How President Donald Trump Got To An Impeachment Inquiry In Ten Fateful Days | The 11th Hour |...

Capt Gregory Prickett - Hmmm.. a statute that was changed when and why. Seems a bit convenient to me.

"you can hold out both hands, wait for the statute in one, and take a dump in the other, and the other will fill up first because there is no requirement for a statute to be broken for the House to vote for impeachment." Sounds an awful lot like the house attempting to overthrow an election."

Maj John Bell - well, perhaps you should look at the first successful impeachment, and what the articles of impeachment actually alleged. It was the impeachment of Judge John Pickering in 1804. One of the items mentioned in the articles was that Pickering invoked the name of the "Supreme Being" in a "profane manner." Exactly what statute would that have been a violation of?

There has never been a requirement that a statute be violated or an established crime committed for someone to be impeached. A "high crime or misdemeanor" is whatever the House says it is.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Perhaps you should look at the first successful impeachment. Judge Pickering was believed to be going through medically based mental decline, so much so that he could not keep up with his case load. In addition, Judge Pickering was self-medicatiing with alcohol; leading to drunkeness while sitting on the bench. When confronted, he refused to resign. Under laws in place, the only legal option left was impeachment.

"That whereas for the due, faithful, and impartial administration of justice, temperance and sobriety are essential qualities in the character of a judge, yet the said John Pickering, being a man of loose morals and intemperate habits, on the 11th and 12th days of November, in the year 1802, being then judge of the district court in and for the district of New Hampshire, did appear on the bench of the said court for the administration of justice in a state of total intoxication, produced by the free and intemperate use of intoxicating liquors…"

Invoking the name of the "Supreme Being" was not the high crime or misdemeanor, but it was an exemplar of his intoxication and intemperate demeanor on the bench. Furthermore there were three other articles. That had nothing to do with his intemperate behavior, and everything to due with his decisions that were clearly contrary to black letter law.

Maj John Bell - exactly what statute prohibited "loose morals and intemperate habits" or being on the bench in a "state of total intoxication"? For that matter, exactly what statute prohibited a judge from making decisions that were contrary to black letter law?

Be careful John, a bunch of decisions were made against "black letter law." Decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education. Loving v. Virginia. Roe v. Wade. Obergefell v. Hodges.

Pickering was removed because he was a disgrace to the office.

Cynthia C. Depends on the classification of the computer database and all its contents. Find it hard to believe sensitive unclassified information be transferred to a higher security classification because the information was compromised. They might as well just say this administration will treat all presidential conversations as classified executive privilege.

MAJ James Woods - they moved it to the NSA system for political reasons, not for national security reasons.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I know. I was giving a hypothetical counter argument if the people conducting the cover up were actually intelligent. Yes I know the reason why they are classifying select Trump conversations isn't because they are afraid of leaks that will jeopardize national security but because they know he's been complicit in violating federal laws with his so-called "favors" and that would embarrass him politically.