The road to impeachment

someoneyouknow

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Posts
28,274
Back in 1974, it looked and more likely Nixon would have to be impeached. The only problem was, no one knew how to do it or what the standards were for impeaching a president since the last time it had been done was 100 years prior.

The House Judiciary Committee stepped in and set up something called a bipartisan staff effort to determine whether Nixon should be impeached. One of staffers involved in the final 64-page report was none other than Hillary Rodham, then a law school graduate. This report went as far back as 14th Century England to determine what constitutes grounds for impeachment. This was because the Constitution is fairly broad in what is allowable. For example, Andrew Johnson was not impeached because of crimes he committed, but because of his handling of reconstruction after the Civil War.

The staffers’ research broke ground by making an accessible argument that a president doesn’t have to commit a straight-up crime for Congress to consider the historic step of impeachment.

“The framers did not write a fixed standard. Instead they adopted from English history a standard sufficiently general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events, the nature and character of which they could not foresee,” the House staffers, including the future first lady, wrote about the ill-defined constitutional working of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”​

In the United States, 83 articles of impeachment had been voted out of the House up to that point against a dozen federal judges, one senator and Andrew Johnson, and fewer than a third actually involved specific criminal acts. Far more common, they wrote, was that the House was dealing with allegations that someone had violated their duties, oath of office or seriously undermined public confidence in their ability to perform their official functions.

“Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office,” the House staffers concluded.

This legal reasoning was later used against Hillary's future husband, Bill, during the Lewinski blowjob scandal. Republicans pulled out the report and cited it verbatim, no doubt gleeful that Hillary's own words were being used against her. Republicans were citing campaign finance irregularities involving a Whitewater land deal, a probe of the Clinton's real estate investments, as a possible reason for impeachment, along with obstruction of justice (sound familiar?) and whether Bill Clinton had betrayed the public's trust (ditto).

Fast forward two decades later and the same reasonings Republicans had given for impeaching Bill Clinton are now being applied to the con artist. And guess what report is being used a blueprint for the proceedings. Everything from the con artist's shady financial dealings violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, to his general unfitness for office, are on the table.

Republican Bob Barr cheerfully thanked Hillary for giving lawmakers a “road map” to consider her husband’s impeachment with a report that “appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment.”

It will be interesting to hear Republicans tie themselves in knots when this report is used to impeach the con artist as they try to claim there are no grounds for impeachment.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/16/hillary-clinton-impeachment-memo-trump-228107
 
I don't see a bit of trouble finding, each and every day, new grounds in multiple dimensions for impeaching Trump and a good many of his "all the best people." They fall over themselves to provide new examples of corruption, criminality, inhumanity, and obstruction of justice.
 
Republican Bob Barr cheerfully thanked Hillary for giving lawmakers a “road map” to consider her husband’s impeachment with a report that “appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment.”

It will be interesting to hear Republicans tie themselves in knots when this report is used to impeach the con artist as they try to claim there are no grounds for impeachment.

You can almost already hear the faint echoes beginning: "But Benghazi! Buttery emails! But moon-based child-sex-slave camps being shuttled through the basement of pizza parlors!" :rolleyes:

.
 
It's funny how you lefty loons gloss over anything.

An interesting factoid, Hillary Clinton was involved with the Watergate scandal. See; Hillary's slimy character was being formed way back when she was a lawyer for chief counsel Jerry Zeifman who was quoted " She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality". " If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her". And you call Trump dishonest. She was a fucking lawyer. Crooked Hillary is an appropriate nickname. Teflon Bill and Crooked Hillary.
 
It's funny how you lefty loons gloss over anything.

It's far more funny how your uber-righties will latch onto someone like Jerry Zeifman, who had changed his stories almost as often as 45 does, and use some lame alleged quote of his that has been debunked by virtually every fact checking site out there...but scream it's 100% pure gospel.

Lemme guess, you saw that in a meme on Facebook, right? :rolleyes:

.
 
It's far more funny how your uber-righties will latch onto someone like Jerry Zeifman, who had changed his stories almost as often as 45 does, and use some lame alleged quote of his that has been debunked by virtually every fact checking site out there...but scream it's 100% pure gospel.

Lemme guess, you saw that in a meme on Facebook, right? :rolleyes:

.


It's a direct quote from Zeifman to Scripps Howard news agency, Also reported by Dan Calabrese. He didn't change his story, other news agencies reported that he fired her during the watergate investigation which was false.

It's funny we have,

Watergate, Whitewater, Clinton impeachment, Clinton rape and sexual harassment allegations, Benghazi, Subpoenaed Email scandal ( obstruction of justice in its purest form ), Running the state department on an unsecured server, Getting rich on pay for play Clinton Foundation, Steele dossier, Violation of 18 U.S. 1924, 798, 793 and Obama's executive order 13526, yah they're angels. Just the fact her server was hacked and classified material ended up in the wrong hands should piss you off. Please spare me Trumps cell phone, not the same. Stones and glass houses.
 
"The road to impeachment" << hahah-ha ! Like a Road Runner cartoon... right off an f'ing cliff !

Jerry Nadler is just tryng to get himself some FaceTime, but Nancy doesn't like it, 'cause she knows Democrats are gonna look like FOOLS. AGAIN !
 
Last edited:
It's a direct quote from Zeifman to Scripps Howard news agency, Also reported by Dan Calabrese. He didn't change his story, other news agencies reported that he fired her during the watergate investigation which was false.

It's funny we have,

Watergate, Whitewater, Clinton impeachment, Clinton rape and sexual harassment allegations, Benghazi, Subpoenaed Email scandal ( obstruction of justice in its purest form ), Running the state department on an unsecured server, Getting rich on pay for play Clinton Foundation, Steele dossier, Violation of 18 U.S. 1924, 798, 793 and Obama's executive order 13526, yah they're angels. Just the fact her server was hacked and classified material ended up in the wrong hands should piss you off. Please spare me Trumps cell phone, not the same. Stones and glass houses.

A) Clinton never raped anyone. Stop the lying.

B) There were 7 Republican-led investigations in BENGHAZI!!!! and they all found nothing.

C) Show the pay for play. Hillary wasn't even head of Dept of State when the foundation, not her, received the money and reported it. As they are legally obligated to do so. Unlike the con artist who used his fake "foundation" to buy things for himself (illegal) and pay his legal bills (also illegal). It's why it was shut down, unlike the Clinton Foundation which has always received high marks for transparency and use of money by independent third parties.

C) Thank you for confirming the con artist can be impeached for doing the same things you're whining about.
 
A) Clinton never raped anyone. Stop the lying.

B) There were 7 Republican-led investigations in BENGHAZI!!!! and they all found nothing.

C) Show the pay for play. Hillary wasn't even head of Dept of State when the foundation, not her, received the money and reported it. As they are legally obligated to do so. Unlike the con artist who used his fake "foundation" to buy things for himself (illegal) and pay his legal bills (also illegal). It's why it was shut down, unlike the Clinton Foundation which has always received high marks for transparency and use of money by independent third parties.

C) Thank you for confirming the con artist can be impeached for doing the same things you're whining about.


Not whining about anything just pointing out the fact that you're incapable of being objective. Bill Clinton has a proven history of sexual misconduct while in office. Just research,

1. Juanita Broderick allegedly raped by Bill Clinton and threatened by Hillary to remain quiet about it.
2. Paula Jones
3. Monica Lewinsky
4. Kathleen Willey
5. Gennifer Flowers
6. Leslie Millwee

If you believe nothing happened then I can't help you, you have your head buried in the sand. Please spare me the TDS, 'CLINTON DID THIS WHILE IN OFFICE'

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying not for being a sexual deviant, we'll see what happens with the Epstein investigation.

Clinton lied to the american people about Benghazi. Both Clinton and Rice went on several Sunday public broadcasting stating the incident was a result of a video when it was proven that it was a terrorist attack. Both Benghazi Missions were inadequately secured after several request to harden them. Additional security request were denied by Clinton, the video was a ploy to deceive the american people.

C) The Clintons leave the White house broke and in a few years they become millionaires several times over. That investigation is ongoing.

The FISC Investigation is ongoing. Comey took a hit for the Hillary team, it wasn't about the Hillary election campaign is was about mishandling classified material and keeping her out of jail. Comey knew that her use of a private server was in direct violation of US code 18, [1924], [798], [793], [ EO 13526 ] also deleted emails was obstruction of justice, still under investigation.
 
1. Juanita Broderick allegedly raped by Bill Clinton and threatened by Hillary to remain quiet about it.
2. Paula Jones
3. Monica Lewinsky
4. Kathleen Willey
5. Gennifer Flowers
6. Leslie Millwee

None of which are rapes. Broderick even recanted her story.

If you believe nothing happened then I can't help you, you have your head buried in the sand. Please spare me the TDS, 'CLINTON DID THIS WHILE IN OFFICE'

I never said nothing happened. I said Bill never raped anyone no matter how many times people keep lying about it.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying not for being a sexual deviant, we'll see what happens with the Epstein investigation.

Then there are grounds for impeaching the con artist since he lies every day.

Clinton lied to the american people about Benghazi. Both Clinton and Rice went on several Sunday public broadcasting stating the incident was a result of a video when it was proven that it was a terrorist attack. Both Benghazi Missions were inadequately secured after several request to harden them. Additional security request were denied by Clinton, the video was a ploy to deceive the american people.

Again, 7 Republican led investigations which found absolutely nothing on BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

It's interesting to note the Clinton you're talking about is Hillary and not Bill. So nothing but a deflection.

However, since you brought it up, you have once again laid out the path to impeachment of the con artist since he has lied about everything and everything, including denying his own words. Remember how in April the con artist said he'd meet Rouhani without preconditions? Then Mnuchin came along in June and said the same thing? Now the con artist is whining he never said such a thing and saying the media reporting his own words are lying.

C) The Clintons leave the White house broke and in a few years they become millionaires several times over. That investigation is ongoing.

What investigation? That private citizens, who used to be part of the government, got multi-million dollar book deals to tell their stories when they left office, or get tens of thousands of dollars to give speeches? Why do you hate capitalism?

The FISC Investigation is ongoing. Comey took a hit for the Hillary team, it wasn't about the Hillary election campaign is was about mishandling classified material and keeping her out of jail. Comey knew that her use of a private server was in direct violation of US code 18, [1924], [798], [793], [ EO 13526 ] also deleted emails was obstruction of justice, still under investigation.

Which again has nothing to do with the con artist. You're simply playing the game of whataboutism and deflection. Keep on topic. Everything you've said applies to the con artist. As the 1974 report laid out, a crime does not have to be committed for an impeachment to proceed. Considering the con artist has committed obstruction of justice, exactly as Nixon did, considering the con artist has given out classified information to his Russian handlers, considering the daily corruption and lies committed by the con artist, there is more than enough evidence he is unfit for the office, which is also an impeachable offense.
 
It's all a Trumpette deflection. Screw Bill Clinton. Screw Trump even worse and more often because he's bad boy Bill Clinton on steroids.
 
Apparently, some people choose selectively whether on not to "believe the survivors".
 
Apparently, some people choose selectively whether on not to "believe the survivors".

Yes, I've worked out the code of how they make their selections.
If the offender is a democrat then they're guilty, if they're republican then they're innocent.
 
None of which are rapes. Broderick even recanted her story.



I never said nothing happened. I said Bill never raped anyone no matter how many times people keep lying about it.



Again, 7 Republican led investigations which found absolutely nothing on BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

It's interesting to note the Clinton you're talking about is Hillary and not Bill. So nothing but a deflection.

However, since you brought it up, you have once again laid out the path to impeachment of the con artist since he has lied about everything and everything, including denying his own words. Remember how in April the con artist said he'd meet Rouhani without preconditions? Then Mnuchin came along in June and said the same thing? Now the con artist is whining he never said such a thing and saying the media reporting his own words are lying.



What investigation? That private citizens, who used to be part of the government, got multi-million dollar book deals to tell their stories when they left office, or get tens of thousands of dollars to give speeches? Why do you hate capitalism?



Which again has nothing to do with the con artist. You're simply playing the game of whataboutism and deflection. Keep on topic. Everything you've said applies to the con artist. As the 1974 report laid out, a crime does not have to be committed for an impeachment to proceed. Considering the con artist has committed obstruction of justice, exactly as Nixon did, considering the con artist has given out classified information to his Russian handlers, considering the daily corruption and lies committed by the con artist, there is more than enough evidence he is unfit for the office, which is also an impeachable offense.


Why should Trump be impeached? Give the legal predicate for impeachment. Impeachment: A president of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors. Trump is being impeached based over a long feud with Nadler that stems back as far as 1984 in NYC over real estate project on the West Side.
 
Why should Trump be impeached? Give the legal predicate for impeachment. Impeachment: A president of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors. Trump is being impeached based over a long feud with Nadler that stems back as far as 1984 in NYC over real estate project on the West Side.

Didn't bother reading a single word which has been written, have you? There is no requirement impeachment need be based on a crime. As the 1974 report showed, being unfit for office is a good enough reason.
 
Why should Trump be impeached? Give the legal predicate for impeachment. Impeachment: A president of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors. Trump is being impeached based over a long feud with Nadler that stems back as far as 1984 in NYC over real estate project on the West Side.

Cool story, bro. :rolleyes:

Now when are you going to tell us the one about Nadler only being up Donnie's big ass because 45 used to mug him for his milk money in second grade? ;)

.
 
Didn't bother reading a single word which has been written, have you? There is no requirement impeachment need be based on a crime. As the 1974 report showed, being unfit for office is a good enough reason.


If no crime is committed who would vote to impeach. You know that impeachment needs a full vote of the house and 2/3rds majority. An impeachable offense could theoretically be whatever the house deems impeachable at that moment. No one will dispute that. Then you deal with the senate for removal, better have a crime there, Lots of untested territory. You need 2/3rds majority vote in the senate and the Chief Justice presides. What looks good on paper is just that, it looks good on paper. Nadler will never impeach Trump, it's a fool's errand. You just keep smoking whatever your smoking, I'm sure you'll feel better in the morning.
 
Cool story, bro. :rolleyes:

Now when are you going to tell us the one about Nadler only being up Donnie's big ass because 45 used to mug him for his milk money in second grade? ;)

.

Did you watch Nadler today, he looked like a fool on a fool's errand.
 
Cool story, bro. :rolleyes:

Now when are you going to tell us the one about Nadler only being up Donnie's big ass because 45 used to mug him for his milk money in second grade? ;)

.



Back then, Nadler weighed 600 lbs ( Donnie's fat ass LOL )
 
I wonder if these guys wear the same tin foil hat everyday or if they have one for special occasions
 
If no crime is committed who would vote to impeach. You know that impeachment needs a full vote of the house and 2/3rds majority. An impeachable offense could theoretically be whatever the house deems impeachable at that moment. No one will dispute that. Then you deal with the senate for removal, better have a crime there, Lots of untested territory. You need 2/3rds majority vote in the senate and the Chief Justice presides. What looks good on paper is just that, it looks good on paper. Nadler will never impeach Trump, it's a fool's errand. You just keep smoking whatever your smoking, I'm sure you'll feel better in the morning.

Obstruction of justice is a crime, the last I checked. So is corruption.

Also, you, like so many others, are under the mistaken impression that a conviction is needed to impeach someone. It is not. The act itself is impeachment. Thus, Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted (or whatever appropriate term is needed).

The same with the con artist. Since the House has more than enough votes to impeach, it's immaterial what the Senate does. The con artist will have been impeached and he can't weasel his way out of it.
 
Obstruction of justice is a crime, the last I checked. So is corruption.

Also, you, like so many others, are under the mistaken impression that a conviction is needed to impeach someone. It is not. The act itself is impeachment. Thus, Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted (or whatever appropriate term is needed).

The same with the con artist. Since the House has more than enough votes to impeach, it's immaterial what the Senate does. The con artist will have been impeached and he can't weasel his way out of it.

You do realize that all of that means NADA?

Even if they impeach, without the Senate it all means nothing. I'm sure you remember when they impeached Clinton they still didn't manage to remove him from office since the Senate said "no dice".

Do you honestly think the outcome is going to be different this time?
 
Obstruction of justice is a crime, the last I checked. So is corruption.

Also, you, like so many others, are under the mistaken impression that a conviction is needed to impeach someone. It is not. The act itself is impeachment. Thus, Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted (or whatever appropriate term is needed).

The same with the con artist. Since the House has more than enough votes to impeach, it's immaterial what the Senate does. The con artist will have been impeached and he can't weasel his way out of it.



So what's the point of impeachment. Impeachment is a process based on findings by the house which elevates to the senate for a trial and removal.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. There is no obstruction of justice. Trump was operating well within the purview his article II powers.

Nadler is destroying the once great house judiciary committee to fulfill a personal vendetta, Sad.

You need to understand article I and article II powers. The house is not a prosecutorial body it's a legislative body. They are off the rails. Nadler is drunk with power he doesn't have. Impeachment is a very destructive event. There was a prosecutable crime committed in the Nixon admin and it took SCOTUS to intervene forcing nixon to comply. Nixon was never removed, he resigned. A full presidential impeachment is still theory.

The house does not have the votes.

What corruption?
 
Do you honestly think the outcome is going to be different this time?

That doesn't matter. Trump breaches the Constitution in several impeachable ways. If there was ever an instance in which impeachment should be invoked, Trump provides them in multiple dimensions. This needs to be done, it needs to be on record, and the votes in the Senate need to be individually on record too.

Trumpettes obviously are worried about this or they wouldn't bother to posting what they are on it. That, in itself, shows it should be done regardless of the final (individually on the record for use at election time) vote.

So, if you're nor worried about the outcome and how history will record it, you have no reason to post why it shouldn't be done, do you? Just sit back and enjoy it.
 
That doesn't matter. Trump breaches the Constitution in several impeachable ways. If there was ever an instance in which impeachment should be invoked, Trump provides them in multiple dimensions. This needs to be done, it needs to be on record, and the votes in the Senate need to be individually on record too.

Trumpettes obviously are worried about this or they wouldn't bother to posting what they are on it. That, in itself, shows it should be done regardless of the final (individually on the record for use at election time) vote.

So, if you're nor worried about the outcome and how history will record it, you have no reason to post why it shouldn't be done, do you? Just sit back and enjoy it.


Cite how he breached the constitution in several impeachable ways.

Multiple dimensions, what the fuck does that mean?.

So, you deduced, that people who post as being worried. What the fuck does " they wouldn't bother to posting what they are on it" mean?.

Clinton was on record, along with every house and senate member, what good did that do?

Impeachment isn't a game, it's ripping our country apart. So who can sit back and enjoy.
 
Back
Top