Posted on Sep 21, 2019

If This Isn’t Impeachable, Nothing Is

297

The president of the United States reportedly sought the help of a foreign government against an American citizen who might challenge him for his office.

This is the single most important revelation in a scoop by The Wall Street Journal, and if it is true…

If This Isn’t Impeachable, Nothing Is

Posted from theatlantic.com

Posted in these groups: 61c89c28

Donald Trump

Posted 5 y ago

Responses: 5

LTJG Richard Bruce

Posted 5 y ago

How can anyone form an opinion when no facts are known publically. If the claims are true, which no one knows, what exact law did the President break?

(1)

Comment

(0)

LTC (Join to see)

Posted 5 y ago

High crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable offenses. Stupid and wrong don't count. If these things are true then let's talk. Bigger question honestly is how in the world are other people listening to conversations of the president???? He does have a right to conduct the affairs of the executive branch in private. Behind close doors LOTS of things are said in leadership meetings. Once those doors open, hopefully it's for the good of America. My prediction is this will be a nothing burger.

(0)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

LTC (Join to see)

5 y

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

Super good read and reviews some interesting principles of constitutional government that reflect my own feelings. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue.

Impeachment of Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was initiated on February 24, 1868, when the United States House of Representatives resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, 17th president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which were detailed in 11 articles of impeachment. The primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867, over his veto. Specifically, he had removed from office...

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

5 y

See attached the articles of impeachment for Johnson. I’d ask, would you disagree that some are for perceived stupid and wrong actions? Or does every article constitute a high crime or misdemeanor?
Additionally, as the term isn’t defined, how do you you understand it?

https://web.archive.org/web/ [login to see] 1013/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html

Articles of Impeachment presented against Presdient Andrew Johnson

On Monday, February the 24th, 1868, the House ofRepresentatives of the Congress of the United States resolved to impeachAndrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors,of which the Senate was apprised and arrangements were made for the trial.On Monday the 2d of March, articles of impeachment were agreed upon bythe House of Representatives, and on the 4th they were presented to theSenate by the managers on the...

(0)

LTC (Join to see)

5 y

SGT (Join to see) it seems his impeachment was for getting rid of the secretary of war and breaking the unconstitutional tenure law. So that was for what Congress viewed as breaking the law. Honestly all of our modern day conversation is about trying to rewriting ite the last election. The left has been discussing impeachment since the day of the election and every day there is another reason they throw at the wall to see if anything sticks and nothing will. He won, he seems to be going massively against the grain, but fully with his constitutional boundaries. I've got no political issues with pres Trump.

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

5 y

LTC (Join to see) - respectfully, Johnson was impeached under 11 different articles. One of the particularly stupid ones was X.

It ends, “Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.”

Essentially, the House didn’t like that Johnson went on a political speaking tour, and they especially didn’t like the content of his speeches. And they impeached him for it.

I’m not advocating for the impeachment of the President. I haven’t remotely indicated as such. However, what I have stated is that the House decides what is an impeachable offense, and that there is a historical precedent for impeachment under ‘stupid and wrong’, as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ isn’t defined in the Constitution.

In theory, the House can impeach a President because they don’t like the color of his necktie.

(0)