Impeachment Hearings Thread

psalms 91 · Nov 24, 2019

tango said:
... and this is the crux of the matter. It's no surprise that half the country dislikes the candidate they voted against but frankly for purposes of impeachment nobody cares if he is liked or not. It's not an impeachable offence to be disliked. Many people disapprove of his policies, which is to be expected and also not an impeachable offence. Many more people disapprove of his Twitter habits, which still (at present) isn't an impeachable offence. Thoughts and feelings and hearsay and disapproval are well and good and carry some weight at the ballot box but are worthless when deciding whether or not a high crime has been committed.

Last time I looked using political office for personal gain is impeachable

Lamb · Nov 24, 2019

psalms 91 said:
Last time I looked using political office for personal gain is impeachable

Did that happen? Or was that just someone heard something so they felt that it happened. I have yet to see actual evidence provided. Until them I'm against impeachment.

Albion · Nov 24, 2019

psalms 91 said:
Last time I looked using political office for personal gain is impeachable

It would be possible if money were handed to the accused under the table, but now that it supposedly means that the president should not do anything at all to help our country and its people, the charge has become a farce..

tango · Nov 24, 2019

Lämmchen said:
Did that happen? Or was that just someone heard something so they felt that it happened. I have yet to see actual evidence provided. Until them I'm against impeachment.

Presumably if there was hard evidence it would have been presented and there wouldn't be any focus on what people might have felt about a situation.

psalms 91 · Nov 25, 2019

Albion said:
It would be possible if money were handed to the accused under the table, but now that it supposedly means that the president should not do anything at all to help our country and its people, the charge has become a farce..

How did witholding military aid to a country in order to get a promise of investigating a political rival helping our country?

Josiah · Nov 28, 2019

The House Democrats have now issued more subpoenas than they have passed bills ...

This ABSURDITY has three purposes:

1. It is an expression of radical, irrational, personal HATRED of a man - which is meant only to make all Democrats rally in their personal hatred and divide the country as much as possible...

2. Get the focus off their inability/unwillingness to get anything done.

3. They fear that no one running for the nomination of their party can beat Trump, so they hope to remove him and have someone ELSE to run against, anyone would be easier to defeat.

.

Lamb · Dec 9, 2019

Today's hearing is a brutal joke. Still no solid evidence. Still.

tango · Dec 9, 2019

Lämmchen said:
Today's hearing is a brutal joke. Still no solid evidence. Still.

Who needs evidence if you feel wronged?

Lamb · Dec 9, 2019

Did you see Mr. Gohmert's 5 minute statement (he didn't want to ask questions) just now? He really laid into the Dems for how they're behaving today as well as the kangaroo court it has become. He said he's scared for his country and if the impeachment of the President happens without true evidence then our country is surely in deep trouble for the future.

tango · Dec 9, 2019

When it seems one side is determined to impeach the president by whatever means it takes, rather than responding to clear wrongdoing backed with unambiguous evidence, something is badly wrong. I wonder if it will hurt the Democrats come the next election - the deep red and deep blue voters won't be swayed whatever, but I wonder whether the more moderate voters would end up turning away from the party that's more about overturning an electoral result they disliked than actually governing.

psalms 91 · Dec 9, 2019

In other words you think he has done nothing wrong in spite of the career diplomats, in spite of the overwhelming evidence? I guess Trumop was right when he said he could murder someone in the middle of Times Square and get away with it

Lamb · Dec 9, 2019

psalms 91 said:
In other words you think he has done nothing wrong in spite of the career diplomats, in spite of the overwhelming evidence? I guess Trumop was right when he said he could murder someone in the middle of Times Square and get away with it

Please list the solid evidence, not hearsay and not supposition.

A news anchor made a comment on past impeachments about the amount of overwhelming evidence...such as in Clinton's case where it could fit inside an 18 wheeler semi but in this case the supposed evidence fits in 2 binders.

There has not been solid evidence for impeachment given yet. I've been listening. There are not even 2 witnesses.

Give the true evidence that without a doubt gives proof. You can't.

tango · Dec 9, 2019

psalms 91 said:
In other words you think he has done nothing wrong in spite of the career diplomats, in spite of the overwhelming evidence? I guess Trumop was right when he said he could murder someone in the middle of Times Square and get away with it

The evidence so overwhelming that people are being asked what they feel about things? If it was that overwhelming it wouldn't be such a partisan affair.

Andrew · Dec 9, 2019

Funny how even with all the evidence and confession concerning Bill Clinton he was impeached but remained in office... so with no evidence do the dems actually believe Trump will be impeached out of office?
No president has been impeached out of office..

Quick question, if he is impeached but stays in office can he still be elected for a second term?

Lamb · Dec 11, 2019

Andrew said:
Funny how even with all the evidence and confession concerning Bill Clinton he was impeached but remained in office... so with no evidence do the dems actually believe Trump will be impeached out of office?
No president has been impeached out of office..

Quick question, if he is impeached but stays in office can he still be elected for a second term?

Yes, he can be re-elected. The only way out of that is if a Law is set into place beforehand to prevent that from happening.

Lamb · Dec 11, 2019

https://www.foxnews.com/media/karen-bass-impeach-trump-2020
"Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said Tuesday she's willing to impeach President Trump again if he wins reelection in 2020."

How is it legal to pre-impeach someone? Doesn't that sound like crooked politics?

Josiah · Dec 11, 2019

Andrew said:
Funny how even with all the evidence and confession concerning Bill Clinton he was impeached but remained in office... so with no evidence do the dems actually believe Trump will be impeached out of office?
No president has been impeached out of office..

Quick question, if he is impeached but stays in office can he still be elected for a second term?

I heard that his approval ratings have gone up through this whole process..... and that AT THIS POINT (which is pretty much irrelevant) IF the election were held now, he'd again loose the popular vote but win even more states and more electoral votes than he did last time - and this is true no matter who the Democrats nominate. But yeah, everything can change in 11 months.

He'll surely be impeached... and the Senate will find that wrong.... The Liberals (who would vote for Satan if he had a "D" after his name) will be unmoved by that. The Conservatives (who would vote for Satan if he had a "R" after his name) will be unmoved by this. But the independents - the "middle" that actually determine national elections - I think they are really turned off by all this political "swamp" stuff, but it will all be forgotten by election time.

.

Josiah · Dec 11, 2019

The Constitution REQUIRES the impeachment be "for HIGH CRIMES." That requires specific LAWS that have clearly been violated - and that such is a felony, a "high crime." It was NEVER understood as something to be done because a President was misliked for he did or said things unpopular or even inappropriate.

Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither were removed from office, neither suffered anything politically as a result. But the first was clearly POLITICAL and very quickly was repudiated; Americans came to understand impeachment must not be done for purely political reasons and needs strong support by all political parties. Thus - Presidents HATED by one party were not impeached as much as one party desired such.

Read this from Wikipedia...

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was initiated on February 24, 1868, when the United States House of Representatives resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, 17th president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which were detailed in eleven articles of impeachment. The primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867, over his veto. Specifically, he had removed from office Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War—whom the Act was largely designed to protect—and attempted to replace him with Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas. (Earlier, while the Congress was not in session, Johnson had suspended Stanton and appointed General Ulysses S. Grant as Secretary of War ad interim.)

Johnson became the first American president to be impeached on March 2–3, 1868, when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began three days later, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, the Senate failed to convict Johnson on one of the articles, with the 35–19 vote in favor of conviction falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority by a single vote. A ten-day recess was called before attempting to convict him on additional articles. The delay did not change the outcome, however, as on May 26, it failed to convict the president on two articles, both by the same margin, after which the trial was adjourned.

The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative–executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the President from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1870s as "Congressional Government". Johnson remained the only U.S. president to have been impeached and faced a Senate trial for over a century, until Bill Clinton became the second in 1998.

.

.

tango · Dec 11, 2019

Lämmchen said:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/karen-bass-impeach-trump-2020
"Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said Tuesday she's willing to impeach President Trump again if he wins reelection in 2020."

How is it legal to pre-impeach someone? Doesn't that sound like crooked politics?

Who cares if it's all crooked, if the desired end justifies whatever means it takes to get to that end?

Jason76 · Dec 12, 2019

Evidence is probably pretty strong - even truly honest Trump supporters would have to admit. I mean, it's about the truth, regardless of politics. I mean, if I went out speeding, then could I give some excuse for it - even if the cop didn't like me?

Josiah said:
Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither were removed from office, neither suffered anything politically as a result.

Clinton didn't suffer politically cause it was his 2nd term - and Johnson never ran for a full term as president - maybe cause he was impeached.

Impeachment Hearings Thread

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

... and you shall live ...

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

God's Lil Lamb

... and you shall live ...

God's Lil Lamb

... and you shall live ...

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

... and you shall live ...

Matt 18:15

God's Lil Lamb

God's Lil Lamb

simul justus et peccator

simul justus et peccator

... and you shall live ...

Well-known member