Is he the first president to be impeached without committing any crimes?
I bet he won't be the last
Is he the first president to be impeached without committing any crimes?
Henry Howard
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
usatoday.com
pbs.org
en.wikipedia.org
huffpost.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jonathan Scott
Clinton was impeached for getting a consensual BJ.
Kevin Fisher
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath - the blowjob is just what lead to the lie.
Gavin Morales
No, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to congress. Thats a federal crime. He was also disbarrd for that, and lost his ability to practice law
Hudson Hernandez
Andrew Johnson was also aquitted
Aiden Cox
he's fine and living the rich life..
he has achieved more than 95% of the men in this world and lived to tell the tale.
What did you do faggot?
Justin Brooks
John Thomas
1. The president abused his power by soliciting foreign interference by pressuring an ally — Ukraine — to announce an investigation into a political rival — former Vice President Joe Biden, while withholding military aid and dangling a head-of-state meeting, thereby corrupting the integrity of U.S. elections. Free and fair elections are the linchpin that holds together a democracy, as Democrats have argued; and
2. That he has obstructed Congress, a coequal branch of government, by withholding documents and preventing witnesses from testifying, thereby impeding Congress' investigatory power.
Nathaniel Anderson
Let Lindsey Graham tell you what impeachment is about.
Dominic Myers
Neither of these things are crimes
The senate cannot convict him of anything, because he never broke any laws
He will be on trial without committing or being charged with any crime or violation of law
Brayden Butler
The Nixon example
Contempt of Congress was Article III of President Richard Nixon's impeachment. He was accused of failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas."
Trump did the same thing that Nixon did, not complying with subpoenas, so it has a precedent .
2. That he has obstructed Congress, a coequal branch of government, by withholding documents and preventing witnesses from testifying, thereby impeding Congress' investigatory power.
Jacob Lee
Again you dumb bastard
youtube.com
The articles of impeachment against Nixon also contained an article about obstruction for not complying with a subpoenas.
Kayden Diaz
do you realize the republiwhiners tried to start impeachment proceedings against obama multiple times when he was in office, for basically no reason other than they felt like it? stop crying
Brody Ward
1. Even if he did do that, it was done so in a way that isn't illegal (based on current knowledge). But there isn't even definitive proof that that was what happened, all of the "evidence" came from third party assumptions and hearsay. The lack of viable evidence is why such vague terminology as "abuse of power" is used
2. Even if he did obstruct Congress, Congress does not have the right to make such a declaration. The judiciary is the only party that can resolve issues between legislative and executive. Congress made a claim they couldn't legally make, regardless of the validity of the claim.
Brayden Campbell
Without? They had him dead to rights, but sure.
Isaac Gomez
>third party assumptions and hearsay.
False!
pbs.org
Jayden Edwards
Clinton did not lie under oath. He told the truth under the bounds he was given and then it was spun as a lie.
Jack Gomez
Christian Thompson
checked
And you're correct, the President has a right to conduct foreign affairs any way he wants. Its certainly not illegal. He could nuke the whole country to ash or with hold all the aid he wants, its literally his job to decide what to do with other countries. He can say whatever he wants in a damn phone call, its not a violation of any law, just a violation of libtard feelings
Leo Watson
youtube.com
"So the point I'm trying to make is you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your roll. Because impeachment is about cleansing the office, impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office." Lindsey Graham.
Carter Adams
this fat fucking faggot is up to his neck in fraud waste and abuse of everything his tiny little fingers will fit around.
Juan Gonzalez
Joseph Reyes
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Adrian Taylor
Aaron Walker
Jonathan Davis
Noah Hernandez
Who is Bill Clinton?
Ian Anderson
Austin Moore
Are you a lawyer? Because constitutional lawyers exonerated him.
Jaxon Anderson
Kayden Stewart
does it let the president threaten to without congressionally approved aid in a blackmail scheme as part of the treaty?
Colton Phillips
Luis Cox
Cooper Perry
>Is he the first president to be impeached without committing any crimes?
He's been impeached for the high crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, so no.
Robert Garcia
I don't think you understand what impeachment is, or how judicial law works.
Impeachment is just a formal statement that an enquiry has found that and enquiry has determined that enough evidence to merit bringing (in this case: President Trump) to trial - where that evidence will be presented in detail. there will be motions for the prosecution and motions for the defence. Then there will be a determination as to whether any criminal acts have been actually been committed.
Until such time as that judgement is finally made, the defendant is considered innocent until proved guilty - if that be the case.
Liam Gray
Right, because a witness that can't keep a consistent testimony is credible evidence.
Luis Lopez
What part of that statement was actually false?
Colton Williams
>obstruction of congress
so any president that doesnt bow to the will of congress gets impeached now? good to know next time a dem is president... really shit precedent dems are setting, but gonna be good times in 5 years when D's have a chance at the oval office
Blake Nguyen
He's the un-indicted co conspirator in that whole Manafort shit. He is "Individual 1." The only reason the FBI didn't indict him is because Nixon's DOJ said they couldn't (to defend Nixon).
Just last week he had to fork over $2,000,000 because he and his criminal family were found guilty of charity fraud. His children are required to go to "I will not commit charity fraud" classes and his family isn't allowed to operate any more charities.
Brayden Carter
>changed testimony behind closed doors, claims he heard the call without any proof
Im sure.
Jackson Thompson
Are you a piece of evidence under investigation by the banana skin defence force?
Cus a peel to authorities won't help.
Christian Wright
Goteem
Carter Baker
>criminal family
>charity fraud
you're talking about the clintons right?
Isaac Wright
>Congress made a claim they couldn't legally make
You're an idiot. Obstruction of Congress was one of the things Nixon was (almost) impeached for.
And "hearsay" evidence is all the evidence you need when you get ten people to corroborate it without coordinating their stories because of all those evil closed doors confessionals the R's bitched about (because it made them look guilty as sin.)
There would probably be a lot more evidence if anyone in the executive branch handed over any docs whatsoever. But that didn't happen... because of the obstruction.
Lucas Ward
hey, the guys got a completely clean slate if you ignore the constant stream of assholes chafing off of him into prison
Nicholas Johnson
Fuck off fucking Sup Forums faggots
Jackson Adams
1. Presidents are supposed to be able to communicate with foreign leaders in private. By leaking one conversation after another the "never Trump clan" has actually done more to isolate America than the President they accuse of isolationism because world leaders will never again deal openly with a US President.
2. He is allowed to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption and no one can prove any quid pro quo. In fact at the time of the conversation Ukraine's government was unaware we would be giving them military aid making a quid pro quo impossible.
3. The impeachment investigation started before the phone call. The bitch ass liberals and globalist were looking for ANY way to impeach him and framing regular presidential foreign diplomacy as a crime was the best they could do.
4. To say that this was trying to undermine an election would basically mean that the worst criminals in the world need only run for President and then any attempt to investigate them is election interference.
5. The career politicians running this circus claim free and fair elections are the lynchpin of democracy but under their leadership the US has overthrown countless foreign leaders. They only allow "free and fair elections" in foreign countries if they know the fix is in for their guy.
6. Every president for the last 50 years has impeded Congress by claiming executive privilege. Now they want to say it's a crime to not let them come into the Whitehouse and start turning over the desks. The ACTUAL crime was Adam Schifty subpoenaing phone call records which can only be done by a judge or by law enforcement when someone's life is in danger. Congress can not but the same people trying to frame everything Trump does as a crime are the people who have been in politics for decades trying to frame their crimes as business as usual.
Jaxon Powell
>so any president that doesnt bow to the will of congress gets impeached now? good to know next time a dem is president... really shit precedent dems are setting,
This isn't new. Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles of impeachment drafted for Nixon, and Nixon's obstruction was less brazen than Trump's.
Brandon Foster
>defending a serial killer
ok nigger
Zachary Thompson
based trips
republicucks can't get anywhere if they're not allowed to lie constantly like glorious leader
Hunter Sullivan
FISA warrants are a joke right now. It's about time they tried to clean it up. But, despite the FISA warrant fiasco, the investigation was legit.
Andrew Watson
>despite the FISA warrant fiasco, the investigation was legit.
Joseph Sanders
>communicate with foreign leaders in private
No!
en.wikipedia.org
Matthew Lewis
>1. Presidents are supposed to be able to communicate with foreign leaders in private. By leaking one conversation after another the "never Trump clan" has actually done more to isolate America than the President they accuse of isolationism because world leaders will never again deal openly with a US President.
It was Trump who released the transcript of the Zelensky call.
And many of those other leaks come from the foreign leaders' staff.
Jeremiah Thompson
>republicucks can't get anywhere if they're not allowed to lie constantly like glorious leader
it's so gross how blatantly they do it too
Carter Bennett
requesting foreign interference in a domestic election is illegal
huffpost.com
Dylan Peterson
kek
Elijah Martinez
Nixon went to the Supreme Court and lost when claiming executive privilege and resigned a week later. Precedent with Nixon doesn't mean dick in this case
Nolan Rivera
Senator Ted Cruz
Verified account @SenTedCruz
3h3 hours ago
Senator Ted Cruz
Tonight House Dems concluded their partisan show trial, voting to impeach a president for the 1st time in US history without alleging a single law was violated. As a member of @senjudiciary, tomorrow I'll join @kilmeade @SteveDoocy @ainsleyearhardt to discuss what happens next.
Elijah Wood
Just because Nixon had it pushed against him doesn't mean it's right or proper.
Hearsay evidence is still hearsay no matter how many people corroborate it, especially given how many people are willing to say anything to get rid of trump. The most credible statements came from the Ukrainian government that said there were no issues, but they don't get rid of trump so let's just ignore them.
The president has the right to keep things from Congress, that's how separation of powers works, if Congress still wanted the info they should have gone through the proper process through the courts, but since this is really just about the next election they didnt have the time to follow the proper procedure.
Dylan Mitchell
i’m a black constitutional lawyer
Kevin Mitchell
What about all the people who have been told not to testify in court? Why would they refuse if they had nothing to hide?
Henry Long
Lol. Lindsey Graham is such a fucking coward.
Ethan Lee
Mark Meadows
Verified account @RepMarkMeadows
4h4 hours ago
Today will be remembered as the day your House Democrat majority voted to impeach President @realDonaldTrump for a crime they couldn’t find and a case they couldn’t prove.
You won’t forget. And neither will we.
Samuel Russell
>He is allowed to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption
But at the same time he is holding up aid to Ukraine. This isnt a coincidence.
Owen Russell
Uh. All of it. You would think that would be an article of impeachment because blackmail is a crime.
Caleb Butler
Lmao saying it like he can do something about it
Evan King
except there was no desire to prosecute crime, only to discredit Joe Biden with a nonsensical investigation that had no basis in fact.
Per the impeachment testimony, DJT only wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation, there was no real effort to prosecute because there was nothing there.
Dylan Reed
fake news. you should know better by now user
Matthew Jenkins
Carson Myers
>cries in blocking supreme court justices for a solid year
republicans have got to have the most disingenuous bunch of fucking blowhards running their media
jesus fucking christ, you wet twat waffles
Colton Evans
It is his absolute right, as president, to conduct diplomacy with foreign leaders however he damn well pleases. If you don't like it, don't vote for him. Thats how it works
Brandon Moore
>The impeachment investigation started before the phone call.
No!
The impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the incumbent president of the United States, was initiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on September 24, 2019,[1] after a whistleblower alleged that Trump may have abused the power of the presidency by withholding military aid as a means of pressuring newly elected president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to perform two favors: to pursue investigations of Joe Biden and his son Hunter,[a] and to investigate the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.[3]
en.wikipedia.org
Ryan Rogers
>Clinton was impeached for getting LIEING about a consensual BJ.
fixed
Leo Russell
You dipshit, the Ukraine government is not going to say 'the us president is bullying us' because they don't want to look weak on the world stage and don't want to piss off trump if he stays in power and could potentially lose any future aid if they did say 'there was a quid pro quo'.
Caleb Davis
>fake news. you should know better by now user
What's fake news?
Ian Rodriguez
And who told you that? Under that precedent, Obama could have been impeached. You're standards are out of whack because of your butthurt that he is your president.
Mason Flores
We do not forget.
We do not forgive.
Expect us.
Levi Russell
Why don't you just admit that you want to live under a dictatorship? I mean it seems that way seeing as how you think the head of state should have unlimited power to do anything they want.
Dominic Rodriguez
>You dipshit, the Ukraine government is not going to say 'the us president is bullying us' because they don't want to look weak on the world stage and don't want to piss off trump if he stays in power and could potentially lose any future aid if they did say 'there was a quid pro quo'.
This is so painfully obvious, it really shouldn't even have to be said.
Hudson Fisher
fun part is the put Biden and Obama on the menu
They better hope they keep the house
they better get their child sacrifices ready their going to need all the help they can get
Kayden Brown
it’s when the media makes things up or “spins” it to make it fit their agenda.
Caleb Evans
>any attempt to investigate them is election interference
There is something called a conflict of interest. It wasnt the presidents job, or his personal lawyers job to become batman and robin. Giuliani is not part of the government and should have had nothing to do with it. The only reason to send your personal lawyer is because its personal to Trump.
Logan Cook
well formed argument.
Christopher Williams
Why don't you just admit that presidents have always had the ability to conduct diplomacy with foreign leaders however they want and you just don't like the president so you think its ok to impeach him for doing things you don't agree with?
Carson Phillips
>Under that precedent, Obama could have been impeached.
What? How did Obama obstruct Congress?
Leo Long
>You dipshit, the Ukraine government is not going to say 'the us president is bullying us' because they don't want to look weak on the world stage
An assumption is not an impeachable offense. You don't think they could have threatened to use that against Trump to get a better deal. Hell, you shills think Putin is doing that to him.
Nolan Phillips
>a nonsensical investigation that had no basis in fact.
Well, you've described the current impeachment investigation perfectly. So, you do get it after all!
Wyatt Wilson
Wyatt Phillips
They're the most credible not necessarily the most accurate fucktard. Maybe they are keeping their heads down because they benefit from agreeing with Trump, but other testimonies benefit by supplying more ammo against trump. It's almost like everyone has their own agendas
Colton Sullivan
A "High Crime" is different from a crime. a "High Crime" involves the office. It's a specific definition.
Henry Hughes
They do not have limitless authority to do anything they want, I mean if the president said 'give me one million dollars or you won't get the 300 million dollar aid' it would be an insanely corrupt thing to do and would have been an impeachable offense.
Aaron Brown
They’re unconstitutional and the constitution requires removal for abuse of power. His actions fit the definition of high crimes literally exactly. Criteria for impeachment uses precise language with judicial history. We know what’s the constitution says the President should be impeached for, and Trump did exactly those things. Whether he broke statutory law or not is a red herring spread by people who have no understanding of our government or constitution
Kayden Cook
> You don't think they could have threatened to use that against Trump to get a better deal.
Zelensky could have counterbribed? You don't think that would be an insanely risky course to commit to?
Dude, just admit you're wrong. It's so obvious.
Jason Smith
>Every president for the last 50 years has impeded Congress by claiming executive privilege.
he Nixon example
Contempt of Congress was Article III of President Richard Nixon's impeachment. He was accused of failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas."
Trump did the same thing that Nixon did, not complying with subpoenas, so it has a precedent .
Justin Robinson
i love that the whole under 100 IQ repug fans have learned the word "hearsay". They have no idea what it means and how it applies in a court of law. But, under their understanding, only if the defendant clearly admitted responsibility would they be found guilty.
Asher Turner
>the country who desperately needed that foreign aid to fend off an aggressive government could totally strong arm the most powerful government in the world
do you even think?
Sebastian Howard
Eric Holder refused to provide congress with documents regarding Fast and Furious. It's call executive privilege. This is why we have separation of powers.
Benjamin Bell
What astounds me is the number of people who post on Sup Forums and know fuck all about what they are discussing.
>he never broke any laws
>He will be on trial without committing or being charged with any crime or violation of law
The charges against him DO NOT HAVE TO BE CRIMES in the usual sense.
Just for clarity.....
The charges against him DO NOT HAVE TO BE CRIMES in the usual sense.
The powers of impeachment were intended by the writers of The Constitution to protect the republic from a President becoming a tyrant or otherwise abuse the office.
They were obsessed with this danger.
The President does not have to have committed a crime as would be tried in a court of law but to have taken to himself powers, undertaken actions outside the limits of his authority etc as determined by the house and removed from office if the senate agrees.
Ryan Young
>it’s when the media makes things up or “spins” it to make it fit their agenda.
What was the specific fake news you were referring to from ?