Impeachment Thread

[moonflasher]

Democrats once again fail....Damn they're good at it.

 

[domroger]

they have sold their inheritance for a mess of pottage .

 

[YDB95]

Odd that only senators that crossed the party line were two Republicans.

The Democrats really know how to obey orders!

I wonder if the two will get their heads on pikes? I'd guess not, because that was a lie from the outset.

So when the only Republican in the House who voted to impeach had left the party, that meant...what, exactly? Don't expect anyone here to believe you think that reflects well on the Republicans in light of what you said above.

 

[JackLuis]

Impeachment Was the Right Call. Doing It This Way Was Not.

House Democrats’ strategic errors have damaged the constitutional tool of impeachment.
For people who care about the rule of law, the integrity of the Constitution, and the longevity of America’s democratic republic—one in which the will of the people, not the whims of the ruler controls—the full realization that the Senate is poised to acquit Donald J. Trump after a sham trial is devastating. Congressional Democrats and Republicans—not to mention the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, as well as former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, all of whom have stood silent during the dismantling of our federal system of separated powers—share the responsibility here. Whatever comes next—an acquitted Trump who feels free to act with greater impunity? a Trump defeated at the polls in November?—generations of historians will excavate what went wrong with the impeachment process this time around.

To be sure, Trump’s lawyers are primarily to blame for torturing legal precedent and established facts to suit their client’s temperament and his demands for unlimited power. But it is worth noting for the record that House Democrats made several strategic errors, the unintentional result of which could be lasting damage to Congress’s ability to hold future presidents accountable for violating laws, standards, and norms.

Dorking around for months before subpoenaing witnesses, failing to press the Tax issue hard and often, letting Nattaring Nancy call all the shots, in her Go Slow impeachment. Not pushing the courts to speed the fuck up in the press and trying to avoid "Partisanship" labels didn't work too well.

 

[Dumpington]

moonflasher writes: "Democrats once again fail....Damn they're good at it."

The Democratic Party is becoming EXCELLENT at failing!

YDB95 writes:"So when the only Republican in the House who voted to impeach had left the party, that meant...what, exactly? Don't expect anyone here to believe you think that reflects well on the Republicans in light of what you said above."

Even if this witnesses vote had passed, 55-45, it wouldn't have changed the FINAL U.S. Senate vote on impeachment. EVERY Republican U.S. Senator (including even Mitt Romney) is ultimately going to vote to ACQUIT the president, including perhaps one or two Democrats!

This witnesses vote reminds me of the Senate giving Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford an extra day to testify back in the summer of 2018. Jeff Flake sided with the Democrats to listen to Blasey-Ford's lies, but when it came down to a final vote, even the Trump-haters like Flake & Corker voted for Judge Kavanaugh! And because of the lies the Dems used to block Kavanaugh, their party LOST a net two U.S. Senate seats in the 2018 midterms!

 

[gunthernehmen]

So when the only Republican in the House who voted to impeach had left the party, that meant...what, exactly? Don't expect anyone here to believe you think that reflects well on the Republicans in light of what you said above.

Are you talking about van Drew? He was a Democrat. He only switched teams to the Republicans when he saw the travesty Pelosi was perpetrating and didn't want to be part of.

 

[phrodeau]

Are you talking about van Drew? He was a Democrat. He only switched teams to the Republicans when he saw the travesty Pelosi was perpetrating and didn't want to be part of.

Not everyone is scared of Pelosi like Trump is.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Not everyone is scared of Pelosi like Trump is.

Did you catch the video of Trump handing out pens the other day?

Pelosi is a joke. She holds power over her Democrat Party subjects (aka Reps), nobody else.

BTW, thanks for laugh!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Acquittal is forever

 

[Just4AFriend]

Just for fun

Can anyone find a dictionary that uses “abuse of power” as a synonym or example for maladministration? Dershowitz is a fucktard. Of course maladministration is not cause for impeachment! Like saying in public that the leader of Egypt is his “favorite dictator” or using Twitter flight crews to get to Iraq and back.

From here on out.., it will be added henceforth, as if no one can access dictionaries from the 1800’s .., perhaps done book burning is needed !!

 

[Dumpington]

BabyBoomer50s writes: "Acquittal is forever"

Adam Schiff now wants impeachment charges drawn up against those fifty-one Republican U.S. Senators for "Obstruction of Congress!" He says he's got enough evidence to convict them all, and only requires two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to back him up!

Just4AFriend writes: "From here on out.., it will be added henceforth, as if no one can access dictionaries from the 1800’s .., perhaps done book burning is needed!!

The lessons learned from this impeachment trial are simple:

BEFORE you vote to impeach a president and then forward your charges to the U.S. Senate for trial, TRY and have all of your evidence & witnesses already lined-up! DON'T wait until somebody suddenly releases a book, and then suddenly exclaim: "Oh, we now want THAT guy!"

 

[Just4AFriend]

From here on out there is no power of oversight for the legislative branches.
Subpoenas can be ignored and end up being a legislative power
We are fucked!
We now have a unitary executive.
God help us

 

[KeithD]

From here on out there is no power of oversight for the legislative branches.
Subpoenas can be ignored and end up being a legislative power
We are fucked!
We now have a unitary executive.
God help us

I think oversight will be reaffirmed by the courts when that last one is hit with what's already in the pipeline. What needs to happen now is for the majority to continue blasting away at Trump and his enablers in Congress and voting them out in November. (And then sweat out how far they are going to extend this coup attempt by the minority against constitutional government--will they leave their offices as voted out?)

 

[Just4AFriend]

Bolton needs to pop up on meet the press!
Tommow!

 

[gunthernehmen]

From here on out there is no power of oversight for the legislative branches.
Subpoenas can be ignored and end up being a legislative power
We are fucked!
We now have a unitary executive.
God help us

Look at the bright side! The NEXT coup attempt will have a tougher time!

 

[Dumpington]

Just4AFriend writes: "From here on out there is no power of oversight for the legislative branches."

KeithD asserts: "I think oversight will be reaffirmed by the courts when that last one is hit with what's already in the pipeline."

gunthernehmen responds: "Look at the bright side! The NEXT coup attempt will have a tougher time!"

Democrats are NOW arguing that a president who has been impeached by the House should NOT have the power to nominate any future U.S. Supreme Court judges (even after he's been acquitted and then re-elected president!) They argue that this SHOULD have been included in the U.S. Constitution by the racist slave-owners who instead created the Second Amendment & the Electoral College (both of which they hate!) When Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg leaves our nation's high-court, they want former President Obama appointed without the necessity of a senate vote!

In fact, some Democrats are now arguing for the complete abolishment of the U.S. Senate altogether, saying that impeachment & removal from office should belong entirely to the U.S. House of Representatives. They ALSO argue that voter ID laws have been proven to discourage illegals from south of the border from participating in our democracy. They ADD that requiring that somebody show a photo-ID before voting is RACIST!

The Democrats remain outraged over the fact that President Trump has now defeated TWO of their attempts to prematurely end his presidency! They promise that their NEXT impeachment effort will be an even BIGGER extravaganza, including appearances from Colin Kaepernick, Jussie Smollett, Greta Thunberg, Rose McGowan, and Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford! "It's going to be HUGE," says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi! "We will spare NO EXPENSE!"

 

[Ireadforpleasure]

Senate Republicans Are Betting That Voters’ Anger Will Fade by November

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his caucus realize that a large majority of Americans think they should allow witnesses to testify, and that an acquittal without doing so will outrage many voters. But they are betting that the political backlash from a rush to judgement will be less severe less than the fallout that could come from allowing Bolton, Mulvaney, and others to testify under oath.

At the heart of this calculus is the argument advanced by a trio of Republicans facing reelection races this year. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina made an electoral argument for blocking witnesses while speaking in a caucus meeting. “Gardner said a longer trial would lead to more Democratic attacks,” the report said. These senators will be on the ballot with Trump this year in presidential battleground states. As they face strong Democratic challengers, these senators must court Trump supporters whose backing they need to survive. Instead of the slow burn of a longer Senate trial, they seem to prefer getting the pain over with quickly.

When Lamar Alexander tweeted out his statement on Thursday night, all but assuring a trial without witnesses, some reporters called it a win for McConnell. But his victory could be short lived. The majority leader might be right that conducting a sham trial is a smaller problem for Republicans than allowing a real trial to proceed. But it is still a problem for Republicans. Whether blocking witnesses proves to be a GOP victory will depend on how angry voters are in November.

https://www.motherjones.com/impeach...licans-impeachment-lamar-alexander-witnesses/

 

[Ireadforpleasure]

Don’t Be Confused by Trump’s Defense. What He Is Accused of Are Crimes.

The phrase “abuse of power” appears nowhere in the federal criminal code, which lists thousands of criminal laws passed by Congress over the years. But many crimes aren’t written down in codes. Crimes derived from the “common law” — the body of law developed from judicial opinions and legal treatises rather than statutes — have been a staple of American law for centuries. Today in many states, district attorneys routinely charge people with things like “assault,” “forgery” and “indecent exposure” even where no statute makes those things a crime.

Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute. Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up. Burglary is an established crime, even where its definition exists only in legal treatises and judicial opinions.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

Courts from Michigan to Maryland have recently upheld convictions of government officials for committing this common-law crime — despite objections that the crime has never been codified by statute. And the House, in its first article of impeachment, has accused Mr. Trump of exactly what the law prohibits: He “abused the powers of the presidency” for “corrupt purposes in pursuit of a personal political benefit.”

As for “obstruction of Congress,” that’s not only a common-law crime. Versions of the crime have also been listed in the federal criminal code since the 19th century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/impeachment-defense-trump.html

 

[Dumpington]

Ireadforpleasure writes: "Senate Republicans Are Betting That Voters’ Anger Will Fade by November"

Voter anger against the Democrats for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on their failed impeachment clown-show will last FAR BEYOND NOVEMBER! Trump's political base knows exactly what the Dems unsuccessfully tried to do, overturning the 2016 presidential election, and then trying to keep Trump from running for re-election in 2020!

The Democratic Party has AGAIN failed to end the Trump presidency!

The House actually passed TWO articles of impeachment WITHOUT gathering enough evidence or witnesses to make their case stick in the U.S. Senate! WHO DOES THAT? The American people witnessed the incompetence & corruption that have become the modern U.S. Democratic Party! Trump has survived their clumsy coup-attempt, and his supporters are galvanized far more than ever before!

"What He Is Accused of Are Crimes."

"Accused of" and "convicted of" are two entirely different things! The accusations were unfounded! This entire impeachment effort has been PURELY PARTISAN from start-to-finish, and Trump will now make history as our nation's first-ever impeached president to be elected to a second-term!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Ireadforpleasure writes: "Senate Republicans Are Betting That Voters’ Anger Will Fade by November"

Voter anger against the Democrats for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on their failed impeachment clown-show will last FAR BEYOND NOVEMBER! Trump's political base knows exactly what the Dems unsuccessfully tried to do, overturning the 2016 presidential election, and then trying to keep Trump from running for re-election in 2020!

I'm not sure I agree with you, at least entirely.

Other than a few radical lefties and a handful of righties, most of America barely noticed there WAS an impeachment. And most of the ones that did notice, knew it for a political hit, not for any serious inquiry into the legality of Trump's actions.

 

[phrodeau]

Why do Republicans think Trump is the best candidate for 2020, after the shitshow of the last three years?

 

[icanhelp1]

Don’t Be Confused by Trump’s Defense. What He Is Accused of Are Crimes.

The phrase “abuse of power” appears nowhere in the federal criminal code, which lists thousands of criminal laws passed by Congress over the years. But many crimes aren’t written down in codes. Crimes derived from the “common law” — the body of law developed from judicial opinions and legal treatises rather than statutes — have been a staple of American law for centuries. Today in many states, district attorneys routinely charge people with things like “assault,” “forgery” and “indecent exposure” even where no statute makes those things a crime.

In the Clinton articles of impeachment 'abuse of power' was voted down because of its broad and unprovable disposition and therefore congress voted on perjury and obstruction of justice, legitimate statutory violations. not to be confused with obstruction of congress which separation of powers under article II adds up to nothing more than verbiage.

Nixon resigned when articles of impeachment included felony violations.

Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute. Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up. Burglary is an established crime, even where its definition exists only in legal treatises and judicial opinions.

Since 'abuse of power' is ambiguous at best. Not to have some statutory relevancy attached to an article of impeachment is a fool's errand. The real travesty of this impeachment is that it's strictly along partisan lines. This attempt at impeaching Trump started in 2016 with the Mueller report. Hard to make a case that the dems were really concerned about a phone call. It failed along party lines because its obviously based on emotion and not evidentiary conclusions. Most legal experts concur that if an indictment as frivolous as what the dems brought to the senate, was brought before the courts, it would never have past muster. The senate is not a court of law but it mirrors the process in many ways. This impeachment was exactly what Hamilton feared, weaponizing it to settling political scores. When the dems insist every action by Trump is a wrongdoing then the jury becomes tone deaf, and when no statutory violation is presented you eliminate the standard that gives legitimacy to the burden of proof, it makes acquitting very easy. It fails prima facie.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

Misconduct that doesn't reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and removal. Dems created this polarized environment with it's cry wolf for 3 years.

Courts from Michigan to Maryland have recently upheld convictions of government officials for committing this common-law crime — despite objections that the crime has never been codified by statute. And the House, in its first article of impeachment, has accused Mr. Trump of exactly what the law prohibits: He “abused the powers of the presidency” for “corrupt purposes in pursuit of a personal political benefit.”

Prima facie, the house assertions don't hold water. The house botched the process. They failed to make a case.. There are 53 senators that disagree in one way or another. In a court of law the dems case of trying to established the burden of proof for "personal political benefit" would be thrown out. How do you prove that?

The Adam Schiff show was unconstitutional right from the start. The impeachment process and relative authority was not granted to Schiff or Nadler. Impeachment by committee is unconstitutional, so were the subpoenas. It's the peoples house not Nancy's house. Nancy's authority is delegated to her or house committees by a vote of the whole body and no such vote took place. Nancy is an administrator of sorts not a dictator. Nancy is an inclusive part of the body with one vote. She carries no more authority than any other member. Committees don't conduct impeachment, they conduct investigations, the house sanction's impeachment by a vote. The lack of relevant authority is the reason they're pushing for additional witnesses, they messed up from the start and got caught.

As for “obstruction of Congress,” that’s not only a common-law crime. Versions of the crime have also been listed in the federal criminal code since the 19th century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/impeachment-defense-trump.html

Not when it pertains to separation of powers and executive branch privilege.. The executive branch is not subordinate to the legislative branch.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Why do Republicans think Trump is the best candidate for 2020, after the shitshow of the last three years?

They've known since the 2016 campaign that he is a sick fuck who will exact revenge on anyone who obstructs his ascension to supreme ruler

 

[YDB95]

They've known since the 2016 campaign that he is a sick fuck who will exact revenge on anyone who obstructs his ascension to supreme ruler

He can also rally the deplorable to the polls without anyone else having to sink to their level to do it - Trump is only too willing to do that himself.

As for the taxpayer dollars spent on the impeachment, everybody knows the deficit only matters when a Democrat is president. That won't change anyone's mind on either side of the aisle.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

He can also rally the deplorable to the polls without anyone else having to sink to their level to do it - Trump is only too willing to do that himself.

As for the taxpayer dollars spent on the impeachment, everybody knows the deficit only matters when a Democrat is president. That won't change anyone's mind on either side of the aisle.

The local deplorables have never heard of the Tea Party, the deficit or the federal budget