• 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!

If innocent of collusion but guilty of other felonies, do we impeach Trump?

AustralianuS said:
Makes no sense.

So lets say he gets a police citation for speeding or accidently running a red light thats a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

If you read it correctly it reads as 'high crimes and (high) misdemeanors'. Not a typical civic misdemeanor i.e., high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
 
Xelor said:
On what, pray tell, are you founding the emboldened statements above? By my reckoning, the answer is nothing other than abductive reasoning, which, while it may be sufficient for you, isn't remotely so for me.

Regardless of what you think, or would like to think, an indictment and/or criminal conviction would achieve, I think you are disregarding that legally there are three ways to remove someone from the Presidency, and only two of them are legal. Of the two that are legal, there's absolutely no assurance that either would be implemented.

While, as the above documents explain, the notion of indicting the person who is also the person ultimately in charge of the organization that's prosecuting him/her, the DoJ, is highly problematic, even more problematic is the prospect of a person holding the Office of the President after being convicted.
  • What happens if Congress refuses to impeach and unseat such a POTUS?
    • Say the POTUS signs an executive order making the WH a federal penitentiary and orders that he be transferred there. Think of the other heretofore absurd EOs a convicted POTUS might sign that would all but fly in the face of everything pertaining to the principles of jurisprudence, crime and punishment.
    • Will the judicial branch step and invalidate any such EO? What about other EOs the POTUS might issue?
That's just one example of the foreseeable mayhem to beset us were we to have a convicted felon being POTUS while also supposedly being incarcerated. With a POTUS like Trump, one for whom everything is personal and for whom everything is about personal allegiances, the U.S. could very quickly descend into an authoritarian "republic" much like Turkey, the PRC, Russia or Renaissance England, for example.
Click to expand...
You can have your opinion but that is all it is , in fact in this case your wrong. Mueller is doing this through a grand jury, That give him access to all scum bag records and anyone else he feels fit to go after. and Mueller can prosecute any federal crime he finds in the investigation, including the president. There is nothing in the constitution that says scum bag can't be prosecuted and tried for a crime. It set the parameters that are needed to Impeach and the parameter that have to be met to throw him out of office. But absolutely nothing about protecting a felon from prosecution in a country where law is supreme.
The writers of our constitution were absolutely brilliant in the completeness of it's totality, If they wanted a sitting president to not be prosecuted for criminal actions they would have made that totally clear. and there is no such statement in the constitution. So you can take you opinion anyplace you want but it won't hold water.
Mueller knows that the right will sell out this country to stay in power , they have already. They will never impeach. So mueller is going for a conviction, it will go to the supreme court and will be supported there also.
 
independentusa said:
What law are you suggesting is unconstitutional that Trump allegedly broke?
Click to expand...
No one here has to have the charges that MUeller will be using . Asking for them is a hoot and ridiculous.
 
Gaius46 said:
Conviction requires 2/3rds vote. There were only 55 Republicans in the Senate. That said I scanned the voting record quickly and a handful of Republicans voted to acquit on both counts.
Click to expand...
The only thing I see as important is that the charges are definitely impeachable and they will be and as far as I'm concerned the right not impeaching will do exactly what history will do the this hate party anyway ,
Demographics will bring down the hate party in three decades ,no way getting around that but this scum bag presidency and the clown show that goes with it ,will bring that to one decade give or take and mueller bringing federal charges against scum bag and the ride up the courts to the top with Mueller winning there also and probably a automatic conviction, the charges will be gross. . Let him govern by jail, guess what will happen at that point , scumbag will be impeached by 100% of both houses.
 
I love this, somehow this goofy group known as the hate party think that they can justify what scum bag did by the actions of someone else . Couldn't be funnier but you think that logic over time would even bring air heads to the conclusion that someones actions can't be justified by what someone else does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom