Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Let the Debate begin
Joined
·
6,378 Posts
What does it take to remove a President?

Let History be your guide. Bill Clinton committed crimes that people
have done time in prison for, yet was not removed.

Both Republicans and Democrats voted for Clinton's impeachment
but he was not removed.

So we must conclude that Donald Trump's removal from office
would need to be because he committed worse crimes than
Bill Clinton, yet we all know that was not the case.
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
29,796 Posts
What does it take to remove a President?

Let History be your guide. Bill Clinton committed crimes that people
have done time in prison for, yet was not removed.

Both Republicans and Democrats voted for Clinton's impeachment
but he was not removed.

So we must conclude that Donald Trump's removal from office
would need to be because he committed worse crimes than
Bill Clinton, yet we all know that was not the case.
The impeachment is essentially a formal accusation. The Senate found Bill Clinton 'Not Guilty' on both charges that were the focus of his Senate trial. So the conclusion should NOT be that Trump must commit worse crimes than Bill Clinton. The conclusion must be that Trump must be convicted.
 

·
Why do you ask? 2 Dogs!
Joined
·
13,586 Posts
It really doesn't matter what Napolitano says

Talking heads just talk

What matters is what the Senate says


As far as Clinton, it was the "Democrats" in the Senate that found him "not guilty" regardless of testimony, they held the majority.

Was it fair or political?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,579 Posts
The most obvious answer is: he would have had to commit an actionable crime in violation of law....which he apparently hasnt. Unlike the Bidens. Unlike the Clintons. Fortunately, they are about to get subpoenas, and none of them have immunity. And Obama....he might, though I doubt it.

And the DNC leadership called this out in an election year.....what utter fools.
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
What should it take to impeach a President?
What does high crimes and mistermeanors actually mean?

In my opinion, the only reason to impeach is treason, missapropriation (Stealing), and capital muder.
The Clintons were guilty of all three, Trump is just an arrogant ass from New York.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Well DP, tell us what it takes to, say, get 'Saint' Ardern (the NZ equivalent of) impeached for sexual assaults in her office by her staff that she covered up; tell us what it takes to get 'Wanker' Jones charged and in court for bribery and corruption with the 3B$ slush fund; and then we can have a realistic conversation about our own country's deficiencies first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,958 Posts
The impeachment is essentially a formal accusation. The Senate found Bill Clinton 'Not Guilty' on both charges that were the focus of his Senate trial. So the conclusion should NOT be that Trump must commit worse crimes than Bill Clinton.
Ok

The conclusion must be that Trump must be convicted.
Doing Ok. Then you had to try thinking and went of the rails.
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
29,796 Posts
Ok



Doing Ok. Then you had to try thinking and went of the rails.
I didn't say I wanted him to be convicted or that he ought to be convicted. Only that he can't be removed from office without a conviction just like Bill Clinton wasn't removed from office because he wasn't convicted.

For the record though, as much as it pleases me that Trump(the man) is being harassed because he's infectious human waste and deserves it, Trump(the President) should not be convicted for the charges that are arrayed against him. Not unless we intend to hold every future President to a standard of behavior that no past President has ever achieved.
 

·
Comic, not your lawyer!
Joined
·
14,694 Posts
I used to admire Judge Nap. I thought he was a logical and sound person, and used to provide great insight and seemed to be in favor of Trump. I remember speculating that Trump might tap him for a SCOTUS seat.

I wonder if he developed some animosity.

Now I can't tolerate listening to him. His legal views are so incorrect and biased against Trump it's sickening.

The bottom line is that the Dems have been out for Trump since election night. They have fabricated investigations predicated on lies. They have smeared Trump alleging serious crimes.

And when it came down to it, all they have is hearsay nonsense that amounts to not a single crime alleged. The "obstruction of Congress" is a non-thing. Trump is allowed to legal recourse in the Courts. He's not required to cooperate with Congress. That's called SEPARATION OF POWERS and it is by design.

The other nonsense, "abuse of power" is likewise silly. Trump's JOB is the HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH - I.E. LAW ENFORCEMENT! He is fully entitled to investigate or delegate the investigation of crimes. And working with foreign leaders before we GIVE THEM MONEY to ensure there's no corruption is fully legitimate.

Trump's behavior in a conversation with a foreign leader is probably replicated hundreds of times in every administration in history. Good relations, trading favors, etc.

The real crimes were the Bidens' behavior, both the VP and the son.

Unlike Bill Clinton, who committed PERJURY which is a real crime, among probably many other crimes and serious moral shortcomings (wasting government resources to further illicit adultery on government time, and then lying about it and trying to obstruct justice and force others to destroy evidence and/or lie to cover up, and himself lying under oath), DJT has not committed anything close to a crime.

This is all political hackery theater and nothing more. Unfortunately the tax payers and Trump are the victims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,532 Posts
The real truth of the matter is the only opinions that really matter are those of five SCOTUS members. In the very unlikely event that the Senate voted to remove him, the case would go to the Supreme Court on the claim that he can not be removed for non-criminal behavior, i.e., a claim that Congress acted beyond its constitutional authority.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,307 Posts
The real truth of the matter is the only opinions that really matter are those of five SCOTUS members. In the very unlikely event that the Senate voted to remove him, the case would go to the Supreme Court on the claim that he can not be removed for non-criminal behavior, i.e., a claim that Congress acted beyond its constitutional authority.
Pure fantasy. Your worship of judicial tyranny is something to behold.

At its heart, impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Proof is the fact that the impeachment process is not settled by the SC but by the members of the contract, the States, as represented by the Senate.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. To presume the SC has the power despite the Constitution saying otherwise rather than the States assembled in the Senate is to suppose the Creature is superior to its Creator!

The presumed power these 5 in robes have in a country of over 300,000,000 shows just how effective indoctrination is. :upsidedown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,532 Posts
Pure fantasy. Your worship of judicial tyranny is something to behold.

At its heart, impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Proof is the fact that the impeachment process is not settled by the SC but by the members of the contract, the States, as represented by the Senate.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. To presume the SC has the power despite the Constitution saying otherwise rather than the States assembled in the Senate is to suppose the Creature is superior to its Creator!

The presumed power these 5 in robes have in a country of over 300,000,000 shows just how effective indoctrination is. :upsidedown:
The enactment of laws is a political process as well, the House, Senate, and President each have to agree to the enactment of a new federal law. Yet 5 members of the SCOTUS can overrule the 435 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and the President and strike down that law.

The Constitution's impeachment clause lays out what a President can be impeached for. Are you claiming that Congress can ignore that and impeach for anything it wants, and the President has no recourse? I don't think that is the case, but in the end, it will be SCOTUS that decides if they have that power or not, just like it gave itself the power of judicial review.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,307 Posts
Yet 5 members of the SCOTUS can overrule the 435 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and the President and strike down that law.
You will not find that in the Constitution = Judicial Tyranny.


"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451


"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
--Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,532 Posts
You will not find that in the Constitution = Judicial Tyranny.
No you won't find it in the Constitution, but the other two branches consented to give the Court that power. If the SCOTUS ruled that its unconstitutional to impeach a president for something other than that laid out by the Constitution:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

I believe the other to branches would consent to that decision. If you allow Congress unfettered power to remove a president, than there is really only two branches of government.

Let me ask you this Peter, what if the Senate is only able to get 55 votes for impeachment, do you think Congress can say that this is good enough and declare the President convicted? If they did, do you think the SCOTUS would have the power to overturn that?
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,307 Posts
No you won't find it in the Constitution, but the other two branches consented to give the Court that power. QUOTE]

That's untrue. Such judicial usurpation is not and was not consented to. That is why its called tyranny or usurpation.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top