Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.  Otherwise a president, any president, who likewise legitimately directs a government agency to investigate something where there is associate political fallout, could be accused of an impeachable offense.   So a president would be prevented from operating in his constitutionally granted powers. 

In other words, if Biden wasn't running for president, would it have been proper for a president to call for his investigation because there appears to be some corruption going on and hold back money (quid-pro-quo) from the country until they agreed to investigate?  If there answer is yes, then there can be no violation of the constitution. 

[Alan Klein]

At least in America, impeachment is done with decorum, more or less.  In France, they're rioting in the streets against President Macron.  He is probably jealous that he can't get impeached like Trump. 
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/785018695/national-strike-in-france-shuts-down-cities-over-macrons-pension-reform-plans

[Alan Klein]

Biden's already dropping more in the newest California polls today.  What's going to happen when people start asking questions about him and his son;s involvement in the Ukraine fiasco once the impeachment trial begins in the senate. 
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-05/democrats-2020-race-california-poll

[D Fuller]

I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

That's not hedging. That's exactly their reason for being called: do help define what an impeachable offense would be, not to opine about whether one has been committed. The language of the constitution is archaic. Phrases like "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant something quite specific in the 1780s, but what tose phrases meant then is not self-evident now. It was not, in anyone's imagination, their job to determine--or even to opine about--whether an impeachable offense was committed.

[BernardLanguillier]

I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

Yes, you are correct.

They answered the question they were being asked.

What needs to be done next is to combine their clear answer with the obvious answers provided earlier by witnesses under oath that Trump indeed did what he is being accused of.

The logical result is the impeachment.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.  Otherwise a president, any president, who likewise legitimately directs a government agency to investigate something where there is associate political fallout, could be accused of an impeachable offense.   So a president would be prevented from operating in his constitutionally granted powers. 

In other words, if Biden wasn't running for president, would it have been proper for a president to call for his investigation because there appears to be some corruption going on and hold back money (quid-pro-quo) from the country until they agreed to investigate?  If there answer is yes, then there can be no violation of the constitution.

Alan,

You make me think of this man who keeps claiming that 1+1=3, hoping that after all the other sane people around him die he’ll finally be right...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

The law professors called by the Democrat opposition party, at least some of them, did opine that Trump committed an impeachable offense.  They acted like a jury listening to  evidence presented by the prosecution with no formal rebuttal or cross-examination.  Neither was the president allowed to call his own witnesses to defend himself.  It is a Star Chamber hearing where the prosecution is also the judge and jury.  The law professors should have their licenses to practice law revoked for allowing themselves to be sucked into a political lynching.   See how they condemned the president about 2/3 down the page.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html

We'll see how they'll squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans who will run the Senate trial play the same games as the Democrats did in the House.    Then you'll hear them complain about how one-sided the trial was.  All phonies. 

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

You make me think of this man who keeps claiming that 1+1=3, hoping that after all the other sane people around him die he’ll finally be right...

Cheers,
Bernard

The Bidens may be guilty of what the Democrats are calling the president guilty of.  Bribery.  VP Biden's son receive $50K a month for a no show job in Ukraine and his father got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the company his son was working for.  1+1=2. 

[BernardLanguillier]

The law professors called by the Democrat opposition party, at least some of them, did opine that Trump committed an impeachable offense.  They acted like a jury listening to  evidence presented by the prosecution with no formal rebuttal or cross-examination.  Neither was the president allowed to call his own witnesses to defend himself.  It is a Star Chamber hearing where the prosecution is also the judge and jury.  The law professors should have their licenses to practice law revoked for allowing themselves to be sucked into a political lynching.   See how they condemned the president about 2/3 down the page.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html

We'll see how they'll squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans who will run the Senate trial play the same games as the Democrats did in the House.    Then you'll hear them complain about how one-sided the trial was.  All phonies.

Again, more circular thinking from you Alan.

As I predicted your own bias according to which everyone acts according to political motives is shaping your views of the world and confirming your bias in the kind of endless loops that sends planes crashing to the ground.

In the process you are calling your own country corrupt to the core without even realizing it.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Again, more circular thinking from you Alan.

As I predicted your own bias according to which everyone acts according to political motives is shaping your views of the world and confirming your bias in the kind of endless loops that sends planes crashing to the ground.

In the process you are calling your own country corrupt to the core without even realizing it.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, You don;t understand the adversarial relationship.  It exists in legal applications as well in political situations.  It's biased but that doesn't make it corrupt.  You expect a prosecutor to provide jurors with his side of the issue.  The defense provides the opposite side and the jurors decide.  Likewise in political forums like Congress or parliament.  Adversarial relations are normal, not corrupt.  It only becomes corrupt when the standards of fair play, a level playing field,  are removed like in a dictatorship.   We see that happening currently in a Democrat controlled House regarding impeachment.  We may see it it in a Republican controlled Senate during a trial, although the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who's supposed to act non-politically, will preside.  If too many games are played by either side, the voters will get their say in the matter during an election.  So they are the ultimate deciders of fairness and will decide if anyone oversteps the bounds of acting too corrupt.  Additionally, some complain a biased press corrupts the process as well.  Hopefully, the people see through its bias.  But I'm not convinced if that as of yet. 

The American system of government is probably less corrupt than most systems because of its built-in divisions of authority between the president, Congress and the courts with voters having the final say.

[James Clark]

The Bidens may be guilty of what the Democrats are calling the president guilty of.  Bribery.  VP Biden's son receive $50K a month for a no show job in Ukraine and his father got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the company his son was working for.  1+1=2.

I don’t know of a single serious analysis that claims that this is remotely what happened. Why do you keep repeating it?

[Alan Klein]

James,  Here's VP Joe Biden bragging about how he threatened Ukraine officials that the president (Obama) would withhold money for Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor, exactly what the Democrats accuse Trump of doing.  It's biased that the press doesn't have this in the news every day.  Well, the Republicans will get their chance when the trial is held in the Senate.  Here's the transcript of what Biden said.  You can see the video when you click on the link.

"JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. 

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

Bravo and thank you.

[JoeKitchen]

If I was Buttigieg right now, I'd be happier then a kid in a candy store. 

Lets face it, Biden is done!  He and Hunter will be called to testify, and regardless if what he did was legal, it reeks of cronyism, and the American people are tired of cronyism in politics.  This, combined with his ever increasing gaffs (such as sucking on his wife's finger during a campaign press event or talking about 7 year olds bouncing on his lap brushing his wet leg hairs down), his campaign is over. 

Then, since McConnell has already stated he will be making this a long trial and the trial will more then likely be January through March, all of the remaining strong Dem candidates, who are senators, will be pulled off the campaign trail during the most important part of the primary. 

One more thing, democrats really don't like billionaires telling them what to do. 

It is now Buttigieg's primary to loose. 

Of course Trump will benefit greatly from this as well. 

Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.  This means, out of all the witnesses called by the Dems, only one witness will be able to testify during the trial, Sondland.  All others testified on hearsay and conjecture.  Then, with Trump calling Schiff and the whistleblower, and the Bidens, he will be able to present his case against a pretty weak case brought forth by the Dems.  Considering how the Dems have been reversing on the whistleblower, this testimony will play to the idea this was a Dem coup all along. 

This combined with the fact the Dems have not passed a single major piece of legislation will kill the Dems chances of keeping the house.  I know a lot of Union people, who typically vote for Dems, that voted for Trump last time around, and all of whom are pissed the USMCA bill is just collecting dust on Pelosi's desk for months now. 

They should have voted for a censure, and then got legislation passed so they have something to campaign on.  This would have put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.  If the Republicans voted no, they would look like hypocrits, and if they voted yes, they would have felt Trump's wrath, separated the party and been primaried.  Politically, censure was the winning play; impeachment is the loosing play. 

[Rob C]

Bravo and thank you.

Lawyers are always cagey with their pronouncements; they don't want to risk blame of prejudice, or error, so they wait for events to unfold for them, and then pounce. As they will.

Don't give yourself a premature congratulation.

:-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

the American people are tired of cronyism in politics.   

Then, since McConnell has already stated he will be making this a long trial and the trial will more then likely be January through March, all of the remaining strong Dem candidates, who are senators, will be pulled off the campaign trail during the most important part of the primary. 

Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell.  there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment.  There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.

Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.  This means, out of all the witnesses called by the Dems, only one witness will be able to testify during the trial, Sondland.  All others testified on hearsay and conjecture.  Then, with Trump calling Schiff and the whistleblower, and the Bidens, he will be able to present his case against a pretty weak case brought forth by the Dems.  Considering how the Dems have been reversing on the whistleblower, this testimony will play to the idea this was a Dem coup all along. 

Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture.  I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time.  We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so.  If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate.  Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.

[JoeKitchen]

Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell.  there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment.  There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture.  I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time.  We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so.  If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate.  Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.

Thing about McConnell, you may know this, I may know this, but his actions are not getting the same amount of scrutiny as Biden's or Trump's.  So, really, you're beating a horse that's not going anywhere. 

Agree with you about Bolton; he could totally change things up for either side.  He is the wildcard. 

An added point on the impeachment points.  I have to agree with Turley (who by all intents and purposes is a democrat) that you cant say a president is not above the law and then not be able to show what laws he broke.  So I am interested in seeing exactly what the points are. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

At least in America, impeachment is done with decorum, more or less.  In France, they're rioting in the streets against President Macron.

An alternative is a guilotine, or an assasination like on John F. Kennedy .

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.

Which is the whole point you keep missing, only an announcement of an investigation was requested (and the text for the announcement was provided), and the announcement was planned to be broadcast on CNN. on Fareed Zakaria's "Global Public Square". The sole purpose was to create doubt about Biden's credibility as a political opponent.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.

The Republicans may want to brush up their understanding of what "hearsay" is.

This combined with the fact the Dems have not passed a single major piece of legislation will kill the Dems chances of keeping the house.  I know a lot of Union people, who typically vote for Dems, that voted for Trump last time around, and all of whom are pissed the USMCA bill is just collecting dust on Pelosi's desk for months now.

 

Time to compare with the height of the pile of legislation on Moscow Mitch's desk...