Look out below. Nancy Pelosi and CNN and the mainstream media just threw the Constitution out the window, and it’s going to make a helluva mess when it hits the ground. It’s actually worse than that: the Constitution is right now on life support guided by Doctor Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Look at it this way. When the genius Founding Fathers created the Constitution, they went off in a new direction from previous systems.
Clearly the government of the new United States of America was not going to be a monarchy. Nor was it going to be a parliamentary system whereby the legislature could simply dismiss the chief magistrate of the government by a vote in the House of Commons.
Something infinitely more brilliant, more innovative was to be the order of the day: the citizens would vote for super-voters in an electoral college. These people would be apportioned to the states on the basis of many items, but population was clearly one of them.
These electors would then elect the president. This worthy gentleman ( soon it could be a woman, too ) would assume the office of president along with a vice president of the same political party (although parties are not mentioned at all in the founding documents). This person would see that the laws be faithfully executed. He could not be thrown out of office by a simple vote of the parliament as in the Mother Country.
That is, a motion of no confidence could not remove the president. No, to remove the president, the Congress had to vote overwhelmingly by a majority of votes in the lower house (House of Representatives) to “impeach” the president. Then that had to be backed up by a two-thirds vote in the upper body (something like a House of Lords but not hereditary, instead elected).
Crucially, vitally, the impeachment could only be for bribery, treason, and “other crimes and misdemeanors.” It could not be just because the parliament did not like the president’s looks.
Time has passed. Originally voters had to be men of means and white. Thank God that’s been fixed, and now almost anyone can vote. That was the Civil Rights movement. But the Constitution was never changed to say that there needed only to be a lack of confidence in the president as expressed by the legislature to dismiss the chief executive. That would have made the U.S. system the same as the British system. The Constitutional system, which provided for a highly stable president who could only be removed by a legislature confronting truly horrendous misconduct in the White House, is history. We supposedly did not have that and never would. Oops.
But then came the War Between the States and the attempted removal of Andrew Johnson because he had affronted the GOP in Congress, not because of anything truly serious. That was a huge blow at the Constitution. It did not pass by just one vote.
Then came the media/leftists’ attempt to alter the Constitution by impeaching Richard M. Nixon for a series of trivia that infuriated powerful people who had always hated Nixon. RN avoided that by resigning — one of the worst things that’s ever happened to America.
Then, in the late ’90s, the GOP majority in Congress sought revenge by impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair. That went nowhere because the Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate and made sure Clinton could not be impeached and convicted. This was a titanic mistake by the GOP (oral sex is not treason, and politicians lie all the time ), but at least Clinton had done something wrong. He was not just impeached because powerful men and women detested him. He had lied under oath — not to mention making a young girl give him oral sex under the same desk where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
But now we have a situation in which the leftists are trying to kick out the duly elected president because of some highly dubious allegations about his conversations in which even if Trump did exactly what the leftists said he did, it’s certainly not a “high crime (or) misdemeanor.”
It’s not even that. Pelosi is pushing this because she is afraid of losing her beloved gavel. She has folded under pressure from a gang of fit-throwing toddlers that actually thing you can make up a lie and impeach the President for it, then replace him with someone they choose. Pelosi is no leader nor a legislator. She’s an arrogant coward.
There is absolutely NOTHING unconstitutional about the House impeachment investigation.
Remember, republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying about having had extramarital sex with another consenting adult, who’s unwilling testimony was obtained by entrapment and threats of prosecution. They didn’t seem to think anything about that was “unconstitutional”.
How does that compare with the outlandish bullshit that Donald Trump has been up to?
Commie Greggie dissents with the opinion of an actual lawyer, Ben Stein.
Then spins the actual facts of the Clinton impeachment.
Will no one rid us of Commie Greggie?
@Greg:
There is nothing legitimate or just about it, either. It’s a power play and, if Democrats even IMAGINED they had an impeachable offense, they’d be having a vote for impeachment instead of biased rules, secret hearings and objectivity and honesty blocked at every turn.
If it was such a minor offense, why did he lie about it? UNDER OATH? IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY? It’s not the subject of the lie, it’s the PERJURY. I know Democrats think perjury doesn’t apply to them, but in reality, it does.
Clinton’s crimes overwhelms anything Trump has done because he has DONE NOTHING WRONG.
@Deplorable Me: High crime (or) misdemeanor is the standard, not investigate til you and the DNC propaganda machine convince morons that asking to investigate a possible crime by a previous politician, as per a filmed confession , is a damn crime. We have a treaty with this country that states they will cooperate with such investigations.
Help find servers involved in an alleged cyber crime so they can be properly investigated. Not that they are not already destroyed to prevent any real investigation.
@retire05, #4:
Ben Stein:
Your actual lawyer’s article is total bullshit. It boils down to nothing more the assertion that appears above, which Stein simply presumes to be correct. He then follows the assertion with absolutely nothing in support of it. He doesn’t even bother to present an argument. The logical fallacy of begging the question doesn’t get any more blatant or obvious than this. Any lawyer presenting such a bogus defense at trial would be laughed out of the courtroom.
The correct phrase is actually “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Specific conduct falling under that heading is what Donald Trump is soon going to be charged with. Each such charge will be set out in the House as a separate article of impeachment. Evidence will be laid out in support of such charges, arguments made, and a vote will then be taken. If a House majority consider the case credible, a resolution to impeach will be passed and sent to the Senate. A formal trial will then be conducted, where the case will be argued, testimony and evidence will be presented and challenged, and a verdict reached. Removal of the President from office would require a two-thirds majority of all Senators present. (Note that last word, “present”. Cowardly Senators can always fail to show up, reducing the number it takes to reach two-thirds.)
That’s the constitutional process, and that’s what we’ll be seeing before too long.
@Greg: Doesnt matter, Wont get through the senate and Trump will be reelected and the stroking dems will lose the house.
The IG report will be damning for the previous admin.
Your Pravda is making the same damn mistake they made in 2016 it is keeping Trumps name front and center if only to keep the people from knowing the dems only have a socialist/communist platform.
His coverage before the last election was just as negative.
@Greg:
I know you like to play like you are an expert in juris prudence. So why don’t you tell us what Codes of Criminal Law Trump has violated which includes “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Give us the statute in their entirety.
Perhaps you should try to get a job play acting an attorney on some third rate TV show.
You’re an idiot, Comrade Greggie.
@Greg:
Yep, when Barr begins his trials and those who chose to engage in a coup instead of obey the Constitution will see how the process works.
You won’t like it.
You still need an impeachable offense. You don’t have one. Crying all your tears away is not impeachable.
Stein was wrong the DOJ was investigating a burglary.The President was an accessory after the fact
Lewinsky is subpoenaed by lawyers for Paula Jones, who is suing the president on sexual harassment charges. Lewinsky reportedly met privately with Clinton and he allegedly encouraged her to be “evasive” in her answers in the Jones’ lawsuit.
Lewinsky files an affidavit in the Jones case in which she denies ever having a sexual relationship with President Clinton.
Linda Tripp contacts the office of Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr to talk about Lewinsky and the tapes she made of their conversations. The tapes allegedly have Lewinsky detailing an affair with Clinton and indicate that Clinton and Clinton friend Vernon Jordan told Lewinsky to lie about the alleged affair under oath.
Lewinsky handed over to prosecutors a dark blue dress that she alleges may contain physical evidence of a sexual relationship with President Bill Clinton. The dress is turned over to the FBI lab for testing.
Perjury, witness tampering, sexual harrassment, and other crimes.
The case of Clinton was done in a grand jury setting not by congress
Nixon in a grand jury setting not by congress.
Schiffs non stop leaking has killed that, try to find an american that hasnt already formed an opinion .
@retire05, #8:
I know a bullshit argument when I see it. You don’t have to be a lawyer to notice that there’s no logical argument being made in this one. Stein is a very bright man and certainly capable of far better.
Haven’t you been paying attention? According to the Department of Justice, Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted under criminal law. According to his lawyers, he cannot be investigated to determine if he has broken such laws, either. But “other high crimes and misdemeanors” isn’t limited to violations of statutory law.
Breaking his oath of office to uphold the laws of the land might fall under the heading of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He has ordered subordinates to break various laws—to ignore congressional subpoenas and to refuse to provide specified congressional committees with his tax returns as required by law, for example. Misuse of his powers of office to obtain political advantage from one or more foreign powers would qualify, too, even though one of his spokespersons has publicly stated that misuse of power isn’t illegal. Violations of the Emoluments Clause could be a basis for impeachment, even though not a prosecutable crime. He could likely be removed from office for obstruction of justice, even though he couldn’t be criminally charged.
Think not? Let’s see what happens.
@Greg: “other high crimes and misdemeanors” isn’t limited to violations of statutory law. it cannot be read as any thing else but crimes and misemeanors no matter how you try to twist the constitution for you purposes.
impeachment could only be for bribery, treason, and “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Not I dont like his tweets, his foreign policy, proving America doesnt have to be in decline, nor upholding laws of the United States by investigating a confessed criminal, or criminal actions taken by those investigating him.
Think you can? Lets see what happens.
@Greg:
He can’t be prosecuted if he hasn’t committed a crime, either, no matter how badly you want to.
Those are YOUR rules. Someone that happens to be a candidate for office can’t be investigated for a crime because that’ political… OH, if forgot… IF they are a Democrat. Trump HAS been investigated… intensely and endlessly. And you have nothing but the rumors from some CIA hack that gutlessly hides.
Except there is NO evidence whatsoever that he had done this. All the abuse of power is being committed by Democrats trying to find SOMETHING that is substantive enough to validate their prior baseless accusations.
Where did all of Schitt’s evidence of collusion go? Now he says he has a pile of impeachable crimes; when it grows to a mountain, it somehow disappears. Why do you believe this embarrassing liar? He is going to destroy your party, if he hasn’t already. Democrats are hoping the THREAT of impeachment is going to be enough to destroy his campaign (once again, the very thing you want to accuse Trump of doing) and if he actually gets reelected, which he probably will? What will your Democrats say then?
@Greg:
Yet, the President is being investigated, in secret in the basement of the Congress, by not one Congressional committee, but at least three, a never before heard of process.
You have said a lot of really stupid things here at FA, Comrade Greggie, but this one has to be the dumbest of all.
“That which has not been made illegal is legal” is the absolute basis of the framework of our judicial system and our government. You are free to walk your dog on the south side of the road unless there exists a law/statute which states “walking your dog on the south side of the road is prohibited.”
OK, I’ll bite; what violation of the Oath of Office of the President of the United States has Trump violated?
Trump, as Obama, has exercised “Executive privilege” regarding subpoenas. You had no problem, at least mentioned none, when Obama did that same thing.
What law provides the mandatory provision of a President’s tax returns, both while occupying office and prior to occupying office. If you are going to make these claims, Comrade Greggie, cite law and statute.
You mean like Obama’s hot mic moment when he said “Vladimir” should allow him to win his election so he could be more “flexible”?
Nice try, but already tossed out of court.
Mueller testified that there was NO obstruction on the part of the President of Mueller’s investigation. You have been told that, time after time, yet you refused to admit it.
The Federalist Papers were clear; you cannot impeach a President just because you don’t like his looks, or his foreign policy or just because…………………..
I suggest you read them. You might then have the ability to come off looking a little less stupid.
@retire05:
Love your sense of humor!
His reading the federalist papers without CNN or MSDNC telling him what they really say?
@Greg:
When your religion is the god of relativism, you can believe that…or anything you find expedient.
Meanwhile, in the still democratic republic of the United States, a failed yet corrupt Democratic Party is taking one last, illegal stab at keeping it’s 20th-Century style ideal of governing by throwing a hail marry pass…though no one is down field and the holding penalties already have flags thrown…
Your party has lost the game.
@Greg:
If only you meant that, you’d be at a better job…rather than abetting treason.
@kitt, #12:
High crimes and misdemeanors refers to serious misconduct in office, which is not limited to the breaking of specific statutory laws applicable to the average citizen. It includes serious misconduct that’s in violation of one’s sworn oath of office, even if no specific law is broken.
The legal meaning of a misdemeanor is a nonindictable offense.
The misdemeanor part of “high crimes and misdemeanors” refers to serious wrongdoing for which an elected official cannot be indicted. The founders clearly weren’t intending their words to mean “felonies and petty offences” .
@Greg:
Provide link.
@Greg: The founders clearly weren’t intending their words to mean “felonies and petty offences” . Prove it quote from the federalist papers. Remember they were not simpering snowflake liberals. They didnt want the government to interfere in their lives.
The arrogance of some non-name NSC member, with no accountability to voters, proclaiming a duly elected President is “subverting” foreign policy is just mind-blowing. It’s a good case for every single President cleaning house the moment they take office. Did anyone advise them it is the duly elected President that sets policy?
From Cornell Law School:
From George Will, a lifelong conservative who left the Republican Party in protest of Donald Trump’s nomination. He has since stated that the Republican Party has become a cult.
@Greg: Blah, blah, blah. You still don’t have an impeachable offense. Trump has not done anything even CLOSE to the corruption Biden committed. Numerous Democrats solicited Ukraine (and other countries) for political dirt on Trump. The corrupt media can’t protect your party forever; it’s falling apart.
@Greg: From George Will, a lifelong conservative who left the Republican Party in protest of Donald Trump’s nomination.
Trump had done nothing wrong except win the nomination and this goofy bastid decides the entire republican platform and party is beneath him. I hardly consider any opinion from such a person worthy of consideration. I did not like either Bush, McCain or Romney that did not make me abandon the party or platform, nor become a bigot against all republican representatives. He has zero respect for the will of the voters.
@Deplorable Me, #23:
From The American Spectator article:
From George Will:
Do you remember how the Nixon presidency ended? Of course, many Republicans put the Constitution and country ahead of party, back then. But some of them might yet again.
@Greg: What do you think of Biden being toast and the exposed PROOF of what Trump was wanting investigated? FACTS, Greg. FACTS, not hearsay and second hand overheard conversations about opinions.
FACTS.
Funny thing is, the other Democrats can’t turn on Biden because they need the phony focus of wrongdoing to remain on Trump to keep it off of the actual Democrat corruption. But, this has just blown up in the Democrat’s lying, corrupt, anti-American faces.
@Greg: As I previously posted both impeachments were valid they didnt remove Clinton because they thought they had him nutted, a grevious error. Both were initially handled by Grand Jury not politicians. Both involved crimes not simply partisan thong knots.
@Greg:
Congratulations, Comrade Greggie. You found Cornell Law’s website. Only to post a link to something you clearly don’t understand, i.e. legal terminology. And addresses none of my response to you in post #14.
But hey, continue making an ass out of yourself. It’s enjoyable to read.
@Deplorable Me, #26:
I think there’s no evidence of any wrongdoing on Biden’s part, and that Trump’s effort to have some cooked up is what has blown up in somebody’s face. Also, I think the Democratic Party candidate may turn out to be someone that nobody presently expects. I’m only guessing, but I can see that happening.
@retire05, #28:
Misdemeanor charges aren’t brought against a person by way of an indictment. They’re brought by way of a formal complaint or citation. Why don’t you go find a few lawyers and ask them, and stop bothering people you’ve already decided not to believe.
@Greg:
YOU think. How about how the evidence looks? You and the rest of you Democrats simply don’t care about corruption; Democrats ARE corruption. They have corrupted the government have weaponized impeachment, not because they have any evidence, but because they have a majority and the power to abuse their power.
Biden is as guilty as hell, but that has to be proven. There should be an investigation and one is probably already underway. But, this totally obliterates the Democrat’s claims of impropriety; Biden committed extortion and abuse of power and it MUST be investigated. It doesn’t make a damn if he’s a candidate or not. He’s a criminal.
@Greg:
And I said they were where? Oh, that’s right. I didn’t.
Ummmm, wrong reindeer.
You got your law degree where?
Wait….you’re not a lawyer? Do you only play one on internet websites?
@retire05, #32:
Back to the point I made, before you began your predictable little song and dance number:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” also refers to serious misconduct in office, which is not limited only to the breaking of specific statutory laws applicable to the average citizen. It also includes serious misconduct that’s in violation of one’s sworn oath of office, even if no specific law is broken.
@Greg:
Yes. Nothing of note has been brought to bear on this, regarding Trump’s conduct, so all is good. Biden confessing a high crime on film? That’s bad.
The desperation is high, and the Dems have to go all in on impeachment because Trump has won…at so many things…and their sub-government they installed during the Obama years is being extricated, thankfully.
The Dems are committing Treason.
FTA:
Hillary went on & on about how she won the “popular vote.”
Almost every Dem candidate has gone on record as opposing the Electoral College.
BUT……
Just watch “Dancing With the Stars.”
Sean Spicer, never to be confused with Twitter satirist Sean Spicier, is among the dancers.
And, every week, no matter how poorly he dances, how wooden he is, how bad his timing is, he gets enough votes from the public to be declared safe from elimination!
So, Dancing With the Stars is changing the rules JUST TO GET RID OF HIM.
They substituted an Electoral College for the popular vote.
A small cadre of voters now get to decide who stays and who goes instead of the votes of the people!
Dems did this.
So, which is it?
Do they want to impose a popular vote on America, or, do they want the Electoral College to make the final decision?