hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

But senate Rs would be very dumb to let the lower house dictate terms of a trial when they are the ones tasked with that power.

---

I don't see either of those occurring.

hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

But senate Rs would be very dumb to let the lower house dictate terms of a trial when they are the ones tasked with that power.

---

Speedy trial argument for Trump won't get very far in my view. This isn't a 6th amendment issue, IMO. Not yet anyway.

And the House obstructs the Senate and vice versa all of the time.

Trying to wrap my head around just which court ordered "remedy" there is for such a stalemate, if any. Mandatory injunction forcing the House to send them the articles? Declaratory judgment that the articles as passed are unconstitutional? (That's Dersh's argument.)

IDK.

aggiehawg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

But senate Rs would be very dumb to let the lower house dictate terms of a trial when they are the ones tasked with that power.

---

Speedy trial argument for Trump won't get very far in my view. This isn't a 6th amendment issue, IMO. Not yet anyway.

And the House obstructs the Senate and vice versa all of the time.

Trying to wrap my head around just which court ordered "remedy" there is for such a stalemate, if any. Mandatory injunction forcing the House to send them the articles? Declaratory judgment that the articles as passed are unconstitutional? (That's Dersh's argument.)

IDK.

---

Maybe Cruz could refer Pelosi to the DOJ for "obstruction of Congress". Good for the goose...

Agnzona said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

If he did these things, commit actually crimes, why is there no mention of it in the Articles of Impeachment?

I dare you to answer honestly!

---

Before I comment....let me add I voted for Trump, hate the person, good on his accomplishments. However, I am truly curious about the intent and definition of Impeachment. SIAP but with regard to what some consider the go to Cliff Note's of impeachment, Charles Blacks 1974 book describes what might be considered an impeachable offense, though it is not criminal......

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for an impeachment and removal?".

Certainly an unlikely situation, but one that makes me think a little deeper about my gut interpretation of what constitutes "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Alexander Hamilton described it as "the abuse or violation of some public trust."

Should impeachment only be viewed as committing criminal activity. Seriously asking.

Agnzona said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

If he did these things, commit actually crimes, why is there no mention of it in the Articles of Impeachment?

I dare you to answer honestly!

---

Dont expect an answer. He does not respond when directly challenged. He is a hit and run troll poster

aggiehawg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

But senate Rs would be very dumb to let the lower house dictate terms of a trial when they are the ones tasked with that power.

---

Speedy trial argument for Trump won't get very far in my view. This isn't a 6th amendment issue, IMO. Not yet anyway.

And the House obstructs the Senate and vice versa all of the time.

Trying to wrap my head around just which court ordered "remedy" there is for such a stalemate, if any. Mandatory injunction forcing the House to send them the articles? Declaratory judgment that the articles as passed are unconstitutional? (That's Dersh's argument.)

IDK.

---

Correct, I think the house would have a several weeks of cover to send the articles over. But if they were to use this stall tactic for longer than 2-3 month, it becomes obvious they are violating the rights of Trump.


ts transparently a political game to them. I don't know if I buy the argument that articles would be unconstitutional, more like they aren't even articles of impeachment until they are delivered.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." I'd argue that word all gives them the right to force delivery of the articles. Isn't the judiciary the one to hold the legislative branch to their own rules?

BluHorseShu said:

---

Agnzona said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

If he did these things, commit actually crimes, why is there no mention of it in the Articles of Impeachment?

I dare you to answer honestly!

---

Before I comment....let me add I voted for Trump, hate the person, good on his accomplishments. However, I am truly curious about the intent and definition of Impeachment. SIAP but with regard to what some consider the go to Cliff Note's of impeachment, Charles Blacks 1974 book describes what might be considered an impeachable offense, though it is not criminal......

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for an impeachment and removal?".

Certainly an unlikely situation, but one that makes me think a little deeper about my gut interpretation of what constitutes "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Alexander Hamilton described it as "the abuse or violation of some public trust."

Should impeachment only be viewed as committing criminal activity. Seriously asking.

---

Thank you for bringing in a good discussion point.

My issue is not the severity of allegations in Article 1, it's that the Dems intentionally and cynically avoided actually finding out what happened. They were unwilling to risk exposure of Obama Admin malfeasance, so they created a Kangaroo Court to avoid that evidence.

They then made it worse by impeaching Trump for refusing to willingly submit to their plan.

And I just realized why I'm so angry. The Dems made it easier for the next Dem President to get away with corruption. My gut tells me the Constitution is done...not this year, but probably before I doe.

Thanks Nancy.

Quote:

---

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for an impeachment and removal?".

---

I would think that it would have to be proven that the President had, in fact, moved to Saudi Arabia and married four women.

A parade of specially selected lawprofs opining that he moved there and married four women wouldn't be enough.

Shorter Libs: We can't move to the next step and send this to the Senate because they will obstruct justice.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Agnzona said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

If he did these things, commit actually crimes, why is there no mention of it in the Articles of Impeachment?

I dare you to answer honestly!

---

Before I comment....let me add I voted for Trump, hate the person, good on his accomplishments. However, I am truly curious about the intent and definition of Impeachment. SIAP but with regard to what some consider the go to Cliff Note's of impeachment, Charles Blacks 1974 book describes what might be considered an impeachable offense, though it is not criminal......

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for an impeachment and removal?".

Certainly an unlikely situation, but one that makes me think a little deeper about my gut interpretation of what constitutes "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Alexander Hamilton described it as "the abuse or violation of some public trust."

Should impeachment only be viewed as committing criminal activity. Seriously asking.

---

1. He would be breaking US law by having 4 wives.
2. Define "move to Saudi Arabia" - How often are Presidents "at their residence"? Every president has done official business from a foreign country...
3. If its so obviously an abuse of the public trust, there would be broad consensus to write laws to hem in the president, or even agreement that this is an impeachable offense.


But there are some situations that wouldn't be criminal, but impeachable. I just don't think you have found it yet. example: donald trump tried to nominate several foreign nationals to supreme court, or he brought a treaty that gives away Hawaii. Both legal, but would be a violation of the public trust.

Quote:

---

1. He would be breaking US law by having 4 wives.
2. Define "move to Saudi Arabia" - How often are Presidents "at their residence"? Every president has done official business from a foreign country...
3. If its so obviously an abuse of the public trust, there would be broad consensus to write laws to hem in the president, or even agreement that this is an impeachable offense.

---

In addition....such a President would lose all 50 states (and even DC, too, if it's not a Dem) in the next election....which, oddly, is something we are actually going to have within a year's time.

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

That dumb ***** doesn't care or even think this is a republic.

When you are hanging your hopes on jewelry you know you have lost.

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for an impeachment and removal?".

---

I would think that it would have to be proven that the President had, in fact, moved to Saudi Arabia and married four women.

A parade of specially selected lawprofs opining that he moved there and married four women wouldn't be enough.

---

Agreed, there would have to be evidence.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Was very impressed by Demings during the questioning of witnesses and then the subsequent debate on the Articles of Impeachment.

---

Me too. No finer example of patriotism or legal argument has ever been presented in the history of our great democracy.

What do you think of Nancy refusing to answer impeachment questions?

Flagged for spamming.

That's all he does. Like Nancy he can't answer questions.

MetoliusAg said:

---

A thing which many people still don't understand:

Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both had to be impeached.

---

There was no crimes committed. "Maladministration" was 180 degrees from what the framers wanted impeachment to be about

MetoliusAg said:

---

A thing which many people still don't understand:

Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both had to be impeached.

---

Bill Clinton for 17 distinct statutory violations and Donald Trump because reasons.

MetoliusAg said:

---

75% of Americans say Trump did something wrong.

50% of Americans agree that Trump's actions warranted impeachment by the House.

---

How many did they actually talk to? I know they did not call me

MetoliusAg said:

---

Trump seems very angry:

Lindsey seems worried:

75% of Americans say Trump did something wrong.

50% of Americans agree that Trump's actions warranted impeachment by the House.

---

100% of House Democrats didn't make a formal charge of a crime.

The BBC covers America more objectively than America covers itself.

hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

---

Both would fail.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Trump seems very angry:

Lindsey seems worried:

75% of Americans say Trump did something wrong.

50% of Americans agree that Trump's actions warranted impeachment by the House.

---

Whoa! Trump does seem angry, and Lindsay does seem worried!!

MetoliusAg said:

---

A thing which many people still don't understand:

Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both had to be impeached.

---

Now we all understand!

n_touch said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

75% of Americans say Trump did something wrong.

50% of Americans agree that Trump's actions warranted impeachment by the House.

---

How many did they actually talk to? I know they did not call me

---

He's quoting already old, discredited polls, but that is what trolls do, and he of course won't respond but continue to spam the thread with his ShareBlue *****

Everything coming out in the last week (except for Fox which continues to use a D+11 sample) shows a strong swing against impeachment.

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

---

Both would fail.

---

Speaking of fail. The only reason we are even talking about this is because we know the Articles of Impeachment would fail in the Senate.

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

---

Both would fail.

---

Eh eventually I think Trump has a case based on his 6th amendment rights (after months of inaction).


If you "impeach" someone and never send the articles to the senate, did you really impeach them? Dems look like idiots right now.

If the house "impeaches" and doesn't deliver for a trial in the senate, how is that not "obstruction of congress"? You know the thing that is ~super~ serious.