What crime is he committing?

What crime is he committing? — frank

To me this is a crystal clear violation of his oath of office — tim wood

An oath is a religious thing. Impeachment is for breaking the law.

Impeachment is for breaking the law. — frank

It’s a political thing.

Apparently “high crimes and misdemeanours” includes perjury of oath.

http://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath"

The oath of office would be meaningless if there were no repercussions for violating it. Removal from office by impeachment is the repercussion.

Interestingly, two of the articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson were ‘Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States”’ and ‘Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions’. They’re not crimes (as far as I know) but evidently are impeachable offences.

The oath of office would be meaningless if there were no repercussions for violating it. Removal from office by impeachment is the repercussion. — Michael

The repercussions were supposed to be up to God. That's why the preacher and the copy of the Bible are there. We can't see into Donald Trump's heart so as to know if he's intentionally abandoned allegiance to the US.

We need to have evidence of a crime to even think of impeaching him.

We need to have evidence of a crime to even think of impeaching him. — frank

No, it just needs the majority of the House to vote to remove him (and then two thirds of the Senate to convict).

No, it just needs the majority of the House to vote to remove him (and then two thirds of the Senate to convict). — Michael

Remove him?

Impeach, then Senate to remove.

We can't see into Donald Trump's heart so as to know if he's intentionally abandoned allegiance to the US. — frank

Okay, hold up your horses before we get way too far away from the ranch.
I agree with you that we cannot see into President Trump's heart and that is where allegiance lays so I would back away from impeachment as far as possible if I were a democrat.
Think about the true repercussions of impeaching the current sitting President.
I am not saying 'this' is a sound proof reason to dismiss the idea of the probability of successfully impeaching the President but that would make: Mike Pence current Vice President of the USA :fear:
President Pence is a very scary idea so please, be very careful what you wish for and strive for litigiously.

Impeach, then Senate to remove. — Michael

There will be no impeachment without some evidence of a crime.

Impeach, then Senate to remove. — Michael

The Senate has a lower approval rating than President Trump and so who are they to judge?

President Pence is a very scary idea — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why do you say that?

There will be no impeachment without some evidence of a crime. — frank

What will happen is unknowable. But precedent and one interpretation of the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanours” shows that evidence of a crime is not required.

What will happen is unknowable. But precedent and one interpretation of the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanours” shows that evidence of a crime is not required. — Michael

What precedent?

Andrew Johnson, as I said earlier. One article of impeachment for bringing disgrace to the Presidency and one for trying to disgrace Congress.

Surely Trump got his knowledge of running a nation from Hitler. I am blown away that his hijacking of the presidency is not recognized as the ancient meaning of a tyrant, and that his shutting down of our democratic government is being tolerated! :gasp:

↪tim wood What crime is he committing? — frank

The same crime Hitler commented when he took control of Germany and shut down its democratic government.

Why do you say that? — frank

Because until OUR laws protect the free will of ALL of our citizens, including the freedom to chose who we love, despite any gender acknowledgements, I will stand up to this shit as long as I live.

His running mate, Pence, publicly opposed the Obama administration's repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “There’s no question to mainstream homosexuality within active duty military would have an impact on unit cohesion,” Pence wrote on his website. He added that“Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a 'discrete and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities."

Surely Trump got his knowledge of running a nation from Hitler — Athena

:shade: :down: :roll:

President Pence is a very scary idea so please, be very careful what you wish for and strive for litigiously. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:up:

I think I misread the intention of your post. But would like homosexual concerns to be a different thread.

Really, and how did Hitler come to power and what did he do when he got in the seat of power? If you can not answer those questions then your opinion is not based on facts.

Hitler the autocrat

After taking power, Hitler and the Nazis turned Germany into a dictatorship. Time and again, they used legal means to give their actions a semblance of legality. Step by step, Hitler managed to erode democracy until it was just a hollow facade. Things did not end there, though. During the twelve years that the Third Reich existed, Hitler continued to strengthen his hold on the country.
https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/ — annefrank

That is really off topic. — Athena

I respectfully choose to disagree with you that it is in anyway "off topic".

The topic here is what Trump is doing to our democracy and I hope that is where the discussion stays. — Athena

Once again, my cited point made by our current Vice President's position, is not something I agree with at all. I am 100% against it and to not be able to see the far reaching implications, of what regressing back to when ALL of our citizens rights were not protected is VERY short sighted.

Please do not derail it with your homosexual agenda. — Athena

We really need a "head spinning" emoticon. If MY standing up for the right of every citizen expressing their own free will is an "agenda" to you? Than have at it. My position is reason based and will remain so until facts are presented to the contrary and then I will reconsider my position.

Seeing the two subjects as the same thing is what is destroying our democracy! Our logic is all messed up! — Athena

I am very comfortable with my logic, though I am not in a position to say the same for yourself, that is for you to deal with.

Andrew Johnson, as I said earlier. One article of impeachment for bringing disgrace to the Presidency and one for trying to disgrace Congress. — Michael

Those who pressed to impeach Johnson did believe they had evidence of a crime. Michael, to begin a trial without evidence would signal that a blatant show trial is pending. The US might occasionally have show trials, but they at least manufacture evidence prior to bringing charges. There is no precedent in the US for what you're describing.

Okay, my error. I am now seeing the connection with the Hitler takeover of Germany and the intolerance of homosexuals.

The Democrats ideal 2020 strategy is to continuously paint Trump as impeachable while never actually impeaching him, the attempt which (unless Trump does something to alienate significant numbers of Republicans) would certainly fail. That way they retain the high moral ground while eroding Trump's support among independents who are likely to be turned off by a partisan impeachment process (which may give fresh wings to the anti-establishment image Trump played on so well to get himself elected in the first place).

He must be a religious nut.

What crime is he committing? — frank

Apparently you do not know what impeachment is. For present purpose, you can refer to the US constitution.

Michael, to begin a trial without evidence would signal that a blatant show trial is pending. — frank

Impeachment trials aren’t criminal trials. Being removed from office is just being fired, not being thrown in prison. You can be fired without breaking the law, President or not.

As I’ve said before, the Constitution explicitly states that a President can be removed for “high crimes and misdemeanours”, which isn’t usually interpreted to mean only serious criminal activity:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors

Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.