The precedence for the fact that you cannot be impeached for something done prior to taking office is Schuyler Colfax VP to Ulysses S Grant. Even though involved in a scandal before he took office when he was Speaker of The House, it was decided that he would not be impeached as vice president since it took place prior.
Kelly expected to resign soon, no longer on speaking terms with Trump
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Here is a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors from the British common law that the framers were referencing when writing The Constitution---
-----Perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming.---
I addition, we have already established that a president cannot be impeached for things happening prior to taking office--so as you can see, there is no impeachable case here. The House will attempt to use impeachment as a lever and Trump should just disregard as they are all wet.
-----Perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming.---
I addition, we have already established that a president cannot be impeached for things happening prior to taking office--so as you can see, there is no impeachable case here. The House will attempt to use impeachment as a lever and Trump should just disregard as they are all wet.
That is similar logically to saying that it is "fact" and "precedent" that a law enforcement officer can't be convicted of violating civil rights/assault/battery because the LEO's involved in the Rodney King incident were acquitted.
More specifically:
Please cite/hyperlink the case.
Please cite where the case sets a precedent that must be followed going forward.
More simply:
Without researching the case, as you've provided no hyperlink, I'll suggest that you seem to be projecting judicial precedent onto impeachment proceedings, with no lawful basis to do so.
You seem to have said to yourself, something to the effect of--if not in these exact words:
Since District Court Judges may be bound by the rulings of their Circuit Court; it must therefore follow, that a current Congress is bound by a previous Congress with regard to impeachment proceedings.
Again, please cite such a requirement? Please site any reliable source supporting your assertions?
All? There were not that many important House races..he knew he would lose the House but for impeachment alone the Senate is all that matters.
This is what The Left does.
Apples and Oranges. ---no analogy here at all.
We disagree. But I'm willing to entertain any arguments supporting your assertion that there is "no analogy at all."
Certainly. Your contention about Rodney King has nothing to do whether a president can be impeached for something that occurred prior to being president. It's a timing thing. If he had beaten Rodney King prior to taking office, he could be indicted and tried after leaving office. You make no mention of this timing in your example. The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country and as president , we already established that he cannot be indicted while in office.
Thank you.
Let me slow it down:
First,
Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides what you suggest--that a President can't be impeached [for violations occurring] prior to holding office.
Second,
Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides that future Congresses are bound by prior Congresses with regard to impeachment proceedings.
So far, your assertions are based upon your opinions only.
Last edited: