That is a pretty bright line.One of Slick Willie’s two articles of impeachment was for lying...albeit under oath.
That is a pretty bright line.One of Slick Willie’s two articles of impeachment was for lying...albeit under oath.
So you were wrong. Apology accepted. You are forgiven my son.It's 100% a political tool. Which begs the question why some of you guys keep posting about your feelings that Trump committed some "impeachable offense" just because Don Lemon broadcast it 10 minutes ago. Stop being lemmings
I know, I’m high and on “bender”. See my argument above.
High crimes are whatever the Congress decides they are, if the majority of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate so decide Trump wore his tie the wrong way and it would be politically advantageous they could bring articles of impeachment and vote vote to convict. The Chief Justice would preside and then rule, removing the President. Sure it’s a silly example but it’s the truth.
Agreed. I didn’t address the misdemeanors. It can be either or both, however both are not required unlike the Donald stated recently before boarding Air Force one.This one?
The constitutional term is “conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
The House brings the articles by a majority.
The Senate votes to convict by 2/3s vote.
The Chief Justice presides.
Yes, that means if each house had enough votes to impeach and convict, it could literally be on anything. There are interesting questions of potential constitutional crises that could arise and how they would be addressed if Congress did something like that.
That is a pretty bright line.
Well damn. Can we retroactively impeach Obama for the constant lie of 'if you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr.'I’m not so sure it is all that bright when you are talking about betrayals of public trust which the impeachment process is designed to address. It would depend on the lie made not under oath.
When the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” was written in the Constitution, they weren’t talking about violations of codified criminal statutes.
The term used in Article II, section 4 is other high crimes and misdemeanors.
An interesting discussion is there to be had (probably not here at this point) about exactly what that means or should mean in the context of impeachment, but I agree that lying to a news man about this type of stuff doesn’t qualify.
Impeachment is an inherently political tool whenever it happens, so in practice that means whatever the House can get the necessary number of votes to impeach on says it is....right or wrong.
The challenge though is to not set the precedent bar so low that your guy (or girl) gets the same treatment when in the White House.
The challenge is upholding your oath to the Constitution while making sure the Executive and Judiciary uphold theirs.The challenge though is to not set the precedent bar so low that your guy (or girl) gets the same treatment when in the White House.
The challenge is upholding your oath to the Constitution while making sure the Executive and Judiciary uphold theirs.
One of Slick Willie’s two articles of impeachment was for lying...albeit under oath.
The challenge is upholding your oath to the Constitution while making sure the Executive and Judiciary uphold theirs.
Upholding their constitutional oaths is now originality? You are bananas.Because you consistently value the literal originalist view of the Constitution?
Upholding their constitutional oaths is now originality? You are bananas.
See. You love it.Yeah, the point is - it’s funny to see you selectively invoke the sanctity of the Constitution.