BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

agsfan said:

---

We haven't seen the results of the investigation yet.

---

100% accept the dem's framing of events, no crime occurred. They will call it "election interference" or "collusion". Neither of which are a crime.

Quote:

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

---

Depends on whether the President is executing one of his enumerated duties under Article II. Foreign policy is such an enumerated duty as is law enforcement.

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

---

any statute that doesn't exempt him applies to him initially. Then, is he exercising some power under Article 2? If no, it applies to him.

take the telemarketing scam example. Is it really your position that doesn't apply to a president?

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

---

Whats the criteria for federal statutes to apply to serial killers who evade the police? None. A crime still occurred.


A crime can be committed by a president, that can be used as evidence for impeachment, which is the frame work for applying federal statues to a sitting president.

I think it's fair to say a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient for impeachment and removal.

The history of the term high crimes and misdemeanors and the very provision for impeachment are predicated on the notion that some behavior is too unacceptable to wait for elections to handle.

An obvious example is a president or Supreme Court justice that just stops coming to work for 6 months. That's not a crime, but we would need to remove them all the same.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I think it's fair to say a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient for impeachment and removal.

The history of the term high crimes and misdemeanors and the very provision for impeachment are predicated on the notion that some behavior is too unacceptable to wait for elections to handle.

An obvious example is a president or Supreme Court justice that just stops coming to work for 6 months. That's not a crime, but we would need to remove them all the same.

---

True, but it would be a fabrication to claim that supreme court justice broke the law, or is engaged in criminal activity.

Agreed. The legality is is separate question

Quote:

---

An obvious example is a president or Supreme Court justice that just stops coming to work for 6 months. That's not a crime, but we would need to remove them all the same.

---

For a POTUS, the 25th Amendment would come into play long before impeachment.

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

---

any statute that doesn't exempt him applies to him initially. Then, is he exercising some power under Article 2? If no, it applies to him.

take the telemarketing scam example. Is it really your position that doesn't apply to a president?

---

It is my opinion that a sitting president is exempt from normal judicial proceedings and is only accountable to the arbitrary judgement of Congress. There was a popular comment on another thread where a person described historical events that could have been used by Congress to impeach the last 6 or so presidents.

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

---

any statute that doesn't exempt him applies to him initially. Then, is he exercising some power under Article 2? If no, it applies to him.

take the telemarketing scam example. Is it really your position that doesn't apply to a president?

---

It is my opinion that a sitting president is exempt from normal judicial proceedings and is only accountable to arbitrary judgement of Congress. There was a popular comment on another thread where a person described historical events that could have been used by Congress to impeach the last 6 or so presidents.

---

now you have changed the question.

if a president is running a telemarketing scam out of the white house, yes he is exempt from normal judicial proceedings until after he is impeached.

That does not make his breaking the law legal.

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

---

Explain. What's the criteria for federal statutes to apply to a sitting president?

---

any statute that doesn't exempt him applies to him initially. Then, is he exercising some power under Article 2? If no, it applies to him.

take the telemarketing scam example. Is it really your position that doesn't apply to a president?

---

It is my opinion that a sitting president is exempt from normal judicial proceedings and is only accountable to arbitrary judgement of Congress. There was a popular comment on another thread where a person described historical events that could have been used by Congress to impeach the last 6 or so presidents.

---

now you have changed the question. How?

if a president is running a telemarketing scam out of the white house, yes he is exempt from normal judicial proceedings until after he is impeached.

That does not make his breaking the law legal. In a practical sense it does, at least while president. Are you saying Trump will be liable for violations of federal statues when he leaves office?

---

no, it doesn't. not in a practical sense or impractical sense or any sense.

Having to wait until impeachment and removal before being prosecuted does not mean a president can legally break the law. Your position doesn't make any sense at all.

BMX Bandit said:

---

no, it doesn't. not in a practical sense or impractical sense or any sense.

Having to wait until impeachment and removal before being prosecuted does not mean a president can legally break the law. Your position doesn't make any sense at all.

---

If Trump breaks a federal statute, in any type of scenario you want to come up with, and Congress doesn't hold him accountable, then he is exempt from the law in a practical sense, impractical sense or any sense you want to come up with. And Trump won't be prosecuted when he leave office. Presidents break federal statues all the time and they are not personally liable.

I'm convinced none of this is about impeachment and actual removal but rather the House Dems trying to give their weak ass candidate pool winner a card to play during the campaign. The candidates they have are not going to get elected on the basis of their policy positions or electability so they need some help in the form of running against an "impeached" president. The media of course plays a big role in pushing this.

This is their Hail Mary which is why they don't want it in the open because many would see their "witnesses" get shot full of holes and their impeachment plan falls apart. They weren't counting on Trump releasing the transcript but it doesn't seem to have slowed them down in their whistleblower narrative. They need to get this to the Senate. As a side benefit for many House Dems, it helps them with their base given many of them ran on impeaching Trump.

And then in the Senate, they also want it to appear bi-partisan so they are seeking the GJ info from the Mueller report to give a few squishy Rs in the Senate a little more reason to vote for removal. Current Senate makeup is 51 R's, 47 D's, and 2 I's who caucus with the Dems. So basically 51-49. They won't get to the required number for actual removal but it helps their "narrative" if 2-3 Rs flip on Trump and vote to remove so they have a majority number voting for removal.

The idea at the end of the day is that every time the word Trump is mentioned during the 2020 campaign, the media and Dems will always associate it with "impeached and bipartisan majority voted for removal".

I am not aware of any law Trump has broken.

If a president breaks a federal law when he is in office and Congress does nothing, that does not prevent the next president's department of justice from indicting that former president.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I am not aware of any law Trump has broken.

If a president breaks a federal law when he is in office and Congress does nothing, that does not prevent the next president's department of justice from indicting that former president.

---

Agreed. Which was why Ford felt compelled to pardon Nixon even though he had not been indicted yet.

4stringAg said:

---

I'm convinced none of this is about impeachment and actual removal but rather the House Dems trying to give their weak ass candidate pool winner a card to play during the campaign. The candidates they have are not going to get elected on the basis of their policy positions or electability so they need some help in the form of running against an "impeached" president. The media of course plays a big role in pushing this.

---

Government funded opposition research, just like Mueller.

Quote:

---

Current Senate makeup is 51 R's, 47 D's, and 2 I's who caucus with the Dems.

---

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Independent

BMX Bandit said:

---

I am not aware of any law Trump has broken.

If a president breaks a federal law when he is in office and Congress does nothing, that does not prevent the next president's department of justice from indicting that former president.

---

Didn't the SDNY get Cohen on some trumped up campaign charge? Are you saying they could go after Trump when he leaves office?

Rapier108 said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I'm convinced none of this is about impeachment and actual removal but rather the House Dems trying to give their weak ass candidate pool winner a card to play during the campaign. The candidates they have are not going to get elected on the basis of their policy positions or electability so they need some help in the form of running against an "impeached" president. The media of course plays a big role in pushing this.

---

Government funded opposition research, just like Mueller.

Quote:

---

Current Senate makeup is 51 R's, 47 D's, and 2 I's who caucus with the Dems.

---

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Independent

---

LOL. Got the number wrong. Still, the point stands if the Dems can convince a few Rs to vote for removal they can claim it is bipartisan support for removal.

4stringAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I'm convinced none of this is about impeachment and actual removal but rather the House Dems trying to give their weak ass candidate pool winner a card to play during the campaign. The candidates they have are not going to get elected on the basis of their policy positions or electability so they need some help in the form of running against an "impeached" president. The media of course plays a big role in pushing this.

---

Government funded opposition research, just like Mueller.

Quote:

---

Current Senate makeup is 51 R's, 47 D's, and 2 I's who caucus with the Dems.

---

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Independent

---

LOL. Got the number wrong. Still, the point stands if the Dems can convince a few Rs to vote for removal they can claim it is bipartisan support for removal.

---

More than a few. Have to get to 67 to remove.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

So basically:

• All committees continue with their ongoing investigations
• House Judiciary committee expanded role into impeachment investigation
• Schiff given add'l powers to hold hearings how he wishes (via open hearing or not)

so nothing really in the resolution about the rights of the minority party to participate, call witnesses, etc.

More of the same.

4stringAg said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

So basically:

• All committees continue with their ongoing investigations
• House Judiciary committee expanded role into impeachment investigation
• Schiff given add'l powers to hold hearings how he wishes (via open hearing or not)

so nothing really in the resolution about the rights of the minority party to participate, call witnesses, etc.

More of the same.

---

What a clown show...

4stringAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I'm convinced none of this is about impeachment and actual removal but rather the House Dems trying to give their weak ass candidate pool winner a card to play during the campaign. The candidates they have are not going to get elected on the basis of their policy positions or electability so they need some help in the form of running against an "impeached" president. The media of course plays a big role in pushing this.

---

Government funded opposition research, just like Mueller.

Quote:

---

Current Senate makeup is 51 R's, 47 D's, and 2 I's who caucus with the Dems.

---

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Independent

---

LOL. Got the number wrong. Still, the point stands if the Dems can convince a few Rs to vote for removal they can claim it is bipartisan support for removal.

---

They'll need to get more than 2-3. Romney is a yes vote and everyone knows it.

If they want it to mean something, they'd need someone like Cruz to vote for removal.

4stringAg said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

So basically:

• All committees continue with their ongoing investigations
• House Judiciary committee expanded role into impeachment investigation
• Schiff given add'l powers to hold hearings how he wishes (via open hearing or not)

so nothing really in the resolution about the rights of the minority party to participate, call witnesses, etc.

More of the same.

---

Trying to claim it is a real impeachment inquiry so the Supreme Court will give them all Mueller grand jury material and force Trump to turn over anything else they demand.

EKUAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I'm convinced none of this is about impeachment and actual removal but rather the House Dems trying to give their weak ass candidate pool winner a card to play during the campaign. The candidates they have are not going to get elected on the basis of their policy positions or electability so they need some help in the form of running against an "impeached" president. The media of course plays a big role in pushing this.

---

Government funded opposition research, just like Mueller.

Quote:

---

Current Senate makeup is 51 R's, 47 D's, and 2 I's who caucus with the Dems.

---

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Independent

---

LOL. Got the number wrong. Still, the point stands if the Dems can convince a few Rs to vote for removal they can claim it is bipartisan support for removal.

---

More than a few. Have to get to 67 to remove.

---

I'm not talking about actual removal. The House Dems know they won't get that. I'm talking about them wanting bipartisan voting for removal so they can claim that the vote for Trump's removal (while it will fail) was still a bipartisan effort. To me anyway, that's important to their long term narrative.

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Just because he can't be prosecuted doesn't mean he can break the law. It just means it's up to congress to investigate and impeach if necessary.

---

Yes, a president can break the law. Trump hasn't broken the law. No one is hiding behind the constitution in this argument.

If you want to argue Trump conduct in Ukraine is legal but impeachable, have at it. But you are just wrong if you say he is guilty of a crime.

---

The bolder part is what the libs don't get. They hate him so much they want this to be true.

It simply isn't.

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I am not aware of any law Trump has broken.

If a president breaks a federal law when he is in office and Congress does nothing, that does not prevent the next president's department of justice from indicting that former president.

---

Didn't the SDNY get Cohen on some trumped up campaign charge? Are you saying they could go after Trump when he leaves office?

---

Are you saying they cant?


If SDNY decided Trump committed a crime, yes they could go after him when he leave office. And even if Trump had a statute of limitations defense, that does not mean they can't go after him or that a president a can legally break statutes.

I am still 95% certain that this "investigation" happened the second that Trump mentioned 2 words... "Crowdstrike" and "server". What about any of the stuff he talked about will actually bring someone down.

He asked Ukraine to talk with Barr regarding an investigation into possible corruption, which the US and Ukraine signed into law/agreement while Biden was a Senator and Clinton was President.

An investigation does not mean indictment. However, a potential server that was supposedly destroyed being in a formerly/still corrupt country has all sorts of ramifications for those within its memory.

This still stems to FisaGate, the "Russians" (Ukrainians), and the 2016 election that the anointed lost. All of this other stuff is being used to muddy the waters for when that piece of machinery pops up somewhere to accuse whoever of going after it for political gain.

Let them bring impeachment. The gathering and release of evidence and the questioning of these actors will be a site to be held. Nothing Trump has done has been without an element of risk, but it seems that he has been a few steps ahead for a while now.

Let the House hang themselves on this.

Damn, I don't have the time to keep up.

Checking - Is Trump still the POTUS?

House Democrats release impeachment resolution

Public hearings will be held by the Intelligence Committee

AND

Awesome. Let's just go ahead and impeach so McConnell can get an acquittal done in a week or two.

Bo Darville said:

---

Awesome. Let's just go ahead and impeach so McConnell can get an acquittal done in a week or two.

---

I agree...let's get on with it...

Show the cards and let's deal with this in an open and fair manner...

I really just want to see Graham 2.0 swatting Schiff's dumbass fake crimes to the side and moving on.