Trump Thread

**Greyblades** · 06-01-2017, 02:39

Anything is impeachable. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal one.

Article two of the United States constitution, Section 4: 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.

Sure, they could convict based on politics, but to impeach on either request or opinion would be to render the constitution worthless and set a hell of precident.

You really think there are enough senators in this or any congress that would cross that rubicon?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-01-2017, 03:21

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Article two of the United States constitution, Section 4: 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.

Sure, they could convict based on politics, but to impeach on either request or opinion would be to render the constitution worthless and set a hell of precident.

You really think there are enough senators in this or any congress that would cross that rubicon?

Both historical impeachments were politically motivated and failed when put to the vote in the Senate. The only one who WOULD have been impeached and convicted resigned before the articles of impeachment were introduced on the floor of the house.

**Greyblades** · 06-01-2017, 03:59

Aye they were, but my understanding is that they were based upon actual crimes, this would be extending the definition of obstruction of justice past it's definition, essentially making a new crime. One that could make any number of officials criminals.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-01-2017, 04:12

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Aye they were, but my understanding is that they were based upon actual crimes, this would be extending the definition of obstruction of justice past it's definition, essentially making a new crime. One that could make any number of officials criminals.

Technically, all the impeachment and conviction does is to remove the person in question from office. Their removal from office leaves them open to subsequent criminal prosecution, which is not possible while in office. That is why Ford pardoned Nixon. Absent that pardon we would all have had to endure the spectacle of a former President being put on trial and probably found guilty. Ford chose to think being the first to resign and being tarnished in history was punishment enough.

Because all it does is remove them from office, it would not be redefining the law in any way.

However, you are partially correct in that it was the Senate's consideration in each case that the "crimes and misdemeanors" cited in the articles of impeachment were not sufficiently criminal (or maybe of concern/valid at all) to warrant removal from office. Johnson was retained in office by one vote; Clinton's margin was larger.

**Greyblades** · 06-01-2017, 04:29

Because all it does is remove them from office, it would not be redefining the law in any way.

Yes but wouldnt such an impeachment leave precident that could be used to put weight behind the removal of other officials for similar non crimes?

Maybe the american justice system is more napoleonic than common law than I understand it is, but I was under the impression that precident was still a force there.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-01-2017, 16:28

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Yes but wouldnt such an impeachment leave precident that could be used to put weight behind the removal of other officials for similar non crimes?

Maybe the american justice system is more napoleonic than common law than I understand it is, but I was under the impression that precident was still a force there.

Precedent is still of great import in the US legal system. 49 of our 50 states are based, for the most part, on common law.

Remember, though, that the impeachment of federal office-holders is a constitutional provision, not a legal one. Just as those serving are immune from prosecution while serving, so as to not be assailable in their duties while serving; the founders deemed it necessary to have a process for removing office holders from office. This was and is a political tool of governance and not of the legal system.

As a guideline, and since many of them are attorneys anyway, most reps deciding to vote for impeachment or not ARE considering the legal definitions of the grounds being used to move for impeachment. The Senate, upon trying an impeached officer holder, is almost certainly considering such standards as well. This is, however, a result of their training/orientation toward these issues and their decisions would NOT constitute legal precedent.

Previous decisions COULD also serve as influence to those voting to impeach or to convict, though that sense of precedence would not be part of the law in the way that legal precedence is held to be. Nevertheless, I recall myself that, when they were voting articles of impeachment against Clinton, that I thought it was of greater importance that they voted one article for obstruction of justice (essentially the same grounds that would have seen Nixon impeached) than for the perjury charge in a civil case. However, their failure to vote for "abuse of power" (the likely second would-have-been article against Nixon) signaled to me that the Senate would not vote to remove him from office. So, since I do NOT think my musings unique or that original, I suspect there were a number of folks in the Congress who were thinking of such 'precedents.'

In that sense, you may be correct that one decision can serve to guide/encourage future efforts against similar office holders.