Which Impeachment charge to use?

[hedrick]

Are you even aware that Schiff's Intelligence Committee is only one of several House committees holding impeachment inquiries? So far, this one has got all the thunder, but the other ones are chugging away. Who knows what the Ways and Means Committee will find out once New York State forwards Donald's tax returns to it.

There’s reason to suspect criminal behavior. It’s not clear whether that’s a proper matter for impeachment. I guess if he takes the position that he can’t be investigated by normal processes, impeachment might be the only choice. Assuming we don’t want the President to be above the Law.

 

[A Realist]

There is no politics in the impeachment process.

Let's see what Alexander Hamilton - as one who actually had a hand in writing the U.S. Constitution - says about the impeachment process:
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

 

[A Realist]

What claim should they go with, having no actual impeachable offense to lay at the president's feet?

What do you deem an "impeachable offense"?

 

[hedrick]

Let's see what Alexander Hamilton - as one who actually had a hand in writing the U.S. Constitution - says about the impeachment process:
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Yes, although that’s not what many people mean by political at the moment. They mean partisan.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

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 find it funny that Trump supporters are amused about what charges Trump will be impeached for instead of finding it the least worrisome that there are some many choices.

 

[JohnAshton]

Does witness intimidation fit under #2, or is that a separate count?

It's an example of #2.

 

[Bobber]

I find it funny that Trump supporters are amused about what charges Trump will be impeached for instead of finding it the least worrisome that there are some many choices.

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or maybe making a typo mistake on twitter? Wasn't CNN making a big deal out of that?

 

[miamited]

Hi JW,

You wrote:

I find it funny that Trump supporters are amused about what charges Trump will be impeached for instead of finding it the least worrisome that there are some (sic) many choices.

Then you have those supporters who just outright deny that anything serious has occurred by referencing the ridiculous:

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or maybe making a typo mistake on twitter? Wasn't CNN making a big deal out of that?

There is a biblical principle in this: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

These folks have made it a mental exercise of their mind to just not even see all the things that are happening.

I'm amused that during the campaign to nominate the Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that if Donald Trump won the nomination it would lead to the destruction of the Republican party. While there is some evidence that such an eventuality is actually coming to pass, Sen. Graham is now one of President Trump's most ardent supporters.

So, just like in a court of law when a witness is found to have lied or told a different account of some event, the opposing attorney will ask, "were you lying then or are you lying now?" But the South Carolinians who support Sen. Graham don't even acknowledge that Sen. Graham ever stood solidly against Donald Trump.

There truly are none so blind as those who will not see. While I certainly don't see this issue as the 'great delusion', it certainly shows how easily people are deluded and often by their own efforts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[wing2000]

I'm amused that during the campaign to nominate the Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that if Donald Trump won the nomination it would lead to the destruction of the Republican party. While there is some evidence that such an eventuality is actually coming to pass, Sen. Graham is now one of President Trump's most ardent supporters.

The Republican Party is already destroyed. It should be renamed to the Trump Nationalist Party IMO.

 

[DaisyDay]

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or maybe making a typo mistake on twitter? Wasn't CNN making a big deal out of that?

No, like the ones listed in the OP.

And I don't believe Donald is a sidewalk-spitter, whatever his other faults may be.

 

[A Realist]

Then you have those supporters who just outright deny that anything serious has occurred by referencing the ridiculous:

...because they have nothing intelligent to add, nor do they have the understanding to do so.

 

[Albion]

What do you deem an "impeachable offense"?

That could be a complicated matter, but for starters I would think it ought to be an actual offense, not something that many presidents have done in the course of their duties with no outcry about "Impeach the *%*$! immediately being taken up by one political party only and one that had already vowed to find something or other sufficient to justify starting impeachment proceedings. How would you answer the question?

 

[A Realist]

How would you answer the question?

I'd answer that question like Gerald Ford did back in 1970 when he was House Minority Leader:
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history"

 

[Albion]

I'd answer that question like Gerald Ford did back in 1970 when he was House Minority Leader:
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history"

Because the framers of the Constitution assumed a high level of responsibility on the part of the members of Congress--not what we have today--they did not specify a lot of details, assuming that frivolous and purely partisan charges would never be the cause of any impeachment.

The statement you quote here is factually correct, of course, because impeachment can be based on little more than "we want him out," BUT your post didn't seem to be asking that. I took it for a request about a valid reason.

 

[SimplyMe]

That could be a complicated matter, but for starters I would think it ought to be an actual offense, not something that many presidents have done in the course of their duties with no outcry about "Impeach the *%*$! immediately being taken up by one political party only and one that had already vowed to find something or other sufficient to justify starting impeachment proceedings. How would you answer the question?

I'm curious, what other presidents "have done in the course of their duties" what it is claimed, and evidence seems to be supporting, what Trump did?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interestingly enough, the answer "abuse of power" won the poll (as of this time), and that was the most probable choice according to Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, from which the story about the discussion being held among leaders of the impeachment effort came.

What do you make of the results from ChristianForCat's nonexclusive poll?

 

[Yarddog]

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?

Bribery and abuse of power are both pretty clear.

 

[hedrick]

I think there are several independent charges:

• abuse of power is probably the best one for the Ukraine incident
• obstruction of justice, based on Mueller's report
• contempt of the Constitution, based on his attempt to prevent people from testifying to Congress and failure to turn over documents