Can impeachment be legitimate if no laws are broken?

The issue is whether or not you believe impeachment should only be an option if a President violates some law.

Bear in mind that when the Constitution was passed there were no Federal laws that COULD be broken by a President.

 

Violation of a criminal law is not a requirement for impeachment.

 

Butthurt from losing an election is not grounds for impeachment. As we are witnessing today.

 

*LOL*

Keep beating that (fake) dead horse, trumpers.

 

Did you vote yes, impeach him for beating Hillary? Come on, now. We all know that's the ONLY crime Trump committed. (Well, that and being unbeatable in 2020) #TRUMP2020

 

"... if no laws were broken?"

Not according to the constitution. But you have to understand that when a large enough segment of society loses its mind, as it did in France in 1789, and as it did in the USA in November 2016, the word "legitimacy"means nothing. There is nothing but raw power. Look out for yourself and your loved ones. Nobody else will.

 

So says the mob, and you can't reason with a mob.

Thankfully, there are a few Democrats who know the law:

Article 2, Section 4: 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.

Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

VARNEY: Is it dead on arrival in the Senate? I'm assuming that there will be an impeachment vote, and the House will say, yes, impeach him. Then it goes to the Senate. Dead on arrival?

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

 

You are absolutely right, Captain! The House of Representatives can impeach any president for any reason it likes -- real or imagined! There doesn't have to be any proof or evidence of any kind of 'wrong-doing'. It simply does not (NOT) matter -- all it takes is a majority vote among House members and just like that, -- a president is impeached!

The "nut-cutting", however, is in the SENATE. THAT is where a trial is conducted, charges are levied, a case is brought, evidence and proof are presented, etc., etc. The SENATE can remove a president from office... whereas, what the House does is little but schauspiel and political drama.


."Stop complaining! You weren't charged admission...."

 

legitimate being entirely subjective, I voted no. I wont consider it legitimate if he's impeached for doing his job.

 

Then prove it, we need a smoking gun , like a blue dress

 

More like butthurt the Dotart got busted extorting an other president with tax money for his personal political gains.
We got the transcript, remember.

 

What's the crime?

 

You can't just say "extortion" and convict. You have to cite a specific law and show that all the elements are proved.

 

Remember, Democrats don't have to prove ANYTHING in the House of Representatives! The only thing needed to impeach any president, in any political party, is a simple majority vote. There doesn't even really need to be a 'reason' to impeach... elemental, wild-eyed hatred will do nicely....

I think of it this way -- The House is low-brow, dumbed-down 'daytime' TV programming. But, the SENATE is real Shakespearean drama!

 

You've probably got toilet paper, too. What's your point?

 

Do you think the senate would convict and remove if the majority were Democrats?

 

That is an excellent hypothetical question, and I'll be honest enough to say that I cannot put forward a reasoned answer to it. I'd like to think that anyone, Democrat or Republican, would rise above the cesspool of purely partisan politics when tasked with making decisions so momentous and long-lasting in their effects as the removal of a president from office... but maybe I'm 'thinking' too much....

. "I WANT NO MORE THINKING!" (One of O'toole's best lines as Henry II in "Becket")

 

Brett Kavanaugh got exactly one Democrat vote in the senate.

One.

Trump may get one or two democrats to be absent or to abstain. There's no doubt in my mind they would remove Trump if they were in the majority. For what crime? I have no idea. You know why they are so focused on "quid pro quo"? They think it's a constitutional ground for impeachment.

It isn't. Not standing alone, anyway.

 

It is ironic that the Democrat elite, which revels in such high opinions of its own scholastic achievements, forgets that most of today's Americans under about fifty years old have been so poorly educated that they don't even know (or care) what the hell "quid pro quo" means.

Hint: to all such high-minded "Limousine-Liberals" -- don't get too far ahead of the ignorant 'cattle' you seek to herd along your path....

. "Why... Johnny Ringo! I found out you only made a C-minus in Latin!"

 

I got s question for all you guys. What do you make of the continual claim by Adam Schiff and his cronies that they have a constitutional duty to conduct this hearing?

The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 5

That doesn't establish a duty, but rather a prerogative and an authority. I think this is an overlooked dynamic in the public debate. Some people, people like me for instance, see the impeachment as a politically motivated abuse of as congressional prerogative.

 

IMHO, the "duty" reference is bullshit. However, ANY group of House members who can muster a majority can hold impeachment hearings for any reason that amuses them. Please understand this (because you can bet your life that the Democrats do) -- the House of Representatives can impeach a President of the United States for ANY reason it likes! ANY reason!

There doesn't have to be 'rhyme or reason' in what a simple majority in the House decides to do; there doesn't have to be evidence, proof, or logic; there doesn't even have the be the aura of 'constitutionality' about the proceedings, they manner in which they are conducted, or anything else! The Schiff/Pelosi majority can do any damn thing they like regarding impeachment.

But, the SENATE -- ah! That's where charges must be brought, evidence and proof must be submitted, and a vote taken in order to REMOVE a president from office.

As I've seen it so far, the whole Democrat effort has been to smear Trump with cubic-yards of far-fetched nonsense, while completely ignoring the actual SUBSTANCE of the corruption that Trump was investigating in the first place BEFORE we dumped millions more dollars in a rotten country like Ukraine. And that SUBSTANCE was the "Mount Everest" of corruption -- JOE BIDEN AND HIS CHILD!

. "Hey, I'M having big fun -- so why isn't everybody else...?!"

 

I dunno how you can not see this as bribing a foreign government with our taxes for his own personal political gain. And bribing is a crime.

 

The transcript aint toilet paper. sowwy.

 

And I don't know how you can not see that it ain't.

The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.

That didn't happen. There are other bribery statutes, but they are even less applicable to these facts.

It isn't even close. We don't decide legal issues on the basis of popular opinion. Sowwy.

Of course, as Pollycy suggests, you can make up a new crime, waive the prohibition on ex post facto laws, and apply it retroactively. Not constitutionally of course, but we gotta get Trump out of office by any means necessary, right?

 

Trump gave it a good try. How about you go and give it a try to bribe a cop out of getting a ticket. See how that goes.