JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
Impeachment Thread
- Thread starter allison22
- Start date
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Ruth Marcus was writing about the impeachment inquiries and noted some similarities with what was going on in the summer of 2018.
Impeachment feels a lot like Kavanaugh 2.0
From the conservative point of view, the greatest similarity is the deep sense of aggrievement in the motives of Kavanaugh’s critics back then and Trump’s critics today. Those seeking to impeach the president over his conduct with respect to Ukraine have LONG been desperately searching for SOMETHING, ANYTHING by which to take him down!
"I’ve seen this movie before - with Brett Kavanaugh,” says South Carolina U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) noted much the same thing: “You know what these proceedings look to me like right now? They look like the Kavanaugh hearing without the vagina hats!” Yes, Democrats were out to get Kavanaugh, and now they're out to get Trump. The partisan motives help to explain the fury, but they don't justify it.
In the Kavanaugh case, Republicans were worked up, understandably so, about the last-minute emergence of the allegations against the Supreme Court nominee. Now, they are worked up that some Democrats were looking to impeach President Trump even before he was sworn into office! Not a single Republican voted to authorize the current House impeachment inquiry, and there seems little prospect that any will vote to impeach Trump. And in the U.S. Senate, not a single Republican has shown any inclination to believe anything that Adam Schiff & his House Democrats are putting forth. It's all been a huge waste of time & money!
Impeachment feels a lot like Kavanaugh 2.0
From the conservative point of view, the greatest similarity is the deep sense of aggrievement in the motives of Kavanaugh’s critics back then and Trump’s critics today. Those seeking to impeach the president over his conduct with respect to Ukraine have LONG been desperately searching for SOMETHING, ANYTHING by which to take him down!
"I’ve seen this movie before - with Brett Kavanaugh,” says South Carolina U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) noted much the same thing: “You know what these proceedings look to me like right now? They look like the Kavanaugh hearing without the vagina hats!” Yes, Democrats were out to get Kavanaugh, and now they're out to get Trump. The partisan motives help to explain the fury, but they don't justify it.
In the Kavanaugh case, Republicans were worked up, understandably so, about the last-minute emergence of the allegations against the Supreme Court nominee. Now, they are worked up that some Democrats were looking to impeach President Trump even before he was sworn into office! Not a single Republican voted to authorize the current House impeachment inquiry, and there seems little prospect that any will vote to impeach Trump. And in the U.S. Senate, not a single Republican has shown any inclination to believe anything that Adam Schiff & his House Democrats are putting forth. It's all been a huge waste of time & money!
Clown Car full of Trump loyalists sent to question legal experts
and Presiderp's Peanut Gallery on the sidelines, making tweets
In Jonathan Turley, Republicans Find Ideal ‘Impartial’ Witness for Trump
- Ed Kilgore
Of you read or listened to his words closely, it became apparent he differed
from the other witnesses — and from the weight of opinion in constitutional
law circles — not just on Trump’s impeachment but on all sort of fundamental
issues. Unlike the others, he thinks presidents cannot obstruct Congress —
or even obstruct justice — unless they defy judicial orders
(unfortunately, federal judges typically refuse to police executive-legislative
disputes, particularly those involving impeachment, as “political questions”).
Unlike the others, he believes the constitutional standards for “bribery”
track later criminal statutory definitions. And unlike the others, he would
limit impeachments to situations where such criminal statutes are violated.
Turley is clearly on board with the bedrock GOP argument that this
impeachment proceeding is by definition illegitimate because it is
happening so quickly.
Anyone seduced by Turley’s reasonable manner and apparent passion
for fairness should reflect on the fact that he considers Andrew Johnson —
the autocratic racist who tried to reverse the gains in human rights secured
by the bloody sacrifices of the Civil War — a great victim of congressional
abuse of power, and an appropriate role model for Trump as the object of
an illegitimate impeachment inquiry.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/jonathan-turley-is-gops-ideal-impartial-trump-witness.html
Andrew Johnson
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ned-congress-cabinet-david-priess-book-222413
and Presiderp's Peanut Gallery on the sidelines, making tweets
In Jonathan Turley, Republicans Find Ideal ‘Impartial’ Witness for Trump
- Ed Kilgore
Of you read or listened to his words closely, it became apparent he differed
from the other witnesses — and from the weight of opinion in constitutional
law circles — not just on Trump’s impeachment but on all sort of fundamental
issues. Unlike the others, he thinks presidents cannot obstruct Congress —
or even obstruct justice — unless they defy judicial orders
(unfortunately, federal judges typically refuse to police executive-legislative
disputes, particularly those involving impeachment, as “political questions”).
Unlike the others, he believes the constitutional standards for “bribery”
track later criminal statutory definitions. And unlike the others, he would
limit impeachments to situations where such criminal statutes are violated.
Turley is clearly on board with the bedrock GOP argument that this
impeachment proceeding is by definition illegitimate because it is
happening so quickly.
Anyone seduced by Turley’s reasonable manner and apparent passion
for fairness should reflect on the fact that he considers Andrew Johnson —
the autocratic racist who tried to reverse the gains in human rights secured
by the bloody sacrifices of the Civil War — a great victim of congressional
abuse of power, and an appropriate role model for Trump as the object of
an illegitimate impeachment inquiry.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/jonathan-turley-is-gops-ideal-impartial-trump-witness.html
Andrew Johnson
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ned-congress-cabinet-david-priess-book-222413
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
bodysong writes: "Clown Car full of Trump loyalists sent to question legal experts..."
I read that very same column by Roger Kimball for Spectator USA, bodysong!
Impeachment really is a pathetic clown show
First it was COLLUSION! - Trump was colluding with the Russians to steal the election from its rightful owner, Hillary Clinton. For a brief and shining moment, ‘collusion’ filled the airwaves and cyberspace. The president of the United States was colluding with Vladimir Putin, whose puppet he so obviously was. John Brennan, the excitable talking head who somehow became director of the CIA despite voting for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall, declared that Trump’s behavior was ‘nothing short of treasonous.’ Yikes.
That show lasted almost two years. But then it collapsed after Robert Mueller’s expensive fishing expedition failed to hook any fish. Mueller’s pathetic performance before Congress was supposed to be the spectacle that delivered the coup de grâce to the impossible orange man. Instead, it was a demonstration of the liabilities of senile incapacity. We spent $34 million for this?
In any normal world, that would have put paid to the Democrats’ greatest ever expedition, the unremitting search for a crime to which their preordained verdict — impeachment! — could be attached. But this is not a normal world, it is our world, one in which such Soviet style of justice — show me the man and I will show you the crime — applies to anything involving Donald Trump. Still, though the animus remained, ‘collusion’ had to be retired.
Next up was Ukraine and a supposed ‘quid pro quo’ - for a couple of weeks, the blank spot in the media’s script that had been occupied by ‘collusion’ now featured this new tort: Trump promised to give the Ukrainian president something in exchange for something. But those declarations were made only by the president of the United States, the president of Ukraine, and everyone with first-hand knowledge of what transpired between them. Water carriers who worked down the hall and who hated Trump knew that this was their chance!
Somehow, though, ‘quid pro quo’ never really caught on. The public yawned when they heard about it, possibly because they were insufficiently impressed by the Latin phrase, possibly because a moment’s inquiry told them that this was another Oakland of Offenses: there was just nothing there. In talking to President Zelensky, Trump was just doing his job. The Democrats sensed this, so they quietly retired ‘quid pro quo’ and sent up a trial balloon called ‘bribery’ - at least ‘bribery’ is mentioned in Article II of the Constitution as a ground for impeaching the president. Maybe what Trump was doing was offering the Ukrainian president a bribe? Let’s run that up the flag pole and see who salutes.
The trouble is, everyone already knows what a bribe is. And Trump clearly did not offer or accept any bribes. Everyone could see that, even, I suspect, the lachrymose Adam Schiff whose last desperate gambit was to say that Trump’s offer of a White House meeting to Zelensky was a bribe. It was left to Jerry Nadler, the Oliver Hardy to Adam Schiff’s Stan Laurel, to try, try again by kicking off the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment witch hunt yesterday with the charge that the president was guilty of abusing the power of his office.
At this time, Donald Trump is presiding over the most robust economy the US has seen in decades. Unemployment, especially minority unemployment is at historic lows. Wages, especially at the lower end, are rising. Consumer confidence is high. We are at peace. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is something like 90 percent. His support among Blacks and Hispanics is rising. As James Piereson recently pointed out, it is well nigh impossible to impeach a president in such circumstances.
The Democrats’ latest strategy — will they finally pack it in once, it, too, fails? — is to deliberately confuse the use of power, which is something Trump, like every president, does, with the abuse of power, which is something else and something for which we have no evidence. The effort to impeach and remove Donald Trump from office was always a fool’s errand. Whatever plausibility the Mueller investigation had because of the majesty of the legal establishment was long ago dissipated by the obviously partisan contrivances of the Democratic establishment. Schiff and Nadler have been reduced to playing word games to keep this pathetic clown show going. No one outside their partisan bubble believes them; fewer and fewer people are even paying attention. The public was already exasperated by the Adam Schiff Show a couple of weeks back. Nadler’s afternoon reprise is playing to an equivalent of supper theater on the second stage in Dubuque, Iowa.
I read that very same column by Roger Kimball for Spectator USA, bodysong!
Impeachment really is a pathetic clown show
First it was COLLUSION! - Trump was colluding with the Russians to steal the election from its rightful owner, Hillary Clinton. For a brief and shining moment, ‘collusion’ filled the airwaves and cyberspace. The president of the United States was colluding with Vladimir Putin, whose puppet he so obviously was. John Brennan, the excitable talking head who somehow became director of the CIA despite voting for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall, declared that Trump’s behavior was ‘nothing short of treasonous.’ Yikes.
That show lasted almost two years. But then it collapsed after Robert Mueller’s expensive fishing expedition failed to hook any fish. Mueller’s pathetic performance before Congress was supposed to be the spectacle that delivered the coup de grâce to the impossible orange man. Instead, it was a demonstration of the liabilities of senile incapacity. We spent $34 million for this?
In any normal world, that would have put paid to the Democrats’ greatest ever expedition, the unremitting search for a crime to which their preordained verdict — impeachment! — could be attached. But this is not a normal world, it is our world, one in which such Soviet style of justice — show me the man and I will show you the crime — applies to anything involving Donald Trump. Still, though the animus remained, ‘collusion’ had to be retired.
Next up was Ukraine and a supposed ‘quid pro quo’ - for a couple of weeks, the blank spot in the media’s script that had been occupied by ‘collusion’ now featured this new tort: Trump promised to give the Ukrainian president something in exchange for something. But those declarations were made only by the president of the United States, the president of Ukraine, and everyone with first-hand knowledge of what transpired between them. Water carriers who worked down the hall and who hated Trump knew that this was their chance!
Somehow, though, ‘quid pro quo’ never really caught on. The public yawned when they heard about it, possibly because they were insufficiently impressed by the Latin phrase, possibly because a moment’s inquiry told them that this was another Oakland of Offenses: there was just nothing there. In talking to President Zelensky, Trump was just doing his job. The Democrats sensed this, so they quietly retired ‘quid pro quo’ and sent up a trial balloon called ‘bribery’ - at least ‘bribery’ is mentioned in Article II of the Constitution as a ground for impeaching the president. Maybe what Trump was doing was offering the Ukrainian president a bribe? Let’s run that up the flag pole and see who salutes.
The trouble is, everyone already knows what a bribe is. And Trump clearly did not offer or accept any bribes. Everyone could see that, even, I suspect, the lachrymose Adam Schiff whose last desperate gambit was to say that Trump’s offer of a White House meeting to Zelensky was a bribe. It was left to Jerry Nadler, the Oliver Hardy to Adam Schiff’s Stan Laurel, to try, try again by kicking off the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment witch hunt yesterday with the charge that the president was guilty of abusing the power of his office.
At this time, Donald Trump is presiding over the most robust economy the US has seen in decades. Unemployment, especially minority unemployment is at historic lows. Wages, especially at the lower end, are rising. Consumer confidence is high. We are at peace. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is something like 90 percent. His support among Blacks and Hispanics is rising. As James Piereson recently pointed out, it is well nigh impossible to impeach a president in such circumstances.
The Democrats’ latest strategy — will they finally pack it in once, it, too, fails? — is to deliberately confuse the use of power, which is something Trump, like every president, does, with the abuse of power, which is something else and something for which we have no evidence. The effort to impeach and remove Donald Trump from office was always a fool’s errand. Whatever plausibility the Mueller investigation had because of the majesty of the legal establishment was long ago dissipated by the obviously partisan contrivances of the Democratic establishment. Schiff and Nadler have been reduced to playing word games to keep this pathetic clown show going. No one outside their partisan bubble believes them; fewer and fewer people are even paying attention. The public was already exasperated by the Adam Schiff Show a couple of weeks back. Nadler’s afternoon reprise is playing to an equivalent of supper theater on the second stage in Dubuque, Iowa.
Bodington
Virgin
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Posts
- 272
At Nadler’s recent impeachment hearing four law professors gave supposedly their authentic unbiased legal opinions, on the question of the impeachment of the President of the United States. Upon hearing their testimony two famous quotes attributed to Pres Lincoln came to my mind as a summary evaluation of the proceedings.
First was a Michael Gerhardt, apparently a law professor at the law school for the University of North Carolina. He stated unequivocally, under oath mind you, that he had an open mind on the subject of whether Donald Trump had committed an impeachable offence warranting removal from office. It wasn’t until this summer when he learned of the infamous Ukrainian telephone call by Pres Trump where he finally came to the conclusion that Pres Trump has committed an impeachable offence and ought to be removed from office. Unfortunately for Prof Gerhard’s credibility, alert fact checkers were able to unearth a tweet of his from Aug 2017 wherein the law professor opined that Pres Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio was against the Constitution and ergo an impeachable offence warranting Pres Trump’s removal from office. That tweet is really a startling assertion considering the universal acceptance that the pardon power is an unquestioned President’s prerogative. The quote of Pres Lincoln that comes to mind: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Then we have Jonathan Turley, a law professor at the law school for George Washington University. His main testimony comprised of his the assertion that so far there is not yet sufficient evidenced adduced by the House of Representatives to warrant the impeachment of the President Trump. Presumably at this point the Dems have charged that President Trump in his July phone call with the President of Ukraine demanded as a quid pro quo. Military aid to Ukraine would not be forthcoming unless Ukraine would conduct a thorough investigation of former VEEP Joe Biden and his son of possible corrupt dealings with that country. It is thus alleged then that Pres Trump was thereby seeking to use his foreign policy powers to entice a foreign govt to personally help him in his reelection campaign. Now as Prof Turley points out even if you accept this premise as facts, which of course is credibly challenged by Pres Trump, and even should Joe Biden actually emerge as the Dems standard bearer for the 2020 Presidential elections, the outcome of any Ukrainian investigation regarding Mr Biden’s involvement in alleged corrupt practices would be determined too late for Pres Trump to utilize for his election campaign.
Yet despite that such common sense conclusions, Nancy Pelosi announced the day later that there is sufficient evidence to warrant impeachment and the House will have a vote before Christmas. There are lots of Dems that support this procedure even daresay lots of posters on this board. The quote of Pres Lincoln that comes to mind: “You can even fool some of the people all the time.”
First was a Michael Gerhardt, apparently a law professor at the law school for the University of North Carolina. He stated unequivocally, under oath mind you, that he had an open mind on the subject of whether Donald Trump had committed an impeachable offence warranting removal from office. It wasn’t until this summer when he learned of the infamous Ukrainian telephone call by Pres Trump where he finally came to the conclusion that Pres Trump has committed an impeachable offence and ought to be removed from office. Unfortunately for Prof Gerhard’s credibility, alert fact checkers were able to unearth a tweet of his from Aug 2017 wherein the law professor opined that Pres Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio was against the Constitution and ergo an impeachable offence warranting Pres Trump’s removal from office. That tweet is really a startling assertion considering the universal acceptance that the pardon power is an unquestioned President’s prerogative. The quote of Pres Lincoln that comes to mind: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Then we have Jonathan Turley, a law professor at the law school for George Washington University. His main testimony comprised of his the assertion that so far there is not yet sufficient evidenced adduced by the House of Representatives to warrant the impeachment of the President Trump. Presumably at this point the Dems have charged that President Trump in his July phone call with the President of Ukraine demanded as a quid pro quo. Military aid to Ukraine would not be forthcoming unless Ukraine would conduct a thorough investigation of former VEEP Joe Biden and his son of possible corrupt dealings with that country. It is thus alleged then that Pres Trump was thereby seeking to use his foreign policy powers to entice a foreign govt to personally help him in his reelection campaign. Now as Prof Turley points out even if you accept this premise as facts, which of course is credibly challenged by Pres Trump, and even should Joe Biden actually emerge as the Dems standard bearer for the 2020 Presidential elections, the outcome of any Ukrainian investigation regarding Mr Biden’s involvement in alleged corrupt practices would be determined too late for Pres Trump to utilize for his election campaign.
Yet despite that such common sense conclusions, Nancy Pelosi announced the day later that there is sufficient evidence to warrant impeachment and the House will have a vote before Christmas. There are lots of Dems that support this procedure even daresay lots of posters on this board. The quote of Pres Lincoln that comes to mind: “You can even fool some of the people all the time.”
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
That is a pile of irrelevancy. Trump is not being impeached because he pardoned Arpaio, and the length of a hypothetical Ukraine investigation doesn't matter as long as the investigation is publicly announced before the election, which is exactly what Trump asked for.
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 14,120
I googled this and found several references to it, but no one posted the actual tweet or even provided an exact transcript of what it said. Three guesses as to why...
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 20,090
Even with all the Schiff and Nadler blather about impeachable offenses to include obstruction of justice allegations from the Mueller report, without legal (constitutional precedence ) and statutory legitimacy ( criminal and or prosecutorial references from a court of law { SCOTUS and the Nixon tapes and Clinton perjury before a grand jury } ) which existed with the Clinton and Nixon impeachment proceedings, the process of impeachment is without legitimacy and fails to reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Since congress is moving forward without statutory standing ( proof of a statutory violation ) it becomes a proceeding without teeth.
We all know that impeachment is a political process, however, it still has to be cloaked in the concrete nexus of law within establishes boundaries otherwise what we get is a perpetual trial till something sticks.
Political power should never be a substitution for the burden of proof and should never presume guilt before innocence. That sets a bad and crippling precedence for future presidents, becomes a severe infringement on article II powers and destabilizes the balance of power.
That's why the poles are what they are today, citizens are looking for a crime so treasonous that it warrants removal from office. People remember past administrations and are comparing it to the present one. They are trying to understand what makes this president more criminal than past presidents and without statutory legitimacy people have nothing concrete to hang their hat on, what they see is partisan hatred and a branch of government abusing its authority and power over another. They see congress as the abuser. People are aware that the rallying cry for impeachment started even before inauguration day and the possible commision of a crime.
The trial phase will enter the senate with the same problems that exist with the house, the lack of statutory legitimacy. The senate will have to create that scenario and provide the burden of proof that the house couldn't and once again without statutory violations based on legitimate criminal investigations the proceedings will become an orchestrated diatribe with more division and finally, power becomes the substitute for the actual presumption of innocence or guilt and the institution has failed us.
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 14,120
That's why the impeachment hearings are happening, to determine if there's sufficient evidence of illegal activity to send the case to trial.
But that's beside the point here. The point is Professor Gerhardt's 2017 tweet, which no one who has accused him of hypocrisy has shown a copy of as far as I can tell.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
YDB95 writes: "That's why the impeachment hearings are happening, to determine if there's sufficient evidence of illegal activity to send the case to trial."
"Sufficient evidence of illegal activity?"
That can only be determined by the jury in this case: which will be the members of the U.S. Senate! If it's a trial the House wants, then let the members of the Senate determine whether or not the president is INNOCENT or guilty, and whether this is a WITCHHUNT or not!
And if the U.S. Senate determines that the charges against this president are FALSE, then it's up to we, the people, to accept this verdict and STOP making up crimes to charge this president with, which wastes taxpayer time & money!
Again, it's up to the U.S. Senate (and NOT the House Democrats) to determine whether or not this president has done anything wrong!
"Sufficient evidence of illegal activity?"
That can only be determined by the jury in this case: which will be the members of the U.S. Senate! If it's a trial the House wants, then let the members of the Senate determine whether or not the president is INNOCENT or guilty, and whether this is a WITCHHUNT or not!
And if the U.S. Senate determines that the charges against this president are FALSE, then it's up to we, the people, to accept this verdict and STOP making up crimes to charge this president with, which wastes taxpayer time & money!
Again, it's up to the U.S. Senate (and NOT the House Democrats) to determine whether or not this president has done anything wrong!
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Oh hell NO! I'd make a deal that Trump shoots Pence on Fifth Avenue and President Pelosi will pardon him two minutes before he is executed, but Oops, she forgets!
Yes, but you, as a Bernie supporter, are more "grandstand" than "deliver."
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Perhaps I'm too "visionary" but it's had not to be cynical.
Especially when everything you support isn't going to happen--when more practical, incremental approaches that we who are more optimistic support can, eventually, get there.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Democratic efforts to impeach President Donald Trump were supposed to help them politically in 2020. In moments of unguarded honesty, a few Democrats admitted as much publicly, saying the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet.
“I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected... we must impeach him.” -Representative Al Green (D-TX)
It’s a great example of how this particular impeachment push keeps backfiring on Democrats. They claim, without evidence, that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election by asking for their cooperation in investigating Ukrainian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election. And they claim that this is such a dire threat that Trump must be removed from office and disqualified from running in 2020. And yet it's all primarily aimed at punishing Trump for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and trying to prevent him for landsliding Joe Biden in 2020!
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she wants articles of impeachment drafted in the hope that Trump will be so damaged by the relentless onslaught of negative news that it will make voters elect someone else. In practice, however, this particular impeachment push is becoming something of a worst-case political scenario for Democrats.
It’s Not Popular And It’s Becoming Even LESS Popular
With so much water carrying being done by the media, the current impeachment effort got as much help as possible when it was kicked off by Democrats in September. Several media outlets claimed that a majority of Americans were completely on board with the plan to oust Trump and overturn the 2016 elections. With all of that media help, Pelosi was encouraged to get things going, even though she had previously cautioned against a purely partisan impeachment process. Not only have no Republicans fallen for the impeachment push, but TWO Democrats joined Republicans in opposing it. Support for Pelosi’s investigation gambit was purely partisan, while its opposition was bipartisan.
After Rep. Adam Schiff’s hearings were unenthusiastically watched, with support for impeachment soon going down. This was particularly true for the valued independent voters, the majority of whom oppose impeachment. Democrats needed to start with a strong bipartisan push and then peel off Republican voters and members over the course of the inquiry, but that did NOT happen. And given the trajectory of polls over the last month, it’s only going to get worse for Democrats on that score, not better.
It's all so Soul-Crushingly Boring
Critics of Bill Clinton's impeachment used to claim he was being impeached for a blow-job - when the actual charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from his actions in response to a sexual harassment lawsuit he was fighting. But at least they were tangentially related to sex! This made his impeachment far more interesting than one in which Democrats seem to be flailing about in search of an actual crime.
There has been NO big reveal other than that Trump released his own transcripts that people could read them for themselves and either yawn or feign outrage. But the hearings themselves have been soul-crushingly boring. Bureaucrats and law professors gave overly long opening statements about the Bad Orange Man - (the vast majority of whom didn’t actually witness anything). After weeks of media-fueled hype about how the walls were finally closing in on Trump, the hearings amounted to little more than whining from collection of disgruntled bureaucrats outraged that Trump refused to let them, rather than the nation’s elected leaders, direct American foreign policy.
“I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected... we must impeach him.” -Representative Al Green (D-TX)
It’s a great example of how this particular impeachment push keeps backfiring on Democrats. They claim, without evidence, that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election by asking for their cooperation in investigating Ukrainian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election. And they claim that this is such a dire threat that Trump must be removed from office and disqualified from running in 2020. And yet it's all primarily aimed at punishing Trump for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and trying to prevent him for landsliding Joe Biden in 2020!
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she wants articles of impeachment drafted in the hope that Trump will be so damaged by the relentless onslaught of negative news that it will make voters elect someone else. In practice, however, this particular impeachment push is becoming something of a worst-case political scenario for Democrats.
It’s Not Popular And It’s Becoming Even LESS Popular
With so much water carrying being done by the media, the current impeachment effort got as much help as possible when it was kicked off by Democrats in September. Several media outlets claimed that a majority of Americans were completely on board with the plan to oust Trump and overturn the 2016 elections. With all of that media help, Pelosi was encouraged to get things going, even though she had previously cautioned against a purely partisan impeachment process. Not only have no Republicans fallen for the impeachment push, but TWO Democrats joined Republicans in opposing it. Support for Pelosi’s investigation gambit was purely partisan, while its opposition was bipartisan.
After Rep. Adam Schiff’s hearings were unenthusiastically watched, with support for impeachment soon going down. This was particularly true for the valued independent voters, the majority of whom oppose impeachment. Democrats needed to start with a strong bipartisan push and then peel off Republican voters and members over the course of the inquiry, but that did NOT happen. And given the trajectory of polls over the last month, it’s only going to get worse for Democrats on that score, not better.
It's all so Soul-Crushingly Boring
Critics of Bill Clinton's impeachment used to claim he was being impeached for a blow-job - when the actual charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from his actions in response to a sexual harassment lawsuit he was fighting. But at least they were tangentially related to sex! This made his impeachment far more interesting than one in which Democrats seem to be flailing about in search of an actual crime.
There has been NO big reveal other than that Trump released his own transcripts that people could read them for themselves and either yawn or feign outrage. But the hearings themselves have been soul-crushingly boring. Bureaucrats and law professors gave overly long opening statements about the Bad Orange Man - (the vast majority of whom didn’t actually witness anything). After weeks of media-fueled hype about how the walls were finally closing in on Trump, the hearings amounted to little more than whining from collection of disgruntled bureaucrats outraged that Trump refused to let them, rather than the nation’s elected leaders, direct American foreign policy.
SecretSapphic
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Posts
- 116
I agree with you. And so do a lot of other people.
More than 500 legal scholars from Harvard, Yale, Columbia and other universities signed an open letter asserting that Donald Trump had committed "impeachable conduct," and that lawmakers would be within their rights to remove him from office.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 20,090
The point YB is glossing over is that when the Clinton and Nixon articles of impeachment were drawn up they were supported by actual statutory violations, felony allegations substantiated by a court of law (SCOTUS ) and a special counsel (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY and PERJURY).
Current articles of impeachment are being drawn up based on ambiguously defined high crimes and misdemeanors driven by opinion, innuendo, hearsay testimony and diverse professional opinions but fail to capture a specific code or statutory violation that can be prosecuted, The burden of proof still does not exist.
To base some articles of impeachment on the alleged process crime of obstruction of congress by resisting subpoenas is a fool's errand and can be protected by executive privilege. What adds legitimacy to subpoenas is when they are substantiated and enforced by the courts. Failure to respond to a court ordered subpoena can become a statute violation and results in both contempt of court and congress and possible warrants to appear forcibly. 300 pages of testimony is just that, 300 pages. The american people won't buy into it. Nancy Pelosi's prayerful concerns are coming across as phonier than a three dollar bill. Her dissertations and speeches are doing more to harm the Dems impeachment goals than Trump himself, she oozes hatred for Trump and radiates strong partisan emotions which exposes political motivation over substance ( statutory legitimacy ).
Again, the senate will have to fumble through the same weak case as the house and it will lead to another partisan split, a vote along partisan lines, and again power of the majority over the actual burden of proof of a commission of a high crime and misdemeanor. This rush job is all about shaping the opinion of the american people just before the 2020 elections. When politicians state " we cannot let Trump win a second term" is pretty telling of what the mindset is for the democratic party.
I believe the senate will subpoena Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, the Bidens and possibly request a presence by the president of Ukraine, Zelensky. This could be enforced by the courts ( except Zelensky ) if enough evidence is found on the Bidens and also Schiff for lying to congress and interfering with the oficial whistleblower process, we will see.
Last edited:
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 20,090
You shouldn't agree with him. 500 scholars is only a small sample and they are not prosecutors. If political will is there for impeachment and removal it will happen, not before. Remember, political power does not necessarily equate to justice, it does, however, resemble more of mob rule than due process.
It would be within their purview, not rights. Due process for the defendant is a right!
Last edited:
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 14,120
Executive privilege only applies in cases where divulging information would impair government functions. That doesn't apply to the president trying to bribe a foreign leader to look for dirt on an opponent.
And again, impeachment simply means bringing the case to trial. It's not the House's job to prove the case.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 20,090
There again, subject to interpretation. Not one sentence in the transcript contains the word dirt. Words matter! Bribery is ambiguous at best and has to be litigated to prove intent, it's not so because you say so, or you want it to be so. The word opponent is also ambiguous, again proof of intent, was it for investigating corruption in 2016 and Burisma or political gain for 2020, no one! including you! know the answer to that. Not saying it was a smart thing to say but does it rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor. If your case rest with that as your proof of guilt then Obama should have been impeach for the open mic incident, after all he was pandering to a foreign leader, ( removal of missile defenses in europe ) a national security issue. Since Nancy loves to throw around national security. i.e. congruency
Obama=/= lethal aid
Trump= lethal aid
So why are the dems ballistic over Ukraine getting lethal aid now and not when Obama was CinC { TDS } is the only reason, does not stand the test of applying the law congruently. I assure you the senate will bring it up.
TRUMP BAD, OBAMA GOOD!!! See, you have to have congruency with the application of the law.
Articulate_and_Analytical
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Posts
- 155
Republicans complained impeachment hearings were secret, so the Democrats made them public, and then Republicans complained they were illegitimate.
After complaining that there were no “first-hand” reports of the events surrounding the Ukraine scandal, Trump refused to let anyone who had that knowledge testify (some did despite his order).
Republicans complained that hearing transcripts were secret, so Democrats released them.
Republicans complained that Trump’s lawyers couldn’t be present at the hearings; now House Judiciary Committee chair Jerrold Nadler has invited them and they have declined to attend.
After repeatedly saying that Democrats should hurry up with impeachment and move on, Republicans are now complaining that the Democrats are rushing the process.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
YDB95 writes: "It's not the House's job to prove the case."
That's because there's no case to prove!
Adam Schiff & the House Democrats will arrive in the U.S. Senate with a lot of hearsay evidence and nothing concrete, and while they may convince a few less-intelligent senators (Kamala Harris, Liz Warren, Chuck Schumer, Doug Jones, etc.) of the validity of their case, President Trump will win vindication in the end, with the resulting blacklash coming back to bite congressional Dems on their collective butts next November!
On a related note, jobs growth for November-2019 came in 79,000 higher than economists had predicted, something that has become a regular occurrence since Trump became president. In fact, this president's endless economic success is one of the PRIMARY reasons for the Democratic Party urgency to impeach him! They can't go up against a guy like that in November of 2020 with any hopes of success!
And what exactly is the Democratic Party's response to these latest job numbers? They’re claiming that massive tax hikes on companies, investors and savings will boost economic growth.
No, I'm not kidding.
That's because there's no case to prove!
Adam Schiff & the House Democrats will arrive in the U.S. Senate with a lot of hearsay evidence and nothing concrete, and while they may convince a few less-intelligent senators (Kamala Harris, Liz Warren, Chuck Schumer, Doug Jones, etc.) of the validity of their case, President Trump will win vindication in the end, with the resulting blacklash coming back to bite congressional Dems on their collective butts next November!
On a related note, jobs growth for November-2019 came in 79,000 higher than economists had predicted, something that has become a regular occurrence since Trump became president. In fact, this president's endless economic success is one of the PRIMARY reasons for the Democratic Party urgency to impeach him! They can't go up against a guy like that in November of 2020 with any hopes of success!
And what exactly is the Democratic Party's response to these latest job numbers? They’re claiming that massive tax hikes on companies, investors and savings will boost economic growth.
No, I'm not kidding.
Again what does this have to do with the current inquiry on Donald Trump???
I cannot fathom for a second how people cannot separate out the differences. People can do both good and bad at the same time ( walk and chew bubble gum or)... are you not aware of that?
Quit deflecting...
Otherwise the point I see is: Yah he is a crook, but the economy is doing great so who cares...
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Fuzzy1975 writes: "Again what does this have to do with the current inquiry on Donald Trump???"
Isn't it OBVIOUS, Fuzzy? The Democrats have come to the conclusion that they CAN'T STOP TRUMP from getting re-elected, and so they've turned to impeachment as their ONLY option to damage him in 2020! They've got NO CASE and NO HOPE of getting a conviction in the U.S. Senate, so WHY continue with this empty charade?
"I cannot fathom for a second how people cannot separate out the differences. People can do both good and bad at the same time ( walk and chew bubble gum or)... are you not aware of that?"
You're dodging the issue, Fuzzy! Do you believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embracing her pro-life Catholic beliefs and saying that she prays for President Trump? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that she's praying that he gets through this whole impeachment withhunt intact? You're NOT a stupid person, Fuzzy! You KNOW that's all nothing more than smoking mirrors!
"Otherwise the point I see is: Yah he is a crook, but the economy is doing great so who cares..."
You obviously think our president is a crook. I do not. I think he's been the victim of a well-orchestrated withhunt. YOU seemingly believe that Nancy Pelosi prays for President Trump while simultaneously embracing her Catholic pro-life upbringing, while I think she's deflecting.
Neither you nor I will decide this thing in the end - if President Trump is impeached by the House then it'll be the job of the U.S. Senate to determine whether he's guilty or innocent. And after the senate releases its verdict I hope that the losing side doesn't implode like it did back in November of 2016!
Isn't it OBVIOUS, Fuzzy? The Democrats have come to the conclusion that they CAN'T STOP TRUMP from getting re-elected, and so they've turned to impeachment as their ONLY option to damage him in 2020! They've got NO CASE and NO HOPE of getting a conviction in the U.S. Senate, so WHY continue with this empty charade?
"I cannot fathom for a second how people cannot separate out the differences. People can do both good and bad at the same time ( walk and chew bubble gum or)... are you not aware of that?"
You're dodging the issue, Fuzzy! Do you believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embracing her pro-life Catholic beliefs and saying that she prays for President Trump? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that she's praying that he gets through this whole impeachment withhunt intact? You're NOT a stupid person, Fuzzy! You KNOW that's all nothing more than smoking mirrors!
"Otherwise the point I see is: Yah he is a crook, but the economy is doing great so who cares..."
You obviously think our president is a crook. I do not. I think he's been the victim of a well-orchestrated withhunt. YOU seemingly believe that Nancy Pelosi prays for President Trump while simultaneously embracing her Catholic pro-life upbringing, while I think she's deflecting.
Neither you nor I will decide this thing in the end - if President Trump is impeached by the House then it'll be the job of the U.S. Senate to determine whether he's guilty or innocent. And after the senate releases its verdict I hope that the losing side doesn't implode like it did back in November of 2016!
While there was a faction ( IMHO) of Democrats who felt this way from day one ( impeach Trump), I think the Democratic leaders were willing to work with the new administration. However that train derailed almost immediately. Again this may have been to Trumps complete lack of political understanding. I truly do not think he knew then, ( and may not even know now) how government functions. But, his lying from day one, statements to Comey, letting out secure information to Russians, etc etc...It's a long list of stupid moves made by Trump. Was this from a point of criminal intention, I actually don't think so. I think it was from ignorance.
I also do not think the Democrats are using impeachment because they are fearful of not being able to defeat Trump. To me this is a red hearing. Even you have said, the impeachment process may help Trump get re elected.
I think they are using the impeachment process to get the public to see what exactly Trump has been doing. Does the public cares is another matter.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 20,090
Articles of impeachment is similar to a prosecutor presenting a convincing case, all I said is that if it lacks statutory legitimacy it won't take much to bring the impeachment trial phase to an acquittal.
Similar threads
