*LOL* Except, as I've explained multiple times, there was no federal criminal code at the time that the Constitution was adopted. So, what could they possibly mean by the language in the Constitution? Voila! They didn't mean anything like you've claimed, and no freaking soul has done so since the beginning of our republic--do some research instead of repeating bogus arguments made by people who haven't a clue: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/what-the-founders-told-us-about-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/ Trump’s defense team, meanwhile, has erred even more egregiously in the opposite direction. While the White House has broken all records in appointing originalist judges, its defense team has adopted a non-originalist approach that could have made Justice William Brennan chuckle. “By limiting impeachment to cases of ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against ‘already known and established law,’” proclaims President Trump’s January 20, 2020, Trial Memorandum, without producing any statement from a leading Founder, during the drafting or ratification of the Constitution, that limits “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” to criminal acts. Instead, the brief makes much of the fact that the impeachment clause proposed by George Mason at the Constitutional Convention would have made a president removable for “Treason, Bribery, or Mal-administration.” When the Convention replaced “Mal-administration” with “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the president’s defense team suggests, it meant to remove not just policy disputes from the list of impeachable offenses, but also anything short of a crime. That, of course, does not logically follow, nor do any Founders appear to have understood “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as limited solely to crimes. Indeed, that makes little sense, as no crimes would have existed until Congress came into being and chose to create a criminal code, which it did not do in any significant measure for decades.
You repeatedly threaten to present something you know doesn't exist, and I laugh harder at you each time you do it. You know there's not one iota of fact that that demonstrates your claims to be true, and your continued bluffing only proves it. Carry on.
If you refuse to do the bare minimum of research, instead choosing to repeat trumpian nonsense which has no legal basis, and further refuse to read a link so that you can try to climb the ladder of knowledge, I just can't help you. The only one bluffing here is you. I tried to help you, but you're apparently content to remain in the dark.
As expected: You know you cannot back up your claims. You repeatedly threaten to present something you know doesn't exist, and I laugh harder at you each time you do it. You know there's not one iota of fact that that demonstrates your claims to be true, and your continued bluffing only proves it. Carry on.
You repeatedly threaten to present something you know doesn't exist, and I laugh harder at you each time you do it. You know there's not one iota of fact that that demonstrates your claims to be true, and your continued bluffing only proves it. I accept you concession.
You repeatedly threaten to present something you know doesn't exist, and I laugh harder at you each time you do it. You know there's not one iota of fact that that demonstrates your claims to be true, and your continued bluffing only proves it. I continue to accept your concession.
1) Mitch McConnell said at the very beginning of the Senate trial that the Senate was on Trump's side. 2) The House of Representitives done an excellent job. 3)The House of Representitives charged him with two crimes. He threatened to withold aid from Ukraine unless they announced an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. And obstruction of Congress. 4)It wasn't a matter of opinion. He committed impeachable deeds.
The senate was no more partisan than the house. Please cite the federal laws broken by these alleged actions. In the opinion of the house Democrats, who so voted.
Their own "constitutional expert" said that if the acts were proven, that they were impeachable acts. Oh, but the experts here keep making the absurd assertion that crimes which had not existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are a requirement. Nobody but nobody familiar with impeachment believes that.
Obstruction of congress is completely false because democrats never held an entire house vote to start impeachment proceedings breaking president. If democrats had a problem with that, they should have gone to the Supreme Court. They didnt bother. Abuse of power is an opinion. Thats why democrats came 20 votes short of removing the president from office. It wasnt even close. There was a total house vote to impeach bill clinton. Bill Clinton was actually guilty of perjury, beyond a shadow of a doubt, through DNA evidence, and even then the senate refused to remove him from office.
...the Democrats impeached Trump over the legal exercise of executive privilege - not once did Trump refuse to allow anyone to testify after being compelled to do so by the court.
