Articles of Impeachment Scorecard

[bigsly]

President Andrew Johnson: February 24 1868 - May 26, 1868 (3 months)

Democrat Andrew Johnson was elected Vice President to President Abraham Lincoln (Republican) in the 1864 election. When Lincoln was assassinated just 42 days into his second presidential term, Vice President Johnson constitutionally became President.

On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives impeached Johnson on 11 Articles , and his case went to the Senate for trial beginning March 5, 1868. So sensational was the first trial of a sitting President in American history, tickets were printed for admission to it. You can read to your heart's content all about Johnson's trial here:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm#7

Suffice it to say, the Senate didn't convict Johnson on any of the House Articles and he remained in Office to the end of his constitutional term.

Interesting quote re Republican Senators saving Democrat Johnson from removal from Office:

Notable among the 19 senators who voted to acquit were seven “Republican Recusants” who defied their party to save the impeached president. “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution,” concluded recusant senator James Grimes of Iowa, “for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President.”

Will any Democrat "Recusant" Senators come to the defense of President Donald J. Turmp when he's impeached by the Democrat majority House?

____________________

President Richard M. Nixon: February 6, 1974 - August 9, 1974 (6 months)

On February 6, 1974, the House Judiciary Committe launced its formal impeachment inquiry of President Richard M. Nixon; Nixon was about half-way through his second term as President, having been first elected to the Office in the 1968 election.

On May 9, 1974, the Judiciary Committee opened formal impeachment hearings re Nixon. On July 26, 1974, the House Judiciary Committe began debating, adopting and refusing Articles of Impeachment against Nixon.:

Article I : Obstruction of justice was adopted in Committee 27-11 (21 Democrats & 6 Republicans YES) - (11 Rep NO).

Article II: Abuse of power was adopted 28-10 (21 Dem & 7 Rep YES) - (10 Rep NO).

Article III: Contempt of Congress was adopted 21-17 (19 Dem & 2 Rep YES) - (2 Dem & 15 Rep NO).

Article IV: Usurping the powers of Congress was rejected 12-26 (12 Dem YES) - (9 Dem & 17 Rep NO).

Article V: Tax fraud was rejected by the same vote of 12-26.

However, on August 9, 1974, before the 3 adopted Articles could be voted on by the full House, Nixon resigned from Office rather than face Impeachment, thus he wasn't impeached and no Senate trial was necessary.

_____________________

President William Jefferson Clinton: October 8, 1998 - February 12, 1999 (4 months)

The U.S. House of Representatives began impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton on October 8, 1998. Clinton, first elected to the Presidency in 1991, was nearing the end of his second term in Office.

4 Articles of Impeachment were levied against President Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee: 2 for perjury, 1 for obstruction of justice, and 1 for abuse of power.

Article I charged that Clinton lied to a federal grand jury. It passed the full House 228–206 (223 Republicans & 5 Democrat YEAS) - (5 Republicans, 200 Democrats & 1 Independent NAYS).

Article II charged Clinton with perjury concerning the Paula Jones case. It failed to pass the full House 205-229 (200 Rep & 5 Dem YEAS) - (28 Rep, 200 Dem & 1 Ind NAYS).

Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case. It passed the full House 221-212 (216 Rep & 5 Dem YEAS) - (12 Rep, 199 Dem & 1 Ind NAYS).

Article IV charged Clinton with abuse of power. It failed to pass the full House 148-285 (147 Rep & 1 Dem YEAS) - (81 Rep, 203 Dem & 1 Ind NAYS).

Thus impeached by the House on Articles I and III, Clinton was remanded to the Senate for consideration of removal from Office for both or either Articles, relying on 67 GUILTY votes for removal, beginning January 7, 1999, eleven months before the next federal election for President.

On February 12, 1999, the Senate voted:

On the perjury charge, the vote was 45-55 (45 Republicans voted GUILTY) - (10 Republicans & 45 Democrats voted NOT GUILTY).

On the obstruction of justice charge, the vote was 50-50 (50 Reps voted GUILTY) - (5 Reps & 45 Dems voted NOT GUILTY).

Not found guilty by the constitutionally-mandated two-thirds of the Senate on either charge, Clinton became not only the second President impeached, but also the second impeached President not to be removed from Office.

____________________

President Donald J. Trump - September 24, 2019 - (2.5 moths and counting)

On September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) ordered 6 House Committees to begin impeachment inquiries of President Donald J. Trump.

The first House Committee hearings convened two days later on September 26, 2019.

The House Intelligence Committee held its first public hearing on November 13, 2019.

On December 2, 2019, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (Democrat) publicly released the Committee's report sending further impeachment inquiries to the House Judiciary Committee. On a fully partisan Intelligence Committee vote of 13-9 (13 Democrats) - (9 Republicans), the report's preface stated:

The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

At the center of this investigation is the memorandum prepared following President Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukraine’s President, which the White House declassified and released under significant public pressure. The call record alone is stark evidence of misconduct; a demonstration of the President’s prioritization of his personal political benefit over the national interest. In response to President Zelensky’s appreciation for vital U.S. military assistance, which President Trump froze without explanation, President Trump asked for “a favor though”: two specific investigations designed to assist his reelection efforts.

The House Judiciary Committee held a one day public hearing on December 4, 2019.

On December 5, 2019, Speaker Peloski ordered the House Judiciary Committee to draw up Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. The Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats - 17 Republicans.

 

[bigsly]

The Majority Staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary released a 52 page report today, seemingly focusing on 4 impeachable offenses they judge have been committed by President Trump:

I. Bribery
II. Abuse of power
III. Betrayal involving foreign powers
IV. Corruption

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/d...use.gov/files/documents/HCM**0FINAL**0v.3.pdf

 

[heathergives]

And......the Senate votes to....​

(Film at 11...)

 

[bigsly]

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019, Democrat Representative Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, submitted to the House 2 articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States of America:

Article I. Abuse of Power
Article II. Obstruction of Congress

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

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.

The second Article of Impeachment listed above is, indeed, especially frivolous. Constitutionally, the Legislative branch and the Executive branch are CO-EQUAL branches of the federal government, along with the Judiciary. That means just because the House demands information from the Executive branch, the Executive branch doesn't have to automatically submit because it is CO-EQUAL to the House (neither branch has the constitutional authority to compel the other to submit).

If the House subpoenas info from the Executive and the Executive refuses, the House's ONLY remedy is to solicit the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter. If the Supremes then rule against the Executive and the Executive still refuses to submit, then that would definitely be Obstruction. The current House has not applied to the Judicial branch for relief, thus there cannot possibly be any constitutional/legal foundation for the Obstruction of Congress charge.

The Abuse of Power charge is also very dubious. Andrew Johnson was charged with 11 Articles of Impeachment, but none of them were Abuse of Power. The House Judiciary Committee had drawn up an Abuse of Power article against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before it could be voted on. And Bill Clinton had an Abuse of Power charge levied against him by the House Judiciary Committee, but it did not pass the full House.

Meaning, in the entire 230-year history of the Presidency of United States of America, and amid all the dastardly shenanigans Presidents throughout that time frame have committed, no President has even been impeached for Abuse of Power.

 

[bigsly]

Impeachment Partisan "Witch Hunts"

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a blatant, partisan witch hunt: it was all about a majority Republican House going after a Democrat President with anything and everything they could throw at him. Luckily for justice, enough Republicans voted principally against removing Johnson from Office.

The impeachment of Richard Nixon would've been the most legitimate impeachment against a President in American history.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton, on perjury and obstruction articles, both instances of which he unarguably committed, was a partisan witch hunt from the Democratic viewpoint and wholly justified from the Republican side.

The impeachment of Donald Trump on the current Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress charges is, without question, the most blatantly partisan witch hunt in American history, which will be clearly reflected in the final House votes on those articles - unless enough House Democrats vote on constitutional principle instead of political partisanship.

 

[coati]

Keep on whining, Deplorables.

As your victimized cult leader would say, "So unfair, so unfair."

 

[bigsly]

Note that today's publicly announced Articles of Impeachment, nor any other Articles, have yet been voted on by the Judiciary Committee itself. The Committee discussion toward that end, called "markup" (or "mark-up" according to certain grammar Nazis), begins tomorrow.

The Democratic majority on the Judiciary Committee is 24-17.

 

[Conager]

Note that today's publicly announced Articles of Impeachment, nor any other Articles, have yet been voted on by the Judiciary Committee itself. The Committee discussion toward that end, called "markup" (or "mark-up" according to certain grammar Nazis), begins tomorrow.

The Democratic majority on the Judiciary Committee is 24-17.

I wonder how that will turn out?

Both Nadler and Schiff did a poor job of acting appropriately sonber as the intoned the script about how sad, regretful, and somber they are about this process that they insist was thrust upon them.

Great exemplar of the travails of letting one's pride propel one's center of gravity way out in front of one's boots.

 

[Fart_knocker]

I wonder how that will turn out?

Both Nadler and Schiff did a poor job of acting appropriately sonber as the intoned the script about how sad, regretful, and somber they are about this process that they insist was thrust upon them.

Great exemplar of the travails of letting one's pride propel one's center of gravity way out in front of one's boots.

Tranny boi talking about trump?

 

[bigsly]

I wonder how that will turn out?

Both Nadler and Schiff did a poor job of acting appropriately sonber as the intoned the script about how sad, regretful, and somber they are about this process that they insist was thrust upon them.

Great exemplar of the travails of letting one's pride propel one's center of gravity way out in front of one's boots.

We'll see. But if the votes are 24-17, then it'll factually, unarguably be the most partisan articles of impeachment votes in Judiciary Committee history.

If Trump is impeached for Obstruction of Congress, I'd be interested to see if the Senate can somehow, unprecedentedly, get the Chief Justice to throw it out from Senate consideration because there simply is NO legal foundation for it because, IN CONSTITUTIONAL FACT, Trump has done no such thing.

Of course, just by the fact of Democrats already announcing that repugnant to the Constitution charge, they prove they're not concerned about hiding their blatant partisanship at all.

 

[bigsly]

On Thursday, December 12, 2019, during Articles of Impeachment debate, the United States House Committee on the Judiciary voted on 5 amendments offered by Republicans to the 2 Articles of Impeachment drawn by Democrats against President Donald J. Trump.

All 5 amendments were voted down by a totally partisan vote of 23 Democrats -17 Republicans.

(24 Democrats sit on the Committee, but Ted Lieu was absent due to his recent heart surgery).

On Friday, December 13, 2019, with Lieu still absent, the Judiciary Committee voted on the 2 Articles of Impeachment before it:

Article I, Abuse of Power, passed by the same totally partisan vote of 23-17.

Article II, Obstruction of Congress, passed by the same totally partisan vote of 23-17.

The partisanly-passed Articles now go to the Committee's Rules Committee for final revision, then they'll be presented before the full House of Representatives for consideration. Each Article will be voted on by the House seperately. The Constitution mandates only a simple majority vote is needed to impeach on either Article.

In the 230-year history of the United States of America, Articles of Impeachment have been voted on by the Judiciary Committee only 4 times. 3 times now in American history have Articles of Impeachment passed out of the Judiciary Committee to be voted on by the full house.

The 2 Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump approved unanimously along political Party lines make these the most politically partisan approved Articles of Impeachment against any President in American history.

 

[Conager]

Given that Pelosi has stated that a partisan impeachment effort would be disastrous for America, she must be shedding prayerful, sorrowful, non-hateful, piously Catholic tears about it.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Given that Pelosi has stated that a partisan impeachment effort would be disastrous for America, she must be shedding prayerful, sorrowful, non-hateful, piously Catholic tears about it.

*thoughts and prayers* for your extreme butthurt.

 

[bigsly]

On a technically legal note:

The second Article of Impeachment against President Trump, Obstruction of Congress, is legally a true, false charge.

Congress, literally, is the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively.

The Constitution purposely and definitively endows separate powers to both the House and Senate concerning Impeachment matters. The Constitution allows absolutely no overstepping those powers at all.

The Constitution endows no power to the House to impeach on behalf/in the name of the Senate, thus a House charge of Abuse of Congress has no legal, constitutional standing.

Any act against the Constitution is void.

 

[bigsly]

Given that Pelosi has stated that a partisan impeachment effort would be disastrous for America, she must be shedding prayerful, sorrowful, non-hateful, piously Catholic tears about it.

1st Rule of America Club: NEVER believe anything any politician says.

 

[Tigersman]

On a technically legal note:

The second Article of Impeachment against President Trump, Obstruction of Congress, is legally a true, false charge.

Congress, literally, is the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively.

The Constitution purposely and definitively endows separate powers to both the House and Senate concerning Impeachment matters. The Constitution allows absolutely no overstepping those powers at all.

The Constitution endows no power to the House to impeach on behalf/in the name of the Senate, thus a House charge of Abuse of Congress has no legal, constitutional standing.

Any act against the Constitution is void.

Your spin on this matter is pure BS. Using your spin then all Congressional investigations would have to be collectively by joint committee of the House and the Senate. That has never happened and will not happen.

 

[bigsly]

Your spin on this matter is pure BS. Using your spin then all Congressional investigations would have to be collectively by joint committee of the House and the Senate. That has never happened and will not happen.

Yes, the House conducts its own investigations as does the Senate, literally meaning there is no such thing as a "Congressional" investigation.

The House alone has no constitutional authority to levy an Obstruction of Congress charge since it can only speak for itself - the House, not it and the Senate (Congress).

Another great point is now being made by Alan Dershowitz: when the Supremes accepted a case today of whether House members have any constitutional authority to demand and receive the President's financial records, it is most definitely asserting that the third branch of government - the Judiciary - holds the only constitutional authority to decide that conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches; exactly as I clearly outlined in post #1.

 

[bigsly]

Another interesting twist I haven't yet heard/read anyone, anywhere cover pertains to Democrats now calling for Republican McConnell to recuse himself from any participation in the possible Senate trial because of his "total coordination" comments with the White House about how the Republicans will shape the trial (Republicans being the constitutional majority in the Senate as are the Democrats in the House, who totally shape impeachment proceedings); they claim he cannot possibly be an unpartisan, unbiased participant.

I agree.

But, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, likewise, the driver of the totally partisan push in the House to impeach the President, ordering when the process began, why it began, and the articles of impeachment themselves. To even suggest that she isn't as partisan and bias as McConnell is nothing but laughable. But did anyone insisting McConnell recuse himself also call for just as partisan and biased Pelosi to recuse herself at the beginning of this mess? No, of course not. That's called hypocrisy.

Plus, Pelosi has much more to gain if Trump is impeached: Pence becomes President and she's next in line. If something then happens to Pence, Pelosi then becomes President. Just. like. that.

So, she's also got unique partisan political ambition that only adds to her natural political Party partisanship in hopes of seeing Trump gone.

 

[Conager]

Yes, the House conducts its own investigations as does the Senate, literally meaning there is no such thing as a "Congressional" investigation.

The House alone has no constitutional authority to levy an Obstruction of Congress charge since it can only speak for itself - the House, not it and the Senate (Congress).

Another great point is now being made by Alan Dershowitz: when the Supremes accepted a case today of whether House members have any constitutional authority to demand and receive the President's financial records, it is most definitely asserting that the third branch of government - the Judiciary - holds the only constitutional authority to decide that conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches; exactly as I clearly outlined in post #1.

Exactly.

They're going to have to wait till March to find out whether or not they are allowed to look at the president's documents yet they think they can immediately compel testimony because they say so?

I think the 31 Democrats that are in trouble will be looking to split the difference and concur with one charge over the other but what do you choose? Choosing the obstruction of Congress charge on technical grounds makes a certain amount of sense but the other one is so nebulous how do you explain to your constituents what it is you voted for?

 

[about_average]

Given that Pelosi has stated that a partisan impeachment effort would be disastrous for America, she must be shedding prayerful, sorrowful, non-hateful, piously Catholic tears about it.

I'm sure when she said that she thought the GOP would honor the constitution. Obviously she was wrong.

 

[RetroTin88]

I'm sure when she said that she thought the GOB would honor the constitution. Obviously she was wrong.

Let's see what the Senate has to say about the Dumz' view on what honors the constitution and what doesn't.

 

[about_average]

Let's see what the Senate has to say about the Dumz' view on what honors the constitution and what doesn't.

Oh, I know the GOP sycophants in the Trump cult won't convict, I don't need to "wait and see"

 

[RetroTin88]

Oh, I know the GOP sycophants in the Trump cult won't convict, I don't need to "wait and see"

GOP sycophants?
Trump cult?

Yeah, there's no partisan bias here.

If you reverse the sentiment of what you said, you'll be describing the Dumz attempt to remove Trump to a T. (Justice be damned, they just want Trump out.)

 

[icanhelp1]

On a technically legal note:

The second Article of Impeachment against President Trump, Obstruction of Congress, is legally a true, false charge.

Congress, literally, is the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively.

The Constitution purposely and definitively endows separate powers to both the House and Senate concerning Impeachment matters. The Constitution allows absolutely no overstepping those powers at all.

The Constitution endows no power to the House to impeach on behalf/in the name of the Senate, thus a House charge of Abuse of Congress has no legal, constitutional standing.

Any act against the Constitution is void.

Good point!!! Missed that!

 

[jomar]

Question...do you pro Trump guys truly believe he has not crossed the line on asking for a political favor from Ukraine and not obstructed investigations into him? Or are you against impeachment for some other reason.