The bad-faith impeachment

[Counselor706]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Democrats are trying to remove President Trump from office "prayerfully," "sadly," and "with a heavy heart." In fact, as anyone who has been watching knows, many Democrats have been itching to impeach Trump since the day he took office.

The fact that they have long wanted to impeach the president suggests those Democrats view the Trump-Ukraine matter as just the latest, and perhaps the best, chance to get the president. And that calls into question their good faith in claiming that, despite deep reluctance, they must impeach now — right this minute — because it is their solemn constitutional duty.

From its earliest days, the Democratic quest to remove Trump has resembled the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. Democrats in hot pursuit of the elusive Trump proposed to remove him for virtually any sin that came to mind, only to see their efforts foiled.

To summarize: Many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get-go. Frustrated at their inability to get it done, they jumped on their last, best hope, taking shortcuts to ensure their preferred result and racing to beat the political deadline imposed by their party's presidential contest. Through it all, they have insisted they are acting only with great reluctance and sorrow.

Source

 

[Fart_knocker]

Shut the fuck up, miles.

 

[KeithD]

It's imperative for the survival of the nation that this corrupt criminal who is a delivering asset of the Russian government be removed from the presidency. If the enabling Republicans won't allow it to happen, history has to know we tried.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Since the man is a "criminal"


It should be easy for even you



to enumerate the actual "crimes..."

 

[jomar]

You mean the quid pro quo, clumsy as it was, for personal not national interest and the obstruction of justice? Those crimes?

 

[SpeareChucker]

What did he receive?



Weak sauce?

 

[SpeareChucker]

No one has been able to prove any obstruction


yet it still remains a mantra...

 

[Adre]

Soliciting foreign assistance in an election. A crime. No quid pro quo required. Dems now free to do same.

 

[jomar]

What did he receive?



Weak sauce?

Attempted crimes are still crimes.

No one has been able to prove any obstruction


yet it still remains a mantra...

Mueller did. But you knew that.

 

[coati]

What did he receive?



Weak sauce?

^^^ More of the Sideshow Bob defense.

Trump will be impeached. Tough shit.

 

[Tryharder62]

Taking no sides but it is interesting that they chose to do this "voting" while Trump was at NATO. Something that had been planned for a year.

 

[phrodeau]

Taking no sides but it is interesting that they chose to do this "voting" while Trump was at NATO. Something that had been planned for a year.

Trump didn’t have to go to the NATO summit. In fact, he is less than welcome there.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Soliciting foreign assistance in an election. A crime. No quid pro quo required. Dems now free to do same.

You will not find a statutory prohibition regarding soliciting foreign "assistance" anywhere in the United States Code. It simply does not exist.

This whole legal premise on impeachment hangs by the thinnest of threads -- namely the degree to which raw information held by a foreign government or agent of same constitutes "anything of value" which would satisfy the definition of a prohibited donation BY that agent or government as held by the FEC under 11 CFR 300.2(e)

Legal experts disagree.

Certainly a series of activities that could be described as "opposition research" in which both the labor AND product of said research for which a candidate would normally pay a contractor, would qualify as a thing of value.

Raw information from court records, government (even foreign) investigations, and other sources, valuable as it might be, could not reasonably be held as statutorily prohibited without that statute being unconstitutionally broad. What if the New York Times published the same information from a foreign government? Would that information be no less "valuable" to a candidate and thus a "donation"? Where is the statutory language that redefines its nature simply because it passed through the hands of the New York Times?

Finally, if you're going to pin your hopes on impeachment vis-a-vis this hyper-technical violation of campaign finance law, then it would seem to me you would need a formal finding by the FEC that the law had at least been actually violated. With the accused afforded all associated rights of appeal.

Otherwise, it's simply Congress playing rush to judgment -- one of its most popular pastimes.

 

[KeithD]

Trump is being impeached because he is overtly corrupt, criminal, and treasonous and because he's not so slowly tearing the fabric of the American political and social systems to shreds. Where Trump is concerned, all roads lead to Russia. There's nothing bad faith about trying to pull this rotten apple out of the barrel. It's what any true patriot would work on doing whether or not they thought it could be done given political realities. Taking a shot at it is crucial to the survival of the nation.

 

[Rightguide]

Trump is being impeached because he is overtly corrupt, criminal, and treasonous

^^^
Bullshit liar.

I bet you wish you could produce an ounce of evidence of such, eh?

 

[heathergives]

Shut the fuck up, miles.

Brilliant riposte.

Care to address the thread topic?


Didn't think so.

 

[chillywilly2]

Trump is being impeached because he is overtly corrupt, criminal, and treasonous and because he's not so slowly tearing the fabric of the American political and social systems to shreds. Where Trump is concerned, all roads lead to Russia. There's nothing bad faith about trying to pull this rotten apple out of the barrel. It's what any true patriot would work on doing whether or not they thought it could be done given political realities. Taking a shot at it is crucial to the survival of the nation.

He is tearing the fabric out of the democrat party.
The american people started it by turfing hillary

If he is so bad he won't get re elected

Focus on finding a candidate that can beat him.

If you don't and you impeach the republicans will just get somebody to replace him and beat your asses again

cause if you don't impeach, you only have one choice left

 

[coati]

You will not find a statutory prohibition regarding soliciting foreign "assistance" anywhere in the United States Code. It simply does not exist.

This whole legal premise on impeachment hangs by the thinnest of threads -- namely the degree to which raw information held by a foreign government or agent of same constitutes "anything of value" which would satisfy the definition of a prohibited donation BY that agent or government as held by the FEC under 11 CFR 300.2(e)

Legal experts disagree.

Certainly a series of activities that could be described as "opposition research" in which both the labor AND product of said research for which a candidate would normally pay a contractor, would qualify as a thing of value.

Raw information from court records, government (even foreign) investigations, and other sources, valuable as it might be, could not reasonably be held as statutorily prohibited without that statute being unconstitutionally broad. What if the New York Times published the same information from a foreign government? Would that information be no less "valuable" to a candidate and thus a "donation"? Where is the statutory language that redefines its nature simply because it passed through the hands of the New York Times?

Finally, if you're going to pin your hopes on impeachment vis-a-vis this hyper-technical violation of campaign finance law, then it would seem to me you would need a formal finding by the FEC that the law had at least been actually violated. With the accused afforded all associated rights of appeal.

Otherwise, it's simply Congress playing rush to judgment -- one of its most popular pastimes.

Dear Colonel Perry Mason,

Congress has the option to determine if Ukraine announcing that it was investigating Biden and investigating the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory would be a "thing of value" with regard to an upcoming presidential election.

Congress has the option to determine if Trump obstructed their own investigation.

This is not a court of law. This is an impeachment proceeding. If there is a decision to bring these charges (i.e. impeachment), that decision will not be appealable in any court, and you will not get your Perry Mason moment.

Rather, these charges will be sent to the Senate where Republicans will likely say it was acceptable for a President to try to cut this deal with Ukraine, and to obstruct the Mueller and the impeachment investigations.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Dear Colonel Perry Mason,

Congress has the option to determine if Ukraine announcing that it was investigating Biden and investigating the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory would be a "thing of value" with regard to an upcoming presidential election.

Congress has the option to determine if Trump obstructed their own investigation.

This is not a court of law. This is an impeachment proceeding. If there is a decision to bring these charges (i.e. impeachment), that decision will not be appealable in any court, and you will not get your Perry Mason moment.

Rather, these charges will be sent to the Senate where Republicans will likely say it was acceptable for a President to try to cut this deal with Ukraine, and to obstruct the Mueller and the impeachment investigations.

I stand corrected. You are quite right. Congress has the right to IGNORE every aspect of the LAW and interpret "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the most partisan light that it wishes.

My mistake. I keep assuming that our nation's elected representatives would like to rise to a level somewhat higher than the President has elected for himself -- someone who operates barely within the letter of the law. That would mean they would reserve impeachment for CLEAR LEGAL malfeasance -- like during Watergate. THAT was obstruction of justice by a President. THAT was a period when a Supreme Court, every bit as ideologically divided as today ruled 9-0 that the President must turn over evidence (his official tape recordings) pertinent to an ongoing federal criminal investigation.

That's what we had then that we're not remotely close to now.

But, yes, you are correct. Congress can certainly compete head-to-head with the President for the moral low ground.

Which is why I am paying precious little attention to this whole fiasco. Haven't you noticed I've been gone?

 

[icanhelp1]

Soliciting foreign assistance in an election. A crime. No quid pro quo required. Dems now free to do same.

DEMS FREE TO DO THE SAME? What the fuck do you think Hillary was doing you looney toon

 

[icanhelp1]

^^^ More of the Sideshow Bob defense.

Trump will be impeached. Tough shit.

If you had a brain in your ass you wouldn’t want that!

 

[icanhelp1]

You will not find a statutory prohibition regarding soliciting foreign "assistance" anywhere in the United States Code. It simply does not exist.

This whole legal premise on impeachment hangs by the thinnest of threads -- namely the degree to which raw information held by a foreign government or agent of same constitutes "anything of value" which would satisfy the definition of a prohibited donation BY that agent or government as held by the FEC under 11 CFR 300.2(e)

Legal experts disagree.

Certainly a series of activities that could be described as "opposition research" in which both the labor AND product of said research for which a candidate would normally pay a contractor, would qualify as a thing of value.

Raw information from court records, government (even foreign) investigations, and other sources, valuable as it might be, could not reasonably be held as statutorily prohibited without that statute being unconstitutionally broad. What if the New York Times published the same information from a foreign government? Would that information be no less "valuable" to a candidate and thus a "donation"? Where is the statutory language that redefines its nature simply because it passed through the hands of the New York Times?

Finally, if you're going to pin your hopes on impeachment vis-a-vis this hyper-technical violation of campaign finance law, then it would seem to me you would need a formal finding by the FEC that the law had at least been actually violated. With the accused afforded all associated rights of appeal.

Otherwise, it's simply Congress playing rush to judgment -- one of its most popular pastimes.

The flavor of the week is bribery sprinkled with extortion. Maybe next week’s flavor will be treason by violating our national security protocol and putting our country in harms way. Not sure how that happens, maybe Trump gives the Putin Monster our launch codes, I think KeithD mentioned that one.

 

[coati]

I stand corrected. You are quite right. Congress has the right to IGNORE every aspect of the LAW and interpret "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the most partisan light that it wishes.

My mistake. I keep assuming that our nation's elected representatives would like to rise to a level somewhat higher than the President has elected for himself -- someone who operates barely within the letter of the law. That would mean they would reserve impeachment for CLEAR LEGAL malfeasance -- like during Watergate. THAT was obstruction of justice by a President. THAT was a period when a Supreme Court, every bit as ideologically divided as today ruled 9-0 that the President must turn over evidence (his official tape recordings) pertinent to an ongoing federal criminal investigation.

That's what we had then that we're not remotely close to now.

But, yes, you are correct. Congress can certainly compete head-to-head with the President for the moral low ground.

Which is why I am paying precious little attention to this whole fiasco. Haven't you noticed I've been gone?

First, I did notice that you were gone, and that several posters had commented on missing you.

However, you are missing something here that definitely does parallel the Watergate break-in. During the last campaign, this President, as a candidate, openly asked Russia to do further hacking and "find the missing emails." His son met with Russian operatives when he found out that they may have some dirt on Hillary.

Several investigations were initiated, and they concluded that Russia did break into the electronic file cabinets of the Democratic party, and that they weaponized what they found during the 2016 election to work against the Democrats.

The Mueller Report reinforced that Russia had meddled, but did not conclude that Trump openly asking the Russians to hack into the missing emails constituted a crime. It did suggest that Trump had obstructed the Mueller investigation, but did not think a President could be charged with that crime by the DOJ, and left it open for Congress to take it up as an impeachment proceeding.

Trump interpreted the Mueller findings as "complete exoneration", while still labelling the Mueller investigation as the "Russia hoax" and supporting Putin's alternative narrative about the election meddling being primarily orchestrated by Ukraine, not by Russia.

After the Mueller report, Trump immediately tried to get Ukraine to publicly announce that it would investigate his next likely political opponent and investigate the conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who did the majority of the hacking and meddling during the 2016 election.

So, what the fuck are the Democrats supposed to do, just let him keep soliciting foreign interference in our elections? They decided to exercise their check on this President, with full knowledge that the Senate would probably not back them up. By doing so, they halted the Ukraine extortion attempt, put the spotlights on Trump and his associates who had been withholding much needed military aid, and set up guardrails that had been needed for a long time. Had they not done this, he would just keep doing the same thing all the way up to the next election.

I do not agree with you that this is "competing for the moral low ground". Not that simple. No moral equivalency here, in my opinion.

I know what the Senate will likely do. We'll see what the electorate thinks later on, about whether it is OK for a President to hold up military aid for personal political benefits, and subsequently obstruct the investigation of this act.

 

[icanhelp1]

First, I did notice that you were gone, and that several posters had commented on missing you.

However, you are missing something here that definitely does parallel the Watergate break-in. During the last campaign, this President, as a candidate, openly asked Russia to do further hacking and "find the missing emails." His son met with Russian operatives when he found out that they may have some dirt on Hillary.

Several investigations were initiated, and they concluded that Russia did break into the electronic file cabinets of the Democratic party, and that they weaponized what they found during the 2016 election to work against the Democrats.

The Mueller Report reinforced that Russia had meddled, but did not conclude that Trump openly asking the Russians to hack into the missing emails constituted a crime. It did suggest that Trump had obstructed the Mueller investigation, but did not think a President could be charged with that crime by the DOJ, and left it open for Congress to take it up as an impeachment proceeding.

Trump interpreted the Mueller findings as "complete exoneration", while still labelling the Mueller investigation as the "Russia hoax" and supporting Putin's alternative narrative about the election meddling being primarily orchestrated by Ukraine, not by Russia.

After the Mueller report, Trump immediately tried to get Ukraine to publicly announce that it would investigate his next likely political opponent and investigate the conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who did the majority of the hacking and meddling during the 2016 election.

So, what the fuck are the Democrats supposed to do, just let him keep soliciting foreign interference in our elections? They decided to exercise their check on this President, with full knowledge that the Senate would probably not back them up. By doing so, they halted the Ukraine extortion attempt, put the spotlights on Trump and his associates who had been withholding much needed military aid, and set up guardrails that had been needed for a long time. Had they not done this, he would just keep doing the same thing all the way up to the next election.

I do not agree with you that this is "competing for the moral low ground". Not that simple. No moral equivalency here, in my opinion.

I know what the Senate will likely do. We'll see what the electorate thinks later on, about whether it is OK for a President to hold up military aid for personal political benefits, and subsequently obstruct the investigation of this act.

WOW! Is your cherry tree big enough, doing a fair share of them Pickens are ya! I’d enjoy taking apart line by line your ridiculous rants but I’ll let you suffer through the Horowitz report. You can judge for yourself how corrupt Obama’s NSA and DOJ actually were. I don’t tote water for Trump but I do care about our laws starting with NSA, FBI, spying and illegal FISA renewals.

 

[Kantarii]

^^^
Bullshit liar.

I bet you wish you could produce an ounce of evidence of such, eh?

He’s working hard to sell that BS story