Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

Fun examples of impeachment from the history archives that do not adhere to subs's requirement:

In 1797, articles of impeachment were found against William Blount, a Senator. The misdemeanors were not charged as being done in the execution of any office under the United States. He was not charged with misconduct in office, but with an attempt to influence a United States Indian interpreter, and to alienate the affection and confidence of the Indians. After the impeachment was known, but before it was presented to the Senate, the Senate expelled him, resolving “that he was guilty of a high misdemeanor entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a Senator.”

In 1804, John Pickering, Judge of the District Court of New Hampshire, was removed for, — 1. Misbehavior as a judge; and amongst other causes, 4. For appearing drunk, and frequently, in a profane and indecent manner, invoking the name of the Supreme Being.

In 1804, Judge Chase was impeached and tried for arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust conduct, in delivering his opinion on the law beforehand, and debarring counsel from arguing the law; and for unjust, impartial, and intemperate conduct in obliging counsel to reduce their statements to writing, the use of rude and contemptuous language, and intemperate and vexatious conduct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ed/548144/

[_canpakes]

A lesson on the English language, for subs:

Misdemeanor comes from demeanor, which means “behavior toward others” or “outward manner” (as in “his quiet demeanor”). Demeanor derives from the verb demean, which means “to conduct or behave (oneself) usually in a proper manner”—not to be confused with the other and much more common verb demean that means “to lower in character, status, or reputation” (as in “I won’t demean myself by working for so little money” or “Don’t demean the hard work they’ve done”). These two verbs are spelled the same way but come from different roots: the former comes from the French verb mener (“to lead,” “to drive”) and ultimately from the Latin minare (“to drive”). Demean meaning “to degrade” or “to debase” comes from the adjective mean, which originally meant “humble” or “inferior in rank,” hence, this demean means “to make humble” or “to make lower.”

So, because it developed from the verb that means “to conduct or behave (oneself)," misdemeanor literally means “bad behavior toward others.” This led to parallel usage as both general bad behavior and legal bad behavior: both definitions appear in Nathan Bailey’s Etymological Dictionary of 1721:


MISDEMEANOR a behaving of one’s self ill; an Offence or Fault

High MISDEMEANOR, a Crime of a heinous nature, next to high Treason



Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 showed that misdemeanor by itself (as opposed to high misdemeanor) referred to a less serious offense:

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime



Johnson himself later used the word when describing events in 1775 that would lead to the American Revolution:

"When it is said, that the whole town of Boston is distressed for the misdemeanor of a few, he wonders at their shamelessness, for we know, he says, that the whole town of Boston, and all the associated provinces, are now in open rebellion…"
— The Gentleman’s Magazine, Volume 45, 1775



By 1828, a further explanation is given in Noah Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language:

MISDEME'ANOR, noun Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.



In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.

For a time, misdemeanor also referred to a person guilty of or imprisoned for a misdemeanor (the Oxford English Dictionary records the use “keep the felons and misdemeanors separate”), but this way of using the word has become obsolete.

Webster was a self-taught lawyer, and was very politically active during the time that the U.S. Constitution was drawn up, so he would have been aware that the synonymous or redundant pair “crimes and misdemeanors” appeared in Section 4 of Article Two of the Constitution, in a specific legal idiom:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

“Crimes and misdemeanors” was used in English law since the 14th century, and was among the fixed phrases using synonymous terms or terms of art found in parliamentary and legal language at the time of the American Revolution (others include “rules and regulations” and “emoluments and salaries”). It can be very difficult to distinguish between any of these pairs of words, and their frequent use together renders them less technical in today’s highly specific legal vocabulary. “High crimes” (and “high misdemeanors”) refer to serious or grave crimes committed by those with some office or rank, and was used in the language describing impeachment proceedings of members of the British Parliament in the 18th century.

In British law today, misdemeanor no longer has a specific meaning, but in American law, it is “a crime less serious than a felony.” As misdemeanor became more specific, crime became the more general term for any legal offense. Using misdemeanor today to mean simply a “misdeed” is far less common than it was in the past, but if you do, it’s unlikely that you’ll get a traffic ticket from the language police.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... ys-a-crime

[_subgenius]

Fun examples of impeachment from the history archives that do not adhere to subs's requirement:

but yet they do

he was guilty of a high misdemeanor entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a Senator.”

See? a misdemeanor is a crime...and subsequently, Mr Blount's articles were never presented to the Senate where they likely would have been dismissed due to inadequacy and lack of actually having a "crime" in the articles...(sound familiar?)...but I get ya, that House did it so why not do it again because doing it once must mean you were doing it right...except it never got to the Senate trial (sound familiar again?)

In 1804, John Pickering, Judge of the District Court of New Hampshire, was removed for, — 1. Misbehavior as a judge; and amongst other causes, 4. For appearing drunk, and frequently, in a profane and indecent manner, invoking the name of the Supreme Being

you conveniently left out the crime - here let me cite here for ya: President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings no need for ya to get a dictionary, "unlawful" means the same thing as "criminal" or "crime".

In 1804, Judge Chase was impeached and tried for arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust conduct, in delivering his opinion on the law beforehand, and debarring counsel from arguing the law; and for unjust, impartial, and intemperate conduct in obliging counsel to reduce their statements to writing, the use of rude and contemptuous language, and intemperate and vexatious conduct.

awkward, but you literally cited at least 2 crimes here (maybe you can find them all by yourself?)....and subsequently he was acquitted by the Senate (sound familiar?)

Yes, your citations are certainly ringing of a great strategy...a 33% success rate...which is better than the 1 for 7 impeachment rate under Trump's term in office thus far.
but you go girl!

[_Icarus]

What Subs doesn't get is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress decides, and do not need to be outlined in a legal code that didn't even exist at the time. That would make no sense.

Jonathan Turley, the Republican's lone star legal expert during the impeachment said: “It is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime.”

The GOP’s favorite new Trump impeachment defense: He isn’t even accused of a crime

From Law Fare: Must Impeachable Offenses Be Violations of the Criminal Code?

Trump may not have committed acts that justify his immediate removal from office, but the constitutional standard is not whether he has committed an ordinary criminal offense. To support an impeachment, there does not need to be a crime, only a high crime and misdemeanor. A president who egregiously misuses the powers of his office or engages in conduct grossly incompatible with the dignity of his office has forfeited the right to continue to occupy his office and is subject to the constitutional judgment of the Senate acting as a court of impeachment. The House and the Senate might conclude that accusations of misconduct are ungrounded or that remedy of removal is unwarranted, but the misconduct that they might assess need not involve violations of the criminal law.

The Constitution provides a variety of tools to protect the country from a president who abuses his power. The people can remove him by election. The courts can check him by judicial decision. The legislature can counter him with the power of the purse, the power to confirm officers and the power to pass legislation. In extreme circumstances, the House and the Senate can also combine forces to prematurely end the president’s term of office through impeachment and removal. Limiting the impeachment power to cases involving criminal acts would leave the country more vulnerable to abusive government officials and encourage more abuse of government power. The men who designed the Constitution knew better than to do that. Americans should not weaken that instrument by misconstruing it.

Gotta love how the Trump defenders are constantly proven to be mimickers of the latest talking points and knowledgeable of zero facts.

[_subgenius]

A lesson on the English language, for subs:

impeachment is not a grammar issue, but a legal issue

Misdemeanor comes from demeanor,...blah blNathan Bailey’s Etymological Dictionary of 1721:

Look, not a legal dictionary...the legal dictionary link is in my post.

High MISDEMEANOR, a Crime of a heinous nature, next to high Treason

awkward, but your first rebuttal literally uses the word "crime".....

Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 showed that misdemeanor by itself (as opposed to high misdemeanor) referred to a less serious offense:

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime

Yes, take the atrocious away and you are still left with that pesky little word - "crime".

Johnson himself later used the word when describing events in 1775 that would lead to the American Revolution:

"When it is said, that the whole town of Boston is distressed for the misdemeanor of a few, he wonders at their shamelessness, for we know, he says, that the whole town of Boston, and all the associated provinces, are now in open rebellion…"
— The Gentleman’s Magazine, Volume 45, 1775

Oh! clearly this was the meaning for the Constitution when the FFs listed along with the good company of Treason and Bribery...



By 1828, a further explanation is given in Noah Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language:

MISDEME'ANOR, noun Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.

In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.

cool research, because "law" deals with crimes, and in law "misdemeanor" is a lesser crime...like a traffic ticket...but thanks for giving numerous example of how it has been, is, and will always be a crime.
But I get your argument...you are saying that the Constitution meant undoing an election in our nation should occur when the elected has committed such serious offense like Treason (yeah that is serious crime), Bribery (yeah that is serious crime too), High Crimes (nice distinction to emphasize the seriousness of the crimes), and Misdemeanors (which must include everything that is not a crime but perhaps is just a serious of offensive tweets....that hurting the feelings of some voters is suitable for removal from office...yep, that is clear from your argument - thanks!)

You go girl!

[_Icarus]

Subs still thinks "High crimes and misdemeanors" refers to actual crimes outlined in a criminal code that didn't exist. Nuance and education are his enemy.

[_Icarus]

Subgenius has moved away from his initial claim that the articles of impeachment say Trump committed no crimes, and that there are no crimes that he has committed. I've listed multiple, specific crimes that hundreds of legal experts have concluded the President is guilty of committing.

But hey, let's just sit here and hair-split all day about whether those crimes were mentioned in the articles.

[_subgenius]

Jonathan Turley, the Republican's lone star legal expert during the impeachment said: “It is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime.”

I am glad you share his opinion...but you claimed there were crime(s)...a claim you have yet to support with facts...but I get ya, lets move the goalpost and walk away from your glaring mistake.

Trump may not have committed acts that justify his immediate removal from office, but the constitutional standard is not whether he has committed an ordinary criminal offense. To support an impeachment, there does not need to be a crime, only a high crime and misdemeanor. A president who egregiously misuses the powers of his office or engages in conduct grossly incompatible with the dignity of his office has forfeited the right to continue to occupy his office and is subject to the constitutional judgment of the Senate acting as a court of impeachment. The House and the Senate might conclude that accusations of misconduct are ungrounded or that remedy of removal is unwarranted, but the misconduct that they might assess need not involve violations of the criminal law.

The Constitution provides a variety of tools to protect the country from a president who abuses his power.

which unlike your claim, is not a crime....and we have 3 branches of government to prevent the 3 branches from abusing power - so color me impressed that you have a grasp of junior high school civics.

The people can remove him by election.

Um, how does this happen?...not getting re-elected is not "removal"...its just not getting re-elected, ending your legal term of office is not a removal...but nice talking point.

The courts can check him by judicial decision.

nice irrelevant talking point...but this has nothing to do with an abuse of power. Interpretation is literally what the Supreme Court exists to do...a President could just be promoting a different interpretation and that does not logically translate to "abuse of power".

The legislature can counter him with the power of the purse

literally a talking point

the power to confirm officers and the power to pass legislation

which a President can veto, which is not an abuse of power...its literally an Executive power...which is what your hair-fire does not understand. the Supreme Court has time again upheld the Executive Branch's right to not cooperate with either/both Houses of Congress, but Pelosi and company have convinced rubes like you, via talking points and handmaiden memes that such uncooperative behavior is an abuse of power....but you are wrong, and wrong not because I say so, but because the Supreme Court says so.

In extreme circumstances, the House and the Senate can also combine forces to prematurely end the president’s term of office through impeachment and removal.

Yes, and mean tweets are so extreme...well at least according to the House, I believe the Senate views "extreme" with a bit more intelligence and maturity of emotion.

Limiting the impeachment power to cases involving criminal acts would leave the country more vulnerable to abusive government officials and encourage more abuse of government power. The men who designed the Constitution knew better than to do that. Americans should not weaken that instrument by misconstruing it.

This is your opinion, and maybe a shared opinion, but it is not an actual law or Constitutional "thing". point being, counter to your claim, there is no crime in Trump's impeachment...which was my claim if you bother to educate yourself.

Gotta love how the Trump defenders are constantly proven to be mimickers of the latest talking points and knowledgeable of zero facts.

You literally cited talking points to defend your position, but ok you get yours girlfriend. Gotta love libtard posters who move the goalpost when their misinformed hair-fire butt-hurt position is exposed for all to see.

[Guest]

In 1804, John Pickering, Judge of the District Court of New Hampshire, was removed for, — 1. Misbehavior as a judge; and amongst other causes, 4. For appearing drunk, and frequently, in a profane and indecent manner, invoking the name of the Supreme Being

you conveniently left out the crime - here let me cite here for ya: President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the United States House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings no need for ya to get a dictionary, "unlawful" means the same thing as "criminal" or "crime".

In 1804, Judge Chase was impeached and tried for arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust conduct, in delivering his opinion on the law beforehand, and debarring counsel from arguing the law; and for unjust, impartial, and intemperate conduct in obliging counsel to reduce their statements to writing, the use of rude and contemptuous language, and intemperate and vexatious conduct.

awkward, but you literally cited at least 2 crimes here (maybe you can find them all by yourself?)...

This might be some kind of defense if you could somehow prove that either case was tried merely on the basis of 'crimes'. Yet both have non-crimes listed, so you cannot.

Your attempt to weasel out of that reality is noted, but doesn't disprove the point. What else do you have?

[_canpakes]

High MISDEMEANOR, a Crime of a heinous nature, next to high Treason

awkward, but your first rebuttal literally uses the word "crime".....

For the phrase 'HIGH misdemeanor', right? ; ) I like how you pretend that words used to define one phrase must also apply to another, merely because you want it to.

Let's look at that together:

MISDEMEANOR a behaving of one’s self ill; an Offence or Fault

High MISDEMEANOR, a Crime of a heinous nature, next to high Treason

Yep, looks like the word -crime- isn't applying to mere MISDEMEANOR, is it?


Now that you're disabused of your faulty notion, let's move on to your next distraction:

Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 showed that misdemeanor by itself (as opposed to high misdemeanor) referred to a less serious offense:

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime

Yes, take the atrocious away and you are still left with that pesky little word - "crime".

Lol. I think that you meant to take a different word away. But let's run with your error and look at how you'd attempt to edit the sentence in offering your 'rebuttal':

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime...


Removing the word, atrocious: MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than a(n) crime...

So, still no requirement to be a crime.

Hey, thanks for playing, anyway. It was fun. ; )