Questions about the Impeachment

originally posted by: HalWesten
On the contrary, we right-wingers would love it if left-wing liberals would go live in a country that best suits your mindset.
Left-wing liberals' views are so far off from being constitutional that it would require cancelling our existing constitution and them creating a brand new one that limits what the citizens can do instead of limiting what the government can do.

Everything you just said is nowhere near what we really want so I don't know where you get those ideas.

The Constitution has power balanced between the branches of government. Attempts by the Presidency to override Congress are unconstitutional.

One of the checks and balances is the power and procedure to impeach the President. It is entirely Constitutional. Attempts to curtail that are unconstitutional.

Another stipulation is that the President must not isolate himself from communication with Congress. The Executive are required to inform and get approval for many things that Trump is bypassing.

Setting of budget and allocation and funding is purely the remit of Congress under the Constitution. The President must place requests for budget and must use the allocated funds in the way that the Congress says.

Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.

Also, the Congress are the only ones who can declare war. The commander in chief can fight a war as he sees fit but he cannot start a war.

Many right-wing pundits harp on about the Democrats being unconstitutional, but if you asked them what specific details of the Constitution are being infringed, they could not point to any specifics. However, Trump has had several EO's rejected for their unconstituionality.

The Presidency has no personal power to make changes to the Constitution yet Trump is doing and saying things that are against Constitutional edict.

The President, in the oath of office, has a primary role of defending the Constitution but look at what he is actually doing and saying.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
The tables however have turned. It's political retribution time. This trial is about Hunter, Joe, FBI, CIA and more political enemies peppered in it.

What does it mean to get retribution on the FBI or CIA?

If you have evidence Hunter or Joe have committed any crimes please I beg you to indict them. Why are Republicans so incompetent that they are incapable of enforcing our laws!

what a moronic statement. In order to indict a person, you first must investigate and find evidence of their guilt. And the last guy who tried to do that, is being impeached for it.

But I'm starting to see why you lefties are sounding so crazy. it's because you have abandoned reality where a person is innocent until proven guilty, and in your tiny, tiny little head, arresting someone, then trying to find a crime to attribute to them is how you think it should happen.

And "right wingers" are 100% for the constitution. Whatever it says, and however it's interpreted by the SCOTUS is how it is. I promised to protect it with my life in 1990 and I wasn't given a time frame for my promise, so I consider it to be valid until death. It's an integrity thing.

a reply to: chr0naut

impeachment is completely constitutional. The process is defined as specific as it can be to transcend time. The argument is that you shouldn't use impeachment as a way to get back at a guy you don't like. It's something that should be reserved for serious situations and only in emergencies. Thanks to the idiots in the house, from now on, Presidents will be impeached for not making both parties happy. Whomever controls the house will use it in place of censure or any other tool at their disposal. The cheapening of the whole process is akin to calling any and everyone racist. Racist no longer means what it meant. Again, thanks lefties.

a reply to: network dude

Every President moving forward will be impeached at some point. If something this flimsy passes the smell test then there really is no way a President could not be impeached. Spy on Merkel like Obama did and bam. Impeached. Say you can keep your doctor but then apologize that it was not true. Impeached. Give Solanda millions of dollars and they go bankrupt immediately. Impeached. I'm picking on Obama here but seriously, he could have been impeached many times easily with these low bar standards. If anyone does not see how dangerous this is to a country I assure you, you absolutely will in time. Just wait.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
I have questions about this Impeachment of President Trump that I haven't seen raised anywhere else. This is disconcerting as i think they should have been asked all along.

1.) If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not? As head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to ask foreign officials to investigate U.S. Citizens. This is usually done through diplomatic channels, but Trump seems to like being part of 'the deal'.

2.) As Commander-in-Chief, does President Trump have the right to stop the U.S. military from aiding a foreign power? Whether Congress earmarked money for it or not?

These questions have been going around in my head for a while. I didn't vote for Trump, but I think that if these questions haven't been raised by Congress, that the Impeachment trial won't be fair.

Here is an article from a few months ago that discusses question #1.

www.politico.com...

The upshot is that it depends on the President’s motive. Every officer of the the US Government has a certain set of actions that they are authorized to perform in service of the nation’s interest; a federal judge, for example is authorized to decide if you go to jail or not. But a judge is not supposed to let you off because you paid him $5000 under the table. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to sign contracts worth billions of dollars to buy a new aircraft system but is not supposed to throw the contract to contractor X because he owns a bunch of stock in company X. The President can ask for assistance from a foreign government in investigating a legitimate US case, but cannot ask for assistance for personal gain.

IMHO, the impeachment trial should ultimately hinge on this issue. If there was a legitimate national interest that can be articulated and there is evidence that Trump was actually acting on that motivation (like witness testimony or a paper trail) then he’s got a case. So far, he has absolutely prohibited any witnesses who could support his case from testifying and absolutely refused to provide any documents that Congress has subpoenaed that would bear on his motives.

With regard to question #2; the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prohibits the unilateral refusal by the President to spend funds that have been duly appropriated by Congress and signed off by the President (Trump himself, in this case) unless there are circumstances beyond the President’s control. If he wants to defer or eliminate such spending entirely, he is required to get Congressional approval. He didn’t even try to do that. This law has not been Constitutionally tested yet, and unless it is and is modified in some way, it is one of the laws that he took an oath to faithfully execute.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
a reply to: network dude

Every President moving forward will be impeached at some point. If something this flimsy passes the smell test then there really is no way a President could not be impeached. Spy on Merkel like Obama did and bam. Impeached. Say you can keep your doctor but then apologize that it was not true. Impeached. Give Solanda millions of dollars and they go bankrupt immediately. Impeached. I'm picking on Obama here but seriously, he could have been impeached many times easily with these low bar standards. If anyone does not see how dangerous this is to a country I assure you, you absolutely will in time. Just wait.

Exactly.... this is hardly "high crimes and misdemeanors".

They've literally been trying to impeach Trump since before he even took the oath of office.

Personally, I don't even think the Republicans should have impeached Clinton. Sure, he clearly lied under oath about getting a BJ, but I didn't think it warranted impeachment.

Going forward, if this is the standard now, a President can be impeached for anything.

a reply to: Edumakated

I disagree on Bill. If he would have just told the truth, let the voters call that one his next election. If they think it's cool then that's that. The fact that he flat out lied to the people and Congress and was busted for it, he should have been removed. Can't have someone like that in office IMO.

This one is different because right now, there is nothing saying he lied to the people or to Congress. People are just making up their own interpretation of what happened. There is no "blue dress" in this case. He actually has real evidence saying there was no quid pro quo yet they are still saying no, we know there absolutely was one. Just let the damn voters decide because if Clinton did not go down for what he did with definitive evidence then this is going nowhere.

Really crazy situation because people like Pelosi are saying he is now impeached forever. Ok then, so is Bill. She wanted him and his wife back in the White House. She's basically saying this is a joke. Just depends on what side of the fence one is standing on. Bill's forever impeached is totally cool and awesome to her...meh. This is beyond stupid.

a reply to: CryHavoc

If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not?

Good question but there is no way to ever know. Another question that can't be answered is, If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would trump have ever even talked with ukraine about it?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten
On the contrary, we right-wingers would love it if left-wing liberals would go live in a country that best suits your mindset.
Left-wing liberals' views are so far off from being constitutional that it would require cancelling our existing constitution and them creating a brand new one that limits what the citizens can do instead of limiting what the government can do.

Everything you just said is nowhere near what we really want so I don't know where you get those ideas.

The Constitution has power balanced between the branches of government. Attempts by the Presidency to override Congress are unconstitutional.

One of the checks and balances is the power and procedure to impeach the President. It is entirely Constitutional. Attempts to curtail that are unconstitutional.

Another stipulation is that the President must not isolate himself from communication with Congress. The Executive are required to inform and get approval for many things that Trump is bypassing.

Setting of budget and allocation and funding is purely the remit of Congress under the Constitution. The President must place requests for budget and must use the allocated funds in the way that the Congress says.

Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.

Also, the Congress are the only ones who can declare war. The commander in chief can fight a war as he sees fit but he cannot start a war.

Many right-wing pundits harp on about the Democrats being unconstitutional, but if you asked them what specific details of the Constitution are being infringed, they could not point to any specifics. However, Trump has had several EO's rejected for their unconstituionality.

The Presidency has no personal power to make changes to the Constitution yet Trump is doing and saying things that are against Constitutional edict.

The President, in the oath of office, has a primary role of defending the Constitution but look at what he is actually doing and saying.

Birthright citizenship is not what you have been taught.

And, remember Libya?


He didn't need authorization, which would mean that he wouldn't need to inform congress.

Does this fall under precedent?

Well, we haven't formally declared war since ww2. So if its impeachable, then every single President since then is guilty.

Article II, Section II gives the President the power to decide when and where the military is deployed. However,

"To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization," wrote Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy. "If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime."

Critics of Mr. Obama's action are using the president's own words against him; in a 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, the then-senator said this about a president's authority to bomb Iran without approval from Congress: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

"As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States," he added. "In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Mr. Obama sent a letter on Monday notifying Congress he had acted in Libya, in conjunction with the War Powers Act's 48 hours requirement. He said he authorized the action as part of a response authorized under the U.N. security council demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi change course or face consequences; the goal, he said, is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya."

"I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive," he wrote.

townhall.com...

By all this logic, the argument can be made that Soleimani represented an immediate threat to the nation and Trump acted in a defensive manner. On the matter of Ukraine, US Ukraine criminal matters treaty, and the "Faithful Execution" Clause found in the Constitution, which demands that the President faithfully execute the laws. Whereas Democrats cannot point to an actual law that Trump broke, just make vague arguments about courting foreign interference in an election and potential campaign finance violations. All they have is that Biden is virtually immune because he's a political opponent. Question: Did that stop the Dems in 2016, since a political rival is supposedly immune?

Suddenly, Democrats care about the constitution again? I call politically motivated shenanigans.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CryHavoc

If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not?

Good question but there is no way to ever know. Another question that can't be answered is, If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would trump have ever even talked with ukraine about it?

Giuliani was starting his investigation in mid to late 2018. Lutsenko opened two investigations in March 2019. Biden didn't declare until April 2019, stating he "had to run". For the immunity of being a potential political rival?

a reply to: chr0naut

Once again....the money was released before it fell under breaking said law. HE had 45 IN SESSION DAYS to release the money BEFORE having to tell congress and ask for it to be held longer. WHat is a In session day? a day where congress and senate work. they do not work consecutive days as that man accussing trump thinks they do. Trump released the funds around 35th in session day.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
Please read new threads.
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images.
Is There Civilization Without Civility

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: yuppa

HE had 45 IN SESSION DAYS to release the money BEFORE having to tell congress and ask for it to be held longer.

Citation required. I think you're mistaken.

Now, whenever presidents want to rescind or freeze congressionally appropriated funds, they must first notify Congress by sending a "special message" that details the amount of money involved and the reasons to rescind or withhold it.

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

www.politifact.com...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

impeachment is completely constitutional. The process is defined as specific as it can be to transcend time. The argument is that you shouldn't use impeachment as a way to get back at a guy you don't like. It's something that should be reserved for serious situations and only in emergencies. Thanks to the idiots in the house, from now on, Presidents will be impeached for not making both parties happy. Whomever controls the house will use it in place of censure or any other tool at their disposal. The cheapening of the whole process is akin to calling any and everyone racist. Racist no longer means what it meant. Again, thanks lefties.

No, surely the primary purpose of impeachment is to ensure that the Constitutional balance of power is not upset, specifically to ensure that a President doesn't overreach.

If a President whose primary role (as defined in the oath of office) is to defend the Constitution, is instead doing and saying things that are in direct opposition to the stipulations in the Constitution, then that is a major abnegation of responsibility.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CryHavoc

If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not?

Good question but there is no way to ever know. Another question that can't be answered is, If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would trump have ever even talked with ukraine about it?

Giuliani was starting his investigation in mid to late 2018. Lutsenko opened two investigations in March 2019. Biden didn't declare until April 2019, stating he "had to run". For the immunity of being a potential political rival?

If that is true, then President Trump might have purposely sent Giuliani to investigate in order to pressure Biden into running against him. That would assure he had a competitor that would keep Hillary from re-running, and a foil against Bernie Sanders.

If so, then "Check" goes to Mr. President in this 4D chess match.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: [post=24882136]HalWesten[/post

Birthright citizenship is not what you have been taught.

It doesn't matter what we were taught or how we perceive it now, the real issue is what was intended and is clearly recorded in the Constitution.

US Constitution, 14th Amendment Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And, remember Libya?

He didn't need authorization, which would mean that he wouldn't need to inform congress.

Does this fall under precedent?

It was clearly unconstitutional, as was Obama's use of the 2001 'Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)' legislation a decade after it was passed due to emergency response to 911.

It was clearly stretching things and arguably should no longer have been held legally valid as it was a circumstantial response to a direct threat at the time (in 2001).

But Obama's infraction against the Constitution is no excuse for Trump's infraction against the Constitution. A precedent of someone else doing the wrong thing is no excuse.

Well, we haven't formally declared war since WW2. So if its impeachable, then every single President since then is guilty.

Yes, but only if they have entered in to war without the approval of Congress. That is a fairly important stipulation.

Article II, Section II gives the President the power to decide when and where the military is deployed. However,

"To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization," wrote Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy. "If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime."
Critics of Mr. Obama's action are using the president's own words against him; in a 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, the then-senator said this about a president's authority to bomb Iran without approval from Congress: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

"As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States," he added. "In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Mr. Obama sent a letter on Monday notifying Congress he had acted in Libya, in conjunction with the War Powers Act's 48 hours requirement. He said he authorized the action as part of a response authorized under the U.N. security council demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi change course or face consequences; the goal, he said, is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya."

"I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive," he wrote.

townhall.com...

By all this logic, the argument can be made that Soleimani represented an immediate threat to the nation and Trump acted in a defensive manner.

But we all know it is exactly like the missing WMD's, a deceptive excuse.

No one has yet presented the slightest actual evidence of a threat that Solemiani posed against the US.

On the matter of Ukraine, US Ukraine criminal matters treaty, and the "Faithful Execution" Clause found in the Constitution, which demands that the President faithfully execute the laws.

That treaty specifically identifies who may request such legal assistance.

It says specifically in Article 2 that, on the US side, the Central Authority shall be "the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General" and that "the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty". This excludes all others on the US side.

So unless the President got pre-approval and deputization from the AG before the phone call, and that this authority to pursue the case also was communicated by the AG to Ukrainian government, the President wasn't acting compliant with that treaty.

Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters - Congress.gov (.pdf)

Whereas Democrats cannot point to an actual law that Trump broke, just make vague arguments about courting foreign interference in an election and potential campaign finance violations. All they have is that Biden is virtually immune because he's a political opponent. Question: Did that stop the Dems in 2016, since a political rival is supposedly immune?

Suddenly, Democrats care about the constitution again? I call politically motivated shenanigans.

Surely the articles of impeachment are the actual laws that Trump broke. Otherwise they would have no legal force.

It is clear that Trump did attempt to obstruct Congress in its investigation (article 2).

It is clear that Trump made a 'phone call that had potential motivation to discredit a political rival (article 1).

Neither article of impeachment has been tried yet.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Executive are required to inform and get approval for many things that Trump is bypassing.

Please enlighten us on the many things Trump has bypassed without approval?

The President must place requests for budget and must use the allocated funds in the way that the Congress says.

When has he not?

Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.

Saying and doing are two different things. As a result of illegals blatant widespread abuse of birthright citizenship most Americans think birthright citizenship should be abolished. Since you don't live in our country you're not aware of how it effects us on many levels.

Also, the Congress are the only ones who can declare war. The commander in chief can fight a war as he sees fit but he cannot start a war.

Moot point, no one's declaring war nor will they due to the logistics of declaring war. There's multiple reasons why we haven't declared war since WW2.

a reply to: CryHavoc

If it was done to a Republican no one would care. Running for President does not make you above the law.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.

Fake news. Trump has said he wants to end it for non-citizens. The Constitution does not give BC to non-citizens, and we have several Supreme Court cases that suggest they do not get it. We know for a fact it did not cover Native Americans at all. We also know the Supreme Court ruled a Chinese citizen was granted BC due to legal residence and business in the US. There is no ruling or wording that grants BC to illegals, and it actually used to NOT be given.

Elk v. Wilkins
US v. Wong Kim Ark

Even Wong Kim Ark was a bit of activist judging. Sen. Trumbull stated “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country. Being a Chinese citizen and not a US citizen unarguably means you have allegiance to that country.

Even that, the most progressive ruling ever on the matter, precluded illegals from benefiting from the ruling.

a reply to: mtnshredder

chr0naut lied, Trump never said he wanted to end birthright citizenship. He said illegals are not entitled to it, and he wanted to stop the practice of giving them something they should not be given.