The non-impeachment of President Trump

1. 88

   RJ Schwartzposted 4 years 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 administration with the intent of destroying them, and now finally they impeached him......or did they?
   
   As long as Nancy Pelosi refuses to follow precedent and send the articles to the Senate for a trial, then I say Trump has NOT been impeached.  I believe by the letter of the Constitution, that the entire process needs to be followed through with to claim impeachment actually happened. 
   
   Most rational Americans see this as just another trick to keep negative headlines about Trump circulating and give the Democrats more time to manufacture "evidence" in support of the vague and unsubstantiated claims they made over the last three years.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jackclee lmposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. In my opinion, Trump should call their bluff.
      He should announce that if they don't proceed, he would stop signing any new legislation and let the country go into limbo state.
      Let the USMCA stay in the House...
      The stock market would react and drop 3000 points...
      They would be begging Trump to reverse course.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I believe this will do long-term harm to the Democrats politically as well as to their brand.  What do you think?

      replyreport
      1. 88

         RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         it's already damaging them - the amount of new donations to the GOP is off the charts

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, Sondland alone gave Trump a million dollars in campaign contributions and testified he did indeed want a quid pro quo. form the Ukraine president.
            
            Do you equate campaign donations with the honesty of the candidate, Ralph?

            replyreport
   3. 63

      PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Toss em a bone. I haven't seen Andrea Mitchell this excited since her, the alphabet fakenews and Hillary right before they ALL lost in 2016.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate's role is to decide 1. whether to remove Trump from office, and 2. whether to disqualify him from holding "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States", i.e. whether to ban him from being elected or appointed to another public office.
      
      Even though it's extremely unlikely the Republican Senate will remove Trump from office, and even less likely it will disqualify him from future office, at this juncture Trump has in fact been impeached. He is now simply awaiting judgement.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."  (Article 1, section 3 clause 6 of the Constitution)
         
         You seem to have left out that it is the Senate that shall try the President that has been impeached.  That the House has not determined guilt, that that belongs to the Senate.
         
         While I'm sure the Dem's would love to have their idea of an impeachment equal a conviction, it does not.  Only the Senate can convict, and only if they do will the Senate then will determine the punishment.
         
         Bottom line: Trump is not awaiting judgement - he is awaiting a trial to determine if there will be a judgement.  Which I'm pretty sure you already know.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The OP suggested Trump "....has NOT been impeached". He didn't suggest Trump has not been tried. Those are separate things.
            
            Impeachment is not dependent on the outcome of a Senate trial. That's why we say Bill Clinton was the second president to be impeached, even though he wasn't removed from office. Likewise, Donald Trump is the third president to be impeached, regardless of what happens in the Senate.
            
            The action that demarcates when a president is impeached, is the adoption of the impeachment resolution by the House. The current resolution says Trump is impeached, and outlines the articles of impeachment to be referred to the Senate. It begins: "Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . . " (my emphasis)
            https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/755/text
            
            In the simplest terms, a president can't be referred to the Senate for an impeachment trial, without the president first being impeached. As the Senate Majority Leader is currently criticizing the Speaker of the House for delaying the next step in the process (Trump's Senate trial) then ipso facto Trump has been impeached.
            
            In terms of the Senate trial itself, the roles of "judge" and "juror" are combined into a single process. If Trump were "convicted", he would automatically be removed from office, as per the Constitution. Therefore, in a Senate trial, removal from office, or not, is the equivalent of a guilty or not-guilty verdict.
            
            So, as I said, Donald Trump has been impeached and is now awaiting the judgement of the Senate. Regardless of your political viewpoint, or what the Senate decides, the impeachment of Donald Trump is now a historical (and historic) fact.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               DOH!

               replyreport
            2. 88

               RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               the Democrats lawyers would say he's not been impeached until the entire Constitutional process has been followed through

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Who would they be Ralph? Any in particular?

                  replyreport
            3. 95

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Then you do understand the process!  Why then did you leave out that being impeached does not indicate guilt?  You indicated that the Senate's responsibility was only to either remove him from office or prevent holding an office; actions that require a guilty verdict, which impeachment is NOT.  As I said, you left out the entire trial, just assuming guilt without a trial.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  As I said "...in a Senate trial, removal from office, or not, is the equivalent of a guilty or not-guilty verdict". So saying the Senate is deciding whether to remove Trump from office is the equivalent of saying it is deciding if he is guilty/ not guilty.
                  
                  Semantics aside, this thread raises the issue of whether Trump has been officially impeached, given that the Senate trial has not yet happened. The answer to that question is yes, Donald Trump is, and will always be, the third president to be impeached, irrespective of what happens in the Senate. Trump's impeachment is now historical fact.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not positive about the impeachment thing yet, questioning whether he is actually impeached or not.
                     
                     If he is, why can't the Senate have a trial?  Why wait for Pelosi and her political machinations?  I cannot find anything in the Constitution that requires the Speaker, or anyone else, to directly notify the Senate of an impeachment.
                     
                     And if they cannot hold a trial, awaiting notification, then he isn't impeached.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        And here we are . . . 1999, deja vu' all over again. "It depends on what the definition of "Is" is."
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           
                           But I would really like someone to give the section of the Constitution requiring formal, official notice of impeachment before the Senate begins it's trial.  I can't find it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              . . . and I didn't look. ;-)
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                     2. 81

                        Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        There is no ambiguity here. Impeachment is the adoption, by the House, of a resolution that contains articles of impeachment. As per "The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House":
                        
                        "The House votes to 'impeach' in the constitutional sense when it adopts an impeachment resolution and accompanying articles" (Chapter 27, Section 2, p. 604)
                        
                        and
                        
                        "The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment." (Chapter 27, Section 8, p. 616)
                        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO … CE-115.pdf
                        
                        "why can't the Senate have a trial?"
                        
                        Two reasons:
                        
                        1. Until the House formally notifies the Senate of the articles of impeachment, the Senate literally has no charges on which to hold a trial. Doing so would be roughly equivalent to trying to hold a criminal trial with no charges being filed.
                        
                        2.  Until the House appoints the House "managers", the Senate has no one to conduct the trial. Senators act as "judge" and "jury", they don't conduct the trial. House managers do. These are effectively the "prosecutors" and appointed by House resolution. In modern practice, the resolution appointing the House managers also authorizes them to formally notify the Senate of the impeachment articles and prepare to conduct the trial.
                        
                        As an example, here is the House resolution that appointed the House managers and authorized them to notify the Senate of the impeachment articles for Bill Clinton:
                        https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-con … n/614/text
                        
                        So in short, the Senate can't conduct Trump's impeachment trial because it has no charges to try him on, and no one to conduct the trial. It is not because Trump has not been impeached. As I said, Trump's impeachment is now a matter of public record and is a historical fact. That is the case regardless of what happens in the Senate.

                        replyreport
                  2. 81

                     jackclee lmposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     That may be true, but he is the only president to be impeached by a partisan House of Representative where the vote was strictly down party line except for 2 of 3 Democrats who voted no or present...
                     This impeachment is historic, but not good for Democrats.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Vote on Impeachment Article I for President Bill Clinton:
                        
                        Yeas
                        Republican : 223
                        Democrat: 5
                        
                        Nays 
                        Republican: 5
                        Democrat: 200
                        
                        Vote on Impeachment Article II for President Bill Clinton:
                        
                        Yeas
                        Republican : 216
                        Democrat: 5
                        
                        Nays 
                        Republican: 12
                        Democrat: 199
                        https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-con … 11/actions
                        
                        So while I think it's fair to say the Clinton vote was slightly more bipartisan than the Trump vote (10 Democrats voted for the two articles Clinton was impeached for compared to no Republicans voting for Trump's impeachment articles) I don't think it's accurate to suggest Clinton's impeachment resolution didn't largely follow along party lines.
                        
                        And of course, it could be argued that the fact a few more Democrats voted to impeach Clinton merely demonstrates that Democrats then were less partisan than Republicans now, or that Democrats then were less enthralled by Bill Clinton, than Republicans now are enthralled by Donald Trump. There's lots of ways it can be spun Jack, depending on your political viewpoint.
                        
                        None of that changes the fact that regardless of what happens in the Senate (it's highly likely the Republicans will find Trump not-guilty) he is the third president to be impeached. That's now a historical fact that will appear in future history textbooks.

                        replyreport
                        1. 63

                           PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           Impeach him every day if it makes you feel better ( what its really about). The facts are that he is and will always be more competent and more honest, on his worst day, than hillary on her best.
                           
                           Trump 2020

                           replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   At this point, any American who can't see this as an untenable attempt at a power grab by the House democrats is a fool. IMO.

   replyreport