Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 17, 2019, 07:07:08 AM

Fine fine. muh deepstate, I get it.

Even though the head of the FBI, CIA and DOJ all serve at the pleasure of the president, we should obviously trust Ukraines investigation results more than ours. And the fact that it's the presidents political adversary is just a coincidence. He really just can't stand any corruption anywhere.

The corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA are VERY well documented. The Strzok/Page "insurance" texts, Comey's criminal FISA warrant, giving Hillary a pass on releasing classified information, the meeting on the tarmac, there are tons of examples of their corruption, and complicity in coverups of corruption as well as bias against Trump. Don't even bother trying to defend the CIA. Funny you have been watching over 3 years of fruitless investigation into Trump and anyone he has ever met, but you don't ever apply that standard of "coincidence" there now do you?

Quote from: nutildah on October 17, 2019, 09:42:36 AM

Hi Techole:

You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury.

According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense.

Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation:

Quote

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet:

Quote

Whats the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?

The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.

A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.

A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedomor even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office.

Not just an interpretation, an actual quote from the constitution.

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense.

The other interpretations are not exclusive. I was specifically referencing the criminal case upon which the subpoenas issued to Nixon were based, which were the criminal basis upon which the articles of impeachment were based. Even in the counter interpretation is still goes on to explain a criminal impeachment trial can also be based on criminal acts. I never said anything about exclusivity, this is just you trying for a hail Mary. Note the words in red. When is some one convicted and put on trial? That's right, in a criminal proceeding.

The Constitution of The United States of America > The Wall-street Journal. So are you going to admit you were wrong Nutilduhhhhh?

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 17, 2019, 09:46:48 AM

That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding. Even though did say that, multiple times.

Here's another good one from Constitution:

Quote

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.