• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can a President be impeached and removed from office...

I don't now if they depend on each other. They don't show it, and f that were true, then Clinton would have been left alone to a problem that was clearly a private matter.

The GOP is dependent upon the mistakes of the Dems and the Dems are dependent upon the narcissism of the GOP. But any productive dependence? No.

umm sexual harassment is a big no no.
it wasn't a private matter as Clinton was sexually harassing interns at the white house.

that lead to an investigation in which he lied to a grand jury. lying to a grand jury is perjury and is a criminal offense.

his wife should be brought up on similar charges soon if the DOJ does it's job. except instead of lying to a grand jury it will be lying to a federal agent.
 
doesn't the constitution say the president can only be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office?

No...but he could be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office...and then lies in a court of law about it.
 
By the Constitution it is Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

.

Given the existence of K Street lobbyists, the bribery issue would seem to be a slam dunk.
However, since the vast majority, if not all, politicians are main-lining K Street cash, the bribery thing is off the table.
 
Given the existence of K Street lobbyists, the bribery issue would seem to be a slam dunk.
However, since the vast majority, if not all, politicians are main-lining K Street cash, the bribery thing is off the table.

Probably, I would suspect in that case it comes down to the determination of how funds made it from private donor to a President's pocket. Then again we are talking about original Constitutional wording here, and in that context from the period it makes even more sense.
 
umm sexual harassment is a big no no.
it wasn't a private matter as Clinton was sexually harassing interns at the white house.

^ heaping pile of dung.
that lead to an investigation in which he lied to a grand jury.

70 million dollar proctological examination that went on for years by Ken "panty sniffer" Starr *& "the elves" that started with a failed land deal, of which no one in the WH or administration was found guilty of for any criminal acts under the administration.

lying to a grand jury is perjury and is a criminal offense.
Of which Clinton was found "not guilty" by the Senate.
 
Probably, I would suspect in that case it comes down to the determination of how funds made it from private donor to a President's pocket. Then again we are talking about original Constitutional wording here, and in that context from the period it makes even more sense.

Back in those days, wasn't Ben Franklin upbraided for accepting a gift from the King of France?
Ben wasn't the prez, but something as small as a snuff box was considered unethical.
I wonder how many snuff boxes could be purchased with lobbyists money?
 
er, Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868. The Senate trial followed two weeks later.

His term expired March of 1869.

If, by "several months" you meant a year, yeah, OK.

You have shown you know how to use Wikipedia, if nothing else. At least now you know that Andrew Johnson is the other member, along with B.J. Clinton, of that very exclusive club of impeached U.S. Presidents. Now maybe you will explain how a technical error of some months in the timing of an event I recalled from memory is the least relevant to the political machinations behind Johnson's impeachment, or to the point that Congress can always arrange to create an impeachable offense if it wants to, let alone to anything else I wrote about impeachment in general.
 
It would be easier and faster to just have the VP and the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment.
 
No. He. wasn't.

He resigned.

Man alive. I can't believe you said that/
My mistake, he was almost impeached. However, it's common to conflate "impeachment" with "conviction." 1st paragraph wrong, 2nd para correct.
 
You have shown you know how to use Wikipedia, if nothing else.

Or that I know history. Maybe you haven't engaged with me enough to know history is literally what pays my mortgage on my palatial estate.

For three decades now.

Now maybe you will explain how a technical error of some months in the timing of an event I recalled from memory is the least relevant to the political machinations behind Johnson's impeachment, or to the point that Congress can always arrange to create an impeachable offense if it wants to, let alone to anything else I wrote about impeachment in general.

Pointing out historical errors on these boards is what I do. Call it a peeve.

For the readers, if interested - from the Library of Congress [thus exempt from copyright infringements]

"Historic Background on the Impeachment and Trial of President Andrew Johnson

The Significance of President Johnson's Impeachment and Trial
Johnson's impeachment trial is considered to be important because it checked the attempt among certain Members of Congress to establish congressional control of federal policy and relegate the President's role in governance to that of a chief minister's. The acquittal of Johnson also prevented later Congresses from using the threat of impeachment as a means of settling policy differences with the executive. Finally, the acquittal meant that in future impeachment trials the defendant would have to have committed an actual crime in order to be convicted.


The Impeachment
President Andrew Johnson became the first President of the United States to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was impeached in 1868 for dismissing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without the approval of the Senate as required in the Tenure of Office Act and for attacking congressional policies on the Reconstruction in the South. Congressional opposition to Johnson's policies on the Reconstruction of the southern states had been building, however, since early in his term, and in 1867 the Committee on Judiciary of the House of Representatives had conducted an investigation as a preliminary to impeaching Johnson.

The attempt to impeach Johnson as a result of this investigation was unsuccessful.
]
However, because the War Department was responsible for administering most of the policies on the Reconstruction that the Congress, overriding Johnson's vetoes, had enacted into law, the removal of Secretary Stanton was viewed as an attack on these policies and was an additional motive for seeking Johnson's ouster. The House of Representatives impeached Johnson on February 24, 1868, by a straight party line vote of 126 to 47. On February 27, the House of Representatives adopted eleven articles of impeachment that were then submitted to the Senate.


The Senate Trial
Johnson's trial began with procedural motions on March 5, 1868, with the Chief Justice of the United States, Salmon P. Chase, presiding. The managers for the House of Representatives included John A. Bingham of Ohio, who served as chairman, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. Johnson's defense team included former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis; William Evarts, a prominent Republican lawyer; and Henry Stanbery, a former Attorney General in Johnson's cabinet. Opening arguments and testimony in the trial began on March 30 and continued through April 20. On April 22 the summary phase of the trial began and was concluded on May 7. Issues in dispute during the trial included whether the Tenure of Office Act applied to Stanton, whether the Act, if it did apply, was constitutional, and whether Johnson committed an impeachable offense in attacking Congress for its policies on Reconstruction.

The first vote, on article eleven which charged Johnson with bringing disrespect to Congress and its policies on Reconstruction, was held on May 16. The vote on the article was one vote short (35 to 19) of the two thirds majority needed for conviction. The trial was then recessed for ten days. On May 26 the Senate also failed by the same margin (35 to 19) to convict Johnson on articles two and three. At this point the Senate voted to adjourn the trial sine die without considering the remaining articles. "

https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/Impeachment-Guide.html
 
It would be easier and faster to just have the VP and the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment.

Maybe easier and faster, but would it be a wise precedent to encourage Vice-Presidents and cabinet members to combine to make mutinies against their Presidents? It would hinder any President a great deal not to be able to trust either his Vice-President or the senior executive officials he had appointed. And it would seriously damage the President's party to have a senior member that party declare, in effect, that he had no confidence in its leader.
 
Section II Article 4 of the US Constitution States:



Legally speaking, "We, the representatives of the United States of America declare with a bipartisan effort that we will begin impeachment proceedings against President Jackoff, for he sucketh" isn't going to pass constitutional muster.

Actually, it's more interesting question than it seems. You are absolutely correct about what S2A4 says, but, consider the following....


I am pretty sure that in a 1993 case, Nixon v. United States (a "Walter Nixon", not Mr. Richard Jackoff Millhouse Jackoff Nixon, Jackoff), the Supreme Court ruled A1S3 language giving the senate the "sole power to try all impeachments," which it interpreted to mean that broad discretion was granted to the Senate in impeachments.

I may be wrong, but I am not aware of the Supreme Court ever reviewing any "appeal" from successful impeachment, and commentators did argue that Nixon could be interpreted as meaning that the Supreme Court considers itself unable to review impeachment proceedings for constitutionality.

In short, this all means that it is possible the language from S2A4 cannot be interpreted by the Supreme Court ever, because the Court will never take an impeachment case. Which in turn means, "We, the representatives of the United States of America declare with a bipartisan effort that we will begin impeachment proceedings against President Jackoff, for he sucketh" might actually fly.




Now.... my legal knowledge isn't all that tight when it comes to Constitutional review of impeachment proceedings.....so if someone knows more, do chime in...
 
Last edited:
No...but he could be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office...and then lies in a court of law about it.

The problem is....he should never have put in a position where he could have lied about it. That doesn't excuse lying under oath.

But it does condemn the political witch hunt the Republicans launched. Their gambit worked. They used a sham investigation to maneuver Clinton into a position where he could be questioned about something that he was almost certain to lie about: cheating on his wife.

But that was never a thing he should have been questioned about because it has absolutely nothing to do with his acts as President. That's a private matter between himself and Hillary. One I don't need to hear about.



I also think it's pretty funny that he got a beej while on the phone w/ the french foreign minister.
 
The problem is....he should never have put in a position where he could have lied about it. That doesn't excuse lying under oath.

But it does condemn the political witch hunt the Republicans launched. Their gambit worked. They used a sham investigation to maneuver Clinton into a position where he could be questioned about something that he was almost certain to lie about: cheating on his wife.

But that was never a thing he should have been questioned about because it has absolutely nothing to do with his acts as President. That's a private matter between himself and Hillary. One I don't need to hear about.



I also think it's pretty funny that he got a beej while on the phone w/ the french foreign minister.
Say what you will about the man, but he was good at multitasking.
 
Nixon was impeached. He was not convicted.

"Impeachment" is essentially the same as "indicted." It's the start, not conclusion, of the process of removing a sitting President from office.

Nixon was never impeached, he resigned before the proceedings began. Clinton and Johnson was impeached. You are correct, the impeachment is the trial before the Senate. If convicted, the incumbent is removed from office; if not convicted, the incumbent gets remembered for having been impeached.
 
The problem is....he should never have put in a position where he could have lied about it. That doesn't excuse lying under oath.

But it does condemn the political witch hunt the Republicans launched. Their gambit worked. They used a sham investigation to maneuver Clinton into a position where he could be questioned about something that he was almost certain to lie about: cheating on his wife.

But that was never a thing he should have been questioned about because it has absolutely nothing to do with his acts as President. That's a private matter between himself and Hillary. One I don't need to hear about.



I also think it's pretty funny that he got a beej while on the phone w/ the french foreign minister.

It wasn't a Republican witch hunt that put him in his position...it was an accusation of rape. He lied about that and then things snowballed. He lied as long as he could and then...he had to start telling the truth.
 
umm sexual harassment is a big no no.
it wasn't a private matter as Clinton was sexually harassing interns at the white house.

that lead to an investigation in which he lied to a grand jury. lying to a grand jury is perjury and is a criminal offense.

his wife should be brought up on similar charges soon if the DOJ does it's job. except instead of lying to a grand jury it will be lying to a federal agent.

It was a private matter between two consenting adults and - a wife. Impeachment for such a silly thing was only not necessary but once again made a laughing stock of the right-wing
 
The Significance of President Johnson's Impeachment and Trial The acquittal of Johnson also prevented later Congresses from using the threat of impeachment as a means of settling policy differences with the executive. Finally, the acquittal meant that in future impeachment trials the defendant would have to have committed an actual crime in order to be convicted.

Those are the opinions of whoever wrote the Library of Congress article. I don't agree with either one, and I am sure many other people who understand constitutional law in more depth than me don't, either.

Johnson's narrow escape from conviction and removal a century and a half ago does not prevent Congress today, nor has it prevented any Congress between then and now, from using the threat of impeachment to coerce a President into complying with policies it favors. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that--it is designed to set each of the three branches against the others. The only thing to prevent Congress from using the threat of impeachment to bend a President to its will is the belief of most of its members that there likely would not be enough votes to convict him. Unless a President's star sinks very low, most of the representatives in the House will not think there is a realistic chance the Senate would convict. And if there is not, representatives will fear that a move to impeach may backfire on them, by making their party look vindictive and arousing sympathy for the President.

The fact not quite enough Senators considered violating the Tenure of Office Act a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" to convict Johnson nearly 150 years ago would not bind any Senator in an impeachment proceeding today. Any of them would be perfectly free to decide that an offense for which the House had impeached a President qualified as a high crime or misdemeanor, even if that offense was not traditionally recognized as a crime.

The English Parliament had used the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" since the late 14th century, and most of the framers of the Constitution knew what sorts of offenses it had described. They settled on it without much discussion, after having for various reasons abandoned suggestions to use "corruption," "maladministration," and "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state" as unsatisfactory. Constitutional scholars generally agree the phrase had always referred to serious abuses by a high official of the power of his office, whether by committing a crime, or simply through negligence or malfeasance.

In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
 
Last edited:
Section II Article 4 of the US Constitution States:



Legally speaking, "We, the representatives of the United States of America declare with a bipartisan effort that we will begin impeachment proceedings against President Jackoff, for he sucketh" isn't going to pass constitutional muster.

just gonna hafta suffice with the OBAMA: One big ass mistake America. And suffer the consequences, inevitably the American public will elect an Obama every few years.
 
The question was prompted by envisioning a "President Trump". I could see both parties wanting to get rid of the asshole, but I get they can't do it for that reason alone. That being said, I could envision him eventually doing something that might qualify as a crime.
IMO, Mr. Trump ascending to the Presidency itself, is crime enough! :mrgreen:
 
^ heaping pile of dung.

Not according to the complaint filed by 3 different women. so not a heaping pile of dung it is the truth.

70 million dollar proctological examination that went on for years by Ken "panty sniffer" Starr *& "the elves" that started with a failed land deal, of which no one in the WH or administration was found guilty of for any criminal acts under the administration.

actually he was he was impeached for perjury in front of a grand jury.

Of which Clinton was found "not guilty" by the Senate.

no he was found guilty by the house. they passed the charges.
the senate voted not to remove him from office. that doesn't mean he was found innocent.

you evidently don't understand the process.
 
It was a private matter between two consenting adults and - a wife. Impeachment for such a silly thing was only not necessary but once again made a laughing stock of the right-wing

umm no not when it happens in the white house to white house staff. that is then a work place sexual harassment.

lying to a grand jury is not a silly thing, and that is why he was impeached.
 
Not according to the complaint filed by 3 different women. so not a heaping pile of dung it is the truth.

Yes. Heaping pile of dung. I know the details inside and out, and have been battling numbnuts on this for decades. Trust me: If you take me on - you will lose.

actually he was he was impeached for perjury in front of a grand jury.

The indictment was political, w/o a doubt.

no he was found guilty by the house. they passed the charges.
You know nothing. He was not "found guilty" by the House. An idictment is not a finding of guilt.
the senate voted not to remove him from office. that doesn't mean he was found innocent.

you evidently don't understand the process.
He was literally found Not Guilty.


you evidently don't understand the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom