Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

I just learned that Bloomberg is 77 years old, about the same age as Bernie and Biden.  Maybe we can elect all three of them.  Then, they could take turns.  Two days on, 4 days off to rest up. 

[LesPalenik]

Mayor Bloomberg with Mayor Pete as a running mate?

[Alan Klein]

Mayor Bloomberg with Mayor Pete as a running mate?

I wouldn't use the word "mate".  People might get ideas. 

[LesPalenik]

Indeed, could be a touchy situation.

[JoeKitchen]

Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress. 

A couple days after the whistle blower met with Schiff's staff, but a month before the report became public, Yovanovitch was emailed by a Democratic congressional staffer about meeting to discuss "time sensitive issues."  When asked in congress under oath she claimed she never responded to the email. 

It was just found out she did respond and said she looked forward to the meeting.  Nice. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Indeed, could be a touchy situation.

 

[JoeKitchen]

The Dems desperately need this be about the 2020 election, because if it was about 2016 corruption, they have nothing.  Schiff is shrewd enough to know this. 

The President and Republicans have been claiming for months this is all a coordinated effort to take down Trump.  Schiff lying several times about having contact with the whistleblower just adds to this defense, but the Dems have been good at mitigating it.  However, now that one of their key witnesses who is claiming it was about the 2020 election was just caught not only lying to congress but it has also come to light she most likely met with Dems before this even went public. 

If it was an innocent meeting, why lie about it ... to congress ... under oath? 

This will only add to the Republican claim that this whole thing is coordinated with fabricated testimony and evidence.  Schiff could be facing an impeachment investigation of his own soon. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

So multi-billionaire, three term ex-Mayor of NYC. Michael Bloomberg,  throws his hat in the Democrat ring for nomination to president of the US.  It's getting more interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSKBN1XH2X0

Someone who is also older than me and perhaps you.  Thanks, but no thanks!!!

[James Clark]

The Dems desperately need this be about the 2020 election, because if it was about 2016 corruption, they have nothing.  Schiff is shrewd enough to know this. 

The President and Republicans have been claiming for months this is all a coordinated effort to take down Trump.  Schiff lying several times about having contact with the whistleblower just adds to this defense, but the Dems have been good at mitigating it.  However, now that one of their key witnesses who is claiming it was about the 2020 election was just caught not only lying to congress but it has also come to light she most likely met with Dems before this even went public. 

If it was an innocent meeting, why lie about it ... to congress ... under oath? 

This will only add to the Republican claim that this whole thing is coordinated with fabricated testimony and evidence.  Schiff could be facing an impeachment investigation of his own soon.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sure seem to have a double standard about what constitutes unacceptable behavior for Democrats and unacceptable behavior for the Trumpers.  I gave the example earlier, but I'll repeat - on one and you have a cheating spouse, but you're seemingly more concerned with the horror of the other spouse reading the cheater's text messages.

I don't get it.  You're making the "If it's innocent, why lie?" but totally ignoring that this administration is, literally, refusing legal, Constitutionally tried and tested oversight, and claiming that the executive is above the law.  Yet you persist in attacking the Democrats because a third party may have come to them with information.

What if a Schiff staffer had said, in response to an allegation of wrongdoing inside the administration,  "If it's what you say it is, I LOVE it.." then taken a meeting and lied about that.  Is that ok?  If not, why?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress. 

As one who has testified on a half dozen occasions to various Congressional committees (twice under oath as that was the tradition of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee under John Dingell) I never told a lie!!!

[JoeKitchen]

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sure seem to have a double standard about what constitutes unacceptable behavior for Democrats and unacceptable behavior for the Trumpers.  I gave the example earlier, but I'll repeat - on one and you have a cheating spouse, but you're seemingly more concerned with the horror of the other spouse reading the cheater's text messages.

I don't get it.  You're making the "If it's innocent, why lie?" but totally ignoring that this administration is, literally, refusing legal, Constitutionally tried and tested oversight, and claiming that the executive is above the law.  Yet you persist in attacking the Democrats because a third party may have come to them with information.

What if a Schiff staffer had said, in response to an allegation of wrongdoing inside the administration,  "If it's what you say it is, I LOVE it.." then taken a meeting and lied about that.  Is that ok?  If not, why?

At no where did I say I excuse Trump's behavior. 

I am merely pointing out that one of the key witnesses that the Dems are hanging this on was just caught lying under oath.  It is a very big deal.

Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.  This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal.  Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.  This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal.  Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet.

But he is not above the law.

It only makes it a bit harder to prove wrongdoing if the administration were not so incompetent.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress. 

I will take this seriously when there is a second source other than Tucker Carlson who is in the words of Ford Maddox Ford, "...an unreliable narrator..."  [note:  the term was coined by literary critic Wayne Booth and there are numerous literary examples.  My favorite and hence the use above is Ford's "The Good Soldier", a book well worth reading and is free on Project Guttenburg.]

[James Clark]

At no where did I say I excuse Trump's behavior. 

I am merely pointing out that one of the key witnesses that the Dems are hanging this on was just caught lying under oath.  It is a very big deal.

I agree.  I'm just noting that you seem less than convinced that equivalent behavior amongst Republicans is a "very big deal."  You basically blew off the fact that Sondland totally changed his testimony a few days back, which is undeniably a much bigger deal than Tucker Carlson claiming that Yavanovich maybe tipped off Democrats to what was, regardless of her reporting it or not, seriously questionable behavior.   

Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.  This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal.  Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet.

It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, but whatever.  Besides, my point is more that you are attaching the "if it doesn't matter, why lie" to Dems, but blowing off the "if it doesn't matter, why create a Constitutional crisis" issue that comes from ignoring the House's duly authorized subpoenas.   Yes, Executive priveledge exists, but blanket immunity for everyone, everywhere, at the whim of the President, doesn't.  And that's basically what's being claimed.  (As per some of the arguments that have come before the court already.)

[Alan Klein]

I agree.  I'm just noting that you seem less than convinced that equivalent behavior amongst Republicans is a "very big deal."  You basically blew off the fact that Sondland totally changed his testimony a few days back, which is undeniably a much bigger deal than Tucker Carlson claiming that Yavanovich maybe tipped off Democrats to what was, regardless of her reporting it or not, seriously questionable behavior.   

It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, but whatever.  Besides, my point is more that you are attaching the "if it doesn't matter, why lie" to Dems, but blowing off the "if it doesn't matter, why create a Constitutional crisis" issue that comes from ignoring the House's duly authorized subpoenas.   Yes, Executive priveledge exists, but blanked immunity for everyone, everywhere, at the whim of the President, doesn't.  And that's basically what's being claimed.  (As per some of the arguments that have come before the court already.)

Considering the two years of angst and charges of treason Trump was put through by the Democrats with the phony Russia collusion charge, and other politically tinged charges, he should take every legal defense to protect himself.  Why should  he or we take lightly another charge by the Democrats whose only stated purpose all along is to reverse the 2016 election when Trump was constitutionally and duly elected president?  Enough already.  Vote him out of office next year.  Stop with phony baloney stuff already.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Considering the two years of angst and charges of treason Trump was put through by the Democrats with the phony Russia collusion charge,[...]

Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As one who has testified on a half dozen occasions to various Congressional committees (twice under oath as that was the tradition of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee under John Dingell) I never told a lie!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSklX1Hs324

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.

1. Not a single one for reasons that would implicate Trump
2. Stop it already. It doesn't take two years to come to that conclusion, it was well known even before the inquiry.

[James Clark]

Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.

To add to this, remember also that the Mueller investigation *wasn't about Trump* and *wasn't initiated by Democrats.* It was to investigate Russian interference in the election process (which was definitively found), and Trump and his people met the definition for obstruction of that investigation 6 times, and also were *aware of* Russian interference but it could not be proved that they *participated in* said interference.

[Chris Kern]

Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.

It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, . . .

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Nixon involved a claim of privilege asserted with respect to documents subject to a subpoena issued in a criminal proceeding.  The unanimous decision rejected the president's claim of privilege in that context, and the Court's reasoning was explicitly based on the needs of the criminal justice system.

It's not clear whether the same balancing of equities between the need to comply with a validly-issued subpoena and the president's need to be able to receive advice in confidence would apply to a subpoena issued by a congressional committee in the course of an impeachment investigation or what additional issues, specific to impeachments, the courts would need to consider.  The decision in the Nixon case certainly is an important precedent, but it would not necessarily be controlling.