Constitutional Grounds For Presidential Impeachment

[presence]

https://www.scribd.com/document/4387...chment-Process

Just uploaded; 2 views.

55 pages

[jmdrake]

Thanks for posting this! This quote on page 5 caught my eye.

Third we consider President Trump’s claim that his actions are protected becauseof his right under Article II of the Constitution “to do whatever I want as president.” This claim is wrong, and profoundly so, because our Constitution rejects pretensions tomonarchy and binds Presidents with law. That is true even of powers vested exclusively inthe chief executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in anabusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President is subject to impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a core premise of the impeachment power

WTH?

https://www.scribd.com/document/4387...chment-Process

Just uploaded; 2 views.

55 pages

[acptulsa]

Thanks for posting this! This quote on page 5 caught my eye.

Third we consider President Trump’s claim that his actions are protected becauseof his right under Article II of the Constitution “to do whatever I want as president.” This claim is wrong, and profoundly so, because our Constitution rejects pretensions tomonarchy and binds Presidents with law. That is true even of powers vested exclusively inthe chief executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in anabusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President is subject to impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a core premise of the impeachment power

WTH?

Your Living Constitution at work.

Otherwise known as the House figuring they're the ones who are monarchs, and can do whatever they want.

[jmdrake]

Your Living Constitution at work.

Otherwise known as the House figuring they're the ones who are monarchs, and can do whatever they want.

You can't have a monarchy with 435 people.

[acptulsa]

You can't have a monarchy with 435 people.

That's not keeping them from trying.

[Sonny Tufts]

Your Living Constitution at work.

Otherwise known as the House figuring they're the ones who are monarchs, and can do whatever they want.

The difference is that the House has the legal authority to impeach, but Trump doesn't have the legal authority to do whatever he wants. It's sad that the Trumpers can't grasp this obvious distinction.

[acptulsa]

The difference is that the House has the legal authority to impeach, but Trump doesn't have the legal authority to do whatever he wants. It's sad that the Trumpers can't grasp this obvious distinction.

Yeah, that is sad. I agree.

At the same time, it's also sad that so many members of the House are ignoring the obvious fact that impeachment is for presidents who are scofflaws and felons, not something to be used "If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an abusive manner harming the constitutional system..." even when no law is violated.

[jmdrake]

That's not keeping them from trying.

At 0:43 "Can two men reproduce?"...."No. But God knows we keep trying."



Edit: Back to the subject at hand. A body 435 men who are constantly jockeying each other for position is a less dangerous entity than a singular executive that who thinks Article II gives him carte blance to do whatever the hell he wants. Yes other presidents have acted like that, but at least they didn't come out and say it.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, that is sad. I agree.

At the same time, it's also sad that so many members of the House are ignoring the obvious fact that impeachment is for presidents who are scofflaws and felons, not something to be used "If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an abusive manner harming the constitutional system..." even when no law is violated.

That's just it. A law might have been violated. If Trumps state of mind when he asked for an investigation of Biden was "I want help taking down a political opponent because I can do whatever the hell I want under Article II" that's a crime. If, on the other hand, Trump's state of mind was "I have a duty to faithfully execute the laws. Joe Biden may have committed bribery or extortion. I want that investigated and need help." That's not a crime. That Trump would say something so brazenly ignorant and corrupt as "I can do whatever I want as president under Article II" goes to a possibly criminal mens rea. Mens rea is simply law speak for "state of mind." For some laws the state of mind when the act was done is the differentiated factor between guilt and innocence.

[Pauls' Revere]

Your Living Constitution at work.

Otherwise known as the House figuring they're the ones who are monarchs, and can do whatever they want.

When its convenient, otherwise a gang of blowhards that get little done. Future presidents will be under the microscope for the slightest thing. Especially, in today's cancel culture and political climate. This may be good or bad, but perhaps we ought to be paying more attention to Congress that idolatry of the presidency. Thing is, when will congress act like it should too. i.e. demanding formal declarations of wars etc...

[Schifference]

That's just it. A law might have been violated. If Trumps state of mind when he asked for an investigation of Biden was "I want help taking down a political opponent because I can do whatever the hell I want under Article II" that's a crime. If, on the other hand, Trump's state of mind was "I have a duty to faithfully execute the laws. Joe Biden may have committed bribery or extortion. I want that investigated and need help." That's not a crime. That Trump would say something so brazenly ignorant and corrupt as "I can do whatever I want as president under Article II" goes to a possibly criminal mens rea. Mens rea is simply law speak for "state of mind." For some laws the state of mind when the act was done is the differentiated factor between guilt and innocence.

Trump didn't need to ask another country for help to defeat Biden. No one would probably understand or know Trumps true strategy or reasons for anything. According to Doug Wead the Russia Collusion Hoax afforded the opportunity for other things to get done that would not have been done. Trump probably creates controversy on purpose with motive.

[jmdrake]

Trump didn't need to ask another country for help to defeat Biden. No one would probably understand or know Trumps true strategy or reasons for anything. According to Doug Wead the Russia Collusion Hoax afforded the opportunity for other things to get done that would not have been done. Trump probably creates controversy on purpose with motive.

I 100% agree with that last statement! And I think that's why Trump asked for the investigation on Biden. It's not that he wanted to "dig up dirt" on Biden. The dirt was already out there. He wanted to create controversy and chaos. The overwhelming majority had not heard of Hunter Biden or the infamous Joe Biden CFR speech prior to the "whistleblower" leak. All of that could have been staged.

[Schifference]

I 100% agree with that last statement! And I think that's why Trump asked for the investigation on Biden. It's not that he wanted to "dig up dirt" on Biden. The dirt was already out there. He wanted to create controversy and chaos. The overwhelming majority had not heard of Hunter Biden or the infamous Joe Biden CFR speech prior to the "whistleblower" leak. All of that could have been staged.

Okay but he didn't need to do that to defeat Biden.

[Swordsmyth]

In context he is right, he has the right to investigate any corruption or fire any corrupt officials he wants as head of the Executive branch.



In-between her Thursday meltdowns, here are Nancy’s own words, her own rationale for overturning a presidential election: [emphasis added throughout]
Thursday morning:

The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when he says and acts upon the belief ‘Article II says I can do whatever I want.’ No. His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution. A separation of powers, three co-equal branches, each a check and balance on the other.

Thursday evening:

In that Constitution, the genius of it all was the system of checks and balances. They did not want a monarch. They did not want a president king. That’s what they fought the war against.
The president said — Article I is the legislative branch. Article II is the executive branch. The president said, Article II says I can do whatever I want.
So for me, this is about honoring our oath of office, making sure that the Constitution is respected. And it’s about that and how he has ignored the subpoenas of Congress, the oversight of Congress. Something very strange there, that there hasn’t been an intervention amongst some of his own people.

So… It’s not the poll-tested bribery charge anymore.
It’s not quid pro quo anymore — because there can be no quid pro quo when Ukraine didn’t know it was supposed to quid, pro, or quo.
It’s not obstruction of justice anymore.
It’s not obstruction of Congress anymore — whatever the hell that made-up $#@! is…
It’s not a mean but accurate tweet anymore.
It’s not LOOK AT ALL THOSE RIBBONS THAT GUY’S WEARING ON TV anymore.
No, this week it’s — and these are Nancy’s own words — “The president said, Article II says I can do whatever I want.”
And the fact that it has come to this, to this kind of desperate hoax, tells you all you need to know about what a rigged game this is. Because…
Trump never said that.
He.
Never.
Said.
It.
Nancy is inventing crimes now. She’s making stuff up. She is all over TV framing the accused, planting evidence, which is what a dirty cop does when they can’t make a case.
Nancy is deliberately and maliciously taking Trump out of context. And not just a little out of context. No, she is taking the president so far out of context I feel a little silly having to explain it.
Here is what Trump actually said

Look, Article II, I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller. Assuming I did all of the things, I said I want to fire him. Number one, I didn’t. He wasn’t fired. Number one, very importantly but more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would allow me to fire him. I wasn’t going to fire him. You know why — because I watched Richard Nixon firing everybody and that didn’t work out too well.

Even during the sham impeachment hearings, Nancy’s lying Democrats selectively-edited video of Trump again talking about Article II in the exact same context.
Again, it’s a lie.
The very foundation of this impeachment is a lie fabricated from either a quote deliberately taken out of context or rigged video.
Nancy and her henchmen are fabricating evidence to justify a coup.
Trump never-ever-ever-ever said Article II allows him to do whatever he wants. He was quite obviously talking about a very specific thing, about firing Robert Mueller, and he was exactly correct on that point.
So Nancy is lying.
Nancy “Dirty Cop” Pelosi is standing before America, flat-out lying, framing a sitting president for a crime he did not commit, and the fake news media are playing right along.
Impeaching Trump for saying Article II allows me to do whatever I want, when he was specifically (and accurately) referring to one very specific thing… It’s a total frame job.
This is a hoax.

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...posed-as-hoax/


There is no evidence that Trump only investigated Biden for political purposes and even if there was it wouldn't be impeachable because there was sufficient reason to investigate.