It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is for the Legal experts Does this impeachment have any grounds

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Impeachment has ZERO legal ramifications. It is whatever the House says it is and the majority rules the house, so the majority can do anything they want. This is only a popularity contest and a way for House members to get their 15 mins of fame.




posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Tulsi on Impeachment: A house divided cannot stand.


On the Democratic side, Tulsi Gabbard is one I respect for her integrity. She has chosen to abstain on impeachment, not vote and leave it up to the next election to sort out. Sounds like there may be a couple other Democrats on the fence as well that will help counter any Republicans that will try and save their own skin on the impeachment issues.

Guess all we can really do is grab some popcorn and wait till the dust settles. Let your representatives know how you feel also helps.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Thank you for posting that.

To the OP... no.

They have not met the standard for impeachment but have done it anyways.

Shredding the rule of law and the Constitution in the process for political means.

Which is why the Founders fought bitterly over even having an impeachment process.

They thought it would eventually be politicized by the House to undermine the checks and balances they put into place to have three "co-equal" branches of government.

But eventually they voted on the standards, which were rooted in English law and were a very high standards indeed.

They have not been met, in this case.

Which puts us as a nation in dangerous times.




Would you care to cite some examples? I know that a lot of legal experts have waded in on this, could you maybe give some examples of the things that you said in order to back up your opinion.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Thank you for posting that.

To the OP... no.

They have not met the standard for impeachment but have done it anyways.

Shredding the rule of law and the Constitution in the process for political means.

Which is why the Founders fought bitterly over even having an impeachment process.

They thought it would eventually be politicized by the House to undermine the checks and balances they put into place to have three "co-equal" branches of government.

But eventually they voted on the standards, which were rooted in English law and were a very high standards indeed.

They have not been met, in this case.

Which puts us as a nation in dangerous times.




Would you care to cite some examples? I know that a lot of legal experts have waded in on this, could you maybe give some examples of the things that you said in order to back up your opinion.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
be a tuff time making impeachment stick....

hope the trial isn't like small claims court...who has jurisdiction over a potus trial....scotus?



Scotus has made it clear that it has no role wharsoever in an impeachment proceeding. Look up Nixon v. U.S. Walter Nixon, Jr., a former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, asked the Court to rule on the constitutionality of a Senate rule that allowed a Senate committee to hear impeachment evidence and report that evidence to the full Senate. But the Supreme Court refused to decide the question, explaining that “before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is ‘justiciable,’ that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not.” “The judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court in the 1993 opinion.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Wrong. They do not have any grounds to impeach. The Founding Fathers warned against this, the use of impeachment for purely partisan reasons. Impeachment is supposed to be bipartisan. Even Clinton's impeachment was bipartisan, and Clinton got more rights in his impeachment than Trump has had. Democrats denied ALL WITNESSES Republicans asked for, and democrats are demanding more of THEIR OWN WITNESSES meanwhile not wanting Republican's witnesses to appear. Democrats also denied Trump due process, including the ability for Trump's counsel to cross-examine the "Democrat witnesses."

Trump, even as POTUS, also has the right to face his accuser/s. But instead democrats are hiding the accuser behind the false claim that he/she is a whistleblower. Whistleblower status doesn't even apply to Trump's accuser because the whistleblower is part of the intelligence community, yet the phone call is a diplomatic matter and not an intelligence matter.

What's more, we have the transcript of the call as several of the transcribers heard it. We also have the statements from both the former, and present Ukrainian President stating there was no bribery, no blackmail, no pressure on the part of President Trump.

Morrison, whom was Vindman's boss, testified that he didn't hear what Vindman claimed happened, and he didn't hear President Trump say anything wrong in the call. However, Morrison was concerned that the call could be leaked, which it was, and not because President Trump committed any crime, but because such calls should be, and stay secret.

If delaying the military aid is grounds for impeachment then both Biden and Obama should be impeached because they denied all military aid to Ukraine meanwhile Russia was attempting at invading them. Instead Obama/Biden only sent blankets and MREs, when the Ukrainians asked for military aid to protect themselves against the Russians...

What's more, the claim that "Trump was using the delay in military aid to get dirt on Biden" is easily dismissed when the Ukrainians themselves weren't even aware that the aid was being delayed.

Even more damning is the fact that NOT ONE democrat witness could prove that President Trump committed ANY crime. Instead they based their accusations on their own assumptions and their belief that policy towards Ukraine should have remained as Obama/Biden set it. The POTUS has a right to change policy towards any, and every foreign state as he sees fit.

What's more, Vindmand, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine "Marie Yovanovich" and others were Obama/Biden appointees whom wanted the policy towards Ukraine to remain the same as Obama/Biden set it. So it is obvious this was a political ploy based on false crimes.

President Trump did not commit ANY crime despite false claims from the left.

Sondman himself was caught lying since he admitted that he never heard Trump use "quid pro quo" and instead Sondman ASSUMED it was "quid pro quo."

The allegations hold no water whatsoever, which it's why even at least a couple/3 democrats voted against impeachment together with ALL Republicans.




edit on 19-12-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
be a tuff time making impeachment stick....

hope the trial isn't like small claims court...who has jurisdiction over a potus trial....scotus?



Scotus has made it clear that it has no role wharsoever in an impeachment proceeding. Look up Nixon v. U.S. Walter Nixon, Jr., a former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, asked the Court to rule on the constitutionality of a Senate rule that allowed a Senate committee to hear impeachment evidence and report that evidence to the full Senate. But the Supreme Court refused to decide the question, explaining that “before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is ‘justiciable,’ that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not.” “The judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court in the 1993 opinion.


If that were true then why did the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon?...


...
In early August 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, to be presented to the entire House for a vote. On August 8, 1974, Nixon resigned before the House decided the matter.
...

The House’s role in the impeachment inquiry process



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Impeachment has ZERO legal ramifications. It is whatever the House says it is and the majority rules the house, so the majority can do anything they want. This is only a popularity contest and a way for House members to get their 15 mins of fame.


Actually that is not entirely true. An impeached official cannot run again for office in government, EVER, if the Senate decides it. Which it's part of what the socialists/Democrats want. BTW, yes I know that Republicans have a majority in the Senate. But the Socialists/Democrats hope to win the Senate, even if it's a remote possibility.

BTW, in case some of you didn't know there is a Democrat Constitutional lawyer, or scholar, whom wants for Democrats to keep on impeaching Trump until Democrats win the Senate. Which would mean Trump could not run again for office if this plan goes through. It's a remote possibility, but it's one of the many plans the Socialists/Democrats have.

Socialists/democrats want to dissuade as many voters from voting again for Trump in 2020, and they are trying to impeach Trump so that he can't run again for office.




edit on 19-12-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Impeachment has ZERO legal ramifications. It is whatever the House says it is and the majority rules the house, so the majority can do anything they want. This is only a popularity contest and a way for House members to get their 15 mins of fame.


The same kind of fame suicide bombers get. Hatred from all except those who rejoice in the mayhem and damage done by their dark heroes.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Very insightful post. So.. does Senate have the final say?



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This explains a lot






posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabrechucker

Here, even Pelosi seems to want this plan to either keep on impeaching him, or to hold impeachment until Democrats win the Senate, if they do which is very unlikely but not impossible.



Here is another video on this possible plan Democrats want.



I can't remember the name of the democrat Constitutional scholar or lawyer whom stated this could be part of their plan.

Socialists/Democrats know that Trump would win the 2020 elections simply on what he has done to improve our economy, bringing back jobs Obama claimed Trump could not bring back, lowering unemployment, etc, etc. Socialists/democrats can't hope to win the 2020 elections on these issues, which is why they keep on going with the "impeachment sham", even when they know this could be their "political suicide."


edit on 19-12-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and link.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

the 1:55 mark is a pretty good indicator of their intentions. When is the next vote?



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabrechucker

Next is the Senate trial which most likely will begin in 2020. Unless Republicans decide to make the trial faster due to there being no real evidence to impeach the POTUS.

Republicans in the Senate could decide they don't need any more of this sham, since essentially the democrats produced no evidence, and Republicans in the Senate could just dismiss impeachment entirely before 2020.




edit on 19-12-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Impeachment has ZERO legal ramifications. It is whatever the House says it is and the majority rules the house, so the majority can do anything they want. This is only a popularity contest and a way for House members to get their 15 mins of fame.


Although the House can decide what to prosecute the socialist/democrats have not provided any evidence for impeachment, and there has to be proof of real crimes for an actual impeachment to occur. The Senate has to agree with the House's decision, which they won't do. More so since 2/3 democrats even voted against impeachment together with all Republicans.

There was the possibility that at least 5 more democrats would have voted no on impeachment since they are in districts that Trump won in 2016. A majority of these socialists/democrats know that for voting yes on impeachment it's probable that they will not be re-elected. However, those democrats whom voted yes were more afraid of the judgement of the "never Trump crowd", than they were afraid of not being re-elected.





edit on 19-12-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Actually that is not entirely true. An impeached official cannot run again for office in government, EVER, if the Senate decides it.


Actually you are kind of wrong...Impeachment is another word for indictment, an indictment where the rules can be made up on the spot by the majority, and that is what they did. Do you know the SC has made it clear that if a prosecutor even suggests that the accused is guilty by silence it WILL end in a miss trial extremely quickly? Articular 2 is just that... Thanks god that wasn't a trial, don't you think...lol

For the Senate to trial the President to remove him from office has a 0 to none chance, so please tell me if you think anything different.



Which it's part of what the socialists/Democrats want. BTW, yes I know that Republicans have a majority in the Senate. But the Socialists/Democrats hope to win the Senate, even if it's a remote possibility.


How do they win? By elections after Trump is sworn in for his second term? So I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, sorry.



BTW, in case some of you didn't know there is a Democrat Constitutional lawyer, or scholar, whom wants for Democrats to keep on impeaching Trump until Democrats win the Senate. Which would mean Trump could not run again for office if this plan goes through. It's a remote possibility, but it's one of the many plans the Socialists/Democrats have.


They would need to keep it running until Trump is elected again and they gain the Senate too along with keeping the House... I'm really not sure, but they are making up the rules as they go.



Socialists/democrats want to dissuade as many voters from voting again for Trump in 2020, and they are trying to impeach Trump so that he can't run again for office.


Well they already impeached him, that is a done deal... They know now they can not win the White House and Pelosi really wanted to just keep the shadow of impeachment on Trump without doing a damn thing to dissuade voters, BUT they are in total retard mode as they see their 15 deep candidates as being the weakest in modern history. They are rolling the dice here and 11 out of the 12 sides of the two dice are ones...maybe all 12 sides is more accurate.







edit on 19-12-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Although the House can decide what to prosecute the socialist/democrats have not provided any evidence for impeachment, and there has to be proof of real crimes for an actual impeachment to occur.


Actually the President has been 100% impeached... done deal



There was the possibility that at least 5 more democrats would have voted no on impeachment since they are in districts that Trump won in 2016. A majority of these socialists/democrats know that for voting yes on impeachment it's probable that they will not be re-elected. However, those democrats whom voted yes were more afraid of the judgement of the "never Trump crowd", than they were afraid of not being re-elected.


Here is the problem for them. There is like 30 swing states and if they go Republican the Democrats lose the house. The reason why Pelosi didn't want to actually impeach him by vote is because she knows that a Republican vote for no is the right thing to do for their seat, but in the swing states a vote no will piss off their liberal voters and a vote yes will piss of their conservative voters, so any vote will damage a democrat in the swing states.

But desperate times require desperate actions and that is what they are doing. About the time Biden made the statement that every child should have phonograph to play records to lean and speak better they knew they were screwed. Now add in how children use to love to comb his hairy legs and they are like WTF!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wrong Nixon. Read my whole post. The Nixon case I mentioned was Walter, a juge being impeached.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabrechucker

Here you go... a real, practicing lawyer explains in non-partisan terms, It's all Youtube if you have the time to watch these short 20 minute segments :

Impeached for THAT? (Comparing the Trump Articles of Impeachment - Real Law Review) www.youtube.com...

Lawyer examines impeachment defenses: www.youtube.com...

Lawsplainer There's no such thing as collusion (it's worse) www.youtube.com...

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. This guy is a real lawyer. His discussion echoes discussions I've had with the lawyer (brother-in-law) in our family.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I don't completely understand what he's saying but, I will watch a couple more times.

Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join