Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 217

Thread: Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder

  1. #1

    Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder

    HOUSE Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now formally stamped an institutional imprimatur on the continued House harassment intended to punish and harm President Donald Trump.

    Following another deep-state assault against Trump, six House committees are operating under Speaker Pelosi’s recycled 2016 “resistance” umbrella for impeachment inquiries.

    Speaker Pelosi needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 has an exacting “high crimes” evidence standard for a valid House impeachment.


    President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong in his telephone call with the Ukrainian leader.

    Just as the Mueller investigation yielded no collusion and no obstruction, here there is no abuse of power or cover-up.

    There is no quid, no pro, and no quo.

    The media reports that this latest deep-state move against Trump comes from a CIA officer who was granted high-level security access in the White House.

    However, the federal whistleblower statute’s protection is not applicable to illegal leaks of presidential communication by an intelligence official. Any reasoned legal analysis shows the CIA officer is not a whistleblower.

    Regardless, the so-called “whistleblower complaint” evidences no wrongdoing by Trump. But its exacting legal form does indicate a coordinated intelligence operation against the 45th president.

    Any collusion to mask the leak as a “whistleblower complaint” would itself be a gross betray of trust. And the so-called White House “cover up” was an appropriate attempt to plug and prevent illegal leaks.

    The full House needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids legislative harassment—that is, punishment that causes direct harm or even reputational harm—such as those of a fake, partisan impeachment.

    Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states that “[n]o bill of attainder…shall be passed.”

    The House may not punish or harm any individual, including Donald John Trump.

    Whether using a de facto (by fact) or de jure (by law) paradigm, the House’s punitive harassment, and the evolving fake impeachment against Trump, should be analyzed as an attainder.

    Like attainders of old, the only purpose of the House’s fake impeachment of Trump, without any credible evidence of a high crime and without any possible chance of Senate conviction, is to punish, taint, and stain the president.

    English jurist William Blackstone described “attainder” as any legislative harm, taint, stains, or blackening.

    According to Blackstone, the prohibited “attintus” may come in any form or fashion. The attainder may constitute an actual penalty or it may be purposed solely to damage a targeted individual’s reputation and credibility.

    More at: https://www.fredericksburg.com/opini...3bdee8abb.html
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Grasping for straws. A "Bill of Attainder" is finding some body guilty without a trial. Impeachment is the filing of charges which would then be investigated in a trial in the Senate. Impeachment is not a "Bill of Attainder". Impeachment is specifically allowed under the Constitution.

    A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.
    http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../attainder.htm

    Trump would not be punished unless following the trial two thirds of the Senate found him guilty. The House cannot impose any punishments.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-03-2019 at 05:03 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Grasping for straws. A "Bill of Attainder" is finding some body guilty without a trial. Impeachment is the filing of charges which would then be investigated in a trial in the Senate. Impeachment is not a "Bill of Attainder". Impeachment is specifically allowed under the Constitution.



    http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../attainder.htm

    Trump would not be punished unless following the trial two thirds of the Senate found him guilty.
    You could argue that if the House followed the rules and gave him Due Process but they aren't.
    What they are doing is not impeachment, it just masquerades as impeachment.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You could argue that if the House followed the rules and gave him Due Process but they aren't.
    What they are doing is not impeachment, it just masquerades as impeachment.
    What rules are not being followed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  6. #5
    That post reads like someone just copy and pasted together all of the legal phrases that they don't understand, thereby creating a wall of gibberish.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What rules are not being followed?
    Too many to count.
    Probable cause for an investigation is completely lacking being the first and largest.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Too many to count.
    Probable cause for an investigation is completely lacking being the first and largest.
    I see. You can't come up with any. Not surprised. Thanks for trying though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I see. You can't come up with any. Not surprised. Thanks for trying though.
    I could come up with many, and I gave you one.
    Your response proves it's not worth my effort to list more.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Democrats are violating every standard of due process. It will backfire.

    After dozens of House Republicans demanded access to a secure facility in the Capitol on Wednesday where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) was preparing to depose a Pentagon official, Democrats expressed outrage at the breach of protocol. “They’re doing this because this is what the guilty do,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). “Innocent people cooperate with investigations. Innocent people follow the rules of the House.”



    Well, people engaged in impartial investigations aimed at finding the truth don’t violate every precedent and standard of due process set during previous presidential impeachments.

    Contrast today’s partisan inquiry with the Nixon impeachment. As American Enterprise Institute President Robert Doar has pointed out, the Nixon inquiry was a model of bipartisan cooperation. The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Peter Rodino (N.J.), assembled a unified staff (including Doar’s father, John, a Republican whom Rodino appointed as special counsel). The full House voted on authorizing the inquiry. The minority was given joint subpoena power. The president’s counsel was allowed to be present during depositions, given access to all of the documents and materials presented to the committee, allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and even permitted to call witnesses of his own. Most important, the committee did not leak or release selective documents cherry-picked to make the president look bad.

    The same was true during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. As former House speaker Newt Gingrich explained in a recent interview, Republicans “adopted every single rule that Rodino had used in 1973.” Yet today, Rodino’s party is systematically undermining every principle of fairness and due process he put in place in 1973.


    Take this week’s testimony by acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., who alleged that President Trump made U.S. aid contingent on “investigations.” He was deposed inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in the Capitol, a room that is designed to protect the government’s most highly classified information. Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.

    But the full transcript of his deposition — including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations — remains under lock and key in that SCIF. The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness. So, Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.


    Moreover, they are abusing the system to do it. One of the charges Democrats have leveled against Trump is that the White House improperly put the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president on a special server used to protect highly classified information. Yet Democrats are doing the very same thing, conducting impeachment depositions inside a SCIF, improperly using a classified system to restrict access to nonclassified information not just to the public but to members of Congress. Talk about hypocrisy.

    Let’s be clear: There is nothing wrong with holding hearings behind closed doors as long as there is due process. During the Nixon impeachment much of the evidence was presented in closed-door sessions. But there was not a flood of leaks from those executive sessions, as we are seeing today. And unlike today, the minority could issue subpoenas, and the president’s counsel was present to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. Secrecy and fairness go hand in hand. One without the other is corrupt.

    The partisan nature of the Democrats’ inquiry will backfire in a number of ways. For one thing, it allows Republicans to make the case to the American people that the process is unfair, and if there is one thing Americans demand, it is fairness. If the facts are on the Democrats’ side, they have nothing to fear from transparency and due process. Second, their partisan behavior has given the president justification to refuse to cooperate with the investigation, just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to cooperate with the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. And finally, it has made it easier for congressional Republicans to rally around the president. Right now, Republicans are more torn about Trump’s Syria policy than they are about his impeachment inquiry. By failing to show even a modicum of fairness, Democrats have turned impeachment into a game of shirts vs. skins.

    More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...will-backfire/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    1. The resolution gives authority to the House Intelligence Committee that it has never had before. Prior impeachments have been handled by the House Judiciary Committee. The new resolution directs several other committees — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight, and Ways and Means — to continue ongoing inquiries as impeachment inquiries, creating a giant net encompassing everything from Trump’s tax returns to his private businesses. Moreover, the resolution seems unclear about whether the Intelligence committee an continue with secret hearings — a power that Rep. Adam Shciff (D-CA) has arguably abused thus far to disseminate pro-impeachment propaganda. (The text says that the chair shall conduct “an open hearing or hearings,” which lends itself to multiple interpretations.)
    2. The resolution does not provide the minority with equal subpoena power, as in the past. When the House authorized the impeachment inquiry into President Bill Clinton in 1998, its resolution allowed the (Republican) chair and the (Democrat) ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee to call witnesses. In the case of disagreement from either side, the full committee would vote. Under the new proposal for the Trump inquiry, the (Democratic) chairs of the Intelligence and the Judiciary Committees do not have to submit witnesses to the full committee for approval if the (Republican) ranking members disapprove. Only the ranking member has to do so.
    Compare the text of the 1998 resolution with the new one.
    In the Clinton inquiry, subpoenas could be issued
    by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision [emphasis added]
    In the Democrats’ new proposal, the chair has a veto over the ranking member — but not vice versa:
    In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member … the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting …
    3. The resolution waters down minority powers over the release of Intelligence transcripts. As attorney Samuel Dewey pointed out to Neil Cavuto on Tuesday on Fox News, the new rules actually give Schiff more power over the release of transcripts, even allowing him to release transcripts of interviews that have been edited — unilaterally.
    4. The resolution does not compel the release of past testimony. Given the secretive and one-sided nature of the process thus far, basic fairness would suggest that the transcripts of previous testimony be released. The resolution does nothing of the sort, allowing the negative spin produced by the Democrats’ previous abuses to go uncorrected.
    5. The resolution restricts the president’s right to be represented. The resolution refers to “procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel,” but these do not seem to kick in until the process reaches the Judiciary Committee, meaning that the president will not be represented in other committees. It is not clear whether earlier witnesses, whom the president’s counsel could not cross-examine, would later be recalled.


    More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ry-resolution/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #11
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense. Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.


    The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker. Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.


    The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 vote. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

    Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret. Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.
    Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context. Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.
    House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they hate Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by voting on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process.
    The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further. If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.
    The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited.
    Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a presidential “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.
    Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power. One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter was unlawful “interference with an election.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). Election-related offenses involve specific actions such as voting by aliens, fraudulent voting, buying votes and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.
    Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns.
    Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery. Federal bribery statutes require proof of a corrupt intent in the form of a quid pro quo—defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1999), as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” There was no quid pro quo in the call. Mr. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure, and the purported quid (military aid to Ukraine) was not contingent on the alleged quo (opening an investigation), because the former materialized within weeks, while the latter—not “something of value” in any case—never did.
    More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.
    Thomas Jefferson impounded funds appropriated for gunboat purchases, Dwight Eisenhower impounded funds for antiballistic-missile production, John F. Kennedy impounded money for the B-70 bomber, and Richard Nixon impounded billions for highways and urban programs. Congress attempted to curtail this power with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case.
    Presidents often delay or refuse foreign aid as diplomatic leverage, even when Congress has authorized the funds. Disbursing foreign aid—and withholding it—has historically been one of the president’s most potent foreign-policy tools, and Congress cannot impair it. Lyndon B. Johnson used the promise of financial aid to strong-arm the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea to send troops to Vietnam. The General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) concluded that this constituted “quid pro quo assistance.” In 2013, Barack Obama, in a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, said he would slash hundreds of millions of dollars in military and economic assistance until Cairo cooperated with U.S. counterterrorism goals. The Obama administration also withheld millions in foreign aid and imposed visa restrictions on African countries, including Uganda and Nigeria, that failed to protect gay rights.
    Further, there is credible evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election at the request of senior Obama administration officials. The Justice Department is investigating this as part of its broader inquiry—now a criminal investigation—into efforts to target the Trump campaign in 2016 and beyond. It is certainly legitimate for the president to ask Ukraine to cooperate.
    In addition, the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” implies broad discretion to investigate and prosecute crimes, even if they involve his political rivals. Investigating Americans or Ukrainians who might have violated domestic or foreign law—and seeking the assistance of other nations with such probes, pursuant to mutual legal-assistance treaties—cannot form a legitimate basis for impeachment of a president.
    It’s legally irrelevant that a criminal investigation may be politically beneficial to the president. Virtually all exercises of constitutional discretion by a president affect his political interests. It would be absurd to suggest that a president’s pursuit of arms-control agreements, trade deals or climate treaties are impeachable offenses because they benefit the president or his party in an upcoming election.
    Using a private party such as Rudy Giuliani to carry out diplomatic missions is neither a crime nor an abuse of power. While the State Department’s mandarins have always lamented intrusions on their bureaucratic turf, numerous U.S. presidents have tapped people to conduct foreign-policy initiatives whose job—whether in the government or private sectors—did not include foreign-policy experience or responsibility. George Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate the “Jay Treaty” with Britain. Woodrow Wilson used American journalist Lincoln Steffens and Swedish Communist Karl Kilbom as special envoys to negotiate diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. A close Wilson friend, Edward House, held no office but effectively served as chief U.S. negotiator at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I.
    Nor is it illegal or abusive to give a diplomatic assignment to a government official whose formal institutional responsibilities do not include foreign affairs, such as the energy secretary. JFK relied on Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to negotiate with Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis.
    Although the impeachment inquiry has been conducted in secret, what we know suggests it has become a free-ranging exploration of Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy substance and process, with the committees summoning numerous State Department witnesses. Congress could properly undertake such an inquiry using its oversight authority, but by claiming that it is proceeding with an impeachment inquiry, it has forfeited this option.
    If the House impeaches Mr. Trump because it disapproves of a lawful exercise of his presidential authority, it will in effect have accused him of maladministration. The Framers rejected that amorphous concept because it would have allowed impeachment for mere political disagreements, rendering the president a ward of Congress and destroying the executive’s status as an independent, coequal branch of government. If the House impeaches on such grounds and the Senate concludes it has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial, it should focus first and foremost not on the details of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy, but on the legal question of whether the conduct alleged is an impeachable offense.

    More at: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ion/ar-AAJn6gw
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #12
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #13
    The Senate will determine guilty or innocent- not the House. That is where any trial/ court will take place. The House does not perform as a court in the process.

    https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/...demeanors.html

    The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

    The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.

    If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.

    If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.

    For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

    The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

    The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

    The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.

    Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials —one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges. Two of the17 resigned from office before the House voted to impeach.

    Of the 15 impeached, the Senate voted to convict only seven — all were federal judges. The Senate dropped the case against the senator, ruling that a senator could not be impeached. One judge resigned from office before the Senate voted on his case. The Senate voted to acquit the other six officials.

    In all the articles of impeachment that the House has drawn, no official has been charged with treason. (The closest to a charge of treason was one federal judge who was impeached and convicted for siding with the South and taking a position as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.) Two officials have been charged with bribery. The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under the category of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
    For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information.

    Only three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-03-2019 at 05:04 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  16. #14
    Well we don't have to worry about that because Trump isn't going to be impeached.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Well we don't have to worry about that because Trump isn't going to be impeached.
    The House may vote for impeachment, but the Senate would never vote to remove him. Not two thirds of them- that would require a large number of Republicans to join Democrats in voting him guilty following the Senate trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Senate will determine guilty or innocent- not the House. That is where any trial/ court will take place. The House does not perform as a court in the process.
    The are not conducting an impeachment and any "impeachment" vote they hold will be an attainder because of it.
    The Senate will likely refuse to hold a trial over this farce.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The are not conducting an impeachment and any "impeachment" vote they hold will be an attainder because of it.
    The Senate will likely refuse to hold a trial over this farce.
    You need to look up what an "attainder" really is. And how impeachment works. You are showing a sore lack of knowledge on the subject. (Propaganda does not need facts)
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    You need to look up what an "attainder" really is. And how impeachment works. You are showing a sore lack of knowledge on the subject. (Propaganda does not need facts)
    Are you talking to yourself?

    I have posted plenty of information on how impeachment works and why this is not impeachment but an attainder.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #19
    House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La) told ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos that Trump had a legal requirement to ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was rooting out corruption before Trump could legally send foreign aid to Ukraine. Rep. Scalise said the National Defense Authorization Act passed last year requires the president to certify a country is rooting out corruption before the president can send taxpayer money to that country.
    "Well, first of all on that call [President Trump] was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents, he was talking about corruption relating to the 2016 elections. By the way, when Russia tried to interfere, George, when Russia tried to interfere with our election, it was Barack Obama who was president, not Donald Trump. President Trump has a legal requirement to ensure that the country given foreign aid, in this case Ukraine, is taking steps to root out corruption. And he and President Zelensky talked about that. Zelensky, in fact, was asked, did he think it was inappropriate, was there pressure put on him, and President Zelensky said he wasn't pressured. And he got the money ultimately. He got the money."
    Rep. Scalise says Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky was not about Trump's 2020 political rivals, but about the past actions of former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden has admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, a company that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, served as board member. Hunter Biden lacked the experience for the board position, but nevertheless drew a monthly salary of $50,000 or more. Rep. Scalise says it was these actions of former Vice President Joe Biden that Trump had a legal obligation to discuss with Zelensky.

    More at: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...ption-n2555807
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #20
    Think of the House portion of impeachment as the Grand Jury. The Senate is the courtroom trial.

    Due process doesn't even allow defense representation before a Grand Jury and the evidence presented can be as strong or as flimsy as the prosecution decides. It is up to the Grand Jury (House) to decide if the evidence, or lack thereof, amounts to probable cause to move to the courtroom trial phase. Grand juries are part of due process. Perhaps not very fair since so one-sided, but it is part of due process under the legal system regardless. The House is the Grand Jury.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Grasping for straws. A "Bill of Attainder" is finding some body guilty without a trial. Impeachment is the filing of charges which would then be investigated in a trial in the Senate. Impeachment is not a "Bill of Attainder". Impeachment is specifically allowed under the Constitution.



    http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../attainder.htm

    Trump would not be punished unless following the trial two thirds of the Senate found him guilty. The House cannot impose any punishments.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zippyjuan again."

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Speaker Pelosi needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 has an exacting “high crimes” evidence standard for a valid House impeachment.
    That is not an exacting standard. It is a very low and subjective standard (and it is not an "evidence standard" anyway). As opposed to ordinary crimes, a high crime can be any act that is inappropriate for an occupant of high office. And it's up to the House to decide what that can be and whether or not to impeach (i.e. to charge) an office holder with a high crime, and then the Senate to decide whether or not to convict the office holder of that charge.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Think of the House portion of impeachment as the Grand Jury. The Senate is the courtroom trial.

    Due process doesn't even allow defense representation before a Grand Jury and the evidence presented can be as strong or as flimsy as the prosecution decides. It is up to the Grand Jury (House) to decide if the evidence, or lack thereof, amounts to probable cause to move to the courtroom trial phase. Grand juries are part of due process. Perhaps not very fair since so one-sided, but it is part of due process under the legal system regardless. The House is the Grand Jury.
    They aren't even following the rules for a Grand Jury.
    And an impeachment is NOT a Grand Jury.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #24
    House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) is shedding light on the various ways in which House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has paved the way for himself to cheat in the ongoing “impeachment inquiry” in an interview on Breitbart News Daily. The biggest issue? Schiff is allowed to block testimony from White House witnesses.
    Scalise noted the “impeachment inquiry procedures” laid out in the recently voted-on House resolution which gives Schiff the power to reject any witnesses proposed by the Republican minority.

    “There are sections of the resolution that allow the [Adam Schiff] to literally have veto power over Republican witnesses,” Scalise explained. “There’s a section in the resolution that allows the chairman to literally kick the president’s legal counsel out of the room out of the room if he so chooses, not because there has been some wrong that was done, [but] just because, all at the whim of the chairman.”

    Scalise compared these procedures with to those of previous impeachment proceedings for presidents Nixon and Clinton.
    “Under the Clinton and Nixon impeachments, both sides had the ability to call witnesses [and] to subpoena witnesses,” Scalise stated. “Also, the president had the legal power to have his legal counsel in the room to question witnesses. All of that, today, is at the discretion of [Adam Schiff].”
    Schiff is also empowered to obstruct the Republican cross-examination of witnesses, Scalise noted.
    “Just this week, [Adam Schiff] directed the witness to refuse to answer certain questions that were asked by Republicans on the committee,” Scalise said. “So [Adam Schiff] literally is telling the witness not to answer certain questions Republicans are asking. That happened this week.”
    Schiff’s secretive hearings held in a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) has been allowing the Democrats to selectively leak any information from witness’ testimony.
    Witness testimony, Scalise added, contradicts “mainstream media” characterizations of the hearings’ developments.
    “It’s almost like [this is] the only way that [Democrats] can get their false story out, because if this was open to the public, my goodness, all the things that we’re hearing about what happened in that room completely go against all the reports that we’re reading in the media, because the media is only getting the things that Adam Schiff leaks to them,” Scalise said.

    More at: https://teapartypac.org/steve-scalis...ment-hearings/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They aren't even following the rules for a Grand Jury.
    And an impeachment is NOT a Grand Jury.
    It isn't a Grand Jury and therefore not subject to Grand Jury rules. More fail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It isn't a Grand Jury and therefore not subject to Grand Jury rules. More fail.
    They fail at every turn and so do their defenders, they aren't following impeachment rules or any rules at all.
    It's not an impeachment.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They fail at every turn and so do their defenders, they aren't following impeachment rules or any rules at all.
    It's not an impeachment.
    Not yet. Not until the House votes to impeach. Right now they are just gathering evidence. Then it moves to the Senate for hearings and a trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Not yet. Not until the House votes to impeach. Right now they are just gathering evidence. Then it moves to the Senate for hearings and a trial.
    Don't be ridiculous, an impeachment is the process that ends in the House voting to impeach or not.
    This is not an impeachment, it is a sham, a witch hunt and an attainder.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Don't be ridiculous, an impeachment is the process that ends in the House voting to impeach or not.
    This is not an impeachment, it is a sham, a witch hunt and an attainder.
    You don't even know what attainder means. But that doesn't stop you from tossing it out anyways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    You don't even know what attainder means. But that doesn't stop you from tossing it out anyways.
    I know exactly what it means and this is one.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Live Vote Impeachment Inquiry: "Do Us A Favor, Though"
    By enhanced_deficit in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-04-2019, 12:51 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-01-2019, 09:58 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2019, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •