Posted on 12/18/2019 6:26:53 PM PST by Hostage
Trying to get people to stop saying Johnson, Clinton, Trump were all impeached, is not something that will stick because most people aren't going to bother with definitions.
But impeachment means removal upon conviction.
Whereas voting to impeach is a form of indictment.
It is correct to say no American President has ever been impeached.
It's not splitting hairs, it's just showing respect and awareness of terms.
Trump as of today must answer to a vote of impeachment, a partisan, unjust, false vote of impeachment by criminal opponents who are using offensive lies in a process available to them to shield themselves from justice.
I am certain these agents of subversion have cemented in place the process of impeaching themselves. But first they will threaten via blackmail at least 20 GOP Senators to impeach the President. And when they lose, they will blame the GOP Senate for allowing Trump to rig the 2020 election thereby putting in peril their brand of 'democracy'.
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
Yes, the saying being he knew
he didn’t have the votes (for
acquittal).Neither the House
nor the Senate.
Look at Bill Clinton.
He was impeached.
You never hear about that.
But with Trump? That’s all you will be hearing about.
I think it will help him more than hurt him.
To be impeached is to be charged - nothing more or less...removal would be part of the impeachment process which also includes the Senate making it’s decision.
When it’s all said and done, the Dems will keep reminding us he was impeached and we can let them know that when one side is about unanimous for and the other unanimous against, it’s a campaign debate ... which is what they decided to degrade to impeachment process to...an attempt to keep the Best President Ever from a second term because they knew he was way too good to be unthroned.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Nixon knew not only he would be impeached, but most likely removed.
So does that mean the Omnibus bill can’t move forward either and we get another government shutdown due to Nancy’s delay tactics regarding a fair trial under her rules? LOL.
I don’t give a damn where a definition comes from as long as it is correct. Point out what part of that definition wasn’t correct.
Nixon was not impeached, he resigned before the vote was taken. Republicans told him he had to because they couldnt help him.
klinto also was acquitted of all charges, had he not been he would have been removed from the WH.
He SHOULD have been removed. When the monica story broke, dim-0 senators all said if true, he had to be removed. THEN after it was proven true along with perjury and obstruction of justice, these same lying dim-0 sonsofbitches voted to not remove him.
I wrote YOUR friend, not mine.
Slow down
John James is a GRRRREAT choice!
Successful Impeachment of officials involves removal of such officials charged. The Constitution was written in this context. It was written with the understanding that only the HOUSE could bring impeachable charges and only the SENATE could take up the charges brought. The Constitution does NOT say only the Democrats can impeach full stop, it uses the phrase ‘power of impeachment’ meaning power to start the first phase of the two-part process.
The above is but one example of how it will very likely be played out.
If at the time of crafting the Constitution it was written that only the HOUSE could impeach rather than have “sole power of impeachment”, that would be inane, ridiculous as people naturally ask “they impeached, what then?” If there is no “what then”, then the verb ‘impeach’ has no consequence, no meaning. It’s a waste of time.
To say the House has sole power of impeachment means only they can make impeachable charges. It doesn’t mean they have sole power over the second part of the impeachment process. Without the second part, the verb ‘impeach’ and the noun ‘impeachment’ are meaningless. Any person using it, any historian writing it without the context of the second part of the process would be wasting time.
The HOUSE could impeach Maxine Walter’s ugly mug after she hung a portrait of her ugly mug in the House chamber. Members could say “Her mug was impeached!” and viewers at the chamber could mutter “What? Her mug is still there”. Then ridiculously historians could write that Maxine’s Mug is but one of only three mugs in Congress to be impeached.
In such cases as Maxine’s Mug, the word IMPEACH becomes laughable and has no meaning.
An impeached official involves both CHARGES and REMOVAL. It’s a two-part PROCESS. Key is it’s not acted upon as a noun, it is experienced as a PROCESS.
Yes, the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment and the Senate has sole power for removal. The Constitution includes both parts of the process. But if there is only one part of the process, then the impeachment process failed and there is no successful impeachment.
If the Democrats screech “We impeached him!!”, the American people can respond, “No, you tried to impeach him but you failed.”
If the Democrats reply “But we successfully VOTED to impeach him!”, the People can add, “Correct, your partisan vote was passed, but the impeachment process failed so your impeachment is nothing.”
History may record Trump survived a failed attempt to impeach him. His enemies will try to write he was impeached to which the People can ignore them and tell them to get lost.
Here is an example of how history may be written:
“On December 18, 2019, the Democrat Party holding the majority in the House of Representatives voted along partisan lines to start impeachment proceedings of President Donald Trump based on what were considered obscure, ill-defined articles of impeachment that were eventually decided by the United States Supreme Court as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.”
“The articles of impeachment were withheld from the United States Senate who responded by voting a deadline for the articles to be sent by the House to the Senate establishing that such articles failing to meet the deadline would be considered of no merit and dismissed unless a majority of the Senate voted to override the deadline.”
“The House majority continued to withhold their articles of impeachment citing the Republican controlled Senate’s refusal to handle the articles in a fair manner. The Senate deadline for the articles of impeachment was not met causing the House’s articles of impeachment to become ineligible for hearing in the Senate. The Senate voted to pass a resolution that the House’s articles of impeachment missing the deadline were to be considered ‘aduentum mortuis’.”
“In the elections following the Democrat majority’s vote in the House of Representatives to impeach President Donald Trump, the American electorate voted overwhelmingly to replace the Democrat’s House majority with a Republican majority and voted in an historic landslide second term for President Donald Trump.”
“After the historic election of 2020, President Trump voiced a suggestion that Congress strike the previous session’s articles of impeachment against him from the record. As the Republican held House of Representatives deliberated over striking the articles for impeaching Donald Trump from the Congressional record, a groundswell of public support arose for the articles of impeachment to be so stricken causing House Republicans to pass a resolution nullifying the previous Congress’s articles of impeachment and causing them to be stricken from the record.”
“Protestors acting under cover of news reporting confronted President Trump on the White House lawn as he was departing to attend a historic reunification pact between North and South Korea. Protesting reporters screamed that the President could not change the history that he was an impeached President to which the President delivered his now famous response “Piss Off!”.”
You think that is the case?
Every time you apply for a job you have to list all of your arrests. For some employers the mere fact that you got arrested is enough for them to most likely look past you and on to someone else.
Same holds true for an impeached President, the stigma stays with them for their entire life. He will still go down in history as an impeached president.
I fully understand you are trying to make the distinction that conviction implies guilt, whereas not being convicted implies innocence.
Do you believe that O.J. Simmpson did not kill his wife Nicole and her male friend Ron Goldman, or do you believe he got away with double murder?
Better yet, do you believe Bill Clinton should have been convicted of the crimes he was impeached for, or do you think the crimes did not justify removal from office? He was obviously guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
In either case some people say yes, while others say no to the above questions. So while most of the nation will see impeachment as BS, others will see it as confirmation that the President was guilty, regardless if he is convicted or not.
Obviously for legal reasons not being convicted is the better outcome. But you may still spend a lifetime of people thinking you were guilty and paying a price for it anyway, but just not behind physical bars.
Because this impeachment was secured by completely partisan vote, it will ease the stigma for President Donald J. Trump, for it will be seen for what it was, a political impeachment, and not an impeachment for just causes. But he will still go down in history as being impeached. But also be mindful that winners write history, and right now liberals are writing the history, not conservatives. If we were, our children would be learning the truth about this nation, and not the lies that they are currently being taught.
My point to you is you are trying to say that impeachment is a 2 part process, which is factually incorrect. Just like arrest is not a 2 part process. That both arrest and impeachment are synonymous and once either is attached to you it remains with you for life, regardless of its validity or not.
> “Every time you apply for a job you have to list all of your arrests. For some employers the mere fact that you got arrested is enough for them to most likely look past you and on to someone else.”
God would be doing you a favor to avoid that type of employer.
Many shrewd criminally-minded persons can craft a charge and have you arrested for it.
If an employer is going to hold you in low measure because someone made up something about you that was not true, that employer is not an employer you should ever want to be associated with, not even as a contractor or partner.
Some employers after verifying there was no conviction will ask how long was it since the arrest occurred? How many arrests occurred in the last five years? If the answer is a few months and a few times, the employer’s interviewer may reject you not because of you but because of who you hang with. In such circumstances you should immediately speak up and say words to explain for example “my sibling is a drug dealer (or my spouse is bipolar) and my faith does not allow me to abandon my family BUT WHAT I’VE DONE .... is to communicate with the local police, local members of town council about the situation, communicate with social workers about family therapy, to have friends present at every opportunity as witnesses, to have home surveillance inside the home recording episodes of conflict and disturbance, and many other countermeasures against becoming involved in spats that lead to false accusations.
Over time, your community will come to know what’s up about you and your circle. Your local police chief will in time learn who the players are, who are the real bad actors. The key is not to hide in shame but to get out and communicate.
Such people with arrest records that were never convicted nor otherwise disciplined must show they are managing their problem in a reasonable and admirable manner conveying they are trustworthy and transparent. An interviewer rejecting such an applicant who exhibits high competencies, skills, and situational management ability is not very bright and that reflects on the company you are applying to. You would not want to be part of such a company.
In such cases, consider yourself as having interviewed the company and deciding to reject them in favor of another company. If it’s a good company with just one bad interviewer as a fluke, you might consider writing the head of the company and making a genuine description of your experience while again conveying your trustworthiness and integrity. Company heads that learn about interviewers who are passing up great candidates over explainable black marks may appreciate your reporting.
Impeachment Conviction is the removal, and no Presidents have been subjected to an Impeachment Conviction.
Not going to address every shred of nonsense you provided. You are wrong and apparently can't just accept that impeachment is not a 2 step process, as you erroneously claimed is the case.
Disagree. Impeachment is a process possessing both the bringing up of charges and removal upon conviction: a process with two major elements.
The writers of the Constitution included both elements in the context delegating the initiating element to one body and the concluding element to a separate body. If they had left out one or the other element, the process would have been meaningless and therefore omitted.
> “ ... DUI, drug possession”
Those types of arrests are imputable convictions unless the person arrested can prove the DUI was measured by faulty equipment or the drug possession was planted which is extremely rare.
BTW Mitch McConnell gave an outstanding speech today on the Senate floor regarding impeachment. He’s never one to have a fire in his belly but he lays it all out for the record in a manner that cannot be denied for those that value truth and reason.
Nixon was not impeached
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.