ADVERTISEMENT

Abuse of power

Standard Issue

All-Big Ten
May 11, 2010
3,047
3,077
113
Isn't impeachable?

In normal circumstances would that be a viable defense or would you go directly to jail?

I've got a pretty idea I'd have a cellmate in short order.
 
Isn't impeachable?
In normal circumstances would that be a viable defense or would you go directly to jail?
I've got a pretty idea I'd have a cellmate in short order.
That depends.
If the so-called crime is committed by a Democratic president, it will be definitely impeachable.
How ever, if it is done by a Republican, it is not.;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
It's not in the criminal code. Convinces the rubes that it''s not a crime, therefore not impeachable. They love the uneducated.

It's such a BS talking point. Nixon was charged with Abuse of Power, and it's highly likely that would have been one of the Articles approved had he not resigned in lieu of being Impeached. He was also charged with Obstruction, not just of the Investigation itself but for his efforts to hide the break-in details in the first place...

Of the 3 modern-day POTUS facing Impeachment 1 was a Dem and the other 2 were Pubs. Clinton's Impeachment differs from both Nixon and Trump in the fact that Clinton was only Impeached on charges arising from events AFTER the original issues were Investigated. Both Nixon and now Trump were Impeached at least in part on the basis of the original charges that prompted the Investigation. For both men, Abuse of Power is the common denominator, and it relates to actions they took which incited the actual Investigation.

I thought the Dem's use of video comments from Trump today was pretty effective and damning. Esp when he whined about how much he wanted people to be able to testify.

Hope we see more of that- may be a clip of Little Lindsey railing against Bill Clinton's Obstruction of a lawful investigation. And how about Starr the hypocrite arguing for Clinton to be charged with Obstruction, despite Clinton turning over mountains of evidence and actually Testifying. Schiff seems pretty willing to call people out- hope he asks Starr how he can excuse Trump's Obstruction and why Clinton providing evidence and testimony amounts to Obstruction but Trump's stonewalling doesn't?
 
Unfortunately,Graham and Starr are not on trial. I would like to see more emphasis on Mitch and the president acting as one entity. Given that Mitch is making the rules, how does this fiasco even begin to represent anything fair or impartial?
In the case of the whistleblower, the president wanted to face his accuser, here is his chance to do so. Ask him to step forward and defend himself. Just casually throw down the gauntlet.
 
Unfortunately,Graham and Starr are not on trial. I would like to see more emphasis on Mitch and the president acting as one entity. Given that Mitch is making the rules, how does this fiasco even begin to represent anything fair or impartial?
In the case of the whistleblower, the president wanted to face his accuser, here is his chance to do so. Ask him to step forward and defend himself. Just casually throw down the gauntlet.
I read that Tom Daschle wouldn’t even be involved in any type of meetings with Clinton during preimpeachment times, just to make sure there was no case for impropriety. These guys don’t even try to hide it.
 
I read that Tom Daschle wouldn’t even be involved in any type of meetings with Clinton during preimpeachment times, just to make sure there was no case for impropriety. These guys don’t even try to hide it.
Folks like to run around this place reminding us that both parties are corrupt, and everyone does it, and if the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be behaving differently, but the truth is that's bullshit. The truth is that both parties suffer from corruption, but one party is far more corrupt than the other, and this whole impeachment saga is just one more reminder of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cream&Crimson
Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump




Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called “Whistleblower,” represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way. Then Schiff made up what I actually said by lying to Congress......

3:53 PM - 29 Sep 2019

Should the Ds want to make some headway, put the defendant on the defensive. He should at least be afforded a public invitation to participate in person to face his accusers.
His refusal to accept a polite invitation could very well bolster the obstruction article, with nothing to lose. It seems to be common knowledge that he would be a fool to appear in a trial setting, make it more and more apparent the reasons why such common knowledge exists.
 
To the original point of this thread, not only is abuse of power impeachable, it is the quintessential impeachable offense, and has been for about 500 years. When the Founders wrote "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art meant to capture all cases in which someone who has an obligation to the public trust puts his or her own private concerns over those of the public (of which "Treason" and "Bribery" represent a specific subset that merited special mention). This term encompassed all sorts of other potential acts, but all of them were some form of abuse of power.

The idea that "abuse of power" isn't impeachable isn't just patently stupid on the basis of common sense, it's also a repudiation of half a millennium of Anglo-American legal understanding.
 
Last edited:
To the original point of this thread, not only is abuse of power impeachable, it is the quintessential impeachable offense, and has been for about 500 years...
The idea that "abuse of power" isn't impeachable isn't just patently stupid on the basis of common sense, it's also a repudiation of half a millennium of Anglo-American legal understanding.
Ouch. That's gotta smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cream&Crimson
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT