Impeachment Is Forever

I have lost anything. Trump is and forever remains impeached. He made up an argument/position and attributed it to me. That is called a strawman.

 

No, if it doesn't get to the Senate, its like it never happened...

 

Trump is still president.

 

How does that make you feel? Impeachment is one or more accusations of some sort of guilt. If Nancy never sends the articles to the Senate, then he is "forever accused" and never gets a trial to defend himself.

Are you applauding that as "justice served"?

How about if someone accuses you of robbing a bank, puts the charges on your permanent record but the trial never gets scheduled. Are you forever guilty of bank robbery????

 

One of only three to be impeached.

 

No other like this one though. Completely partisan, abandoned process, proved nothing, ignored own stated requirements, spied on members of Congress, etc., I could go on.

 

I consider it a colossal waste of time. The house wasted all that time. Trump is more likely to get elected now than before the impeachment. Trump is president and will most likely finish out this term and get reelected.

 

The dem clown show did accomplish something. They completely united Republicans.

 

I take it you're not happy.

 

Laughing all the way to 2020!

 

one effects your daily life.....one doesn't

 

So what? If dems do not keep the House the impeachment can be expunged.

 

Er, no. It doesn't work like that. It's irrevocable.

 

Nothing the dem clown show has done has affected my life. Trumps policies have in a tremendously positive way.

 

It will be a testament to dem stupidity.

 

Doesn't appear to be effecting Trump's life much either, except to the positive. He's still working on promises and campaigning hard for the 2020 win....and using impeachment as a great marketing tool! Making lemonaid out of a big bunch of House lemons.

 

History don't repeat, but it rhymes and sometimes chimes.

 

If he becomes impeached when / if the charges are sent to the Senate, then, yes, you're right, he'll be officially impeached and join the two Democrat presidents to make a triad. But until then, only Democrat presidents have been impeached, which is a microcosm of the corruption of the party itself.

I enjoy the fact that you at least understand that Nixon was not impeached--something that cannot be said for the OP.

 

Oh you mean Nancy finally sent the festering pile of Dung to the senate for flushing?

 

He's already "officially impeached" - that happened when they approved the Articles of Impeachment.

Sending the Articles to the Senate makes no difference - that's merely an incidental action that triggers the trial. It has no bearing on the impeachment itself.

 

And the impeachment has zero meaning or effect until the House sends the articles to the Senate and the trial is held.

Doesn't matter, the fight over whether it's an "actual" impeachment or not. It's a couple of accusations. That's all for now.

 

This is utterly wrong.

The house has sole power to impeach. It HAS impeached - it is now "actual", regardless of what happens next.

Next step, senate does the trial.

 

I'm just gonna quote my newest thread in reply to illustrate how wrong you are.

According to Merriam-Webster, to impeach is "to charge with a crime or misdemeanor." Specifically, it is "to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal [emphasis added] with misconduct in office." With that said, logically, until Trump is charged "before a competent tribunal" (in this case, the Senate), he is not technically impeached. It is this logic that Harvard professor Noah Feldman, characterized as a scholar of the US Constitution, uses.

"Trump isn't impeached until the House tells the Senate," Professor Feldman says in his piece in Bloomberg. "Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment." In other words, the House, in order to fully impeach Trump, have to send the charges to the Senate, the "competent tribunal," in order to technically impeach Trump.

The fallacious argument to this is the emphasis on the quote that the "House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." This is a non sequitur. Yes, this is true that the power to impeach solely rest in the hands of the House. And they solely must present the charges before a competent tribunal in order to officially impeach Trump.

What is so hard to understand about this logic?

Sorry, Democrats, the only impeached presidents remain Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton--both Democrats, which is an illustrative microcosm of the corruption of the Democrat party. Sorry to get facts in front of your feelings. You may feel really hard that Trump is impeached, but, factually, he is not.

 

My point is that I'm not going to argue with whether the articles have to be turned over to the Senate, or not, to be a "real" impeachment. Since Nancy is the first Impeacher of the House to hold a vote and then sit on the articles, there is no precedent, so everyone is speculating on what the vote by itself means. I'm not picking a side, because I don't know....and neither does anyone else.

That is a moot point either way. An impeachment, even one which has been sent to the Senate, is nothing more than an accusation of guilt.

You can be accused and even indicted for a crime and still walk around free until you go to trial and are judged innocent or guilty. We have a presumption of innocence until then.

The House can impeach (accuse) a President for anything or for absolutely nothing at all if they have a 50% majority vote. They have that power.

You or I likewise could be accused of any crime by anyone. Accusations can hurt a person's reputation, but legally they don't hold any weight unless and until a trial determines that the accusation is true.

So Dems should be happy for now to believe that the impeachment vote severely harmed Trump's reputation. Take a happy dance. The other side of the aisle are also looking at positives of this purely partisan impeachment vote, believing it ensures Trump's reelection.

As Mark Meadows said of this partisan sham, ""They're [House Democrats] telling the American people that 233 Democrats deserve to decide who the President of the United States should be and disenfranchise 63 million voters."

 

Note that the dates of their impeachments are the dates that the House voted in favor of the Articles of Impeachment. That's how it works.

Feldman's opinion is an outlier, to say the very least.

Here's a rebuttal from (among others) legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who testified as the Republican witness in the impeachment hearings.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/20/trump-was-impeached-a-response-to-noah-feldman/