To make this theoretical discussion nonspecific to any Member of Congress: It’s pretty standard and there is nothing wrong with it. Both parties do it. It’s actually something that James Madison anticipated and planned-for, as far back as the Federalist Papers: competing factions. Parties themselves are factions - and within parties are additional factions. These factions compete, converse, collaborate, and alternatively find conflict and/or common ground. When factions that have routinely been in conflict can find some common ground on something, that inherently means a mutually beneficial converging interest has likely been identified.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
Great, but you still don't know why they kept relatively quiet the last few months of the campaign.
So #ExposeTwitter by posting on Twitter about Twitter censoring folks...is irony dead yet?
RoarkJr.
Well-Known Member
“Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
The definition does not say that the information cannot be factual. It often is factual. The mainstream media deliberately targets the majority of people, because the majority of people take the road most traveled and only read headlines.
That is why you see so many “white cop shoots black man” without context. It ends up being factual, but they leave out the part about the black guy having been armed and shooting at the cops.
Its pretty obvious that the majority of people will interpret “impeached” as impeached proper, as in convicted by the Senate with associated consequences. This is deliberately misleading and 100% propaganda, per the definition.
Just stop. It was a dumb post. People, however stupid, shouldn't be confused about the meaning of the word impeachment, since DJT was already impeached the first time, and he clearly remained in office. Also, your brain is broken. Repent.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
It doesn't really matter. Andrew Johnson was impeached without a pre-investigation.
The purpose of the impeachment process, to include the trial, is to give Congress the power to remove a sitting President from office if he's not executing his office in good faith. That's why the people who make the laws get to adjudicate it, and not the people who interpret the laws for a living. They also get to make their own standards on how to conduct impeachment trials and are not bound by the same standards of evidence or procedures of a federal criminal trial. The 'managers' are House members, not lawyers, although many of them usually were lawyers in a former career. If "convicted," Trump doesn't face any punishment other than removal from office.
In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the subjects of the Senate’s impeachment jurisdiction “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
As a military analogy I view it more akin to an NJP than a Court Martial. The 2/3 to pass bar to convict and oversight by the chief justice of the supreme court are the checks against abusing it.
Where everything falls apart is when one chamber decides to use it as a political ploy when there's almost no chance the man actually gets removed from office, especially when he's 6 days out from no longer being the President anymore.
Last edited:
Which has happened x2 in the last 12 months or so (6 days notwithstanding).
But I agree.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
This is why I waffle about term limits.
On the one hand they're un-democratic because it's telling people they're not allowed to continue to vote for someone when they're doing a good job. We can imagine an alternate reality where Obama got a 3rd term and Trump never becomes President because Hillary doesn't ever run (I don't think Bush Jr had a snowball's chance in hell of getting a 3rd term if that were an option btw, nor Slick Willy for that matter). Regardless of your side of the aisle, I think Obama will ultimately go down in history at or above the 'average' bar in US Presidents.
On the other, not all (R) and (D) people are created equal, and the way our political system is set up there is almost no chance that an intra-party race occurs to challenge an incumbent. For the President this isn't that big of a deal, but Congress is a different story... because Congressional districts, by design, are supposed to be carved where there is a supermajority, there's almost no chance a shitty (R) or (D) gets unseated in most districts. Similarly, there are a lot of 'red' and 'blue' states where a sitting Senator has a lot of job security until they want to retire. And that's why complete idiots like Nancy Pelosi are still relevant. The average length of a representative that goes up for re-election every two years is 9.7 years...or almost 5 terms. The average length of a Senator is about 11 years, but there are quite a few who exceed that by a very large margin including 13 people who have been in Congress for more than 30 years and a list of over 30 representatives that have been house members longer than 20. Looking at the list, I'd bet that many of them have values and policies that aren't in line with the majority of their constituencies just based on cultural changes over time, but they have the right letter next to their names so they aren't going anywhere.
I would like to see a limit of 8 years in the House, and 12 years in the Senate, with a total of 12 years of total Congressional time. In other words, once you run for a 4th term in the House you're no longer eligible to be a Senator.
Last edited:
So the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is just there to inflate the word count in the Constitution?
For the most part, it seems determining "good faith" depends on which party your are in versus which party the President belongs to. I.e. purely political.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
If you want to sea lawyer the meaning of misdemeanor, if I shout at you and call you bad names I technically committed a misdemeanor. Seems like something politicians do everyday.
At the end of the day, the House and Senate gets to determine whether the President committed 'a high crime or misdemeanor,' and it doesn't have to be a law on the books that's applicable to you and me.
Under your interpretation of the Constitution, a President would have to stand a criminal trial before he could be impeached because the only way you can be certain someone has committed 'high crimes or misdemeanors' is to actually try him in court for it. That's...not how it works.
At the end of the day, the House and Senate gets to determine whether the President committed 'a high crime or misdemeanor,' and it doesn't have to be a law on the books that's applicable to you and me.
Under your interpretation of the Constitution, a President would have to stand a criminal trial before he could be impeached because the only way you can be certain someone has committed 'high crimes or misdemeanors' is to actually try him in court for it. That's...not how it works.
Last edited:
But there would have to been an investigation completed prior to charging me with that misdemeanor. Or do you believe in the whole kangaroo court thing?
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
As I pointed out, President Johnson was impeached without an investigation and of the Presidential impeachments I think that his had the most ammunition for removing him from office. The devil's advocate to that stance is whether or not Congress's laws restricting Presidential appointments and cabinet members are actually constitutional... similar to how the office of the president generally considers the war powers act unconstitutional although this has not been adjudicated by the supreme court.
Nevertheless, several 'articles' of his impeachment didn't cite any laws. They were just shit he did that Congress didn't like. Because that's the point of the impeachment process.
There is no requirement for a criminal investigation by a LEO. The Senate will hear the evidence and decide whether the President should be removed from office.
I think that the bigger decision in this case, which could potentially go all the way to SCOTUS, is whether the Senate HAS to adjudicate this at all vice telling the House "you're fucking stupid, stop wasting our time."
Do you think NJP is a kangaroo court?
His impeachment was purely political too. Just like this. Just like this one
The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson was the result of political conflict and the rupture of ideologies in the aftermath of the American Civil War. It arose from uncompromised beliefs and a contest for power in a nation struggling with reunification.
I seriously doubt the writers of the Constitution thought of “shit Congress didn’t like” as the reason impeachment was included. Saying this is a reason for impeachment basically says if the opposition party is the majority in the House, they have free reign to impeach the President whenever he acts in a way or says something they don’t like. Just because another past House impeached Johnson doesn’t mean it was a righteous impeachment and in line with what the writers meant.
No because NJP does have procedures and is subject to review by higher authority. Plus a Sailor can refuse NJP (except in limited circumstances) and demand a courts martial. NJP doesn’t in anyway meet the definition of a Kangaroo Court that I provided from Webster’s.
Last edited:
You’re both right and both wrong.
Removing the President doesn’t require a whole court case - and it isn’t supposed to. The threshhold for removing a President is actually supposed to be lower than the threshhold for putting a private citizen away for life in prison. That’s because the founders wanted to avoid another mad king George III scenario, where it was easier to the colonists to secede and fight a bloody war than simply replace the head of state.
The threshhold for removing a sitting Senator or House Member is actually even lower - that half of the bicameral body just needs to not like you enough to vote you out, and you don’t get a trial per se. These mechanisms are designed to keep elected officials accountable to the people - that’s the “representative” govt piece. The only branch that is supposed to be immune from being removed in such manner is the Judiciary, of course.
Removing the President doesn’t require a whole court case - and it isn’t supposed to. The threshhold for removing a President is actually supposed to be lower than the threshhold for putting a private citizen away for life in prison. That’s because the founders wanted to avoid another mad king George III scenario, where it was easier to the colonists to secede and fight a bloody war than simply replace the head of state.
The threshhold for removing a sitting Senator or House Member is actually even lower - that half of the bicameral body just needs to not like you enough to vote you out, and you don’t get a trial per se. These mechanisms are designed to keep elected officials accountable to the people - that’s the “representative” govt piece. The only branch that is supposed to be immune from being removed in such manner is the Judiciary, of course.