Trump impeachment and crimes?

[buttermarket]

What crime did Trump do that was serious enough for an impeachment?

Clinton was impeached by the republican controlled house in 1998 too. his crime was lying to congress about his sex affair with a assistant? that was his crime.

now the crimes are not serious enough to warrant impeachment.

serious crimes means serious like grand theft, embezzlement or rape or serious crimes.

the prosecution of Trump, and Clinton were political rather than necessary to impeach him as the public can fire him during the next election.
The country deserves the gov't they elect. Trump was elected after all. You can just have another election. Normally, the leader or President would resign since he doesn't have the support of the house or congress. and doesn't have the mandate to make laws etc. or mandate to do anything.
that is what elections are essentially , a way for the people to decide if Trump should be fired. no need for wasting time on legal etc impeachment and wasting the gov't time.and money in trying to fire a politician. or fire an employee. who is dislike for his political opinions etc.

it's more like politics than trying to prosecute Trump for a CRIME! and credibility of the legal system and courts if he was charged of a CRIME. remember, in a democracy, everybody is equal under the law. and nobody is above the law. but his crime is not really crime. nobody was hurt or harmed for what Trump or Clinton did, these misdeanors like speeding tickets or unruly conduct or something it's not really a CRIME.

 

[RRY16]

What crime did Trump do that was serious enough for an impeachment?

Clinton was impeached by the republican controlled house in 1998 too. his crime was lying to congress about his sex affair with a assistant? that was his crime.

now the crimes are not serious enough to warrant impeachment.

serious crimes means serious like grand theft, embezzlement or rape or serious crimes.

the prosecution of Trump, and Clinton were political rather than necessary to impeach him as the public can fire him during the next election.
The country deserves the gov't they elect. Trump was elected after all. You can just have another election. Normally, the leader or President would resign since he doesn't have the support of the house or congress. and doesn't have the mandate to make laws etc. or mandate to do anything.
that is what elections are essentially , a way for the people to decide if Trump should be fired. no need for wasting time on legal etc impeachment and wasting the gov't time.and money in trying to fire a politician. or fire an employee. who is dislike for his political opinions etc.

it's more like politics than trying to prosecute Trump for a CRIME! and credibility of the legal system and courts if he was charged of a CRIME. remember, in a democracy, everybody is equal under the law. and nobody is above the law. but his crime is not really crime. nobody was hurt or harmed for what Trump or Clinton did, these misdeanors like speeding tickets or unruly conduct or something it's not really a CRIME.

Is this one of the questions on your GED Exam?

 

[Cuddles]

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[5] Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[6]

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust".[7] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself".[7] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][8]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][9] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[1][10] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[1][8][10]

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[5] Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[6]

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust".[7] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself".[7] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][8]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][9] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[1][10] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[1][8][10]

It seems reasonable to expect the Forefathers of the United States to mean a serious breach of the intent of the Constitution that are not accounted for in any specific laws. Our Forefathers lived during a time when character was critical. Adherence to Christian principles were expected by all and our Forefathers could not imagine these fundamental views to ever be corrupted.

The Democrats, of course, want to interpret things more loosely to further their own political goals that are being obstructed by Trump’s America First imperative. The Democrats apparently are smart enough to understand that Trump has significant public popularity as well as hidden popularity as indicated by Democrats taking the risky move of impeaching the President on a flimsy charge or charges. The Democrats previously failed in an earlier impeachment attempt where multiple Constitutional protections were violated by them. In addition, look at the criminal activities of others the Democrats and their media enablers regularly defend such as false accusers, character assassinations of high school students, fake hate crimes, intimidation tactics and vandalism by organized Leftist groups, and so on.

The Democrats went all-in against Trump and lost. As they try to pick up the pieces, Trump should hit those guilty of civil right violations and other laws with a multitude of well justified criminal charges. In any event, the final arbiter are the voters. May voters fully appreciate what the Democrats are willing to do to our Constitution in furtherance of their lust for power and act accordingly in 2020.