Same synopsis I viewed it as. To make it simple, they are looking for a crime to happen and charge him with, rather than review a crime that has. The fact that there was impeachment talk before the election IS germane to the issue of a pre-conceived faux impeachment proceedings. I think this will blow up in front of the crowd if tried and will rip this country apart if the democrats try to overturn the will of the states. By the way, nice analysis. I am impressed.
I think they would like Pence even less than the Donald if he were removed or if Trump left. I got a feeling Pence would be a MF. to the democrats.
And the cost for this Witch hunt" is HUGE, and a waste of taxpayers money. Trips to Key Largo are cheap by comparison.
Hard to say what would happen. With Nixon that IS what happened and why he wasn't impeached. Lets not forget Nixon had not been charged with a crime. With Clinton, even though he HAD committed felonies the Democrats circled the wagons and refused to act and remove him. They certainly could have told him the same, you're outta here and Gore will now be President. But they said perjury and obstruction of justice do not warrant removal. If some impeachable offense arises Trump would he resign if the Republicans told him they no longer supported him?
Disagree all you want, but you are incorrect. "Unacceptable" is equivalent to "maladministration" which the framers roundly and soundly rejected. The framers absolutely did not allow congress to overturn an election because they did not like the result.
Why would the courts do such a thing? That is exactly what I and the DOJ are saying and what the constitution makes clear.
Well there is little corrollation between an impeachment and a courtroom trial. The impeachment is a finding of guilt. The House tries the charges and votes on the guilt of them. That is why a person impeached remains impeached even if the Senate does not vote to remove. The Senate action is more like a sentencing hearing where the "jury" decides what sentence but the Constitution limits that decision to removal or not removal. Can you imagine a trial where the jury gets to decide what evidence it will look at, how many witnesses it will allow and even how many days it will last? That is what happened in the Clinton impeachment.
That is "conviction" in the Senate which only means their vote to remove from office for the acts for which he was impeached. It has nothing to do with a judicial proceeding. He can't be prosecuted until removed from office.
That's just proof Clinton is an adulterer and a liar....which was never news. We all knew he was a scumbag the moment he looked Americans in the eye and told them he didn't inhale. That said, it's not a crime which is why he wasn't impeached over a dress. Feel free to keep smiling.
The term conviction in Article II, Section 4 means conviction of the impeachment. The house impeaches; the senate convicts. The house impeached Clinton; the senate did not convict him, hence he remained in office.
I checked. "Malfeasance" is no where to be found in the constitution. What is the difference between malfeasance and maladministration?
maladministration 2: incorrect administration malfeasance 1. the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law;wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).Compare misfeasance(def 2),nonfeasance. Degree?
And even that is misleading as the Senate has one judgement only, to remove or not remove. It is indisputable Clinton was guilty of the charges in the articles of impeachment, the Senate had to decide should he be removed or not. Some even tried to get a censure instead but the Constitution is quite clear. AND the Constitution is quite clear that the person is STILL subject to any criminal prosecution there is no double jeopardy. Bottom line is a President or judge or other impeachable officer can be impeached and removed for just about anything the Congress decides is impeachable and the person would have no other legal recourse. Of course those members of Congress would then face the voters.
Unacceptable to whom? The people that didn’t vote for him? The next vote is the cure in that case. As for Brennan. He is his own worst enemy. Let us know the last time a CIA director worked explicitly against a Presidential candidate come President.
Very accurate post and I will comment on just a couple of portions of it. While congress does not need a reason to impeach the president it goes without saying that if they set that precedent too low then it will ruin our political system, destroy the presidency, and invalidate congress. This goes for all federal officers. Its one of the most amazing parts of our political system in my opinion...this massive power that congress can wield but wisely almost never uses it. Its similar to our electors being able to reverse the decision of an election with no reason needed other than that's what they feel is right. Its also almost never used. That to me says a lot about who we are as a nation, what our Founders intended and realized that we were capable of. You are also correct that the president is essentially untouchable in criminal cases while in office. Charges can be filed and a case started but it basically stops at that point unless the president permits it to move forward. And this is one of the reasons the congress was given the power to impeach. Its a very beautiful system with enough safeguards built in to prevent abuse.
And legitimate criminal breaches of the law are required for that, not simply "I hate that guy" or "He hurt my feelers."
That is correct. The president is subject to criminal prosecution, but only after he leaves or is removed from office. He cannot be prosecuted while in office, and the DOJ has officially ruled twice that neither can he be indicted. There are strict guidelines from the framers for what constitutes an impeachable offense. But it is still up to congress to follow or not. And a court case against their impeachment would really be dicey and unruleable. I agree that Clinton was guilty of the articles of his impeachment, but whether they rose to impeachable offenses is questionable.
