Collusion update: "no factual evidence"

[shunyadragon]

Should be no problem in the current case


Jim

Obvious. IT would never reach the Supreme Court if it was arbitrary and no proof of a crime, but unfortunately tRump is likely guilty of a number of crimes given that almost all of his associates are guilty of crimes, and many connected to tRump.

[oxmixmudd]

According to the Constitution, the president needs to actually be guilty of a crime to be impeached. I think an arbitrary impeachment with no proof of a crime would be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court.

Should be no problem in the current case


Jim

[Mountain Man]

And he's right, actually. If someone had to commit a crime to be convicted for it, there'd be no need for our appeals system because no one would ever be found guilty if they didn't commit a crime.

Honestly, though, having to charge someone with a crime to impeach them is only a formality, if even that. If the majority of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate want a president gone, they can just throw out any random crime and do it. That's basically what they did with Andrew Johnson, they wanted to get rid of the guy and just found an excuse to do it (and almost succeeded, it failed by just 1 vote).

According to the Constitution, the president needs to actually be guilty of a crime to be impeached. I think an arbitrary impeachment with no proof of a crime would be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Terraceth]

Again, nice attempt to spin it, but he didn't say, "The president does not have to be indicted for a crime to be impeached," he said, "The president does not have to commit a crime to be impeached."

And he's right, actually. If someone had to commit a crime to be convicted for it, there'd be no need for our appeals system because no one would ever be found guilty if they didn't commit a crime.

Honestly, though, having to charge someone with a crime to impeach them is only a formality, if even that. If the majority of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate want a president gone, they can just throw out any random crime and do it. That's basically what they did with Andrew Johnson, they wanted to get rid of the guy and just found an excuse to do it (and almost succeeded, it failed by just 1 vote).

[oxmixmudd]

All of these claims were said before and rebutted by others here. Given the way you respond I feel no need to retread that conversation.

But they haven't been rebutted. There is no rebuttal - they all happened. There are only ways to spin the facts in ones favor, which was what you are calling 'rebuttals'.

Jim

[Sparko]

Trump and Pence be like

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30355[/ATTACH]

Baron, I AM your Father!

[Zymologist]

IIRC the Senate needs to approve the new VP pick like they did with Ford

Trump and Pence be like

senate.jpg

[rogue06]

IIRC the House and Senate needs to approve the new VP pick like they did with Ford and later Ford's pick of Rockefeller

[One Bad Pig]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30354[/ATTACH]

[Sparko]

trumpimpeach.jpg

[Cerebrum123]

It wasn't just a joke as has been borne out by the fact the Russians responded to his request, by the Trump tower meeting, by the attempt by Trump jr to set up a backchannel to Putin to name a few.

To make a 'joke' like that and have it be a joke, the possibility it is true must be very nearly zero, an absoute absurdity.

The problem for Trump is that is incredibly likely that was in fact a very real appeal to the Russian government for help.

Jim

All of these claims were said before and rebutted by others here. Given the way you respond I feel no need to retread that conversation.

[Mountain Man]

If they truly think Trump is unfit to be president but can't convict him for a crime, then the constitution does provide methods of doing that that do not include impeachment. 25th amendment.

The 25th amendment is not the remedy that liberals think it is, either. It would require a majority vote from the vice president and either the principal officers of executive departments or a group appointed by Congress, and the president could immediately appeal the decision by declaring his own his mental fitness in a letter to Congress which would immediately reinstate him to office. From there, the vice president and either the principal officers of executive departments or a group appointed by Congress would have to vote again and then it would move to Congress for a final 2/3rds vote. In other words, it's an insurmountable hurdle for any president who is not actually incapacitated. At the very least, you can be sure Pence would never agree to it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

[oxmixmudd]

This coming from someone who complained about Trump's joke about Hillary's email server as being "treason"?

It wasn't just a joke as has been borne out by the fact the Russians responded to his request, by the Trump tower meeting, by the attempt by Trump jr to set up a backchannel to Putin to name a few.

To make a 'joke' like that and have it be a joke, the possibility it is true must be very nearly zero, an absoute absurdity.

The problem for Trump is that is incredibly likely that was in fact a very real appeal to the Russian government for help.

Jim

[JimL]

You know I'm thinking if Trump wanted Hillary in jail, maybe he should just have hired her?

Why, just because all of his other appointee's are proving to be corrupt like Trump himself?

[Sparko]

You know I'm thinking if Trump wanted Hillary in jail, maybe he should just have hired her?

Post of the Day.