# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  What is an impeachable offense?

## Douglass Bartley

For a partial answer, please see http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com...6/what-is-an-i.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

I wonder if Operation Fast & Furious would have qualified under Obama?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I wonder if Operation Fast & Furious would have qualified under Obama?


Absolutely. For that matter any one of a huge number of violations of his oath of office qualified.

More than likely every one of our 45 presidents so far committed multiple impeachable offenses.

----------


## ATruepatriot

> More than likely every one of our 45 presidents so far committed multiple impeachable offenses.


Now this is a VERY realistic perception of truth man. Unfortunately in reality it is what it is and never going to change. This is what we have to work with... nothing less... nothing more.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I wonder if Operation Fast & Furious would have qualified under Obama?


Amash didn't think so.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Clinton was convicted for lying about an affair.  That is why Trump would refuse to testify before Congress- he constantly contradicts himself (is that lying?)

----------


## oyarde

> I wonder if Operation Fast & Furious would have qualified under Obama?


I am not sure you could tie that directly back to the president but as far as I am concerned every higher up in the chain of command involved of that should have been fired immediately .

----------


## Danke

> Clinton was convicted for lying about an affair.  That is why Trump would refuse to testify before Congress- he constantly contradicts himself (is that lying?)


Lying under oath.

----------


## Aratus

i'd hate to think the GOP is inside a situational ethics that has a very partisan sliding scale.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Lying under oath.


Trump just has other people to do that for him.

----------


## RJB

> Trump just has other people to do that for him.


I have no evidence, but in my heart, I can feel that that is correct.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I forgot if it was someone from here or youtube or what,  but they put it best: "People act like Trump broke into the white house and declared himself president."

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I have no evidence, but in my heart, I can feel that that is correct.


"Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani.

----------


## RJB

> "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani.


"Orange man bad." - Zippybot

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hard to say...

I know what *isn't*:

"I don't like that $#@!ing guy".

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Clinton was convicted for lying about an affair.  That is why Trump would refuse to testify before Congress- he constantly contradicts himself (is that lying?)


He's evolving

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Not being liberal, being anti- slavery, anti-slave labor of china, anti slave labor of illegal immigrants

----------


## Sammy

> Absolutely. For that matter any one of a huge number of violations of his oath of office qualified.
> 
> More than likely every one of our 45 presidents so far committed multiple impeachable offenses.


Lincoln,Woodrow Wilson,FDR,Truman,LBJ,Nixon,George H W Bush,Bill Clinton,George W Bush & Barack Obama should have been impeached for sure.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Starting unconstitutional/illegal wars without getting the consent of Congress.

----------


## Anti Globalist

> Lincoln,Woodrow Wilson,FDR,Truman,LBJ,Nixon,George H W Bush,Bill Clinton,George W Bush & Barack Obama should have been impeached for sure.


Everybody listed here definitely committed the most impeachable offenses of all presidents.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

As a practical matter, an impeachable offense is whatever the Congress says it is.

...just as, as a practical matter, what is Constitutional is whatever the SCOTUS says it is.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Is posting a dick pic an impeachable offense?

----------


## bracknelson

High crimes and misdemeanors are the contexts of impeachment in English history, however, it is still an undefined and indefinite phrase.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Whatever the person making the decision thinks it is.

----------


## Gaius Marius

The threshold question for any court is whether or not they have jurisdiction over the defendant.  In this instance, Trump is a private citizen.  Therefore, the Senate has no jurisdiction to even conduct a trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Trump.  That's why even John Roberts (he is no longer worthy of being addressed by his title) does not wish to preside over the Senate's trial.

----------


## DamianTV

It depends on which set of books they use.  We all know they use different sets of rules for THEM and for US.

The REAL target is US.  To get to US, they will do everything in their power to discredit EVERYTHING about Trump because it puts them in a position of power to exert their will with FORCE on ALL of us.  Legal?  Of course, because they write the laws that they are not beheld to.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Is Biden saying he has no idea what he's signing an impeachable offense?

----------


## TheTexan

"the election was stolen" <- impeachable offense

"go home" <- impeachable offense

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Urging Pence to subvert the electoral college by rejecting certified electors (a power Pence did not possess under the law) = an impeachable offense

----------


## TheTexan

> Urging Pence to subvert the electoral college by rejecting certified electors (a power Pence did not possess under the law) = an impeachable offense


Sure but that's not what they're impeaching him for, because none of them in that building even know what the Constitution even says.  (besides 2-3 limited exceptions)

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Sure but that's not what they're impeaching him for, because none of them in that building even know what the Constitution even says.  (besides 2-3 limited exceptions)


I should also have mentioned Trump's soliciting the Georgia Secretary of State to commit election fraud, which was mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment:




> President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.


In his January speech Trump referred numerous times to Pence's rejecting electors, and when Pence sent a letter to Congress on January 6 explaining that he had no authority to do so, a number of the goons who stormed the Capitol started yelling "Hang Mike Pence!"  So there was a connection between Trump's bogus claim that Pence had the authority to reject reject electors and the insurrection.

As a practical matter the Senate can view the totality of the circumstances and consider Trump's behavior preceding January 6.  However, I think it's going to be a moot point because Trump has a good argument that the Senate has no jurisdiction to try him since he has left office.  I suspect some GOP Senators who secretly condemn Trump's behavior but who don't want to alienate voters can use the no-jurisdiction argument as an excuse to vote for acquittal.

It should be noted that there have been only two instances where impeachment of a former official went to trial: in 1876, William Belknap was impeached after he had resigned, and although a majority of the Senate voted to convict, the necessary two-thirds vote wasn't achieved.  Most of the Senators voting to acquit did so because that thought the Senate had no jurisdiction.

In 1797-1798, Senator William Blount was expelled from the Senate and later impeached.  The Senate voted 14-11 to dismiss, apparently because it was felt that members of Congress weren't subject to impeachment.

----------


## TheTexan

> I should also have mentioned Trump's soliciting the Georgia Secretary of State to commit election fraud, which was mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment:


Except he didn't do that, at all.  Not even remotely, did he solicit the Georgia SOS to commit election fraud.

Given the way you phrased that, are you completely ignorant of the details of that phonecall and going off of what the media has told you, or is that your independent opinion after listening to it in full and in context?

I cannot imagine anyone of sound mind who has heard the phone call to rationally come to that conclusion.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Except he didn't do that, at all.  Not even remotely, did he solicit the Georgia SOS to commit election fraud.
> 
> Given the way you phrased that, are you completely ignorant of the details of that phonecall and going off of what the media has told you, or is that your independent opinion after listening to it in full and in context?
> 
> I cannot imagine anyone of sound mind who has heard the phone call to rationally come to that conclusion.


Trump mentioned just about every conspiracy theory he could to get Raffensperger to change the election results, despite Raffensperger's refutations and insistence that his numbers were accurate.  Trump even resorted to veiled threats of criminal action.  There's nothing ambiguous about "I just want to find 11,780 votes" or "I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes.  Give me a break."

----------


## TheTexan

> Trump mentioned just about every conspiracy theory he could to get Raffensperger to change the election results, despite Raffensperger's refutations and insistence that his numbers were accurate.  Trump even resorted to veiled threats of criminal action.  There's nothing ambiguous about "I just want to find 11,780 votes" or "I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes.  Give me a break."


You didn't answer the question, would you mind answering it?

I am very curious if you're just ignorant of the details of the phone call, or have independently came to this conclusion based on full knowledge of the facts. (in which case you can no longer be considered of "sound mind")

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You didn't answer the question, would you mind answering it?
> 
> I am very curious if you're just ignorant of the details of the phone call, or have independently came to this conclusion based on full knowledge of the facts. (in which case you can no longer be considered of "sound mind")


I've listened to the entire call and read the transcript.  You'd have to be like Tommy (deaf, dumb, and blind) to not know what Trump was up to.  And I doubt very much that GOP Senator Pat Toomey, who called the phone call "a new low in this whole futile and sorry episode" and who commended "Republican election officials across the country who have discharged their duties with integrity over the past two months while weathering relentless pressure, disinformation, and attacks from the president and his campaign" as not being of sound mind.

----------


## TheTexan

> I've listened to the entire call and read the transcript.


If you've listened to the entire call and read the transcript, and your take-away from that is that Trump "solicited the Georgia SOS to commit election fraud" then you are beyond reason and are living in an alternate universe of propaganda and lies.

From this point forward, I pretty much have no choice but to discard anything you say as the incoherent ramblings of the severely mentally ill.  I will avoid engaging in any further discourse with you as it is a clear waste of time.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If you've listened to the entire call and read the transcript, and your take-away from that is that Trump "solicited the Georgia SOS to commit election fraud" then you are beyond reason and are living in an alternate universe of propaganda and lies.
> 
> From this point forward, I pretty much have no choice but to discard anything you say as the incoherent ramblings of the severely mentally ill.  I will avoid engaging in any further discourse with you as it is a clear waste of time.


That's rich.  If you think Trump hasn't been living in "an alternate universe of propaganda and lies" for the last four years and if you've swallowed his "alternate facts", you're beyond hope.

----------


## TheTexan

> That's rich.  If you think Trump hasn't been living in "an alternate universe of propaganda and lies" for the last four years and if you've swallowed his "alternate facts", you're beyond hope.


"His" alternate facts?  None of my facts come from Trump.  I don't support Trump, and never have.  If it's ever appeared that I spoke positively of Trump, it's only to the extent I very much appreciate his ability to drive people like you bat$#@! insane.  It's one of his few redeeming qualities.

From a purely scientific perspective, it's also just fascinating.  As you have first-hand experience with this brand of mental illness, perhaps you can add a data point for my research:

What about Trump is it that drove people like you to such anger, that it dulled your mind into a zombie state of irrecoverable stupor?

----------

