4 ms·
There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. Grounds for impeach
by marcoperaza 9y ago
There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions.
Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. Grounds for impeachment are whatever half of the House of Representatives, and 2/3rds of the Senate, say they are.
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago> Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. This is just straight up incorrect. If you read the Constitution, it states in Article I Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." [1] Then in Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...and No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." [2] Checks and balances are political now? Hoooo boy. [1] https://genius.com/1290855 https://genius.com/1290855 [2] https://genius.com/4027445 https://genius.com/4027445
- marcoperaza 9y agoYou misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that the House and Senate could impeach a President for smiling too much if they wanted to. The requirement that it be for “crimes” is meaningless except politically.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago> There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. You're shifting the goalposts here. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which the President tweets something literally illegal. > Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. The aforelinked article about Bill Clinton's impeachment also mentions that while in office, he was cited for contempt of court — another limitation on freedom of speech — by a federal judge.