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

What "them" are you talking about?

 

The documents and witness testimonies.

I'm betting Pelosi&Co don't want them out there any more than McConnell does. So long as they (Congress- all of them) have their secrets, they get to keep playing their games at our expense.

 

It's not "High President" It's "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Yes they do, they held their "inquiery" produced their evidence and impeach the President. So now they bring THAT evidence to the Senate on which they judge to remove or not. The Senate is not there to do another investigation and produce new evidence, their judgement is based on the impeachment.

They have one responsiblity, to judge whether to remove the President based on the articles of impeachment and the case the House made in that impeachment.

There is no exception for impeachment. We do not have an imperial Congress.

Well you're talking out both sides of your mouth now. One the one side you want them to take an active roll and do another investigation and call witness then you say they are supposed to just sit there quietly and not do anything.
Please reconcile your totally divergent views I don't know which one to address.

Oh stop with the bromides and platitudes, this is a constitutionally flaw and infirmed impeachment and now the House Democrats want the Senate to somehow save it for them. The Senate is to judge THEIR impeachment based on the evidence on which they impeached him. Bring it on.

 

Utterly WRONG!

Justin Amash was ELECTED to the House as a Republican and he voted FOR impeachment. That he was FORCED to resign from the GOP before the vote says volumes about the AUTHORITARIAN bent of the GOP apparatchik!

 

Didn't they all either resign or all lose their seats in 2018?

All that is left are the spineless lickspittle supporters of your criminal IMPOTUS.

 

There is a way to improve it.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/0...-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/

 

Sad that you erroneously believe that it is 56 in the first place.

The Conspiracy forum would be a much more appropriate place for posts like that one.

 

I hope you're right, but I'm worried about the swing states Trump won in 2016 that he must win again in 2020. If he loses a few of those, he loses the election.

 

This is not the world of the 1970's when courageous members could vote their conscience instead of party, and expect to get re-elected. For any of this to work, we have to build the center quicker than the ideologues in the media and the party base, can tear the center down. We have very few members left that can defy their caucus and expect not to have serious problems in their primaries that weaken them for their general elections. Its a suicide mission.

 

They cannot force him to do anything.

 

You are probably correct. I seem to have briefly slipped into the same delusional pit that the DNC has with respect to reality and President Trump.

 

I am 99.9% in agreement with what you say. I just point out that, as I said on the OP, if Congress members don't follow the evidence when they vote, the voters will know. And vote them out in the next elections. This is true both if a President is protected when the evidence shows he must be removed, as it is if a President is Impeached for no reason.

The above is not perfect because it assumes that all the information will be made available (right now McConnell is fighting to avoid that). And it also assumes that the offending Party's base (I'm not pointing to any of the current political Parties) is not a cult-like mob of blind followers. But nothing in a Democracy is "perfect"

 

Executive privilege IS a reality, yes.

But it is NOT a blank check to break laws.

A president is NOT above the law.

 

You do realize these are the EXACT SAME RULES that REPUBLICANS put in place to impeach Clinton right?

 

All they had to do was go to the court and get it resolved. That is what the courts are for. They did not have time to do that, but they had time to stand around for a month.

 

Really? One wouldn't know that from how Obama acted and nor the way that the political Left approved of all of his laws breaking actions. I mean the Left is accusing Trump of doing precisely the same things that Obama did . . . only somehow it's a crime when Trump does them. What an interesting clutch of what appear to be double standards.

 

Nope. Having hearings in the basement in the intel committee so that only the chair, Schiff for brains can spin what happened and denying the opposition party the ability to call witnesses did not go on in the House. Threatening witnesses to testify against the President or risk his hotel business, witness tampering, as was done to Sondland did not happen.

Democrats didn't want Monika Lewinsky or Juanita Broaddrick to testify

Other than that it was exactly the same.

 

Oh the reason had nothing to do with Slick, right LMAO.. I mean it was just one little cigar and blow job in the Oval and oval office ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

Context buddy, don't ignore it

 

What element defines the "context" of when rules apply? Do rules change depending on the party affiliation of the person accused?

If not, then what role does "context" play in this? What modifies rules if a President is impeached for abusing power to involve a staffer in a sexual act for personal gratification (which I think Clinton was guilty of) vs if they are impeached for abusing power to involve a foreign government in our electoral system for personal gain.

I know that a consensual sexual act with a staffer was not illegal at the time, while foreign involvement in our elections is. But how would any of that modify the rules by which they are impeached?

 

And if a federal prosecutor is seeking testimony in a criminal investigation they can go to court and get a ruling.

This is an impeachment not a criminal investigation. This is about the separation of powers and the constitutionally recognized executive privilege. Congress is not above the law and the Constitution.

 

You think Clinton was impeached because he had sex with Lewinsky........oh geez.

 

I'm gonna take "DNA for $1000 Alex"

Unlike the leftist, I'll take solid bit of evidence over a thousand partisan "Hearsayers" any day of the week and twice on Sundays! Slick was "Screwed" pun intended, with rock solid physical evidence, whereas Trump is being accused of crimes from hearsay and opinion! Or as they say in lesser courts, BULLSHIT ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

You don't read..... oh geez

 

Yea I do

You think Clinton was impeached because he had sex with Lewinsky................GEEEZZZ

Was perjury illegal at the time? Subornation of perjury? Obstruction of justice? Witness tampering? Sexual harassment of a subordinate worker?

 

Clinton submitted a false affidavit into a federal court. That is prima facie evidence of multiple felonies. THAT is for what he was impeached not the sex as Golem is trying to make it out.