I've explained this before. Everyone talks about this like there is some list of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's not. This is a controversy that literally goes back to the founders, but there is nothing legally defined that says there must be a crime associated with impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and congress can impeach for any action they deem unfit. Judges have been impeached for things like intoxication on the bench, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. The democrats could literally impeach Trump for being crude or lying about the size of his hands... literally anything they think misrepresents the office of the Presidency.

What DOES matter, is whether or not the American people would tolerate that. Which, I personally believe is a resounding NO. Impeachments, even historical ones, have been largely motivated by political purposes, and have almost always backfired. I believe the same will hold true here. There is nothing like failure to cause a political group to reevaluate their priorities. Although, I will concede that the current Democrats are showing a remarkable resistance to common sense. The sooner they stop appealing to their radical base, the sooner they will wise up (on a side note, their reluctance to move away from the radical base is a strong indicator that their donors have become more radical, which is a real problem, imo).

---

I will also add, before someone mentions it, that historical precedent would suggest that only impeachments with a crime have been successful. Most impeachments attacking one's character have ended up in acquittal.

Older generation of leftists that thought the movement would be further along are going to die soon so they've ramped up support... young tech billionaires and millionaires who don't have a clue about the world donating more and more....

---

I've explained this before. Everyone talks about this like there is some list of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's not. This is a controversy that literally goes back to the founders, but there is nothing legally defined that says there must be a crime associated with impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and congress can impeach for any action they deem unfit. Judges have been impeached for things like intoxication on the bench, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. The democrats could literally impeach Trump for being crude or lying about the size of his hands... literally anything they think misrepresents the office of the Presidency.

What DOES matter, is whether or not the American people would tolerate that. Which, I personally believe is a resounding NO. Impeachments, even historical ones, have been largely motivated by political purposes, and have almost always backfired. I believe the same will hold true here. There is nothing like failure to cause a political group to reevaluate their priorities. Although, I will concede that the current Democrats are showing a remarkable resistance to common sense. The sooner they stop appealing to their radical base, the sooner they will wise up (on a side note, their reluctance to move away from the radical base is a strong indicator that their donors have become more radical, which is a real problem, imo).

---

I will also add, before someone mentions it, that historical precedent would suggest that only impeachments with a crime have been successful. Most impeachments attacking one's character have ended up in acquittal.

"High crime" is a term going back to the 1300s that has meant a LOT of things and it's older than what we would call "criminal law".  It basically means "doing a job in government, but doing it really poorly."

Like you said, political.  Subjective.

When the founders borrowed the phrase, I don't think they meant to say, "only impeach if the guy does something that a civilian would be tried and punished for." Unfortunately, we've begun to use the word "crime" in a new and more specific context, and it keeps the masses of American people from understanding what the Founders wanted.

Hamilton wrote that the Supreme court could not be trusted with trying impeachments because many of the judges would have been appointed by the sitting President.  He wrote that the Senate would think in terms of politics, but that their political constraints would be separate from the President's, so they could be impartial.  Hamilton was writing before Washington became President, and Washington was about to appoint *all* of the judges.  And he was writing at a time when the Senators were selected by state legislatures - with the upper house and the lower house of the state legislature having different sets of people voting for them.  That's not the case now.  When the Trump campaign tries to win Florida, he's using the same strategies and talking to the same voters that a candidate for Senator from Florida would use. And the Republican candidate for Senate doesn't just want to win his race, he wants his party to win and keep as many senate seats as possible, just as the Republican candidate for president wants to win as many states as possible. So the Senate is no longer a separate base of power.

We were taught in civics class that the branches of government were supposed to check each other's power, but since 1994 this has not been true.  The real power divide is no longer a three way contest between President, Congress, and Courts with rules and laws.  It's just a two way struggle between Republicans and Democrats and the only rule is refraining from violence.  And let us all hope that one rule holds.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I wonder if the Never Trumpers in the Senate might try a 1913-style swindle during the Christmas break. That is, bring in a handful of Democrat Senators + Romney, convene an emergency session, then bring in Justice Roberts and take a vote on impeachment. Sorry Trump, you've been impeached on a 6-0 vote by the bipartisan Senate.

---

I've explained this before. Everyone talks about this like there is some list of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's not. This is a controversy that literally goes back to the founders, but there is nothing legally defined that says there must be a crime associated with impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and congress can impeach for any action they deem unfit. Judges have been impeached for things like intoxication on the bench, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. The democrats could literally impeach Trump for being crude or lying about the size of his hands... literally anything they think misrepresents the office of the Presidency.

What DOES matter, is whether or not the American people would tolerate that. Which, I personally believe is a resounding NO. Impeachments, even historical ones, have been largely motivated by political purposes, and have almost always backfired. I believe the same will hold true here. There is nothing like failure to cause a political group to reevaluate their priorities. Although, I will concede that the current Democrats are showing a remarkable resistance to common sense. The sooner they stop appealing to their radical base, the sooner they will wise up (on a side note, their reluctance to move away from the radical base is a strong indicator that their donors have become more radical, which is a real problem, imo).

---

I will also add, before someone mentions it, that historical precedent would suggest that only impeachments with a crime have been successful. Most impeachments attacking one's character have ended up in acquittal.

"High crime" is a term going back to the 1300s that has meant a LOT of things and it's older than what we would call "criminal law".  It basically means "doing a job in government, but doing it really poorly."

Like you said, political.  Subjective.

When the founders borrowed the phrase, I don't think they meant to say, "only impeach if the guy does something that a civilian would be tried and punished for." Unfortunately, we've begun to use the word "crime" in a new and more specific context, and it keeps the masses of American people from understanding what the Founders wanted.

Hamilton wrote that the Supreme court could not be trusted with trying impeachments because many of the judges would have been appointed by the sitting President.  He wrote that the Senate would think in terms of politics, but that their political constraints would be separate from the President's, so they could be impartial.  Hamilton was writing before Washington became President, and Washington was about to appoint *all* of the judges.  And he was writing at a time when the Senators were selected by state legislatures - with the upper house and the lower house of the state legislature having different sets of people voting for them.  That's not the case now.  When the Trump campaign tries to win Florida, he's using the same strategies and talking to the same voters that a candidate for Senator from Florida would use. And the Republican candidate for Senate doesn't just want to win his race, he wants his party to win and keep as many senate seats as possible, just as the Republican candidate for president wants to win as many states as possible. So the Senate is no longer a separate base of power.

We were taught in civics class that the branches of government were supposed to check each other's power, but since 1994 this has not been true.  The real power divide is no longer a three way contest between President, Congress, and Courts with rules and laws.  It's just a two way struggle between Republicans and Democrats and the only rule is refraining from violence.  And let us all hope that one rule holds.

Not true.  The founders specifically decided AGAINST using the term maladministration.  In full context, Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors mainly refers to egregious violations of the oath of office or betraying the country.

---

I wonder if the Never Trumpers in the Senate might try a 1913-style swindle during the Christmas break.  That is, bring in a handful of Democrat Senators + Romney, convene an emergency session, then bring in Justice Roberts and take a vote on impeachment.  Sorry Trump, you've been impeached on a 6-0 vote by the bipartisan Senate.

Then there will be blood.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

"High crime" is a term going back to the 1300s that has meant a LOT of things and it's older than what we would call "criminal law".  It basically means "doing a job in government, but doing it really poorly."

Like you said, political.  Subjective.

When the founders borrowed the phrase, I don't think they meant to say, "only impeach if the guy does something that a civilian would be tried and punished for." Unfortunately, we've begun to use the word "crime" in a new and more specific context, and it keeps the masses of American people from understanding what the Founders wanted.

Hamilton wrote that the Supreme court could not be trusted with trying impeachments because many of the judges would have been appointed by the sitting President.  He wrote that the Senate would think in terms of politics, but that their political constraints would be separate from the President's, so they could be impartial.  Hamilton was writing before Washington became President, and Washington was about to appoint *all* of the judges.  And he was writing at a time when the Senators were selected by state legislatures - with the upper house and the lower house of the state legislature having different sets of people voting for them.  That's not the case now.  When the Trump campaign tries to win Florida, he's using the same strategies and talking to the same voters that a candidate for Senator from Florida would use. And the Republican candidate for Senate doesn't just want to win his race, he wants his party to win and keep as many senate seats as possible, just as the Republican candidate for president wants to win as many states as possible. So the Senate is no longer a separate base of power.

We were taught in civics class that the branches of government were supposed to check each other's power, but since 1994 this has not been true.  The real power divide is no longer a three way contest between President, Congress, and Courts with rules and laws.  It's just a two way struggle between Republicans and Democrats and the only rule is refraining from violence.  And let us all hope that one rule holds.

Not true.  The founders specifically decided AGAINST using the term maladministration.  In full context, Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors mainly refers to egregious violations of the oath of office or betraying the country.

Also not true. To suggest it was clearly understood as you describe is purely rhetorical. You will find the founders debating this topic. Not just at it's inception, but throughout the history of impeachment in this nation. The maladministration change was to cut back on subjective impeachments, since it was apparent that any disagreement on policy could be considered maladministration. Changing it to high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to avoid impeachment due to policy differences. 

Misdemeanor historically referenced character flaws (even though it now has been incorporated into our legal system). Demeanor references one's outward behavior. A mis-demeanor referenced outward behaviors that were considered inappropriate (e.g. public drunkenness, lewdness). It would not have been unreasonable for there to be an impeachment due to some kind of serious character deficiency. It wasn't typically used that way, except in cases where it arguably affected someone's ability to do their duty. However, even when it was, it rarely succeeded unless it was accompanied by a high crime. The charges brought against Trump fit within the historical use of impeachment, but it is clearly motivated by politics, not any real criminality. It's understandable why Republicans are against the trumped up charges, but also not like this is new in American politics. It would only be new if it worked. It won't.

---

Not true.  The founders specifically decided AGAINST using the term maladministration.  In full context, Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors mainly refers to egregious violations of the oath of office or betraying the country.

Also not true. To suggest it was clearly understood as you describe is purely rhetorical. You will find the founders debating this topic. Not just at it's inception, but throughout the history of impeachment in this nation. The maladministration change was to cut back on subjective impeachments, since it was apparent that any disagreement on policy could be considered maladministration. Changing it to high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to avoid impeachment due to policy differences. 

Misdemeanor historically referenced character flaws (even though it now has been incorporated into our legal system). Demeanor references one's outward behavior. A mis-demeanor referenced outward behaviors that were considered inappropriate (e.g. public drunkenness, lewdness). It would not have been unreasonable for there to be an impeachment due to some kind of serious character deficiency. It wasn't typically used that way, except in cases where it arguably affected someone's ability to do their duty. However, even when it was, it rarely succeeded unless it was accompanied by a high crime. The charges brought against Trump fit within the historical use of impeachment, but it is clearly motivated by politics, not any real criminality. It's understandable why Republicans are against the trumped up charges, but also not like this is new in American politics. It would only be new if it worked. It won't.

We both know that there were Democrats who wanted to impeach from day one of Trump being President. Al Green wanted to impeach him for saying the wrong stuff after Charlottesville. Trump saying the wrong thing about racism fits exactly with what you're saying with the etymology of the word misdemeanor.

But the other Democrats did not listen to Al Green at that time. They basically told him that they would just have to solve this problem by winning the white house in 2020.

Politics did make them change their minds, you're right about that. But only in the sense that, what's been said and done towards Ukraine makes Democrats doubt that the fight in 2020 will be fair.  Trump got caught demanding that Ukraine would involve themselves in US politics. If he gets away with that, he's going to demand that Russia and China also get involved next.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nah.

---

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Not true.  The founders specifically decided AGAINST using the term maladministration.  In full context, Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors mainly refers to egregious violations of the oath of office or betraying the country.

Also not true. To suggest it was clearly understood as you describe is purely rhetorical. You will find the founders debating this topic. Not just at it's inception, but throughout the history of impeachment in this nation. The maladministration change was to cut back on subjective impeachments, since it was apparent that any disagreement on policy could be considered maladministration. Changing it to high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to avoid impeachment due to policy differences. 

Misdemeanor historically referenced character flaws (even though it now has been incorporated into our legal system). Demeanor references one's outward behavior. A mis-demeanor referenced outward behaviors that were considered inappropriate (e.g. public drunkenness, lewdness). It would not have been unreasonable for there to be an impeachment due to some kind of serious character deficiency. It wasn't typically used that way, except in cases where it arguably affected someone's ability to do their duty. However, even when it was, it rarely succeeded unless it was accompanied by a high crime. The charges brought against Trump fit within the historical use of impeachment, but it is clearly motivated by politics, not any real criminality. It's understandable why Republicans are against the trumped up charges, but also not like this is new in American politics. It would only be new if it worked. It won't.

I said decided against, not never considered.  The rest of the first paragraph supports, not contradicts my point.  

Second paragraph contradicts the first.

---

It doesn't contradict it if you're trying to understand my point instead of winning an online argument.

---

All this is irrelevant, the Dems can impeach for whatever if they have the votes. Impeachment has been their only goal for 3 years and they are probably going to achieve it. And Trump will still be President for 5 more years, most likely with control of the Congress for at least 2 of those years.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All this is irrelevant, the Dems can impeach for whatever if they have the votes. Impeachment has been their only goal for 3 years and they are probably going to achieve it. And Trump will still be President for 5 more years, most likely with control of the Congress for at least 2 of those years.

Exactly.
It might amuse us to debate these things, but if the founders wanted this to be a matter of right and wrong, or of law, they would have involved the judges, and they did not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Also not true. To suggest it was clearly understood as you describe is purely rhetorical. You will find the founders debating this topic. Not just at it's inception, but throughout the history of impeachment in this nation. The maladministration change was to cut back on subjective impeachments, since it was apparent that any disagreement on policy could be considered maladministration. Changing it to high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to avoid impeachment due to policy differences. 

Misdemeanor historically referenced character flaws (even though it now has been incorporated into our legal system). Demeanor references one's outward behavior. A mis-demeanor referenced outward behaviors that were considered inappropriate (e.g. public drunkenness, lewdness). It would not have been unreasonable for there to be an impeachment due to some kind of serious character deficiency. It wasn't typically used that way, except in cases where it arguably affected someone's ability to do their duty. However, even when it was, it rarely succeeded unless it was accompanied by a high crime. The charges brought against Trump fit within the historical use of impeachment, but it is clearly motivated by politics, not any real criminality. It's understandable why Republicans are against the trumped up charges, but also not like this is new in American politics. It would only be new if it worked. It won't.

We both know that there were Democrats who wanted to impeach from day one of Trump being President. Al Green wanted to impeach him for saying the wrong stuff after Charlottesville. Trump saying the wrong thing about racism fits exactly with what you're saying with the etymology of the word misdemeanor.

What was it that Trump said about racism after Charlottesville?  Let's see if you can tell the truth.

---

All this is irrelevant, the Dems can impeach for whatever if they have the votes. Impeachment has been their only goal for 3 years and they are probably going to achieve it. And Trump will still be President for 5 more years, most likely with control of the Congress for at least 2 of those years.

Exactly.
It might amuse us to debate these things, but if the founders wanted this to be a matter of right and wrong, or of law, they would have involved the judges, and they did not.

Trump involved the judges, the dems called it obstruction.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

We both know that there were Democrats who wanted to impeach from day one of Trump being President. Al Green wanted to impeach him for saying the wrong stuff after Charlottesville. Trump saying the wrong thing about racism fits exactly with what you're saying with the etymology of the word misdemeanor.

What was it that Trump said about racism after Charlottesville?  Let's see if you can tell the truth.

You'll have to ask Al Green, the representative from Texas.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Al Green reads even a restaurant menu through a race filter.

---

Exactly.
It might amuse us to debate these things, but if the founders wanted this to be a matter of right and wrong, or of law, they would have involved the judges, and they did not.

Trump involved the judges, the dems called it obstruction.

The Constitution and the Federalist papers say that the House of Representatives behaves like a grand jury in case of suspected presidential misconduct. If any of us is ever asked to answer questions at a grand jury, we could be charged with obstruction or contempt for refusing to appear, or refusing to answer.

---

Al Green reads even a restaurant menu through a race filter.

You're not wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We both know that there were Democrats who wanted to impeach from day one of Trump being President. Al Green wanted to impeach him for saying the wrong stuff after Charlottesville. Trump saying the wrong thing about racism fits exactly with what you're saying with the etymology of the word misdemeanor.

What was it that Trump said about racism after Charlottesville?  Let's see if you can tell the truth.

If Trump gets no punishment for asking Ukraine to become an arm of his reelection campaign, he's going to get other countries involved in attacking Democratic candidates next.

Who cares if Al Green is right or wrong. Debate the point I'm actually making, please.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What was it that Trump said about racism after Charlottesville?  Let's see if you can tell the truth.

If Trump gets no punishment for asking Ukraine to become an arm of his reelection campaign, he's going to get other countries involved in attacking Democratic candidates next.

Who cares if Al Green is right or wrong. Debate the point I'm actually making, please.

Except... he didn't.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.