it comes to impeachment? I just don't get it !!!
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|