• 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!

Constitutional loopholes.

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
4,446
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.
 
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.

One of the first things the new republican Congress should do after the next election is haul Schitft before an impeachment committee and condemn him for lying to Congress, obstructing investigations into democrat corruption and violating the civil and human rights of hundreds of innocent Americans.
 
One of the first things the new republican Congress should do after the next election is haul Schitft before an impeachment committee and condemn him for lying to Congress, obstructing investigations into democrat corruption and violating the civil and human rights of hundreds of innocent Americans.

Then throw the dirty dog out on his unwashed azz.
 
One of the first things the new republican Congress should do after the next election is haul Schitft before an impeachment committee and condemn him for lying to Congress, obstructing investigations into democrat corruption and violating the civil and human rights of hundreds of innocent Americans.

Hi! There are any number of things which partisans of either party would like to see done. The number of them which will actually come to pass, however, is smaller more than somewhat.

Regards.
 
Then throw the dirty dog out on his unwashed azz.

You're just mad because he's intelligent, articulate, educated prosecutor and going after your god's ass.:lamo
 
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.

The Constitution specifically authorizes barring a person convicted on impeachment from holding any office.

It is not, however, required.

It's not a "loophole," it's by design.
 
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.

If he were removed (highly doubtful), he could also be barred from ever holding the office again.

Clause VI | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
You're just mad because he's intelligent, articulate, educated prosecutor and going after your god's ass.:lamo

If Schiff is so educated and intelligent, then explain why is he moving on obstruction charges against a president. Pretty uninformed.
 
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.

Sure, the constitution is a document that has withstood the test of time for 240 years, up to now that is. We can no longer claim that the constitution is still working, because it simply is not. A president can be impeached as Bill Clinton was and still serve because he was impeached in the House but not the Senate. That was Bill Clinton's second term but if it was his first, he could have run for a second term, there's no question about that. Perhaps it's a legal loophole that a president that has been impeached in both the House and Senate and also removed from office, can run for election again. I don't believe that's the law, but if by some weird happenstance it is the law, I don't think any man or woman in their right mind would be stupid enough to run for election again after being impeached and removed.

The proof of the failure of the Constitution, when it comes to the impeachment of a president, has been the failure of the democrats in the House to follow through securing their Congressional right according to the constitution to impel witnesses called to testify and to impel the WH to turn over documents subpoenaed. Those are rights clearly cemented in the constitution and any federal judge using the constitution as a basis for ruling, would most certainly rule in favor of the House. Subsequent to these rulings, witnesses that have been ordered to defy subpoenas would be compelled under penalty of jail or hefty fines, to appear and give testimony. All documents that had been denied would be turned over. In other words, it would be an impeachment investigation utilizing all the tools afforded to the Congress under the constitution. Ninety-eight percent of the witnesses and documents requested have been flatly refused. That is unconstitutional.

So although the document has worked for the previous 240 years, it no longer works.
 
If Schiff is so educated and intelligent, then explain why is he moving on obstruction charges against a president. Pretty uninformed.

He's representing the entire body of the House of Representatives by Chairing the Intelligence Committee. He's not the one charging Trump with impeachment, there's roughly 230 Democrats that, as a majority body in the House, are in agreement with these proceedings, it's not solely the 'will' of Adam Schiff. And that is why Adam Schiff is Chairman of the House Intel Committee representing the party, not himself.

And yes, he is that educated having graduated from both Stanford and Harvard with a law degree and was the Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. While a prosecutor, Adam Schiff prosecuted the case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent who was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union.
 
He's representing the entire body of the House of Representatives by Chairing the Intelligence Committee. He's not the one charging Trump with impeachment, there's roughly 230 Democrats that, as a majority body in the House, are in agreement with these proceedings, it's not solely the 'will' of Adam Schiff. And that is why Adam Schiff is Chairman of the House Intel Committee representing the party, not himself.

And yes, he is that educated having graduated from both Stanford and Harvard with a law degree and was the Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. While a prosecutor, Adam Schiff prosecuted the case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent who was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union.

So why is Schiff pushing on obstruction charges. I thought he was smarter than that.
 
He's representing the entire body of the House of Representatives by Chairing the Intelligence Committee. He's not the one charging Trump with impeachment, there's roughly 230 Democrats that, as a majority body in the House, are in agreement with these proceedings, it's not solely the 'will' of Adam Schiff. And that is why Adam Schiff is Chairman of the House Intel Committee representing the party, not himself.

And yes, he is that educated having graduated from both Stanford and Harvard with a law degree and was the Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. While a prosecutor, Adam Schiff prosecuted the case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent who was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union.

So you mean to tell me that out of 230 Democrats, Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler, not one of them know you can't charge a president for obstruction of Congress. Pretty telling.
 
So why is Schiff pushing on obstruction charges. I thought he was smarter than that.

There were at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. Robert Mueller was not tasked with investigating obstruction of justice, he was tasked with investigating Russian interference in our election. He left the investigations of obstruction of justice to Congress to complete. The mere interference of Trump regarding instructing witnesses to refuse to comply with subpoenas is just one case of obstruction that wasn't even in the Mueller report. There's 10 more.
 
So you mean to tell me that out of 230 Democrats, Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler, not one of them know you can't charge a president for obstruction of Congress. Pretty telling.

And your source for this information as to articles of impeachment is...?
 
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.

If elected by citizens to return.
 
There were at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. Robert Mueller was not tasked with investigating obstruction of justice, he was tasked with investigating Russian interference in our election. He left the investigations of obstruction of justice to Congress to complete. The mere interference of Trump regarding instructing witnesses to refuse to comply with subpoenas is just one case of obstruction that wasn't even in the Mueller report. There's 10 more.

First off, how can you obstruct an investigation that stated neither Trump or any Trump campaign member conspired with Russia? Second, Mueller himself stated Trump complied with every request to provide information.

Last but not least there is this little problem that for some reason is just over the heads of Democrats.

Obama's OLC refused to allow Obama cabinet members to testify based on their declaration that the president and his cabnet are immune from supoenas and testimony from Congress. Even the DOJ has the same stance.

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

White House says top Obama aide will not testify before House panel - Reuters

Yeah, Schiff is quite the intelligent one. How many times has he accused the president of obstructing his hearings now?
 
First off, how can you obstruct an investigation that stated neither Trump or any Trump campaign member conspired with Russia? Second, Mueller himself stated Trump complied with every request to provide information.

Last but not least there is this little problem that for some reason is just over the heads of Democrats.

Obama's OLC refused to allow Obama cabinet members to testify based on their declaration that the president and his cabnet are immune from supoenas and testimony from Congress. Even the DOJ has the same stance.

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

White House says top Obama aide will not testify before House panel - Reuters

Yeah, Schiff is quite the intelligent one. How many times has he accused the president of obstructing his hearings now?

Robert Mueller's investigation report will spell out for you all 10 instance of possible obstruction of justice. All you have to do is read it then you'll have the answer to your first question.

Mueller report: read the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice - Vox

Your second question is immaterial as to how many times Adam Schiff has accused Trump of obstruction, that's beside the point. The point is that he has obstructed justice and the evidence of that is as open and plain as the nose on your face.

The 300 page indictment reads:

“Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to seek to completely obstruct an impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives under Article I of the Constitution, which vests the House with the ‘sole power of impeachment,’” the report states. “He has publicly and repeatedly rejected the authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his actions and has directly challenged the authority of the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry into his actions regarding Ukraine.”

Immediately after launching the impeachment probe, democrats made a crucial decision to largely abandon its attempts to compel the production of documents and witnesses from the administration through the courts; instead, they simply responded to each ignored subpoena by warning Trump and his aides that the refusal could be grounds for an obstruction charge.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution specifically authorizes barring a person convicted on impeachment from holding any office.

It is not, however, required.

It's not a "loophole," it's by design.

Hi! Thank you for the additional information. Chances are extremely good that the 'suppose' of the OP will not happen. President of the United States of America Donald Trump's hold on the Republican congress is sufficient to insure the vote in the Senate will go his way.

Regards.
 
There are those who look at the US Constitution as a near-perfect document. That it is a constitution which, as amended and as modulated by case law, has stood through 240 years is also a fact. That it contains some interesting loopholes is also true.

Consider the present impeachment proceedings. It is possible [Ed.: Though highly improbable,] that President of the United States of America Donald Trump can be removed from office with less than a year remaining of his term of office. It is also true that he is in his first term and thus not barred from serving a second term.

You can see where this is going. It's possible, and not banned by the constitution, that a president can be impeached, removed from office, and can then return to office at the next election.

It's hypothetically possible, but it seems like a Congress that managed to remove a president from office would likely just repeat the process in an afternoon. The re-elected criminal would barely make it past his own inauguration.
 
You're just mad because he's intelligent, articulate, educated prosecutor and going after your god's ass.:lamo

I wouldn't use the word "intelligent." How about "only moderately stupid?"
 
Robert Mueller's investigation report will spell out for you all 10 instance of possible obstruction of justice. All you have to do is read it then you'll have the answer to your first question.

Mueller report: read the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice - Vox

Your second question is immaterial as to how many times Adam Schiff has accused Trump of obstruction, that's beside the point. The point is that he has obstructed justice and the evidence of that is as open and plain as the nose on your face.

The 300 page indictment reads:

“Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to seek to completely obstruct an impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives under Article I of the Constitution, which vests the House with the ‘sole power of impeachment,’” the report states. “He has publicly and repeatedly rejected the authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his actions and has directly challenged the authority of the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry into his actions regarding Ukraine.”

Immediately after launching the impeachment probe, democrats made a crucial decision to largely abandon its attempts to compel the production of documents and witnesses from the administration through the courts; instead, they simply responded to each ignored subpoena by warning Trump and his aides that the refusal could be grounds for an obstruction charge.

Democrats are just learning impaired. It doesn't matter that a president and his cabinet have immunity from ANY congressional testimony. What part of those 5 words is hard to understand? It was Obama's OLC that also declared neither Obama or his staff could be compelled to testify but that doesn't matter. The DOJ and OLC rulings doesn't matter.

Democrats want it their way so nothing but what they want matters. This is why the DNC is bankrupt. Democrats are just ignorant of existing laws.
 
Democrats are just learning impaired. It doesn't matter that a president and his cabinet have immunity from ANY congressional testimony. What part of those 5 words is hard to understand? It was Obama's OLC that also declared neither Obama or his staff could be compelled to testify but that doesn't matter. The DOJ and OLC rulings doesn't matter.

Democrats want it their way so nothing but what they want matters. This is why the DNC is bankrupt. Democrats are just ignorant of existing laws.

Really, can't you people come up with something more original and newer? Your talking points are stale. 'brush-rinse-repeat'

blah-by-rainy-bleu-dad3wwa.gif
 
And your source for this information as to articles of impeachment is...?

Obama's OLC refused to allow Obama cabinet members to testify based on their declaration that the president and his cabinet are immune from subpoenas and testimony from Congress. Even the DOJ has the same stance.

DOJ Position
The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

OLC Position in 2014 defending Obama
"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process," the OLC wrote. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

Its just too bad Democrats are so learning impaired. They don't even know the laws governing Presidential immunity for congressional testimony.

White House Cites Immunity, Rebuffs Issa Subpoena for Simas

Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

White House says top Obama aide will not testify before House panel - Reuters
 
Really, can't you people come up with something more original and newer? Your talking points are stale. 'brush-rinse-repeat'

blah-by-rainy-bleu-dad3wwa.gif

So now you think the OLC and the DOJ are just providing talking points? So what is a judge's ruling now, an opinion? Laughable.

DOJ
Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

OLC
"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process," the OLC wrote. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

White House Cites Immunity, Rebuffs Issa Subpoena for Simas
 
Back
Top Bottom