They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Memorex » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:34 pm

Monker wrote:
Memorex wrote:I'll say this as my last point on this subject. Over the years, there have been people here that were in situations or whatever. I have sent them money, often electronically. Often to be picked up from wire places. So this entails including my email, name, etc. While I have nothing to hide I would hope that there are a set of rules here that say no matter what goes down, personal details are held in the strictest of confidence. Sure, there is a difference between that and a public dating profile. But I'd just prefer we treat it all the same. And in that regard, I cannot feel Monker deserved it no matter how much of an asshole he was being. Anyway, I'm just repeating myself. I get it.


Thank you for speaking out and expressing your values. I wish there were a dozen more people like you on this forum...but it seems you are alone. You are essentially in an "anything goes" forum...not by Andrew's choice but by the choice of the people who post here. And, I am NOT critiquing Andrew in any way.

And, you are correct - there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for posting pictures of other people's children. It's wrong.


I think to find more people that feel like me, you'd have to take it out of this particular thread. This one has built up some long term feelings, apparently. Hopefully we can put it behind us.

TNC - I speak for me but I imagine others feel the same - this topic of the picture and post should die. No need to mention it further. It's run its course. But that's up to you I suppose.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:37 pm

Memorex wrote:TNC - I speak for me but I imagine others feel the same - this topic of the picture and post should die. No need to mention it further. It's run its course. But that's up to you I suppose.


Try taking your own advice, pal. You're the one who keeps bringing it up. You admitted you didn't even read this thread, so stay out of it.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16056
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby slucero » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:39 pm

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... andling-of

In what appears to be clear evidence confirming previous fears of favoritism and prejudice within the FBI, lawmakers and investigators told Solomon at The Hill that, for the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.

The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.

Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:45 pm

slucero wrote:Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... andling-of

In what appears to be clear evidence confirming previous fears of favoritism and prejudice within the FBI, lawmakers and investigators told Solomon at The Hill that, for the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.

The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.

Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.


The fix was in from the start.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16056
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:33 am

Tick Tock.......

Where is George Soros??? Why did he recently transfer the bulk of his wealth into one of his organizations?

Why are there so many politicians seen wearing a medical boot?
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:13 am

Amazing, everything you said below untrue. But, whatever, it's just your game you want to play. I said a long time ago that I'm not playing your stupid games.

The only thing I am going to comment on is the picture. It is NOT a picture of "me" with the kids in the background...that is an absolute lie. It is a picture taken at my sister's house at her kitchen/bar thing. She wanted a picture of all of us together. So, we are all acting goofy posing for the camera. If anybody is closer to the camera, it is my 10yr old daughter, since it was her birthday.

So, that is the picture you are now drawing dicks on and using it as some type of threat. Am I supposed to feel intimidated that you can draw a dick on a child? Does it make you feel powerful...because it from my perspective it makes you look like you are incredibly insecure. Is it supposed to be intimidating...because it makes you look like a pouty five year old child.

It is ridiculous that you posted it in the first place...and now this. You have something wrong with you, you're a sick dude.

Let it go and you'll never hear from me again.


The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:Thank you for speaking out and expressing your values. I wish there were a dozen more people like you on this forum...but it seems you are alone.


Wait. I thought you didn't care about anyone else's opinion? Now you are hoping the MR cavalry will charge to your defense? LOL!

Monker wrote:You are essentially in an "anything goes" forum...not by Andrew's choice but by the choice of the people who post here.


You are staunchly against this place being “anything goes” the same way you claim to be against name-calling (except when you do it to everyone else).
More lies, more hypocrisy. Spare us. :roll:

Monker wrote:And, you are correct - there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for posting pictures of other people's children. It's wrong.


No. YOUR picture was posted, you assfaced bitch. You just happened to have kids in the background. That's on you. You used them as props to get ass and now you continue to use them to excuse your stupidity. Every time you comment in this thread, I photoshop another dick on your ugly mug. By all means, keep yapping.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby S2M » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:34 am

Caveat: The following isn't focused on the current administration, although it does fit.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the american people should be able to vote a president out - just like they vote one in. Impeachment shouldn't rest solely on doing something 'illegal'.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby S2M » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:40 am

Fact Finder wrote:
S2M wrote:Caveat: The following isn't focused on the current administration, although it does fit.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the american people should be able to vote a president out - just like they vote one in. Impeachment shouldn't rest solely on doing something 'illegal'.


We have that choice every 4 years, like it or not, that is our system. :roll:


I'm talking before the term is up. Like after a year, or 18 mos.

But then again...Marvin Lewis keeps getting chance after chance.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Memorex » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:52 am

S2M wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
S2M wrote:Caveat: The following isn't focused on the current administration, although it does fit.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the american people should be able to vote a president out - just like they vote one in. Impeachment shouldn't rest solely on doing something 'illegal'.


We have that choice every 4 years, like it or not, that is our system. :roll:


I'm talking before the term is up. Like after a year, or 18 mos.

But then again...Marvin Lewis keeps getting chance after chance.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


I believe a president should have one 6 year term and should not be allowed to campaign for anyone. Focus on the job and move on. Don't waste millions on reelection. Don't make choices based on reelection. No leaving the white house for a full year to campaign.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:38 am

S2M wrote:Caveat: The following isn't focused on the current administration, although it does fit.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the american people should be able to vote a president out - just like they vote one in. Impeachment shouldn't rest solely on doing something 'illegal'.


That is one of the reasons the postion of POTUS has term limits. Would be nice to see term limits for the other branches of government. I can just imagine the backlash if someone would have suggested this very same thing while Obama was in office. Also, lets no pretend here, this statement is being made because of some people's thoughts about the result of the last election.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:41 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Because we can all use a laugh.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/746504/no ... eport-says


Actually I don't think it's all that funny when it puts citizens under oppressive rule and control into danger.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:46 am

Maybe Soros has gone "camping". Maybe his has gone on holiday to an "island". If so I wonder if he brought his "water board".
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:06 am

Monker wrote: The only thing I am going to comment on is the picture. It is NOT a picture of "me" with the kids in the background...that is an absolute lie. It is a picture taken at my sister's house at her kitchen/bar thing. She wanted a picture of all of us together. So, we are all acting goofy posing for the camera. If anybody is closer to the camera, it is my 10yr old daughter, since it was her birthday.


Because everybody posts a picture of a ten year old on a renowned booty call site. :roll: Say what?? Like that makes any sense. You are a known liar. Respect Andrews wishes to move on.

Monker wrote:So that is the picture you are now drawing dicks on and using it as some type of threat. Am I supposed to feel intimidated that you can draw a dick on a child?


The current version of the pic is really just your cropped face surrounded by a dense forrest of cocks with your tongue out like a Tex Avery cartoon. Since you bear such an uncanny resemblance to Sloth from The Goonies, I have added a dialogue bubble that reads: "Hey you guys!!!!!"

Once you have had the chance to see this masterpiece plastered all over Iowan men's rooms, I think you'll agree that it captures your true essence.
Last edited by The_Noble_Cause on Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16056
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:21 am

Where is Donna Brazille???
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:23 am

Today POTUS signs another executive order concerning human trafficking. This time it concerns the Dept. of Transportation working with other agencies.

AG Sessions appoints 17 interim U.S. Attorneys.
Last edited by Boomchild on Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Andrew » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:36 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Memorex wrote:TNC - I speak for me but I imagine others feel the same - this topic of the picture and post should die. No need to mention it further. It's run its course. But that's up to you I suppose.


Try taking your own advice, pal. You're the one who keeps bringing it up. You admitted you didn't even read this thread, so stay out of it.


Move along....thank you all!
User avatar
Andrew
Administrator
 
Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Andrew » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:37 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:No. YOUR picture was posted, you assfaced bitch. You just happened to have kids in the background. That's on you. You used them as props to get ass and now you continue to use them to excuse your stupidity. Every time you comment in this thread, I photoshop another dick on your ugly mug. By all means, keep yapping.


Dude, c'mon....people just want to log on and argue shit....let's leave the personal stuff out.
User avatar
Andrew
Administrator
 
Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:41 am

Andrew wrote:
Dude, c'mon....people just want to log on and argue shit....let's leave the personal stuff out.



I'm over it. People keep bringing it up and adding lies on top of Lies. Let's talk politics here.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16056
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:45 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Hill and Bill burning evidence...


Word is it was a secret service shed and they weren't there. Got to admit, that was my first thought.


You know if someone wanted to get into a property to have a "look-see" an inspection after a fire would be a nice cover.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:51 am

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:42 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:
Boomchild wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Because we can all use a laugh.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/746504/no ... eport-says


Actually I don't think it's all that funny when it puts citizens under oppressive rule and control into danger.


And every one of them would see you dead.


Somehow I don't believe such a blanket statement.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:43 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:
Boomchild wrote:

You know if someone wanted to get into a property to have a "look-see" an inspection after a fire would be a nice cover.


They have THEIR security team there. They could simply do it undetected. I'm sure they have dumped shit weeks ago.


I think your a little out of the loop. Here's a little interesting note: Jan. 3 is Seth Rich's birthday.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:54 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:And Boomchild, watch Doctors without Borders North Korea on Nat. Geo. They are taught from childhood to hate America and want all Americans dead. They learn it well too.


I don't blame the NK citizens nor wish them harm or ill will. I reserve that for the regime that indoctrinates them.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:59 am

Image
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:34 am

Reports are that the DOJ has reopened the Hillary private email server case.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:04 am

Interesting bit of info.

AZ National Guard military police unit deploys to Guantanamo
http://www.azfamily.com/story/37161594/ ... guantanamo
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:05 am

Criminalizing weed in this day and age is like trying to pass some sort of anti-gay marriage bill. It is a total misreading of where this country is at, and the voters that elected Trump.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16056
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Monker » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 am

S2M wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
S2M wrote:Caveat: The following isn't focused on the current administration, although it does fit.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the american people should be able to vote a president out - just like they vote one in. Impeachment shouldn't rest solely on doing something 'illegal'.


We have that choice every 4 years, like it or not, that is our system. :roll:


I'm talking before the term is up. Like after a year, or 18 mos.

But then again...Marvin Lewis keeps getting chance after chance.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


There does not need to be a "crime" to impeach the President. If Democrats controlled congress, they could write up articles of impeachment for "Conduct unbecoming of the office of President of the United States" and we would be dealing with President Pence in a few months. Judges have been impeached for the same.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby Memorex » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:33 am

Monker wrote:There does not need to be a "crime" to impeach the President. If Democrats controlled congress, they could write up articles of impeachment for "Conduct unbecoming of the office of President of the United States" and we would be dealing with President Pence in a few months. Judges have been impeached for the same.


I think the people of the country would desire a reason for impeachment and subsequent conviction. And the senate is not going to convict without a crime and you cannot remove a president without a conviction.

Sure, anyone can be impeached, but you better have a damn good reason to want to remove someone the people put there. Much of the other side would agree with that as well. And right now, there is not a single reason worth impeaching him over. Keep hoping though. If you wish hard enough, maybe it will come true.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Donald J. Trump - Term 1 Thread

Postby slucero » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:07 pm

Monker wrote:There does not need to be a "crime" to impeach the President. If Democrats controlled congress, they could write up articles of impeachment for "Conduct unbecoming of the office of President of the United States" and we would be dealing with President Pence in a few months. Judges have been impeached for the same.


Once again, you are being obtuse... or ignorant.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-sys ... edure.html

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.


Congressional Interpretation

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.


An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

In the past, England had used impeachment of the King's ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).


Misdemeanor

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.


Relating to the President's Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)


How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.


Impeachment Trials

The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).

If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."

For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).

However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one -- "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer -- the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority "on all fours" for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.


The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

This article was written by Ronald Arthur Lowry.

[/quote]
Last edited by slucero on Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests