Which Impeachment charge to use?

Which charge would most be the most effective in sounding criminal?

  • Bribery

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • Extortion

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Obstruction

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Dereliction of Duty

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abuse of Power

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Democrats involved in the Impeachment process reportedly are having a hard time deciding what to say the President did that is impeachable in the absence of any actual crime. As a result some of the suggestions are being tested out. The poll here lists alternatives that they have debated using. Which do you think would be the most saleable?
 
Last edited:

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What he did could be seen as either bribery or extortion. Personally I think it’s extortion considering it was a demand made under duress. Obstruction is a completely separate charge that he should also be impeached on multiple counts of, so this should really have been a multiple choice poll.

Also you missed out a number of other crimes he’s committed such as witness intimidation.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Why does there have to be just one? Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act, which turned into eleven articles including "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions."
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Impeachment is not a criminal process. In a civil proceeding the verdict is determined by a preponderance of the evidence. However, impeachment is, above all else, political.
Not according to the Constitution. And if the House majority has any hopes of the Senate taking up the action decided upon by the House, they had better find something that sounds like a crime. They are very much aware of this.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi albion,

Why would you limit it to one? As has been pointed out by many, although perhaps not on Fox, which may be your go to station, this is not about assigning criminality so much as it is about impeaching a politician that some feel has overstepped his allowed bounds in dealing with certain issues. Now, has President Trump committed criminal acts? I'm confident that he has and maybe somewhere down the road someone will be able to hold him accountable for those acts. New York state does seem to be making some inroads into that matter.

However, an impeachment of a publicly elected official is not so much about finding someone criminally liable. There are a lot of things that an elected official can do, for example issues of moral turpitude, which may not be criminally chargeable, but for which I wouldn't want my children to be exposed to. As I think we have seen with several previous impeachments, no one goes to jail. Richard Nixon did not go to jail. He was not charged as a criminal. Bill Clinton did not go to jail. He was not charged as a criminal.

I wonder how much knowledge one has of what impeachment is really all about when their phonograph needle gets stuck in some audio file that keeps repeating 'criminal'. They just don't seem to understand what the Constitution's allowance for impeachment is really all about. hint: it has very little to do with one being a criminal, although being charged with criminal acts is a just cause for impeachment.

What criminal acts could Donald Trump be accused of and possibly found guilty? Extortion, financial enrichment by use of his position, obstruction of justice.

As far as Donald Trump going to jail, that's going to be up to some larger court. As far as his being removed from office for the dreadful way in which he has handled his job as president, I'm all for that.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Democrats involved in the Impeachment process reportedly are having a hard time deciding what to say the President did that is impeachable in the absence of any actual crime.
Anyone else feel this claim lacks credibility?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Democrats involved in the Impeachment process reportedly are having a hard time deciding what to say the President did that is impeachable in the absence of any actual crime. As a result some of the suggestions are being tested out. The poll here lists alternatives that they have debated using. Which do you think would be the most saleable?

I voted for "abuse of power" because it encompasses bribery, obstruction of justice, and his clear intent. However, there is always more than one article of impeachment. Andrew Johnson had 11 AOI. Bill Clinton originally had four AOI. So this should have been a muliple choice poll.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Agree
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Hi albion,

Why would you limit it to one?
Well, because that is the way it seems that matter is being approached by Reps. Swalwell and the others who have been the most desirous of coming up with something. I suppose that a shotgun approach with a batch of complaints would weaken, not strengthen, the credibility of any impeachment resolution coming from the committee.

As has been pointed out by many, although perhaps not on Fox, which may be your go to station
When people say something ridiculous like that and intend to be insulting, I know I'm in for a lecture instead of a discussion. And it's laughable how out to date--or out of touch--Liberals are about Fox News anyway.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zanting
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, because that is the way it seems that matter is being approached by Reps. Swalwell and the others who have been the most desirous of coming up with something. I suppose that a shotgun approach with a batch of complaints would weaken, not strengthen, the credibility of any impeachment resolution coming from the committee.


When people say something ridiculous like that and intend to be insulting, I know I'm in for a lecture instead of a discussion. And it's laughable how out to date--or out of touch--Liberals are about Fox News anyway.

Hi albion,

Well, I guess we'll just wait and see how all this plays out. As far as your 'knowing' that you're in for a lecture rather than a discussion, did the remainder of my post fulfill your prophetic abilities?

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

BryanJohnMaloney

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
640
364
58
Carmel
✟25,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Democrats involved in the Impeachment process reportedly are having a hard time deciding what to say the President did that is impeachable in the absence of any actual crime. As a result some of the suggestions are being tested out. The poll here lists alternatives that they have debated using. Which do you think would be the most saleable?

Have you ever read the Constitution? What are the Constitutionally stated grounds for impeachment? Do you even know what they are?
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,723.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Democrats involved in the Impeachment process reportedly are having a hard time deciding what to say the President did that is impeachable in the absence of any actual crime. As a result some of the suggestions are being tested out. The poll here lists alternatives that they have debated using. Which do you think would be the most saleable?
I think the Dems will go with abuse of power but the question will be asked if they're not the ones who are rightly guilty of doing that. The Durham report is soon to be released too. Won't probably look good for the Dems to show that they're the party or group who have integrity.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Impeachment is not a criminal process. In a civil proceeding the verdict is determined by a preponderance of the evidence. However, impeachment is, above all else, political.

There is no politics in the impeachment process. It is all about making sure the President is doing only his job - never bribing, obstructing justice, extorting, lying under oath (which I would expect Trump to do) or commiting any other "high crimes or misdemeanors." The political part is Republicans fearing job security because they voted for Trump.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi albion,

Under the Constitution, the grounds for impeachment can fall under four different categories. They are: bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors. The Constitution was written in the late 1700's, and so we must look for understanding of those terms as they would have been understood in the late 1700's. There have been people who have investigated the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and have found that it was a phrase that had fairly popular use in English law. Using the understanding that the framers of the Constitution would likely have had for the term in the late 1700's, we find that there were quite a lot of possible reasons for which one might be accused of having participated in these 'high crimes and misdemeanors' than outright breaking of a written law.

The general rule that drew a thread pretty much through all of its uses in that day, was some activity or purpose of an elected official that was not in keeping with what was best for the people or the country. Here is how it has been defined previously: "High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice.

Here is a site that discusses how the phrase actually came to be written into our Constitution and how it was defined and understood, in that day.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

However, as the investigation works its way through the impeachment process, the process itself may also, just as it did with Clinton, draw out other crimes. For example: One of the charges of impeachment against President Clinton was that he had lied to investigators. That charge couldn't have come about without the investigation having been started. Similarly, we now have President Trump making a fairly strong effort to induce, coerce or threaten people who have been called to testify, to not testify. That activity, brought about by the investigation itself, now makes the argument that the president may be obstructing justice, which is a crime. We have already found that Sonderlin has lied under oath. If the idea of his not being truthful with what he said under oath can be tied to any communication that he had with the administration, then again, the president could be charged with suborning perjury.

What seems to be coming to the front now is that Giuliani is putting himself in the position to be blamed for a lot of the 'request for investigation'. However, if, much like we found in the Michael Cohen testimony, it is found that the president encouraged or directed him to make these requests on the president's behalf, then the president becomes guilty of extortion.

So, a lot of this is going to depend on 'how' the people who are given the responsibility to make the decision of guilt or innocence are going to define these actions and where the dollar stopped, or more precisely, where the effort to do these things started. Did Rudy Giuliani just wake up one morning and think to himself, "I think I'll see if I can get Zelensky to open up an investigation into the Bidens.' Or, did this all start with the president, in private conversation, tell Mr. Giuliani, "Look, you should try to see if you can get Zelensky to open up an investigation into the Bidens."

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Democrats involved in the Impeachment process reportedly are having a hard time deciding what to say the President did that is impeachable in the absence of any actual crime. As a result some of the suggestions are being tested out. The poll here lists alternatives that they have debated using. Which do you think would be the most saleable?
What is your source?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi again albion,

I expect that by now you've decided that all of my posts are 'off topic' and, therefore, undeserving of any response from you. That's ok, but I'll put this out there for others who might want a more balanced approach to your position.

Well, because that is the way it seems that matter is being approached by Reps. Swalwell and the others who have been the most desirous of coming up with something. I suppose that a shotgun approach with a batch of complaints would weaken, not strengthen, the credibility of any impeachment resolution coming from the committee.

As has been pointed out, there are often several articles of impeachment brought against an elected official. I think the reasoning is the same as with criminal cases. Often times the state will stack up a list of charges against someone because they believe that while not all the charges may result in a guilty charge, some of the charges will. Remember the O.J. trial? Similarly, in an impeachment, an article of impeachment can be written for each of several possible infractions and such a practice is not usually, as you claim, an effort to weaken a position, but rather to strengthen said position.

It was a good effort on your part to make such an argument, but I don't think the premise rests on a solid foundation of historical proof.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cow451
Upvote 0