Evidence of American mercenaries fighting in the Ukraine ?

Crickets
...as expected

originally posted by: all2human
Crickets
...as expected

The claim was debunked... what more are you wanting?

Well, the facts, my summary,the links iv'e provided support my position and by extension prove your conclusion is false
Take the time and review,I know your not the mental equivalent of a carrot.

Impeachment requires 2 votes.

the first vote is the indictment, which was passed per the constitution.
The 2nd vote, the guilty / not guilty vote, was not held because Yanukovych fled Ukraine prior to it occurring. When he fled the country he abandoned the position of President. Under the Constitution a new election must be held within 90 days, and it was.

It was lawful.

a reply to: Xcathdra
The President left under duress www.abc.net.au... with the intent of returning once his security could be guaranteed, He was forced from office and parliament essentially seized control

Leaving the scene would undermine the constitutionality of any acts subsequently passed by whoever succeeds the missing president and would allow him to keep a minimally legitimate constitutional claim to returning and claiming his office back. www.ponarseurasia.org...
It was unconstitutional.

a reply to: all2human

Again no.

He fled.. He had every chance to deal with the impeachment process head and instead ran away. He abandoned his position and was replaced as the law states.

You keep trying to change some of the facts to support your argument. However you can't ignore the Ukraine constitution which was used in this process.

Impeachment procedures do not require the President to act in order to start or end the process. Just as the US constitution does not require the President to act in order to start or end our impeachment process. The purpose of impeachment is the ability to remove the leader when their actions are in violation of the law / constitution. An impeachment process that relies on presidential action is not an impeachment process since it would never happen.

Its a constitutional check on the powers of the presidency. The Ukraine constitution is the guide book and the parliament followed it to a T.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Not changing facts, providing them
He wasn't impeached, he was declared unable to carry out his duties in office because of his absence
His absence due to fear for his and his family's life.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
Not changing facts, providing them
He wasn't impeached, he was declared unable to carry out his duties in office because of his absence
His absence due to fear for his and his family's life.

No he was in fact impeached - first vote.
He fled before the second vote occurred, which would have been the guilty / not guilty vote (the vote to remove him from office).

If you are going to argue your point please do research before hand.

What is interesting about Yanukovych was his comments on Crimea. He also condemned the annexation and stated Crimea belongs to Ukraine.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Noticed that, interesting

It never went through, so no
he wasn't impeached
besides if the presidents removal was unconstitutional, any following actions in his stead could be considered as illegitimate.

a reply to: all2human

I will try this one more time because you are getting hung up on the term impeached.

There are 2 votes.

The first vote is essentially an indictment vote. Is there enough evidence to support an impeachment vote. In this case they voted yes, which resulted in Yanukovych being impeached. In a normal court this would be where the charges are explained and the evidence is presented to sustain the charges.

Impeached = indicted

The second vote is the one that matters. This is where the parliament acts as a court. They review the evidence and determine if the President is guilty of violating whatever he was charged with. A yes vote would mean they found the President guilty, resulting in his removal from office. If they vote no, they are saying the evidence does not support the charge and the government moves forward.

Yes vote = guilty
No vote = Not guilty

The US is similar.

Step 1 / 1st vote - President Clinton was in fact impeached by the US House of Representatives. The House drew up articles of impeachment (charges) and the House voted to impeach Clinton (indicted).

Step 2 / 2nd vote - The US Senate acts as the Prosecutor / Defense (The Chief justice acts as the presiding Judge). If Clinton was found guilty he would have been removed from office. Clinton was found not guilty and as such returned to his duties and the government moved forward.

Yanukovych was in fact impeached.

He fled before the second step could move forward. The Ukrainian constitution makes no exceptions in terms of Presidential "excuses" when it comes to retaining power. The President either fulfills his obligations or he does not. In this case he chose to abandon his office by fleeing the country. That is one of the exceptions in Ukraine's constitution in terms of the president giving up his position (impeached, death, resignation, etc).

I would also argue that since he was so popular in the East of Ukraine he could have easily went to those areas to work the mess out. Instead he left Ukraine completely.

The moment he abandoned his office the Parliament took the actions prescribed in their constitution - all lawful.

en.wikipedia.org...
"Unable to fulfill his duties"
www.washingtonpost.com... c-9bd2-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html
"dereliction of duty"
www.bbc.com...
"left"
www.usatoday.com...
"Not capable of fulfilling his presidential duties"
www.theatlantic.com...
"failed to properly fulfill his duties as president"
www.abc.net.au...
"driven away"

a reply to: all2human

and "I did not have sexual relations" was another excuse that did not prevent Clinton from being impeached.

Yanukovych fled and in doing so vacated his office. Yanukovych himself is giving mixed messages on the fled and didn't flee part. Either way under Ukraine's constitution he ended his presidency.

a reply to: Xcathdra



Impeachment procedure:

Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to
justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider. To find the president guilty, at least two-thirds of Rada members must assent.

Prior to a final vote to remove the president from power,
the procedure requires

•the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
•the Supreme Court of Ukraine to certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment, that they “contain elements of state treason or other crime”.
To remove the president from power, at least three-quarters of Rada members must assent.
The Rada didn’t make any pretence of following the impeachment procedure enshrined in Article 111. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved.
The Rada simply passed the resolution given above on 22 February, which gives the impression that the President voluntarily walked off the job (which isn’t true). The resolution doesn’t mention impeachment or Article 111 of the constitution, but does invoke Article 85 of the constitution in order to set an early date for a presidential election.
Furthermore, the resolution which purported to remove the president wasn’t supported by three-quarters of Rada members as required by Article 111 – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).


www.david-morrison.org.uk...

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Rada didn’t follow the impeachment procedure
The resolution doesn’t even mention it

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra

The Rada didn’t follow the impeachment procedure
The resolution doesn’t even mention it

The Rada in fact did follow procedure. The vote in question followed procedure. The vote in question followed the Constitution.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not the Impeachment procedure

The vote in question didn't carry enough support to pass,therefore was not legal
from above:
The resolution which purported to remove the president wasn’t supported by three-quarters of Rada members as required by Article 111 – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).

a reply to: all2human

The vote to impeach requires 2/3 majority = 297 yes votes.
The vote to remove him from office requires 3/4 majority = 338

Impeachment vote passed.
The vote to remove never occurred because Yanukovych fled the country, vacating his office.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again it had nothing to do with impeachment,no idea why you keep going on about it
HE WASN'T IMPEACHED
he was declared unable to carry out his duties in office because of his absence
His absence due to fear for his and his family's life.

Please take some time and actually research the events that removed Yanukovych from office.

a reply to: all2human

The vote to remove never occurred. The vote to impeach occurred and was lawful when it met the required numbers.