Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Impeachment v Coup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Impeachment v Coup

    There has been some talk among Republicans in the news as well as Trumpers on this forum that the impeachment inquiry is a coup.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    A coup, or more properly a coup d'état, is defined as:
    a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.

    Impeachment is explained as being:
    Impeachment
    is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Impeachment is defined as:
    Impeachment
    , in common law, a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body.

    There is no correlation between the two. One, a coup, is usually violent and always unlawful, the other, impeachment, is lawful and provided for in law.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    I agree. It's no coup. A prolonged, immature tantrum by malcontents still butthurt over losing an election. But not a coup. Not hardly that exciting.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
      I agree. It's no coup. A prolonged, immature tantrum by malcontents still butthurt over losing an election. But not a coup. Not hardly that exciting.
      That pretty much sums it up. The Left always gets that way when they don't get their way. They're like a bunch of teenagers being told they have a curfew...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
        I agree. It's no coup. A prolonged, immature tantrum by malcontents still butthurt over losing an election. But not a coup. Not hardly that exciting.
        No, it's a constitutional process against a head of state who has violated the Constitution and has solicited the assistance of foreign powers for help in the next election in trying to establish bad information against a political opponent.

        If Trump had acted like a real president and obeyed the law this wouldn't be happening.

        Trump did not step up to the office, he has brought the office down to his own corrupt level.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Massena View Post

          No, it's a constitutional process against a head of state who has violated the Constitution and has solicited the assistance of foreign powers for help in the next election in trying to establish bad information against a political opponent.

          If Trump had acted like a real president and obeyed the law this wouldn't be happening.
          What specific Constitutional provisions has he violated?

          Let me rephrase that last sentence more correctly:

          If Trump had acted like a typical Republican and kowtowed to the Democrats by caving in to their demands, this wouldn't be happening.

          There, fixed it for you. That also explains why it is happening, and why Trump got elected in the first place.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Massena View Post

            No, it's a constitutional process against a head of state who has violated the Constitution and has solicited the assistance of foreign powers for help in the next election in trying to establish bad information against a political opponent.

            If Trump had acted like a real president and obeyed the law this wouldn't be happening.


            I love the "if you weren't guilty we wouldn't be charging you" line of reasoning. I thought Trump was the authoritarian yet you advocate presumption of guilt even before a hearing.

            No this remains a tantrum, run and advocated by those too weak to come to terms with an election loss they can't emotionally handle. An impeachment so partisan that everybody already knows it won't pass muster. The rage and obsession of Captain Ahab coupled with the success prospects and catastrophic failures of the roadrunner chasing coyote.

            Makes for fun viewing though. This time's for sure, right? Bullwinkle will actually pull a rabbit this time?
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              What specific Constitutional provisions has he violated?

              Let me rephrase that last sentence more correctly:

              If Trump had acted like a typical Republican and kowtowed to the Democrats by caving in to their demands, this wouldn't be happening.

              There, fixed it for you. That also explains why it is happening, and why Trump got elected in the first place.
              abuse of power. Which is a High Crime. The cover up of it another High Crime.

              Trump is engaged in what Obama went out of his way to try and avoid durning the 2016 election. Imagine if Obama had started leaking everything early in the primary cycle.

              Matter of fact many Trump supporters complaint about the mueller probe is exactly what Trump is doing now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                What specific Constitutional provisions has he violated?

                Let me rephrase that last sentence more correctly:

                If Trump had acted like a typical Republican and kowtowed to the Democrats by caving in to their demands, this wouldn't be happening.

                There, fixed it for you. That also explains why it is happening, and why Trump got elected in the first place.
                Read again the Mueller report to understand the legal thinking.

                This is a case of a Trump Tower meeting on steroids where it is crystal clear that the participants were members of a foreign government and included the Ukrainian president, where Trump cannot claim that "he did not know," and where the initiative for the bargaining is on Trump's shoulders. And no, the president cannot violate the Federal Election Laws by soliciting information against his political rivals from foreign governments.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  abuse of power. Which is a High Crime. The cover up of it another High Crime.

                  Trump is engaged in what Obama went out of his way to try and avoid durning the 2016 election. Imagine if Obama had started leaking everything early in the primary cycle.

                  Matter of fact many Trump supporters complaint about the mueller probe is exactly what Trump is doing now.
                  Lol, don't use Wikipedia as your legal counsel. Abuse of power is a subjective term, not a criminal offense. You can be guilty of, say, bribery and that crime can be called an abuse of power. But abuse of power is not itself a criminal charge. For high crimes and misdemeanors you must first have a crime. And you were called to cite a statute. So cite one.
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    abuse of power. Which is a High Crime. The cover up of it another High Crime.
                    Unless you can show specific criminal activity linked to that, what you are claiming is simply a political charge against him. That is, you don't like his actions in office. I know the Democrats don't.
                    Impeachment is a political action. Usually it's taken against an elected or appointed official for specific actual enumerated crimes they've committed while in office. Typically, the politician being impeached is either already charged with specific criminal activity or in some cases, has been tried and convicted of criminal charges.
                    When it is used as a purely political maneuver-- That is, the person being impeached is being done so for specific political reasons-- it rarely works unless both parties (or all parties) have some degree of involvement wanting that person out of office. I gave the example of Arizona's governor, Ev Mecham. He had specific criminal charges pending against him (he was later acquitted of), and both parties, but particularly the Democrats who in part thought he was unfairly elected, wanted him out of office. Without Republican support, Mecham wouldn't have been impeached. As it was, the action cost the Democrats heavily in following elections as voters thought their actions were simply vindictive to a big degree.
                    Trump is engaged in what Obama went out of his way to try and avoid durning the 2016 election. Imagine if Obama had started leaking everything early in the primary cycle.
                    Obama did many things in office that were highly questionable, and every bit as bad as anything Trump's done, like using the IRS to attack political enemies. The difference is his party did everything they could to cover for him, and the MSM was more than obliging in running a cover-up for him as well by downplaying or ignoring stories that were damaging.

                    Matter of fact many Trump supporters complaint about the mueller probe is exactly what Trump is doing now.
                    You can say so, but without the Republicans in Congress buying in, and at least reasonable levels of public support outside the Democrat party, the Democrats are headed to a train wreck. History is quite clear on this. Using impeachment as a tool to eliminate your political opposition, no matter how despised, is a losing proposition. You need buy in from the public and other political parties, and the Democrats don't have it.

                    Right now, the Democrats are doing this:

                    They have decided to impeach Trump.
                    Now that they have, they're fishing around for a sufficient reason.
                    They're having the MSM try to whip up public support for impeachment.

                    That's where they're at. They know they need Republican buy-in to do it. They may be insane but they're not that stupid. So, they move forward on trying to find a reason, any reason, to go forward with their conclusion. It's two parts Kafka, one part Stalin.

                    That held true for Mecham, Andrew Johnson, and even Bill Clinton. Mecham got impeached when his own party bought into doing it and the public thought it should be done. Johnson squeaked by by one vote under similar circumstances. Bill Clinton was clearly not going to get impeached because there was marginal public support outside of Republicans, and the Democrats weren't buying in.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      Unless you can show specific criminal activity linked to that, what you are claiming is simply a political charge against him. That is, you don't like his actions in office. I know the Democrats don't.
                      Impeachment is a political action. Usually it's taken against an elected or appointed official for specific actual enumerated crimes they've committed while in office. Typically, the politician being impeached is either already charged with specific criminal activity or in some cases, has been tried and convicted of criminal charges.
                      When it is used as a purely political maneuver-- That is, the person being impeached is being done so for specific political reasons-- it rarely works unless both parties (or all parties) have some degree of involvement wanting that person out of office. I gave the example of Arizona's governor, Ev Mecham. He had specific criminal charges pending against him (he was later acquitted of), and both parties, but particularly the Democrats who in part thought he was unfairly elected, wanted him out of office. Without Republican support, Mecham wouldn't have been impeached. As it was, the action cost the Democrats heavily in following elections as voters thought their actions were simply vindictive to a big degree.


                      Obama did many things in office that were highly questionable, and every bit as bad as anything Trump's done, like using the IRS to attack political enemies. The difference is his party did everything they could to cover for him, and the MSM was more than obliging in running a cover-up for him as well by downplaying or ignoring stories that were damaging.



                      You can say so, but without the Republicans in Congress buying in, and at least reasonable levels of public support outside the Democrat party, the Democrats are headed to a train wreck. History is quite clear on this. Using impeachment as a tool to eliminate your political opposition, no matter how despised, is a losing proposition. You need buy in from the public and other political parties, and the Democrats don't have it.
                      That held true for Mecham, Andrew Johnson, and even Bill Clinton. Mecham got impeached when his own party bought into doing it and the public thought it should be done. Johnson squeaked by by one vote under similar circumstances. Bill Clinton was clearly not going to get impeached because there was marginal public support outside of Republicans, and the Democrats weren't buying in.

                      I just showed you a specific criminal activity linked to a specific law. See my previous post

                      On top of that, abuse of power can be impeached even if it is not related to any crime

                      http://congressionalresearch.com/98-...Y+COMMENTATORS


                      Hamilton made this point in the
                      Federalist, describing impeachable crimes as `those offences which proceed from the
                      misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuses or violations of some
                      public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated
                      POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”
                      ,

                      Any US president has a responsibility to do his best as the chief of he Executive branch to protect the rights of US citizens in the US and abroad. A person who uses his power to pressure foreign governments to find dirty laundry against US citizens without having anything that comes from US legal investigative agencies to justify such digging does not fulfill his obligations as a US president and does not deserve the trust of American people.

                      If you want to argue that a president can do whatever he wants as long as he does not violate any criminal law, you are not convincing. Based on such logic, if a president decides to declassify (as he has the power to do so) and provide to the Russians and Chinese (as he has the power to do so) all coordinates of all patrol areas assigned to the US ballistic missile submarine fleet, you would not find any reason to impeach such person for abuse of power. You are free to argue whatever you want, but do not expect reasonable Americans to buy the claim that an abuse of power exist only if it is linked to a specific violation of a criminal statute

                      Anyway, in this case, as I said earlier, there is certainly a specific law which can be used against Trump to support an impeachment
                      Last edited by pamak; 05 Oct 19, 17:32.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        That pretty much sums it up. The Left always gets that way when they don't get their way. They're like a bunch of teenagers being told they have a curfew...
                        Did I miss the impeachment hearing for Bush?
                        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                          Did I miss the impeachment hearing for Bush?
                          You should have. That was just the usual crackpots (and both sides have them) calling for something even their own party knew was idiotic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thinking about this some...

                            I think that the "coup" part will be how the public sees this and reacts if Democrats shut Republicans out of the process like they did with Obamacare. Obamacare cost them one of the biggest defeats in a mid-term election in US history. People saw that process as one of one-party secrecy with no buy-in from the opposition whatsoever and that bad legislation was being rammed down their throats.

                            If the Democrats do the same thing here-- that is they do stuff like limit Republican questioning, rebuttals, etc., lock Republicans out of hearings, and abuse their committee chairman powers-- the they are cruising into an iceberg that would sink a dozen Titanic's.

                            I also think that as this goes on, that's exactly what the Democrats will do. They will make this a one-sided, one-party witch hunt and it will wreck them come 2020. They just don't learn.

                            It won't help the Democrats any if things like Schiff lying his @$$ off about the whistle-blower keep popping up either. Sure, the MSM can keep a lid on stuff like that to an extent, but not to the extent it won't hurt, even cripple, Democrats.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Thinking about this some...

                              I think that the "coup" part will be how the public sees this and reacts if Democrats shut Republicans out of the process like they did with Obamacare. Obamacare cost them one of the biggest defeats in a mid-term election in US history. People saw that process as one of one-party secrecy with no buy-in from the opposition whatsoever and that bad legislation was being rammed down their throats.

                              If the Democrats do the same thing here-- that is they do stuff like limit Republican questioning, rebuttals, etc., lock Republicans out of hearings, and abuse their committee chairman powers-- the they are cruising into an iceberg that would sink a dozen Titanic's.

                              I also think that as this goes on, that's exactly what the Democrats will do. They will make this a one-sided, one-party witch hunt and it will wreck them come 2020. They just don't learn.

                              It won't help the Democrats any if things like Schiff lying his @$$ off about the whistle-blower keep popping up either. Sure, the MSM can keep a lid on stuff like that to an extent, but not to the extent it won't hurt, even cripple, Democrats.
                              People who have already forgotten the despicable conduct of Nunez as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when without informing his peers run to the WH to give a report to Trump (the subject of the investigation and member of the branch that supposedly Congress keeps in check) are going to talk about democrats staging a coup anyway.

                              The Democrats should use all the advantages they have earned as a result of the 2018 election and should not forfeit any such advantage to whaling republicans. Nobody can exclude the republicans from the committees, but hell yes, the democrats can and should use all the advantages that come with the chairmanship during the impeachment inquiry. It is obvious that most house republicans do not care about any honest inquiry.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X