Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 104

Thread: Amash Statement at Impeachment Debate

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    I would respect Amash or any other member of congress that would recommend impeaching Trump on the horrible things that he's done rather than the fictitious things that he hasn't.

    Trump should be impeached for not stopping the hoards of illegal invaders.

    He should also be impeached for his attack and continued occupation of Syria to include the continued support for ISIS, etc.
    This is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Look, Amash does not care about spreading the message of liberty. All he cares about is stroking his own ego. How do we know? He left the Republican Party. Think of all the fawning media attention he would be getting if he were the LONE Republican to vote to impeach. Instead, Tulsi and the two Democrats who disented are getting the spotlight. He is a short-sighted narcissist.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Amash is wrong. Investigating the crimes of Joe Biden is for the benefit of the United States of America.

    Joe Biden is not running against Donald Trump. Biden is running against Sander, Warren and 20 other Democrats. Biden doesn't have the opportunity to run against Trump unless he first wins the nomination of the Democrat party.
    Exactly!


    ETA:



    Notice the smirk on Joe's face and then the smile on his face when the protester used Biden's own words about holding the billion dollars to the Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor that was going after his son, Hunter.

    I guess Amash, as so many others, missed that CFR meeting that Biden bragged about withholding the Billion, huh?
    Last edited by donnay; 12-19-2019 at 09:39 AM.
    Proverbs 29:18
    "Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."

    Hosea 4:6
    "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.Ē ~ Charles Dickens

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Amash is wrong. Investigating the crimes of Joe Biden is for the benefit of the United States of America.

    Joe Biden is not running against Donald Trump. Biden is running against Sander, Warren and 20 other Democrats. Biden doesn't have the opportunity to run against Trump unless he first wins the nomination of the Democrat party.
    This.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    So let me get this straight. Justin is 94%, which to you is too high, but if we ever get closer to liberty, then we can raise our standards that high. And the 6% is destructive to liberty, but being in the 70 percentile is good.


    It's all a smokescreen. Swordy wants Trump to be viewed as KING, not President. Authoritarian lackeys can't function without someone telling them what to do and there's nothing more offensive to an authoritarian lackey than someone refusing to fall in line behind their KING on command. Amash simply committed the cardinal sin of daring to not fall in line behind Swordy's KING and for that sin deserves to be scorned and exiled from the KINGdom, regardless of any other criteria.

    There's a reason that Swordy's avatar is a British actor playing a role in a movie about restoring the KING to the throne. This country has quietly been made a British colony once again (by the bankers and CFR, which is the American arm of the Royal Institute of International Affairs based in London, that surround Trump and every other President) and there appears to be a push lately toward restoring allegiance toward overt monarch rule, instead of the facade of the independent government that they've worked very hard to maintain in the meantime. This is why it's ridiculous, to those of us that have done the deep research into what's really going on, to think Trump is anything other than a Trojan horse. He's surrounded himself with the same British operatives that have taken this country back under British control over the last 150 years.
    Last edited by devil21; 12-19-2019 at 11:53 AM.
    "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.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  8. #66
    Local news this morning (which is the only “news” a lot of people watch) showed the GOP/Dem vote totals, but not an Independent vote, and not a “present” vote. Thought they were leaving Amash and Gabbard completely out, but they followed with a part about Tulsi. Nothing about Amash, they may have included him in the Democrat vote total.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    ďThey are what they hate.Ē - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Local news this morning (which is the only “news” a lot of people watch) showed the GOP/Dem vote totals, but not an Independent vote, and not a “present” vote. Thought they were leaving Amash and Gabbard completely out, but they followed with a part about Tulsi. Nothing about Amash, they may have included him in the Democrat vote total.
    Yep, I guess we have a new "He Who Shall Not Be Named"...
    "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.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    So let me get this straight. Justin is 94%, which to you is too high, but if we ever get closer to liberty, then we can raise our standards that high. And the 6% is destructive to liberty, but being in the 70 percentile is good.


    94% ins not too high a score to have, I never said that, I said your standard was too high. (the problem with Amash is his treasonous endorsement of the impeachment coup)

    Your spin is weak.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It's all a smokescreen. Swordy wants Trump to be viewed as KING, not President. Authoritarian lackeys can't function without someone telling them what to do and there's nothing more offensive to an authoritarian lackey than someone refusing to fall in line behind their KING on command. Amash simply committed the cardinal sin of daring to not fall in line behind Swordy's KING and for that sin deserves to be scorned and exiled from the KINGdom, regardless of any other criteria.

    There's a reason that Swordy's avatar is a British actor playing a role in a movie about restoring the KING to the throne. This country has quietly been made a British colony once again (by the bankers and CFR, which is the American arm of the Royal Institute of International Affairs based in London, that surround Trump and every other President) and there appears to be a push lately toward restoring allegiance toward overt monarch rule, instead of the facade of the independent government that they've worked very hard to maintain in the meantime. This is why it's ridiculous, to those of us that have done the deep research into what's really going on, to think Trump is anything other than a Trojan horse. He's surrounded himself with the same British operatives that have taken this country back under British control over the last 150 years.
    You can't win the argument so you tell blatant LIES.

    My avatar is an actor playing an anti-English rebel in a story about a boy who was kidnapped:

    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #70
    We have seen sham hearings, selected witnesses, and Dems who have contorted the facts to fit a fictional narrative. Shameful that from the first day of this duly elected presidency, Dems have wanted to impeach @POTUS. Unnecessary & counterproductive. Senate will end this charade!
    — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 19, 2019
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You can't win the argument so you tell blatant LIES.

    My avatar is an actor playing an anti-English rebel in a story about a boy who was kidnapped:

    Anybody can go read the plot line of the film for themselves. Reinstalling the "rightful" royal bloodline to the English throne is a substantial part of the film.
    "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.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Anybody can go read the plot line of the film for themselves. Reinstalling the "rightful" royal bloodline to the English throne is a substantial part of the film.
    No it isn't.
    It is a minor background element.
    And since both sides of the politics involved support a King it's entirely irrelevant.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We have seen sham hearings, selected witnesses, and Dems who have contorted the facts to fit a fictional narrative. Shameful that from the first day of this duly elected presidency, Dems have wanted to impeach @POTUS. Unnecessary & counterproductive. Senate will end this charade!
    — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 19, 2019
    Rand Paul > Justin Amash

    Really they shouldn't even be compared. Amash could have come up with 10+ constitutionally legitimate reasons to support impeachment on. He picked the one that isn't. What a clown.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Rand Paul > Justin Amash

    Really they shouldn't even be compared. Amash could have come up with 10+ constitutionally legitimate reasons to support impeachment on. He picked the one that isn't. What a clown.
    Yes, Rand is doing a great job supporting Trump.
    Support Justin Amash for Congress
    Michigan Congressional District 3

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No it isn't.
    It is a minor background element.
    And since both sides of the politics involved support a King it's entirely irrelevant.
    I knew you were terrible at picking up subtext in political topics but I didn't realize it extended to film topics, also
    "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.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    I knew you were terrible at picking up subtext in political topics but I didn't realize it extended to film topics, also
    You just can't let go of your lie.

    The protagonist is a Whig in favor of the current King but his friend is a Jacobite in favor of restoring the previous dynasty, and the politics is just historical background, the plot is about getting the kid back home and claiming his rightful inheritance from the evil uncle who had him kidnapped.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Yes, Rand is doing a great job supporting Trump.
    Well, yes, because Trump deserves support in this unconstitutional cluster$#@!.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Yes, Rand is doing a great job supporting Trump.
    And the Constitution and the rule of law.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Well, yes, because Trump deserves support in this unconstitutional cluster$#@!.
    Yes, Trump is a champion of the Constitution.
    Support Justin Amash for Congress
    Michigan Congressional District 3

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Yes, Trump is a champion of the Constitution.
    Far more than Pelosi.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Yes, Trump is a champion of the Constitution.
    I'm confused. Did I say he was? Please try a bit harder to stay on topic.

    And if Trump is so horribly unconstitutional, why can't Amash come up with something a little better than supporting an impeachment cuz orange man bad?

    Amash just trashed separation of powers and supported a move that sets precedent that any opposition party holding a majority in the house can impeach a duly elected POTUS just cause.

    Those don't sound like the actions of a man who believes in the Constitution. Sounds like someone with a chip on their shoulder.
    Last edited by fcreature; 12-19-2019 at 10:22 PM.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    I'm confused. Did I say he was? Please try a bit harder to stay on topic.

    And if Trump is so horribly unconstitutional, why can't Amash come up with something a little better than supporting an impeachment cuz orange man bad?

    Amash just trashed separation of powers and supported a move that sets precedent that any opposition party holding a majority in the house can impeach a duly elected POTUS just cause.

    Those don't sound like the actions of a man who believes in the Constitution. Sounds like someone with a chip on their shoulder.
    Thank you. Even those here that hate Trump cant seem to concede this fact. Amash had his chance to impeach on Libertarian grounds, and he blew it. So much for champion of Liberty!

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Amash just trashed separation of powers and supported a move that sets precedent that any opposition party holding a majority in the house can impeach a duly elected POTUS just cause.
    It's always been that way. The House has the freedom to determine what is a "misdemeanor", even if it's stupid or flimsy.
    "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.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It's always been that way. The House has the freedom to determine what is a "misdemeanor", even if it's stupid or flimsy.
    No it doesn't.

    There is a common law standard they must follow, the founders specifically didn't want to allow impeachment for "maladministration" or the whims of the House, that's why they specified what was grounds for 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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It's always been that way. The House has the freedom to determine what is a "misdemeanor", even if it's stupid or flimsy.
    Yes and no. The original proposals included corruption and maladministration, which were swiftly rejected due to how easily they could be used by an out of control congress to usurp the power of the executive. You would have to be a moron to think the founders intended on impeachment being used like this. It's explicitly what they were worried about. They wanted a strong executive, not one handicapped by a deranged house.

    Sure, any branch of government can do whatever it wants as long as the other branches idly sit there and do nothing to protect themselves. That doesn't mean it's legitimate though.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Yes and no. The original proposals included corruption and maladministration, which were swiftly rejected due to how easily they could be used by an out of control congress to usurp the power of the executive. You would have to be a moron to think the founders intended on impeachment being used like this. It's explicitly what they were worried about. They wanted a strong executive, not one handicapped by a deranged house.

    Sure, any branch of government can do whatever it wants as long as the other branches idly sit there and do nothing to protect themselves. That doesn't mean it's legitimate though.
    You are talking to people who don't care about the Constitution or the rule of law.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #87
    I just want to add to the voices here trashing on Amash for being some kind of fkd up loser. 94% rating be damned, at least be consistent on your so called principles if touting them so often.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No it doesn't.

    There is a common law standard they must follow, the founders specifically didn't want to allow impeachment for "maladministration" or the whims of the House, that's why they specified what was grounds for impeachment.
    Please cite where a "misdemeanor" is defined and where what qualifies as one is listed.

    Hint: It's not and there isn't. The articles are flimsy yes, I don't debate that but you guys are acting like the articles were accusing Trump of wearing the wrong color tie and that being used as an excuse to impeach. One may disagree with the basis of the articles but the House has the leeway to determine what is a misdemeanor when the appearance of misconduct has come to light. It is the Senate's job to determine if that misconduct did, in fact, occur and whether it is a misdemeanor that should result in removal from office.


    eta: I'll give Trump credit for one thing. I've never seen so many "constitutional scholars" comes out the woodwork and cause people that have never read a sentence of the document to actually read some of it. Maybe it'll prompt more people to read more of it?
    Last edited by devil21; 12-19-2019 at 11:13 PM.
    "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.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Please cite where a "misdemeanor" is defined and where what qualifies as one is listed.

    Hint: It's not and there isn't. The articles are flimsy yes, I don't debate that but you guys are acting like the articles were accusing Trump of wearing the wrong color tie and that being used as an excuse to impeach. One may disagree with the basis of the articles but the House has the leeway to determine what is a misdemeanor when the appearance of misconduct has come to light. It is the Senate's job to determine if that misconduct did, in fact, occur and whether it is a misdemeanor that should result in removal from office.


    eta: I'll give Trump credit for one thing. I've never seen so many "constitutional scholars" comes out the woodwork and cause people that have never read a sentence of the document to actually read some of it. Maybe it'll prompt more people to read more of it?
    The House doesn't have leeway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    As the U.S. House of Representatives hurtles toward impeachment ahead of the holidays, it is appropriate to consider, in as dispassionate a way as possible, what really is at issue for the country to decide. One must begin with the words of the Constitution. The removal of the President from office necessarily proceeds only with a determination, through House impeachment and upon conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate following trial, that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” have been proved. What constitutes a “high” crime? Alexander Hamilton provided the answer in the Federalist papers: only those offenses within Congress’s appropriate jurisdiction that constitute “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

    So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office.
    The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime. Half the country at present does seem prepared to conclude, on the basis of the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House on Sept. 25, that Trump at least raised the prospect of an unlawful quid pro quo. The theory seems to be that Trump proposed an exchange of something of personal benefit to himself in return for an official act by the U.S. government. On one side of that alleged quid pro quo would be the public announcement of an investigation by Ukraine into a rival presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a member of Biden’s family. On the other: the release of temporarily withheld foreign aid, including military assistance.
    The problem with this legal theory is that an unlawful quid pro quo is limited to those arrangements that are “corrupt”–that is to say, only those that are clearly and unmistakably improper and therefore illegal. But in the eyes of the law, the specific, measurable benefit that an investigation against the Bidens might bring Trump is nebulous. There is a serious question as to whether it could ever constitute a criminally illegal foreign campaign contribution of personal benefit to President Trump. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel and the Criminal Division at the Justice Department apparently have already concluded it couldn’t. Just as important, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struggled since at least the early 1990s with application of the federal anticorruption laws to situations like this, where an “in kind” benefit in the form of campaign interference or assistance is alleged to be illegal.


    In my view, a fair and better legal argument can be made in this context that only an explicit, as opposed to an implied, quid pro quo would be sufficient to find criminal illegality as the result of President Trump’s words on the call with President Zelensky. What’s the difference? Instead of President Trump saying to his counterpart in Ukraine in words or substance, “Do me a favor …” he would have to have said, “Here’s the deal …” and followed up by explicitly linking an investigation of the Bidens to the provision of U.S. military assistance. None of that, of course, is what was said.
    Importantly, we have also learned in a little-noted aside to the widely reported Oct. 17 press conference by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that the Administration recognized that it had no authority through the Office of Management and Budget to permanently withhold congressional appropriation of aid to Ukraine beyond the 2019 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.
    Taken together, these facts mean that whatever your view of whether the President’s call was, in his words, “perfect” or not, the race to impeachment is moving forward on an arguably flawed legal theory of an implied quid pro quo of temporarily withholding foreign aid. It doesn’t help those arguing that the implied and temporary attempt at a quid quo pro necessitates impeachment that the aid was eventually released and disbursed on Sept. 11. Nor does it help them that Ukraine never publicly announced an investigation of the Bidens.
    An investigation into the origins of the probe into Russia’s 2016 election meddling, including any Ukrainian matters relating to it, is under way. It is being handled through appropriate channels and with built-in independence by a career prosecutor, John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, and presumably outside of political interference at Main Justice in Washington. If Durham finds actual evidence warranting investigation of the Bidens, that would be entirely appropriate, unless one is prepared to argue, speciously, that a presidential candidate enjoys absolute immunity from investigation during the course of a campaign. So things are finally in the right hands.

    At this point nothing appears to stand in the way of the House’s intemperate and unreasonable vote to impeach. In Hamilton’s words, events are proceeding “more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” It will be left instead to the U.S. Senate sitting as a court of impeachment with the “requisite neutrality” and the nation’s best interests in mind to render judgment and put a stop to what is an undeniably, and all but exclusively, partisan effort to remove this President from office.

    More at: https://news.yahoo.com/shouldnt-impe...110621848.html
    What constitutes a “high” crime? Alexander Hamilton provided the answer in the Federalist papers: only those offenses within Congress’s appropriate jurisdiction that constitute “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
    Investigating Biden's corruption is not and cannot be a violation of public trust.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Please cite where a "misdemeanor" is defined and where what qualifies as one is listed.

    Hint: It's not and there isn't. The articles are flimsy yes, I don't debate that but you guys are acting like the articles were accusing Trump of wearing the wrong color tie and that being used as an excuse to impeach. One may disagree with the basis of the articles but the House has the leeway to determine what is a misdemeanor when the appearance of misconduct has come to light. It is the Senate's job to determine if that misconduct did, in fact, occur and whether it is a misdemeanor that should result in removal from office.


    eta: I'll give Trump credit for one thing. I've never seen so many "constitutional scholars" comes out the woodwork and cause people that have never read a sentence of the document to actually read some of it. Maybe it'll prompt more people to read more of it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    This short essay does what the House Judiciary Committee’s panel of “expert witnesses” did not successfully do.
    First, it explains the meaning of the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard. Next, it discusses how that standard applies to President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Finally, it details the kind of evidence the House Judiciary Committee should gather to determine whether the president committed an impeachable offense.
    Many phrases in the Constitution—such as “necessary and proper,” “Privileges and Immunities,” and “Convention for proposing Amendments”—carry specialized 18th century meanings not obvious to the modern reader. Recall that most of the leading Founders were lawyers and the Constitution is a legal document. Some of these phrases derive from 18th century law.

    Therefore, to understand them you have to consult 18th century legal materials in addition to better-known sources such as the 1787 convention debates or the Federalist Papers.
    Unfortunately, most of the scholars called by the House Judiciary Committee to address the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” were not able to do so accurately.
    According to the authoritative Westlaw database, two of the three Democratically appointed witnesses have published no scholarly work on impeachment: Their specialties are in other areas. None showed any familiarity with 18th century fiduciary standards—which (as explained below) are part of the law of impeachment. All of the witnesses voted against President Trump, and several have been involved in anti-Trump activity.
    It’s not surprising, therefore, that, except for professor Jonathan Turley’s heavily footnoted 53-page written statement, the testimony was biased and superficial.

    What Is the Standard?

    Impeachment law is not for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. Furthermore, impeachment standards evolved over time. To understand the Constitution’s rules we must know what the standards were when the Constitution was adopted. We can do so by consulting 18th century parliamentary records and legal materials.
    Here’s some of what they tell us:

    • The term “high Crimes” means, approximately, “felonies.”
    • The phrase “high … Misdemeanors” refers to what the founding generation called “breach of trust” and what modern lawyers call breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duties are the legal obligations imposed upon those who manage the affairs of other people—bankers, corporate executives, accountants, guardians, and so forth. In broad outline, fiduciary law when the Constitution was adopted was similar to what it is today.
    • In the 14th and 15th centuries, an official could be impeached because Parliament disagreed with his policy decisions. However, as several American Founders recognized, by the 18th century this was no longer true. The official must have violated (in the words of several sources) “the known and established law.” This limited impeachment to serious crimes and fiduciary breaches.
    • The trial in the upper house of the legislature was a judicial proceeding, not primarily a political one. As the 1782 edition of the popular Jacob’s Law Dictionary noted, “the same evidence is required in an impeachment in Parliament, as in the ordinary courts of justice.” The hearsay and impressionist evidence gathered by the House Intelligence Committee is not admissible.

    The core of the case against President Trump is that he used his political position to seek re-election assistance from a foreign government. Although there’s dark talk of crimes committed, the principal charge is fiduciary rather than criminal. In other words, a “high … Misdemeanor.”
    House Democrats have struggled to define Trump’s alleged offense. Initially, they described it as “quid pro quo.” Then they employed the term “bribery.” The legally correct designation is “self-dealing.”
    Self-dealing is betraying your employer’s interests to enrich yourself. It’s a violation of the fiduciary duty of loyalty.
    We can assume the president might benefit from a Ukrainian investigation, but that doesn’t mean asking for an investigation was self-dealing as defined by fiduciary, and therefore by impeachment, law. There’s nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption. As for seeking political advantage: If we punished every politician who did that, they would all be swinging from the yardarm.
    This is as true in foreign as in domestic affairs. When President Barack Obama told the Russian president he would have more flexibility after his re-election, he was saying (1) an agreement now would benefit both Russia and the United States, but (2) I’m going to sacrifice our mutual interests for the present because such an agreement might hurt my re-election campaign. Was this impeachable self-dealing? Almost certainly not.
    So where is the divide between “normal” conduct and impeachable conduct? To answer this, we need to weigh at least three factors: impeachment precedent, the national interest, and the practice of other presidents.
    Impeachable Conduct

    For defining the Constitution’s phase “high … Misdemeanors,” the most important precedents (although not the only ones) lie in 18th century impeachment and fiduciary law.
    An 18th century impeachment treatise outlines the specific facts by which several officials were impeached for what we now call self-dealing.
    They include the following:
    (1) the official enriched himself at the expense of the Crown by arranging for royal pardons,
    (2) he stole funds from the Royal Navy,
    (3) he confiscated ships and cargos without due process and appropriated the proceeds,
    (4) he obtained “exorbitant grants of lands and money, to the great detriment of the revenue,”
    (5) he seized forfeited land that should have gone to the Crown, and
    (6) acting through a strawman, he took the proceeds from timber sales in the king’s forests.
    All these cases boil down to stealing public property. They don’t look like the Trump–Zelensky dealings at all.
    Another part of the answer lies in whether President Trump violated the national interest. As a general rule, self-dealing generally is not just enriching yourself. It’s enriching yourself at the expense of your employer. If Trump’s interests were aligned with those of the country, there was no fiduciary breach.
    Despite Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaint that Trump violated “the consensus of the interagency,” the question of whether Trump acted contrary to the national interest is a difficult one to answer.
    Perhaps we had a national interest in not asking President Zelensky to investigate. But we also had a national interest in asking, because it would be useful to know if Ukrainian officials were trying to meddle in our presidential elections. And it would be useful to know whether the family of a leading presidential candidate is engaged in corruption. Remember: the president asked only for an investigation, not for a pre-determined result.


    Thus, you can argue the “national interest” issue both ways. It looks more a policy question than a clear case like theft of public funds.
    Still another part of the answer lies in how similar officials act in similar circumstances. In absence of a crime, if you want to determine whether a banker handled funds properly, you should investigate how bankers usually handle funds. If you wish to determine whether an investment adviser gave reasonable advice, you should consult what other reputable advisers recommend in the same circumstances.
    Similarly, to decide whether President Trump engaged in impermissible self-dealing, we need testimony about how other officials conduct themselves. We know, for example, that then-Vice President Biden explicitly made aid to Ukraine conditional on firing a Ukrainian prosecutor. If that conduct wasn’t impeachable (and I don’t believe it was) then Trump’s more tepid conduct certainly isn’t impeachable.
    Thus, the Judiciary Committee should ask for testimony from officials of prior presidential administrations, and preferably from the former presidents themselves. Did they ever make foreign aid conditional? What were the conditions? Why? And so forth.
    Another Panel

    It was a good idea to empanel academic experts to provide guidance on the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be done again, and this time correctly.
    The next panel should include presidential historians, parliamentary historians, and experts on fiduciary law. It should not consist primarily of law professors, who are notorious for engaging more in advocacy than in true scholarship.
    Every panelist should have published research on impeachment, fiduciary law, or related areas. No panelist should be enmeshed in pro-Trump or anti-Trump political activity. They should be limited to discussing constitutional impeachment standards without expostulating on evidentiary testimony. Weighing the evidence is the job of the committee members, not of academics with little judicial or “real life” experience.
    Once the scholarly panel has testified, the committee should explore whether the president’s Ukrainian actions clearly violated the national interest and it should gather testimony on the conduct of former administrations in comparable situations.
    And only if all those investigations support a “self-dealing” conclusion should the committee recommend articles of impeachment.


    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...eachment-didnt


    There is no crime and there never was reasonable suspicion of one.
    The House is committing an abuse of power.

    ...
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Amash says he will vote in favor of articles of impeachment
    By donnay in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12-13-2019, 05:37 PM
  2. Amash is Wrong, Pelosi (So FarÖ) is Right on Articles of Impeachment
    By Brian4Liberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-28-2019, 05:08 PM
  3. Amash Supports Impeachment if Trump Pardoned Himself
    By EBounding in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2018, 09:51 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 01:16 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-10-2007, 02:42 AM

Posting Permissions

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