With accusations being made by President Trump, could he be impeached if/when these allegations are proven wrong? What will be the charges?

2017-03-19T19:46:40-04:00

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2017 7:49 PM

2017-03-19T19:49:40-04:00

Whatever accusations you're talking about, how do they relate to AMU and DAV ?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Mar 19 at 2017 7:51 PM

2017-03-19T19:51:29-04:00

It Wont Come Soon Enough To Suit Me!

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Mar 19 at 2017 8:27 PM

2017-03-19T20:27:13-04:00

Very difficult to impeach a President........even though President Clinton made it look easy.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Mar 19 at 2017 8:41 PM

2017-03-19T20:41:39-04:00

We're going to start impeaching people for erroneous thinking, then? If I walk by your house and sometime later you find your yard ornament missing, and you accuse me, should you then be charged with a crime if I didn't do it?

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2017 8:45 PM

2017-03-19T20:45:45-04:00

I'll venture "No". I think at worst it's libel, which isn't a high crime nor even a misdemeanor, but a civil matter.

Response by SGT Christopher Clarke made Mar 19 at 2017 8:55 PM

2017-03-19T20:55:41-04:00

As the devils advocate, if any tampering is proved to be correct, what happens then?

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2017 9:00 PM

2017-03-19T21:00:31-04:00

I suspect there are not enough charges of a sufficient level to justify impeachment at this point. Congress could censure the President at this point if they can get the votes necessary which would be tough at this point.

I think the thing to look at is how the Presidents actions, the state of the economy, and the action or inaction of Congress, plays out following the midterm election in 2018. If the Democratic Party takes control of the House or Senate and you might see censure or impeachment efforts.

Response by LTC David Brown made Mar 19 at 2017 9:00 PM

2017-03-19T21:00:49-04:00

Why wasn't Obama impeached for lying? I mean that is basically what your saying Trump is doing.

Response by PFC Jim Wheeler made Mar 19 at 2017 9:02 PM

2017-03-19T21:02:27-04:00

It would have to be a criminal offense, which erroneous statements most certainly are not. Even if someone could prove malicious intent, it would still only be a civil matter and not a criminal one.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 19 at 2017 9:21 PM

2017-03-19T21:21:25-04:00

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "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."

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Mar 19 at 2017 9:29 PM

2017-03-19T21:29:56-04:00

I will let you in on a little secret if you promise to not tell anyone. Our C-in-C is no idiot. If he tweeted it, he has some factual information and the ones who did the dirty deed actually believes that the people who told them they had covered all the tracks has forgotten, if more than one person knows a secret, then it is not a secret.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 19 at 2017 9:31 PM

2017-03-19T21:31:24-04:00

Well, I think the point may be mute. Subpoenas were issued for the wiretaps and information gleaned from them has been revealed. However, let's pretend none of that happened. Is making a false accusation an impeachable offense? Was it issued under oath? I don't think so. Oaths aren't administered on Twitter. So, no, it's not a high crime. It may be the height of stupidity, but not criminal.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2017 10:21 PM

2017-03-19T22:21:11-04:00

He's not going anywhere.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Mar 19 at 2017 11:09 PM

2017-03-19T23:09:21-04:00

I don't think lying all the time is against the law unless its under oath or to the police. Even for elected officials. If it were we would all be prison guards.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Mar 20 at 2017 12:11 AM

2017-03-20T00:11:11-04:00

Just stop with the Stretch Armstrong stuff. It's going beyond pitiful. We lived with a progressive leftie for years. You (encompassing) can live with a pragmatic centrist for awhile.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Mar 20 at 2017 1:59 AM

2017-03-20T01:59:38-04:00

Was Obama impeached when we couldn't keep our doctor or our plan?
I think the left needs to recognize that they lost an election and move on.

Response by SSG Jessica Bautista made Mar 20 at 2017 2:24 AM

2017-03-20T02:24:46-04:00

In reality, any offense is an impeachable one, but GOP is the majority so I wouldn't on count anything short of murder.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2017 6:31 AM

2017-03-20T06:31:58-04:00

Simple answer is no.

The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.
The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

To better understand the meaning of the phrase, it’s important to examine how the framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong. To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new government into three branches—the executive, legislative, and judicial. This is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances.

Impeachment of judges and executive officials by Congress was one of the checks proposed at the Constitutional Convention. The impeachment of judges drew widespread support, because federal judges would hold lifetime appointments and needed some check on their power. But some framers opposed impeachment of executive officials, arguing that the president’s power could be checked every four years by elections.

James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “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.”

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2017 2:34 PM

2017-03-20T14:34:52-04:00

Misstating the truth or even lying is not an impeachable offence no matter how much you dislike the President, unless he lies under oath like President Clinton did with the Lewinski matter.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Mar 20 at 2017 6:02 PM

2017-03-20T18:02:19-04:00

PFC Pamala (Hall) Foster If a president could be impeached on "making a false statement and or allegation" there would have been many Presidents impeached by now....to include Obama....and for this particular case of "SUPPOSED" false allegations....though there may have been NO ACTUAL wire tapping, it's already been proven the paperwork/forms was filled out/completed and the request was made...
........and as we all know...the government has known to do things and get away with these things without the we the people ever knowing about it.
Think about this.... who really reported FLYNN'S conversation with the Russian Ambassador?...the request for wire tapping was for Trump, his office and his staff...
Too many HINKEY things going on...it's funny that democrats are not concerned where the INFO came from....though DEMOCRATS are NOTORIOUS for doing things down right dirty and under the table like DNC chair sharing info with CNN...and the stories go on and on and on.