Posts Made By: James Brown

Very cool!  Congratulations to all of you!  J

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

As I said....impeachment is a two step process. He was charged and not convicted therefor he was not impeached. LOL

The rest is semantics.....

Actually no, the rest is Constitutional Law. 

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." 

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 4.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 

since you have mentioned the Chief Justice aspect of Article 1, Section 3 before, I know you are familiar with it.  Why are you trying to change the definition of impeachment?  It makes no sense.  

Trump was impeached twice.  Clinton was impeached once.  Neither was ever convicted or removed.  Any other interpretation or spin is not a matter of semantics.  It is simply incorrect.

Jim

Originally Posted by Steven Moore

Brian McFartland 

Seriously?  Are you a grown man or a junior high loser?  Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I disagree....the house simply determines if impeachment proceedings should be implemented. Given it is a two stage process it is not complete until the senate finds them guilty. Saying someone was impeached implies there were consequences, there were none as the senate trial resulted in an acquittal both times for Trump and also 1 time for Clinton. Thus there was no impeachment. You guys are of course entitled to your own opinions same as me

Weird - this is not a thing where "opinions" matter.  There is a definition that is consistent with the Constitution and that is accepted by every constitutional scholar, up to and including Richard Davis.  He has posted detailing the constitutional two-step of impeachment by the House and any subsequent trial/removal by the Senate more than once.

Impeachment = charged by the House with a high crime or misdemeanor.  One who has been charged by the House with a high crime or misdemeanor has been impeached.  That is the end of the definition.  

This whole thread is like someone hypothetically arguing, that in their opinion, the objective of a Newtonian reflector telescope is a lens.  I suppose that could be their opinion, but as you know, it would be absolutely wrong.

No worries, I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer.

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

That doesnt read like anyones's definition but your own Jim.....You particularly should understand that one is innocent until proven guilty. If the Senate votes not to uphold the charges then they are not guilty. Unless of course you are one of those who believe someone is guilty simply by the fact they are charged. You like the thought of impeachment being solely a political tool? You like the thought of it becoming commonplace in order to used as only a political tool? 

Not my definition, it's in the Constitution, right where I quoted.  Read the dang words.  

Your analogy is interesting.  As we all know, OJ was charged, then he was tried and then he was found "not guilty."  That fact does not mean he was never charged.  To be impeached is the same as to be "charged" by the House, in the clear, totally unambiguous and universally accepted language of the Constitution.  

"You like the thought of impeachment being solely a political tool? You like the thought of it becoming commonplace in order to used as only a political tool?"

No, of course not.  I think that would be a really bad thing.  I'm not sure I agree with your underlying premises though.

Jim

  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Facts matter.....regardless of what the Constitution says, the process is as I laid out.....the house can only vote to start the impeachment process and only the senate can complete it.....Theory and practice are two different things...lol

Greg, the process in both practice and theory is just as you laid out.  The House starts the process of removing an official and the Senate completes it.  You are getting hung up on a definition, but it is an important definition.  I said I would not beat this dead horse, but your stubbornness is fascinating.  You goaded me back into the conversation with the "regardless of what the Constitution says..." line. 

You really can't ignore what the Constitution says on the matter.  The Constitution defines the House portion of the process standing alone as "impeachment."  The word "sole" was intentionally used in both relevant Article I clauses.  Also, look below to see where the words "impeachment" vs. "try" and "convicted" are used in Article I.  Most importantly, see how Article II requires both impeachment and conviction before removal, and how the drafters carefully reflected the Article I language in Article II.  The correct definition of impeachment is not an ambiguous point.  The fact that impeachment is completed before any trial or possible conviction is plain from the Constitution.  Trump has been impeached twice.  Clinton was impeached once.  Neither was convicted or removed after trial in the Senate.  Whether or not anyone cares is the only issue of opinion in this entire discussion.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Article II, 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.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

By the way, where are you getting your definition of impeachment from?  I've looked all over and every source I look at defines it the same way (opposite of yours).

Hi Brian:

Greg's laughably incorrect definition is shared by lots of ignorant people.  Greg is not ignorant, so I am starting to think that he is just being irascible for the sake of irascibility.  Otherwise I'd say that his inability to acknowledge his own personal definition being wrong is just childish.  I'll probably get the finger for that...

Here is a good list of prominent officials who have been impeached:  https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/  Note our friends WJC and DJT listed as "Impeached."   With respect to Trump, the freaking House of Representatives states unambiguously: 

"Donald J. Trump President of the United States Impeached December 18, 2019, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress"  

"Donald J. Trump President of the United States Impeached January 13, 2021, on the charge of incitement of insurrection."

The last word of the House or Representatives is probably not good enough for Greg. 

Here is the actual second impeachment of Trump: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text

"Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate..."  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text

Interestingly, Rich knows that Greg is wrong since he and I have discussed the two step process of impeachment followed by trial in the Senate.  One thing is sure, Rich is a team player because he has been conspicuously absent from this discussion, even though he knows Greg is wrong.  Is that honorable or not?  I'm not sure.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Did you come up with ideas about impeachment yourself or from a source like Newsmax, OAN or gateway pundit? 

Greg stands alone. 

The right-wing press understands the actual definition of "impeached":

"House Democrats voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday, making Trump the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives."  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/18/house-pass-partisan-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump/

"The former president was impeached on Jan. 13, just one week after a pro-Trump mob overtook the Capitol as Congress and former Vice President Mike Pence were certifying the results of President Biden's win in the 2020 election."  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-impeachment-trial-everything-you-need-to-know

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Hi Jim,

I'm curious though, if lots of people believe Greg's definition, where the hell are they getting it? 

Brian McFarland

Hi Brian:

I can't let your post stand as was - too juvenile, even for me.  

I seem to remember a lot of press when Clinton was impeached about how he still had to be tried before he was removed from office.  It seemed like a revelation to a lot of folks who were wondering why he was still hanging out in the Oval Office after getting impeached.   I could be wrong though - it was a long time ago.

Here is the first hit from a quick Google:  https://www.businessinsider.com/most-americans-dont-understand-impeachment-poll-2019-6

I think it is just one of those things that people don't get intuitively.  Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Well that's weird - your message popped up in my inbox as a private message.  I hope I don't start getting every message posted on here in my inbox!

Hi Brian:

You probably figured this out, but since you started the thread the default is to get every post as an email.  You'll have to check "unsubscribe" at the top of the thread.

Jim