It’s not settled because the requirement of impeachment is HIGH CRIME.
So no, you’re simply wrong on this matter. Concerning this Coup attempt, DNC do not have any actual charges of wrongdoing, nor crimes. “Abuse of Power” doesn’t even mean anything.
Quoteworthy and embarrassingly wrong.
Fortunate for Americans, you and other Socialists have not risen to power, nor shall you.
It is still a Democracy, for now, despite the best attempts to undermine the Constitution and overthrow the American public.
The essence of Justice is Righteousness and Fairness.
It is neither to accuse a President on false-charges, and to invalidate the Vote and Will of the American Public.
Won’t “Impeachment” be abused on purely partisan grounds in the future? When Republicans control the House, simply impeach the Democratic President, because you don’t like him?
No reasons needed. No crimes needed. No cause needed.
I agree with this description. I think we further agree that Trump will very likely be impeached by the House, and will very likely not be removed from office or barred from future office by the Senate.
But as in criminal trials, not being found guilty and not being guilty are different things.
I think there are good principled reasons to remove Trump from office, and I think there are good pragmatic reasons to impeach Trump even though it is unlikely that he will be removed from office. I don’t approve of them “doing whatever they have to” (who are you quoting there? I don’t think I said that and I don’t see it in any of my posts in this thread), but I approve of a reality-based approach to getting Trump out of office as soon as possible.
And to preempt what may be a response: the conduct alleged in the Articles is both likely and grounds for removal, as have been many other things that Trump has done as President. There is no tension or duplicity between thinking 1) this conduct should lead to removal, 2) this is not the first conduct that should have led to removal, 3) this conduct probably won’t lead to removal, and 4) we need to ensure removal as soon as possible using the options available.
It’s fine if you want to use it that way, but take care that you are sure that the conclusions you want follow from the definition of court you’re using. When we use the technical term in US law, a lot of things clearly follow from it. When we use the broader colloquial definition, it isn’t as clear what it entails.
I mean, the Constitution is part of the law, so of course it’s part of the system that applies the law.
Certainly could be nuanced, but not wrong in the sense that democracy was being used. As I said, “The same institutions that weight votes by where they are cast also provides for the non-democratic removal of elected officials.” The Constitution explicitly limits democratic choices about who can be President. In that sense, the United States is not and was never intended to be a democracy in the sense you have appealed to.
If you want to overthrow the US Constitution, Carleas, go ahead and try.
What do you think is going to happen? I’ll inform you. The Military will intervene, and then the Country will move far more Conservative-Right than you and the other Socialists can imagine. The insanity of the Liberal-Left would be destroyed within days. Since you claim “there is no Democracy” in the USA, keep pushing, go ahead, until society breaks down. Everybody sees the pressure and bending already. If push comes to shove, those who are faithful to the 2nd Amendment, will win.
You and Nadler have something in common, when he recently stated “the results of elections cannot be counted on”.
This “Democratic” Party is, ironically, not for Democracy at all, who knew?!
I’d argue that you are too, since you’re claiming that the Constitutional process for removing an elected official is undemocratic. Under a definition of “democratic” that makes the removal of an elected official “undemocratic”, the US is not a democracy.
I did not claim that, and the quoted words aren’t my words.
Lol, conflating non-democracy of Impeachment under the presumption that it’s possible to justly impeach a President,
You know,
When he actually does something wrong or actually commits a High Crime and Misdemeanor???
Impeachment is not supposed to be abused.
It is being abused now. This is UNJUST and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The fact that you, DNC, the Liberal-Left, the Mass Media Deep State Establishment, are blind to this fact,
Is demonstration that you do not see the irony of “Democrats” destroying Democracy.
Right, but the arbiter of this question, the body empowered by the Constitution to decide if that happened, is Congress, through the process of impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate. The process that’s currently being used to answer this question with respect to Trump.
Relatedly, I asked this question to Obsrvr earlier, and I’m curious what you would say:
I think that the inference here is a balancing act, between if either positions is achieved, there will be unmitigable consequence.
If he is impeached , the risk is foreseeable that the power of Congress will lower the standard of it. Where the opposite party will use it freely as a politocal trigger.
If he is not impeached, the executive will be emboldened and assume more powers, and that will be come commonplace.
So the issue is like between a rock and a hard place.
Damn if they do, damn if they don’t.
The Republicans loathed Obama, and are unlikely to let this opportunity to, as they see it as the last chance to stay control of government
I think we’re already past the point of no return on increasing the rate of impeachment, but there is also a natural limit to how frequently the public will tolerate the process. Reasonable people don’t like impeachment, which is why it’s been so hard to get a majority in favor of this impeachment even for a president as manifestly unqualified as this one. So a purely retributive impeachment (assuming the Republicans are able to get a majority in the House soon enough that it’s still relevant) will probably not be well received, and would risk a lot more politically than it would gain.
But I also don’t think more frequent impeachments are necessarily a bad idea, at least assuming people keep paying attention and it’s still perceived as a real possibility that an impeached president will be removed. I don’t want a strong executive relative to the other branches, so if the threat can stay real, keeping future presidents more heavily scrutinized would be a positive change.
There is no “foreign interference” in the US election.
So yes, you’re wrong. It’s a non-argument. Americans vote. Ukranians do not vote. Russians do not vote. They have no interference.
“Interference” would mean Russians voting, and counting their votes. It would mean trying to annul, invalidate, or void American Voters.
So they only real “interference”, is from the “Democrats”, who are trying to ‘undo’ the 2016 election. Falsely accusing the President of a High Crime (there is no crime). And Abusing Power of Congress, by launching an impeachment without fact-witness and no real evidence.
Based on this, you should be against your own Democratic impeachment (coup) attempt.
It’s sloppy. It’s open to interpretation (so-called “abuse of power”). There are no High Crimes and Misdemeanors. There is no weight behind it, at all. An “impeachment” based on nothing, is going to damage Democrats, DNC, the liberal-left, for decades to come, hopefully.
Democrats who follow-through and vote for this sham, are a severe embarrassment and corruption to our Constitution, our Republic, our Nation.
Are you implying that Russians or Illegal Immigrants are adding their ‘votes’ to our election?
Are you implying that votes aren’t being counted?
What “interference” are you talking about, exactly?
If you’re talking about foreign money being used or against US politicians, that is a non-issue. It is not a threat to US Democracy. Rather, it’s a straw-man proposed by Democrats and the Liberal-Left as a way to Scapegoat their losses in the 2016 election.
I was talking in the abstract to get an idea of what you thought was legitimate grounds for impeachment.
But, in the actual case, the foreign interference being solicited would be a criminal investigation of a political rival. Would a foreign government arresting a candidate be election interference? Does motive matter? Does it matter what country we’re talking about?
I know you’re talking abstractly because all you have are abstractions.
There is no “Interference” in the 2016 election. There is no “Interference” in the 2020 election. Except, your Coup attempt, which is illegal, unmerited, not to mention UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST. That’s the only “interference” I see. It is an attempt to invalidate, nullify, and void the Vote, Voice, and Will of the majority the American people. Essentially it is an attempt to destroy the First Amendment. You, and the DNC, want to ‘silence’ and destroy the Will of all those who voted for Trump. The degree of this corruption goes all the way to the heart and core of Western Civilization.
The Democrats are trying to destroy the votes of the Majority (Electoral College) of this country, right now.
Russia? Ukraine? Nothing. They aren’t voting. They are convincing US voters. They aren’t counted. There is no “foreign interference”. To claim this, is to presume some magical Voodoo of a foreign country, as-if they were (magically) controlling US voters and politicians. This is your presumption.
Worst case, if Trump wanted to Ukraine to investigate a political rival, it’s not an impeachable offense.
It’s not a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
You might have a case, if there was actual evidence. Meaning, Trump uses taxpayer money, explicitly bribes the Ukrainian president, the bribe transfers, and the investigation goes through. None of this happened. And even if it did, and Ukraine did investigate Biden, then it’s still not necessarily a crime, in the sense that Biden may actually be corrupt. And if this is the case, then Trump is more than warranted to ask Ukraine of such. It’s dubious under the stipulation of a bribe. But this doesn’t matter, because there as no bribe in the first place.
So, your entire position is invalid. And that of the “Democrats”, who are actually, against Democracy.
Except the quid quod pro to that Trump’s own choices for top positions testified to as indisputable, based on conversations in a loop that everyone, including Trump belonged to.
In addition, the argument that a tit for tat corrupt act by Trust is retributive act for the alleged one, is no excuse.
So its either one is wrong, both are right, or none are right, both are wrong or right.
The alleged acts, are not constitutionally supported, at any rate, and the idea of foreign political influence to effect national politics is exactly what the revolutionary war was about. To escape monarchical despotic-dictatorial control was the reason for it.
If, political process is viewed as lacking a transcendental constitution between common historical precedent and present lack of it, then why use the Constitution at all, except open to current interpretation?
Foreign influence is under the condition that US Autonomy is at risk. And now, it’s not, at all. USA is more autonomous than ever before. So even if Trump did bribe a foreign government to investigate a political rival, and it was “as corrupt as possible”, then it would still be arguable about whether it merits Impeachment, because Bribery and “High Crime” as mentioned to be impeachable, would need to be severe.
The Executive branch has authority to exercise foreign policy and diplomacy, almost however he wants to. The “Bribery” inferred by precedent, does not refer to “foreign influence”, which is basically meaningless as used as charged by the DNC. There’s no such thing as “foreign influence”, regarding general US elections, as-if US Citizens were incapable for voting for who they like.
This whole process is an insult to US Democracy.
And your “evidence” is a bunch of Hearsay witnesses, stacked by the DNC, without witness allowed to the President. Completely corrupt!