Impeachment Is Unwarranted

Now that the American people have all the evidence they are likely to get against Donald Trump's impeachment investigation, I'd like to offer my considered opinion of the matter. I'd like to start by saying I think Trump has made some very bad foreign policy decisions, and trying pressure Ukraine the way he apparently did, is a prime example. Fair enough, the American people will have their say within a year. FWIW, I also think he has made some foreign policy decisions that are spot on, and ones that likely nobody else would have made.

However, his bad decisions, his atrocious manners or whatever else you can say about the man do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. There is not the constitutionally mandated "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Bad judgment, even self-serving bad judgment, does not make the cut. Yes, yes, Adam Schiff and Nacny Pelosi have floated a very broad concept of bribery, with the former claiming that when the Constitution was written, bribery was a far broader therm than it is today. Well, it certainly is nice to see a Democrat adhere to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, Schiff and Pelosi lie. Moreover, they lie in an effort to gain a political end. Why, can you imagine such a thing in this day and age?

Jonathan Turley in WSJ goes into some of the history of the impeachment clause. And indeed, George Mason, who represented Virginia in the Constitutional Convention, argued that the bribery, treason and high crimes was insufficient to warrant impeachment; he wanted a broader rationale, to include "maladministration". That did not make it into the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution specifically rejected terms ranging from "corruption", "negligence", "perfidy" (dishonesty), and "peculation" (self-dealing) in addition to "maladministration": none of them are impeachable offenses. The framers wisely, I think, set a high bar for impeachment, and the 25th Amendment grants the Cabinet the right to remove a president for reasons other than those stated in the original Constitution. James Madison (another illustrious Virginian) noted that maladministration was "so vague a term [as to] be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate". Democrats want to substitute their judgment for that of the Constitution and to deny the American people the right to choose their president.

On another thread on this site, some have argued that the use of Trump hotels by government officials constitutes bribery. Again, those people are simply twisting the Constitution to gain their desired political end- no quid pro quo has even been seriously charged. This whole impeachment process, which has been a major distraction to the government is about what one would expect from a party that places a freshman representative who claims, "We're going to impeach the motherfucker" in a position of influence (and people complain Trump is crude). The United States is not well served by abusing the constitutionally established methods of impeachment for political ends.

 

It's not just a "bad decision" to threaten to withhold military aid appropriated by Congress and badly needed by a country to defend itself against Russian aggression. And to do this to manufacture dirt against a political opponent, thereby encouraging a foreign country to meddle in our election and to use the resources of our government in a purely partisan manner. And to violate our federal election laws. Last I looked, bribery (mentioned in the Constitution) and extortion were high crimes, as is the attempt to commit them. A quid pro quo has been amply established, and is unnecessary to support the charges. And to completely obstruct any effort of the United States Congress to investigate his misconduct by forbidding cooperation and testimony of executive branch officials, thereby obstructing justice and interfering with Congress's constitutionally authorized oversight function. And his emoluments clause violations by retaining hotels that can and are being used by foreign government officials to curry favor with the Prez in a tacit "pay to play" arrangement.

Compare this to the Republican case against Clinton--lying about a sexual affair that was extracurricular to his presidential functions--and there is no comparison. Admittedly, the case against Trump isn't nearly as salacious and sexy as that, and involves technical matters that it's hard to interest the public in. .But if we let it go, democracy, the republic and the rule of law will be in serious danger--things the framers of our Constitution were deeply concerned about. It's ironic that the party that got so upset about Hillary's emails--to the point of chanting "Lock her up"--thinks these actions are trivialAs a practical matter, with the election so near and the prospects for removal so remote because of Republican control of the Senate, I think the House would be better off bringing out the evidence, drawing up the Articles, going for a resolution of censure instead, and leaving Trump's fate to the voters. I expect him not to be removed and to be re-elected, to the serious detriment of the country. But the voters will have done it to themselves and probably deserve to be the client state of Russia we seem to be becoming.

 

This.

It absolutely suggests guilt. Like running from the cops. Sure you have the right to run from them. But it certainly makes you look guilty!

 

Extortion is more than a bad decision. It is a crime

 

Picking fights with the pentagon and redirecting their funding, while calling for civil war, is about as bad a decision as you can make. They don't like to get involved in politics, but even the pentagon has their limits. They are also all too familiar with how to take down authoritarian governments led by mad dictators. If they have to have a fascist government, I'm sure they will insist on one with half a brain.

 

I agree with Okie!

 

First, the impeachment process is still on going. After The Intelligence Committee reports to the Judiciary Committee, new facets of investigation will ensue. The Intelligence Committee will also continue to look into other matters. There will be some time before the total charges reach the floor of the House Of Representatives. At this point, Congress is looking at the Ukraine Affair; however, they know all about New York's charges which are pending until Trump is out of office. Michael Cohen is doing time for these charges on behalf of Trump. New York will also have charges for crimes carried out by the Trump Charity. Then there are the criminal charges related to Deutsche Bank, where Trump is appealing it to the Supreme Court. If that's not enough, Richard Neal is ready to act pursuant the Supreme Court decision on Trump's tax and financial records. I will not tell you what Maxine Waters has in mind. Just ask your self if Trump was so damn innocent, why fight for the secrecy all the way to the Supreme Court? What's there to hide? When Truckers first were told they have to submit to drug testing, they objected. Republicans like Ron Reagan and Elizabeth Dole responded with, "What do you have to hide?"

 

So what does Trump have to hide?

 

Trump needs to stock up on petroleum jelly. He'll need it in that federal penitentiary.

 

Donald Duck will never see the inside of a jail cell and you know it. Laws are for the peasants.

 

Deutsche Bank case is before the Supreme Court just like the tax case from Ways and Means and the New York case re McDougal and Stormy Daniels. They might rule on all three together? I expect Kavanaugh and Long Dong Silver to support Trump. Goresuch and Roberts might have more principals.

 

Have a feeling the OP is a staunch trump fan.
I believe he will be summoned to face the music of this impeachment trial.
Ignoring it will just make matters worse for him.
It isn't some sort of hoax.
It's real life. Trump could be removed from office if found guilty and is impeached.

 

Can I use this quote? It's amazing!

 

Where is this listed as a right?

 

I'm only like 8 minutes in, but this analysis seems good if you want to get into the weeds.

 

I guess it's not, but free country.

 

huh? I don't wanna be retweeted or whatever... I don't exactly know what you mean. But I suspect you're being facetious anyway.

 

I'm no lover of cops, but running from them is a serious mistake. It opens up all kinds of hideous ways they can subdue you. Most of them hurt the whole time, and beyond.

Also, absolutely NEVER tell the oinkers that you have to piss. They will take bets on how long it takes for you to piss on yourself.

I haven't tried it, but I wonder what they'd do if you said you were thirsty. Horny, I already know!

 

That reminds me of a video that i saw on youtube of a guy who had to pee whilst being arrested.
It had a cop holding his pants open whilst this big stream of piss came out.