The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."
Oh that's pure bullshit. Or I hereby propose to impeach the next Democratic president for taking a leak in the Rose Garden. Certainly an "evil deed" and obviously done intentionally. And a horrible abuse of power in my opinion. "'[D]rastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency" is wholly subjective, can be whatever you want to be, so my conclusion cannot be disputed.
Under Schiff/Nadler precedent all we need to convict is an inference based on heresay (water cooler talk) that it may have happened. Direct evidence? Pah! Somebody on Schiff's side actually said that hearsay is more reliable than direct evidence so reject any direct evidence that is contrary to rumor.
Up to the accused to prove his innocence and without the ability to call witnesses or cross examine. Though with the ability to call one opinion witness in opposition to three who assert absolute guilt with neither fact nor trial.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."
................That is BULLCRAP,,,Goose feathers............The US Constitution DOES NOT SAY THAT!!!
All you do is post what the demCRAPS say.....They purposely twist and mis-interpret the Constitution in order to control their own narrative.....
Prime principle of propaganda, repeat a lie often enough and forcefully enough and a certain portion of the population will believe it. If you listened carefully you saw an example of that yesterday. Points to be made and answers to be given were scripted. Democrats were given questions to ask, the meat of the questions asked came up in cyclical fashion.
Republicans were forced to use the same technique, I don't know how many times Turley repeated himself but it was a lot. Though Turley was given a little more latitude in formulating his answer.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
The Democrats created a monster they now regret. That being the votes necessary to confirm federal judges. They didn't learn their lesson. They now want to create another monster. That being? Impeach a President with whom you don't agree because you don't like him. Just say that he committed some offense, without evidence, and move forward with impeachment. Just think if the Trump Presidency, as it is, pre-dated the Obama Presidency, as it actually was. Not only would President Obama be impeached, he would be convicted. Wo be unto the next Democrat President. The Democrats only take solace in the fact that Republicans never seem to want to play by the dirty and underhanded rules and techniques by which the Democrats play.
_________________________________________________________________________ “Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Prime principle of propaganda, repeat a lie often enough and forcefully enough and a certain portion of the population will believe it. If you listened carefully you saw an example of that yesterday. Points to be made and answers to be given were scripted. Democrats were given questions to ask, the meat of the questions asked came up in cyclical fashion.
Republicans were forced to use the same technique, I don't know how many times Turley repeated himself but it was a lot. Though Turley was given a little more latitude in formulating his answer.
Psssst, Turley is a Democrat and a hard core leftist Democrat at that..
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
The Democrats created a monster they now regret. That being the votes necessary to confirm federal judges. They didn't learn their lesson. They now want to create another monster. That being? Impeach a President with whom you don't agree because you don't like him. Just say that he committed some offense, without evidence, and move forward with impeachment. Just think if the Trump Presidency, as it is, pre-dated the Obama Presidency, as it actually was. Not only would President Obama be impeached, he would be convicted. Wo be unto the next Democrat President. The Democrats only take solace in the fact that Republicans never seem to want to play by the dirty and underhanded rules and techniques by which the Democrats play.
They sure have. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out, I get nearly embarrassed when I watch this on TV and after watching this I will never vote for another democrat in a national election and I am willing to bet I am not the only one that feels like this.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."
Okay, so the next president that gets elected by lying about anything (which is guaranteed) shall be impeached. Since lying is evil, y'know. Extorting money from those who are productive and giving it to those who could earn it but won't is also evil, so if said democrat manages to slip through an election without lying (doubtful) and proceeds to endorse any tax scheme or other confiscatory policy, then he should be impeached and removed from office. The impeachment process should begin immediately when he takes office, especially if any of these things are proposed by him/her/it during the campaign. I'm good with that.
Prime principle of propaganda, repeat a lie often enough and forcefully enough and a certain portion of the population will believe it. If you listened carefully you saw an example of that yesterday. Points to be made and answers to be given were scripted. Democrats were given questions to ask, the meat of the questions asked came up in cyclical fashion.
Republicans were forced to use the same technique, I don't know how many times Turley repeated himself but it was a lot. Though Turley was given a little more latitude in formulating his answer.
Psssst, Turley is a Democrat and a hard core leftist Democrat at that..
1) Not all dems put their party ahead of their country. 2) Turley was engaged to play a role, just like the others and (IMHO) played it well. His personal reasons for taking the part remain hidden.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Turley may indeed be a democrat, but, at least he believes in using the Constitution as it was written, and not modifying it to meet an agenda. I consider him to be a real constitutional scholar, quite unlike the other 3 clown car idiots.
