What is the threshold to be met to warrant the removal of a President?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jan 12, 2020.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,510
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I didn't. But you telling me to learn "what context means" is priceless....
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the threshold to be met to warrant the removal of a President?

    A fair trial in the Senate with the Senators looking at all the evidence and hearing all relevant testimony from witnesses.

    In a Senate impeachment trial the House managers are the prosecutors. In the case of the President, the White House provides the defense.

    Both the prosecution and the defense will provide opening statements. The opening statement by the House managers is not evidence and should be treated as such. Trials require witnesses and documentation when appropriate. That is evidence.

    If Republicans in the Senate deny the prosecutors the evidence they require, the Senate trial becomes a cover-up.
     
  3. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,900
    Likes Received:
    5,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it hard to fathom the love/hate Trump atmospherics from both sides of the aisle. That may be because I'm not a party animal or that I don't love nor hate Trump. I'm certainly not comfortable with him as president, but I wouldn't have been comfortable with Hillary either. That's why I voted against both. As I said numerous times, I won't be voting for Trump in 2020 either. But that doesn't mean I will automatically vote Democratic. That depends on who their candidate is. I never had any qualms voting third party if I don't like either major party candidate.

    I haven't been able to determine whether the impeachment of Trump is nothing more than a partisan political vendetta, revenge for losing an election or if he had indeed committed crimes that warrant removal. Way too much political propaganda coming from both sides to be able to determine fact from fiction. So if Trump goes, fine. If he doesn't, I'm fine with that also. Bill Clinton's impeachment was easy for me to make up my mind. He needed to stay. That was impeachment overkill in my book. Bill's impeachment was 100% partisan in my view, purely stupid and unwarranted. With Nixon, everyone knew he covered up the crime, the burglary. whether he knew about it or authorized it, that was left up in the air. Subject to debate. Those two were easy. Trump isn't. It may be easy for Republicans and democrats to make up their minds, but not for the average independent Joe who isn't affiliated with either party nor in the pro or anti Trump camps.

    Perhaps this makes me unpatriotic in the sense I'm not anti Trump or can't decide one way or the other on Trump's removal. I want something concrete. That in my opinion hasn't been shown. But then again, Watergate was a crime easily understood. Lying to congress, obstruction of congress, abuse of power is a lot harder to get a grasp on.

    Anyway, good luck on your wish. I highly doubt it will happen. This political era of divisiveness, polarization and ultra high partisanship has left me high and dry. At times I want nothing to do with it.
     
  4. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,200
    Likes Received:
    37,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then again I wasn't explaining what CONTEXT was only that you asked for some and I simply elaborated on what I thought was relevant context.. Damn Golem, for a self proclaimed expert debater you have been going through a serious rough patch over the last few months.. Might want to reflect a bit, regroup, energize and re-emerge once again in all your self perceived glory ;) ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯
     
  5. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    McConnell's ludicrous position is that the House should have subpoenaed the witnesses they wanted. The Senate should not have to do the job for the House.

    Democratic leaders in the House did not want to drag this out for months. They wanted to impeach Trump before Christmas, Christmas 2020. They did subpoena a witness. The subpoenaed Don McGahn ... nine months ago! They are still waiting for his testimony.

    Much like Trump, McConnell speaks to Trump's base. They believe this crap. McConnell is not about to tell Trump's base about McGahn. Nor will he tell them why this is happening. Trump prevented those witnesses from being heard in the impeachment inquiry! Trump also chose not to defend himself during the inquiry, not the Democrats.

    The Democrats wanted Trump to participate in his own defense. Trump and his Republican defenders lie continuously about that, too.
     
  6. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    McConnell is in a difficult position. He wants to exonerate a guilty President. Thus, his position is perfectly ludicrous.

    He wants no witnesses to be called, a normal procedure in any trial. He uses the ridiculous argument that all the evidence -- documentation, witness testimony, etc. -- should have taken place in the House. In his Senate trial, he wants just opening statements from the prosecutor (House) and defense (Trump's lawyers).

    McConnell overlooks the Constitution. The House merely impeaches. Like a grand jury, the House merely determines if there is enough evidence for an impeachment. The House indicts. It does not try. According to our Constitution, the trial takes place in the Senate. Like a grand jury, the House does not determine guilt or innocence. The Senate does that with the presentation of all relevant evidence, including witness testimony.

    But McConnell wants to reject all that because he is in the unenviable position of protecting a guilty President.

    However, it is entirely possible public opinion may change McConnell's position. He is up for reelection this year, and over 70% of Americans want to hear testimony in the Senate trial. It is safe to assume many of them are from Kentucky.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  7. Boilermaker55

    Boilermaker55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They certainly were grounds to impeach him.
    The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

     
  8. Boilermaker55

    Boilermaker55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

     
  9. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,200
    Likes Received:
    37,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So NOW, congress can remove too.. Well aren't you the informative one, I'm under the understanding the Senate has some say in it, but I'm sure you have it all know'd up ;) ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯
     
  10. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration violated the law in withholding security assistance aid to Ukraine, a nonpartisan federal watchdog agency said, weighing in on a decision by President Trump that is at the heart of the impeachment case presented to the Senate on Thursday.

    The agency, the Government Accountability Office, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act when it withheld nearly $400 million this summer for “a policy reason,” even though the funds had been allocated by Congress.

    The decision to freeze the aid was directed by the president himself, and during the House impeachment inquiry, administration officials testified that they had raised concerns about its legality to no avail.

    “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the accountability office wrote in an opinion released Thursday.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well since you never actually post facts to support your opinions one would have to say you are 100% accurate.
     
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guess what! The Senate is part of Congress.
     
  13. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was at this point, I quit reading, that you disqualified yourself from any serious and INFORMED discussion, on this topic. No, "peachmint" is not based on "opinions"....AT. ALL.
     
  14. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,200
    Likes Received:
    37,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reread the post I quoted and ask one of you smart friends for help :)
     
  15. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,200
    Likes Received:
    37,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Facts are not welcomed here by leftist, CourtJester. Just spin, misinformation, hearsay and ridiculous opinion ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯
     
    nra37922 likes this.
  16. nra37922

    nra37922 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    13,118
    Likes Received:
    8,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is the threshold to be met to warrant the removal of a President?
    See Nixon.
     
  17. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,510
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nixon wasn't removed. He quit! As soon as he learned that two thirds of the Senate would vote to remove. Which is the parameter on the OP. More or less....
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since you are the best who never actually can supply actual facts will take your opinion for what it is worth.
     
  19. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is English your second language?
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You evidently don’t know. Congress cannot simply violate separation on a whim. That is what the court is for, to settle a dispute between the executive and congress.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    English not your first language? There is zero extortion in the transcript.
     
  22. Boilermaker55

    Boilermaker55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It appears the Constitution has no meaning to you now what tRUMP is in office.
    Nice try.


     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  23. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,200
    Likes Received:
    37,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um, you need to work on your game if yer gonna play in this league brah :roflol::roll:
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  24. Boilermaker55

    Boilermaker55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why because I am making a joke of your comments.
    I guess I will have drop down a bit to get into your league.
    You don't hold a candle to facts.
    Nice Try , again.


     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the threshold to be met to warrant the removal of a President? How about when a president who has been informed that two United States Government facilities in Libya were under attack and he chose to do nothing about it, yawned and went off to bed. When his inaction resulted in the death of four Americans he sprung into action to cover his ass and concocted a ridiculous narrative to explain it all away. To add insult to injury he repeated this lie to the grieving families when they went to recover the remains of their loved ones. Imagine that, he actually spent more time trying to cover up what really happened than making the decision not to order actions that would have prevented those four American deaths. How is that not a threshold met to impeach the president but second or third hand hearsay from an unidentified source is???
     

Share This Page