Impeaching Donald Trump

[James Clark]

Insofar as the tactics Pelosi has employed thus far, I am in agreement with you, I cant possibly understand why she is doing what she is doing.  Especially with her leaving for the holidays without sending the impeachment articles.  I have no idea what leverage she thinks she has with McConnell, but there does not appear to any.  Plus McConnell is perfectly happy without getting the articles and needing to spend time on a trial. 

Ah, but THIS part makes perfect sense.  McConnell and others have already publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial on the facts.  I think in this case she's actually being straightforward - why send it over when she knows the process is rigged?  And Graham and McConnell gave her the perfect opening.

As for judges, there's not much anyone can due thanks to the way the system is set up.  Again, we know McConnell has no use for non-statutory "rules" or tradition if it stands in his way, so there's not much the Dems can do on that front.  Even so, some of Trump's nominations are *still* getting rejected because they're so horrid.  That's kinda scary.

[James Clark]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Sorry - public school educated... Gotta Google that.  BRB. 

[Frans Waterlander]

Sorry - public school educated... Gotta Google that.  BRB. 

"What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously"

[Robert Roaldi]

I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.

https://www.axios.com/christianity-today-evangelicals-supports-impeachment-92956ccb-241c-48d7-bad3-d3e4ddd2d64d.html

Ha, turns out they are a "far left" magazine and have been "doing poorly", according to Trump's dismissal of them as reported on "thehill.com" https://thehill.com/homenews/news/475445-trump-attacks-christianity-today-over-bruising-editorial, so not worth listening to.

[Peter McLennan]

Those commies are still at it? Blabbering about the future without billionaires, planes, and kids?

Yet another example of a valuable contribution to the discussion.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yet another example of a valuable contribution to the discussion.

When the discussion becomes valuable, so will my contribution.

[Chris Kern]

As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress.  Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court.  This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.

Actually, no.  Recipients of congressional subpoenas that are issued for a valid legislative purpose―which would include an impeachment investigation in the House of Representatives or a trial in the Senate―are legally required to comply with them.

The federal court proceedings you refer to are enforcement mechanisms used in those relatively rare instances where recipients fail to respond to congressional subpoenas.  These can take the form of criminal prosecutions initiated at the request of Congress by a federal attorney or, more commonly, civil actions in which Congress asks the courts to use their inherent contempt power to force compliance.  During these court proceedings, recipients of subpoenas may assert any defenses or legal privileges they believe may apply.  In theory, Congress can directly order the arrest of individuals who defy its subpoenas, although it has not exercised that authority in the modern era.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Leave it to Karla Marx to explain what the impeachment is really about (and, of course, she is stupid enough not to realize Democrats shouldn’t be saying it publicly):

[Alan Klein]

Your words, not mine. My view is that they are mostly very poorly informed by the media outlet they are following.

They are kept in the dark.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's funny.  It's exactly what I think of people on the left.

[faberryman]

That's funny.  It's exactly what I think of people on the left.

You are so far to the right, even people on the right are to the left of you, which really limits the number of media you deem not fake news.

[James Clark]

Leave it to Karla Marx to explain what the impeachment is really about (and, of course, she is stupid enough not to realize Democrats shouldn’t be saying it publicly):

Of course, she's a tyro.  A naif.  A veritable ingenue. 

It takes stupidity and arrogance baked in over decades to announce your blatant disregard for the Constitution proudly and loudly

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-senate-trial-not-impartial-juror

[Alan Klein]

The full Christianity Today editorial is interesting.  It argues, inter alia, that

And while it urges evangelical Christians to abandon Trump, and explicitly calls for his removal from office, the editorial is (pardon the expression) agnostic about the best way to do this:

While Trump remains quite popular among potential voters who identify themselves as Republicans, the support of many of his more prominent defenders has always been a matter of expedience—a transactional arrangement, as the news commentators like to point out, where they put up with his often bizarre behavior and contempt for facts and the law in return for specific policy or political objectives.  In the case of the evangelicals, the most important of these has been the nomination of "conservative" federal judges who, they hope, will reverse the secular trend of recent appellate rulings on issues such as abortion and gay rights.  There is a similar implicit bargain, no doubt, among many Republican members of Congress, including senators who will vote on whether to remove him from office assuming an impeachment trial takes place, who reportedly revile him in private but support him publicly so as not to offend his core populist supporters, whose defection could threaten their own continuance in office.  If I were religious, myself, I'd be tempted to say they have made a pact with the devil.

So major parties in parliamentary countries like yours join forces with communists and fascists to get a majority in parliament. So evangelicals support a sinful man who is sinful like Hillary Clinton and the rest of us because he otherwise supports policies they agree with him on.   Politics make strange bedfellows.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...blatant disregard for the Constitution...

Which article or part of the Constitution he would be disregarding?

[Alan Klein]

I'm a bit shocked to see you say this. There is a lot of private capital all over the world and there always has been, nothing uniquely American about that. Th US implemented explicit separation of executive and judicial powers, permitted individual freedom (sort of, in fits and starts), structured things so that upward mobility was not unduly hampered although access to very cheap new land helped a lot with that (made conveniently cheap because you chose not to pay market rates for the land opting instead for indigenous genocide but that discussion is for another day). In the past you have expressed repeated reverence for the constitution so I'm surprised that you now express the idea that rich people make you great.

Private Capital comes from poor and middle class as well as Rich. When you take part of your savings and put it in the bank for savings account, that money goes to capital for companies and corporations to be used to expand their businesses or stay them. Likewise when have a retirement plan and buy stock. That's capital for is for corporations. The idea that Starbucks started as a huge corporation from very rich people is silly. It started small with very small private investments. Then grew big. That's how capital and private wealth grows. People don't start off rich. private Capital comes from you and middle class as well as rich.

[Alan Klein]

Joe,

Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions

The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard

The impeachment looks and is political because the Democrats have been trying to impeach him for 3 years long before the Ukrainian issue even came up. So that's why people are ignoring what the Democrats are trying to do on the Republican side. They see it is strictly political which is what it is.


It's not an impeachable offense in any case since it really doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Basically it's political hijinks The impeachment looks and is political because the Democrats have been trying to impeach him for 3 years long before the Ukrainian issue even came up. So that's why people are ignoring with the Democrats are trying to do on the Republican side. Thanks see it is strictly political which is what it is. It's not an inpeachable offence in any case since it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes in misdemeanors. Basically is political hijinks not much different than when Obama use the IRS to go after conservative organizations. He wasn't impeached and nobody even recommended he should be impeached for that. These things should be decided in elections.

[James Clark]

Which article or part of the Constitution he would be disregarding?

The part I just made up, apparently  . (But he is wantonly violating is oath of office.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  (But he is wantonly violating is oath of office.)

He (Mitch) should be impeached then 

[Kevin Gallagher]

The Time Seems About Right For this...

 

[JoeKitchen]

Ah, but THIS part makes perfect sense.  McConnell and others have already publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial on the facts.  I think in this case she's actually being straightforward - why send it over when she knows the process is rigged?  And Graham and McConnell gave her the perfect opening.

No offense, but have you lost your mind? 

I cant imagine a worse way to screw the pooch on this.  Setting aside the fact that I am not for impeachment and feel it is only going to hurt the Dems (as opposed to censure that would have probably helped them), this creates so many headaches. 

First, think about how this would have played if they followed procedure.  Presumably they would have spent Thursday deciding on who the managers would be and organized delivery for Friday.  Doing so would have kept the noise to a minimum from distracting from the debate and gave Republicans the least amount of time to organized and respond before going on break.  Trump would then need to spend the next two weeks defending himself and mounting his legal response.  Then, the Dems in the safe districts could have went home and crowed about how they impeached the president.  I still feel it would have been a disaster for the swing district Dems though. 

This, on the other hand, is an unmitigated catastrophe.  Withholding the articles apparently pissed off Noah Feldman (one of the legal scholars the Dems called to testify) so much so he penned an article in Bloomberg News that Trump really has not been impeached yet.  Although there is a legal debate if impeachment happens after the vote or after the articles are delivered, it still means the Dems really cant fully brag about impeaching Trump yet.  On top of that, this completely plays into Trump's narrative that the impeachment is nothing but a partisan scam from the Do Nothing Dems and every other Republican talking point.  Add to that that congress is not in session and not making any noise, meaning any political news coming out of DC will be what Trump wants it to be.  He is going to dominate the news cycle with this for two weeks, as opposed to having to defend himself.  Furthermore, Republicans are now not under any pressure to organize yet (or not as much) and can enjoy the holiday while also tweeting about the Do Nothing Dems.  And on top of this, the swing district Dems are still just as screwed.  Last, this little stunt really has no leverage what so ever over McConnell and ensures he can just chug along at getting judges approved. 

It is a really kind of interesting watching such a shrewd politician fall from grace.  Pelosi's legacy is going to be loosing the house while ensuring Trump's re-election. 

[Rob C]

Joe, if you believe all of that, you should give up the snaps and become a full-time spin doctor for Mr T.

:-)