Is the Democratic leadership guilty of Treason for trying to impeach Trump?

[katzgar]

whats embarrassing is the right nominated and elected trump.....holy crap!

 

[katzgar]

You have failed to prove your point. The law says high crimes and misdemeanors. That is clear, it is not vague. Why do liberals always sink to the level of changing the meaning of words when they cannot honestly win an argument? Lack of ethics I suppose.
You are also incorrect about the charges against Johnson, they consisted of

•violating of the Tenure of Office Act
•Pardoning of traitors (presumably Confederate officials)
•Impeding the ratification of the 14th Amendment
•Conspiring in the assassination of Lincoln (a ridiculous assertion which was dropped from the final list of charges).

Although it is accurate to compare the impeachment to what is happening today because they are both organized an efforts in Congress to impeach the president as a payback for resisting their programs.

you are getting way too legalistic. Nixon was not charged with anything when he resigned, rather the noise just got too loud.

 

[jdog]

I have approved of a few of Trump's early decisions, but of late he is downright weird. Further, I don't buy into the Left Right Paradigm, the Liberal Conservative Paradigm.

I prefer decisions that benefit the country as a whole, and the governance of the country in accordance with constitutional principles.

The various labels, left-right, are sometimes useful, but more often work against rational analysis and good governance.

The Donald was an arrogant idiot when he first came on the scene decades ago, and is today a well-aged version of the same idiot, approaching senility.

If you do not believe in the left right paradigm then you are not paying attention to what is happening in this country. The left is deliberately attacking the government and the very foundations the country was founded on. They have declared war against the President, the 1st Amendment, and Conservatives, They have usurped the main stream media for their own purposes, and broadcast blatant lies to the public, they have endorsed violence, murder, and are directly responsible for the terrorist attack on members of Congress in order to enforce their agenda by force. At this point we are closer to Civil War than at any time since 1864.

This is not even about Trump anymore, it is about the Left attempting to usurp the control of the United States by deceit, or force, or any other means.

 

[jdog]

you are getting way too legalistic. Nixon was not charged with anything when he resigned, rather the noise just got too loud.

Too legalistic? Are you insane? It is 100% a legal issue! Do you even have a clue?

 

[katzgar]

Too legalistic? Are you insane? It is 100% a legal issue! Do you even have a clue?

read my post again this time for comprehension

 

[jdog]

read my post again this time for comprehension

Your post was a shining example of idiocy, first you say impeachment is not a legal issue, and then you drag Nixon's resignation into the topic when there are clearly no similarities. Nixon conspired to commit a felony, for which there was proof.

 

[Gaius46]

You have failed to prove your point. The law says high crimes and misdemeanors. That is clear, it is not vague. Why do liberals always sink to the level of changing the meaning of words when they cannot honestly win an argument? Lack of ethics I suppose.
You are also incorrect about the charges against Johnson, they consisted of

•violating of the Tenure of Office Act
•Pardoning of traitors (presumably Confederate officials)
•Impeding the ratification of the 14th Amendment
•Conspiring in the assassination of Lincoln (a ridiculous assertion which was dropped from the final list of charges).

Although it is accurate to compare the impeachment to what is happening today because they are both organized an efforts in Congress to impeach the president as a payback for resisting their programs.

From Andrew Johnson's Articles of Impeachment:

Article X
The following additional articles of impeachment were agreed to, viz:

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of the citizens of the United States convened in divers parts thereof to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that is to say: ...

Is the above a violation of any criminal law?

The following is excerpted from a paper written by Yale Constitutional Law professor Akhil Reed Amar in 1999 about the Clinton impeachment (The full 52 page paper is here if you care to read it:

A related point: impeachment is sensibly political as well as legal.Politicians judge other politicians and impose political punishments removal from office and disqualification from future office-holding.
The standard of conduct is not narrowly legal but also political: what counts as a "high crime and misdemeanor" cannot be decided simply by parsing criminal law statutes. A statute-book offense is not necessary for impeachment: a President might be unfit to govern even if his misconduct was not an ordinary crime. (Imagine a President who simply runs off on vacation in the middle of a crisis.) Conversely, not every
technical offense in statute books-especially offenses that are not ordinarily prosecuted-should count as the kind of high misconduct that unfits a man to be President after his fellow citizens have chosen him.

...

Impeachment is not a technical issue of statute-book offenses-otherwise, it would have been given to judges, not politicians. The question of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whether a President has engaged in such
grave misconduct (whether or not technically criminal) that he is no longer fit to lead a great and free nation-whether, in other words, the votes of millions should be undone because of his gross misbehavior.

He also points out that the Senate acts as trial court, the final trial court and that the Supreme Court has no legal authority to hear appeals of impeachments.


So I've supported my position with citations from one very well respected Constitutional law scholar. I can give you others. What do you have? Other than a vague feeling of the rightness of your position?

 

[jdog]

From Andrew Johnson's Articles of Impeachment:



Is the above a violation of any criminal law?

The following is excerpted from a paper written by Yale Constitutional Law professor Akhil Reed Amar in 1999 about the Clinton impeachment (The full 52 page paper is here if you care to read it:




...



He also points out that the Senate acts as trial court, the final trial court and that the Supreme Court has no legal authority to hear appeals of impeachments.


So I've supported my position with citations from one very well respected Constitutional law scholar. I can give you others. What do you have? Other than a vague feeling of the rightness of your position?

Your example is amusing in that the Congress in Johnsons time was accusing Johnson of attempting to undermine the Congress by "destroying the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted;" which is exactly what Congress today is trying to do to Trump. Congress was in Johnsons time saying that to undermine an entire branch of government was tantamount to treason against the United States.

Thank You for making my point.......

 

[Gaius46]

Your example is amusing in that the Congress in Johnsons time was accusing Johnson of attempting to undermine the Congress by "destroying the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted;" which is exactly what Congress today is trying to do to Trump. Congress was in Johnsons time saying that to undermine an entire branch of government was tantamount to treason against the United States.

Thank You for making my point.......

First my point which you seem to have missed. Violations of criminal law are not required to impeach a president. I've cited an actual impeachment and the opinion of a well respected Constitutional scholar to support that position. You're claim that a president must violate a law to be impeached is wrong. Plain and simple.

Johnson was not accused of treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution and neither Johnson's acts nor the acts of anyone calling for Trump's impeachment rise to the level of impeachment. So your calling article X a statement that Johnson committed treason as well as that those calling for Trump to be impeached are both clearly wrong.

I suggest you actually read and understand the Constitution before making such silly statements.

For the record heee is the Constitutional definition of Treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

 

[jdog]

First my point which you seem to have missed. Violations of criminal law are not required to impeach a president. I've cited an actual impeachment and the opinion of a well respected Constitutional scholar to support that position. You're claim that a president must violate a law to be impeached is wrong. Plain and simple.

Johnson was not accused of treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution and neither Johnson's acts nor the acts of anyone calling for Trump's impeachment rise to the level of impeachment. So your calling article X a statement that Johnson committed treason as well as that those calling for Trump to be impeached are both clearly wrong.

I suggest you actually read and understand the Constitution before making such silly statements.

For the record heee is the Constitutional definition of Treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Your law professor is a clown who has no standing or credibility and is therefore irrelevant. Next you are absolutely wrong about not needing criminal charges to impeach a President. Name one President who has ever been impeached without a criminal charge. You can't because it has never happened. In addition the prosecution for Treason is not done under Constitutional law, it is done under the laws of sedition of which many are still in effect.

 

[LunaRose]

Lets see what Mueller's investigation presents and go from there. If there is nothing then Democrats need to let it go.

 

[jdog]

Lets see what Mueller's investigation presents and go from there. If there is nothing then Democrats need to let it go.

They can't let it go. If they stop muddying the water with lies and deceit, it will be apparent that they were wrong all along.

 

[Gaius46]

Your law professor is a clown who has no standing or credibility and is therefore irrelevant. Next you are absolutely wrong about not needing criminal charges to impeach a President. Name one President who has ever been impeached without a criminal charge. You can't because it has never happened. In addition the prosecution for Treason is not done under Constitutional law, it is done under the laws of sedition of which many are still in effect.

"Akhil Reed Amar (born September 6, 1958) is an American legal scholar, an expert on constitutional law and criminal procedure. Formerly the Southmayd Professor of Law at Yale Law School, he was named Sterling Professor of Law in 2008[1] and Adjunct Professor of Law in Columbia Law School in 2016.[2] A Legal Affairs poll placed Amar among the top 20 contemporary US legal thinkers.[3]"

What are your credentials?

 

[Thoreau72]

If you do not believe in the left right paradigm then you are not paying attention to what is happening in this country. The left is deliberately attacking the government and the very foundations the country was founded on. They have declared war against the President, the 1st Amendment, and Conservatives, They have usurped the main stream media for their own purposes, and broadcast blatant lies to the public, they have endorsed violence, murder, and are directly responsible for the terrorist attack on members of Congress in order to enforce their agenda by force. At this point we are closer to Civil War than at any time since 1864.

This is not even about Trump anymore, it is about the Left attempting to usurp the control of the United States by deceit, or force, or any other means.

Oh I'm paying attention to what is happening in this country, for sure. But what's happening in this country is not always what's written about in the headlines of mainstream media.

Much of what's happening in this country is under the surface. The headlines and talking heads are quite superficial, and meant to distract.

What's happening in this country is that, among other things, we are in a state of perpetual war, undeclared war. What's happening in this country is that constitutional governance is long gone. What's happening in this country is that it is utterly distracted by the entire Russia thing, the entire North Korea thing, as our collective Congress Nero fiddles as the republic burns.

 

[JackA]

The Democratic leadership has been calling for Trumps impeachment since the day he was elected. To this date none of them has provided a single shred of evidence that he has committed any high crimes that would warrant such action. With that being the case, should the members of Congress who have consistently called for the impeachment of the President of the United States be charged with Treason for attempting to undermine the United States Government without any proof or evidence?

Should persons with dim understanding of the topics they start here on history and law, such as this one, be required to go back to school?

 

[Dittohead not!]

An office holder can only be impeached for committing high crimes and misdemeanors'. To call for the impeachment of a President of the United States without any evidence of a crime being committed by a member of Congress, is to attempt to undermine the government under false pretense which is a deliberate act to undermine the government of the United States.

Tea party petition:

Please stand with us as we appeal to Congress to call for an investigation into the impeachable and unconstitutional offenses committed by Obama and his administration.

Is the Tea Party guilty of reason as well?

 

[jdog]

Oh I'm paying attention to what is happening in this country, for sure. But what's happening in this country is not always what's written about in the headlines of mainstream media.

Much of what's happening in this country is under the surface. The headlines and talking heads are quite superficial, and meant to distract.

What's happening in this country is that, among other things, we are in a state of perpetual war, undeclared war. What's happening in this country is that constitutional governance is long gone. What's happening in this country is that it is utterly distracted by the entire Russia thing, the entire North Korea thing, as our collective Congress Nero fiddles as the republic burns.

The left hates the Constitution, they would abolish it if they could. They have succeeded in nullifying the majority of it as they have installed the fascist corporate/Federal Government King as its replacement.

North Korea, on the other hand is a real threat, and needs to be dealt with. Likewise our cozy relationship with China is a recipe for an ever devolving standard of living.

The main stream media is simply the propaganda tool of the corporate / government establishment which has no more loyalty to the American people than the European government's have for their people.

The real battle lines should be drawn between the oligarchs and the people, but the idiot liberals have sided with the oligarchs because they are too damn stupid to even be able to understand reality. They are so damn stupid they actually believe that mankind is not irrationally greedy by nature and that giving an irrationally greedy person power over the masses by appointing them to government office does not corrupt them. Gees, how do people get so stupid?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The left hates the Constitution, they would abolish it if they could. They have succeeded in nullifying the majority of it as they have installed the fascist corporate/Federal Government King as its replacement.

North Korea, on the other hand is a real threat, and needs to be dealt with. Likewise our cozy relationship with China is a recipe for an ever devolving standard of living.

The main stream media is simply the propaganda tool of the corporate / government establishment which has no more loyalty to the American people than the European government's have for their people.

The real battle lines should be drawn between the oligarchs and the people, but the idiot liberals have sided with the oligarchs because they are too damn stupid to even be able to understand reality. They are so damn stupid they actually believe that mankind is not irrationally greedy by nature and that giving an irrationally greedy person power over the masses by appointing them to government office does not corrupt them. Gees, how do people get so stupid?

Wow. The irony is almost stupefying.

 

[jdog]

Should persons with dim understanding of the topics they start here on history and law, such as this one, be required to go back to school?

Liberals are completely incapable of mounting any kind of intellectual debate. They settle instead for cheap sniping from the sideline's just like Hodgkinson their hero.

 

[jdog]

Tea party petition:



Is the Tea Party guilty of reason as well?

Calling for an investigation, is not calling for impeachment.
You can call for investigations all day long, but if you are a member of Congress calling for impeachment you need to have some evidence otherwise you are impeding an entire branch of government under false pretense and that is a deliberate act to undermine the United States of America.

 

[JackA]

Liberals are completely incapable of mounting any kind of intellectual debate. They settle instead for cheap sniping from the sideline's just like Hodgkinson their hero.

You guys always give yourselves away assuming liberals go as low you do. But just because many conservatives find heroes in Timothy McVeigh types doesn't mean liberals find comfort at that same cheap level.

 

[jdog]

You guys always give yourselves away assuming liberals go as low you do. But just because many conservatives find heroes in Timothy McVeigh types doesn't mean liberals find comfort at that same cheap level.

Sure they do. Their idols are people like Johnny Depp, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and others who have advocated killing the rightfully elected President. What a sorry bunch of SOB's

 

[Fledermaus]

The Democratic leadership has been calling for Trumps impeachment since the day he was elected. To this date none of them has provided a single shred of evidence that he has committed any high crimes that would warrant such action. With that being the case, should the members of Congress who have consistently called for the impeachment of the President of the United States be charged with Treason for attempting to undermine the United States Government without any proof or evidence?

Treason?

No.

Go look up the legal definition.

 

[Fledermaus]

Your law professor is a clown who has no standing or credibility and is therefore irrelevant. Next you are absolutely wrong about not needing criminal charges to impeach a President. Name one President who has ever been impeached without a criminal charge. You can't because it has never happened. In addition the prosecution for Treason is not done under Constitutional law, it is done under the laws of sedition of which many are still in effect.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

 

[Thoreau72]

The left hates the Constitution, they would abolish it if they could. They have succeeded in nullifying the majority of it as they have installed the fascist corporate/Federal Government King as its replacement.

North Korea, on the other hand is a real threat, and needs to be dealt with. Likewise our cozy relationship with China is a recipe for an ever devolving standard of living.

The main stream media is simply the propaganda tool of the corporate / government establishment which has no more loyalty to the American people than the European government's have for their people.

The real battle lines should be drawn between the oligarchs and the people, but the idiot liberals have sided with the oligarchs because they are too damn stupid to even be able to understand reality. They are so damn stupid they actually believe that mankind is not irrationally greedy by nature and that giving an irrationally greedy person power over the masses by appointing them to government office does not corrupt them. Gees, how do people get so stupid?

Yes and no.

The USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the various NDAA Amendments were all bipartisan efforts. That is, both the left and the right cooperated in those direct attacks on constitutional governance. Indeed, both the left and right support and embrace the GWOT, a direct attack on constitutional governance.

North Korea is a mouse, as was Iraq. The rocket they fired yesterday is likely the only one they have. Can they get 2 in a row? Maybe, maybe not. Recognition in diplomacy, talking to them would likely be successful. We have ignored them and called them names for decades.

By way of debt interests and business interests, we are rather married to the Chinese.

Yes on the mainstream media as propaganda tool for the fascist state we have, including the deep state.

I think the battle lines have been drawn. How successful the battle will be remains to be seen. We The People have been steadily conditioned to believe as we do. As Casey said, when everything the American people believe is false, we will know how successful our misinformation efforts have been.