The Impeachment Trial

[JimL]

Of course it requires an actual crime. Read the Constitution as our Founding Fathers were quite clear on that point and even gave two explicit examples of the nature and severity of crimes that would compel impeachment.

There is nothing about dereliction of duty in the Constitution pertaining to the president. Dereliction of duty is a military law, and no, the Commander and chief is not a member of the military. So my question to you remains; can the president be impeached for taking a 6 month vacation in the Bahamas if he so chooses.? Can he be impeached for not upholding the oath of office?

This whole idea that a president can be removed from office simply because some diplomats disagree with his foreign policy decisions is very dangerous.

That is what I believe is called a canard. Trump wasn't impeached for a policy decision.

[Cow Poke]

That is what I believe is called a canard. Trump wasn't impeached for a policy decision.

When are you going to figure out that this isn't even on anybody's radar anymore?

[JimL]

When are you going to figure out that this isn't even on anybody's radar anymore?

Remember not liking it CP, when politicians think they speak for everyone,

[Mountain Man]

The President, though he is in command of the military, is a civilian and not subject to military law, so no, dereliction of duty, which is military law, applies to the military, it does not apply to the President.

Read what I actually write, Jimmy: I think a reasonable case could be made. And it would certainly meet Dershorwitz's standard of "if not a crime then at least criminal-like conduct".

[Mountain Man]

Shifty ends his closing argument with... I don't even know how to describe this as anything but nonsense...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...not-impeached/

And he's not the only one to make us question the sanity of the House managers.

Jason Crow cites Harry Potter.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ment-argument/

I can picture Trump's defense team saying to each other, "Are these guys for real?"

[JimL]

Read what I actually write, Jimmy: I think a reasonable case could be made. And it would certainly meet Dershorwitz's standard of "if not a crime then at least criminal-like conduct".

So you've changed your argument to "a reasonable case can be made that a crime is not necessarily needed to impeach?"

[Mountain Man]

So you've changed your argument to "a reasonable case can be made that a crime is not necessarily needed to impeach?"

Remember these three steps for a productive conversation:

1) Read (or listen)
2) Comprehend
3) Respond

You keep skipping step 2.

[JimL]

Remember these three steps for a productive conversation:

1) Read (or listen)
2) Comprehend
3) Respond

You keep skipping step 2.

Now that's ironic.

I already debunked your reasonable case concerning "dereliction of duty". And criminal like conduct is not a crime. So, you're all over the place, MM.

[Mountain Man]

Now that's ironic.

I already debunked your reasonable case concerning "dereliction of duty". And criminal like conduct is not a crime. So, you're all over the place, MM.

You only think I'm all over the place because of your failure to comprehend. Dereliction of duty is an actual crime, and I think a reasonable case could be made that as Commander in Chief, the president can and should, under certain circumstances, be held to the same standard as those under his command, which should include holding him accountable if he abandons his post.

[JimL]

You only think I'm all over the place because of your failure to comprehend. Dereliction of duty is an actual crime, and I think a reasonable case could be made that as Commander in Chief, the president can and should, under certain circumstances, be held to the same standard as those under his command, which should include holding him accountable if he abandons his post.

You can think what you want, but military law, dereliction of duty, deals with military issues, not presidential issues outside of the military. The president is a civilian, he is not under military law. You're grasping at straws, MM.

[Watermelon]

Except, of course, that Impeachment is exactly like a criminal trial except it's not. It's its own animal. A zebra!

[Cow Poke]

You're gonna have to explain that one.

and second it was an attempt to explain how Biden running for president could make a difference.

Sure.

People can argue how an impeachment trial should be run but at the end of the day the impeachment trial is supposed to be run however the senate wants it to be run. Like a zebra.

Well, the House has the first part, and the Senate has the second part, and, yeah--- each can pretty much do what they want to do.

[Cow Poke]

impeachment focus group.jpg

[Mountain Man]

You can think what you want, but military law, dereliction of duty, deals with military issues, not presidential issues outside of the military. The president is a civilian, he is not under military law. You're grasping at straws, MM.

That whistling sound is either the point going over your head, or the wind blowing through your ears.

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42497[/ATTACH]

When you end up using focus groups to determine charges you are tacitly acknowledging that you don't have legitimate charges.