Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What real men think of Tump. Not metrosexuals, and the alphabet soup of freaks.

[kers]

Of course. When the country is the size of a post stamp, it doesn’t take that many years to walk around and get to know all the aspects of it (there aren't that many to begin with, due to a more homogeneous religious, racial, ethnic, etc. culture).

So I understand that if your country is small it takes less time to walk from border to border;
With some big nations it may take a lifetime to walk from border to border.
After doing that you are fit to lead the country...

[Alan Klein]

Four minute portion of an interview of Donald Trump when he was 34 during the Iranian hostage situation.  He  comments on the presidency, who would make a good leader, and also his feelings about the American hostages taken by Iran back then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAgJAxkALyc

[PeterAit]

Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/us/politics/trump-impeachment-legal-defense.html

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial...

If only legal scholars would be relevant for the political impeachment.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial.

Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.

Jeremy

There's money to be made on both sides! 'Twas ever thus.

;-)

[Jeremy Roussak]

There's money to be made on both sides!

And damned glad I am of it, too.

Jeremy

[Peter McLennan]

I'd like to hear <insert usual suspects here>  defend the White House refusal to release documentation and to permit informed witness testimony.

If the records show that they're innocent, isn't it in their interest to produce those records?

[James Clark]

Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.

Jeremy

Let's not "both sides"this...  To be fair, Trump or no Trump, MOST without a direct interest argue that statutory crimes are not required for impeachment, and historically that argument matches with the available primary, contemporary (1789-era) writings and the *likely* concerns of my nation's founders (a subject I hold a degree in).  I have yet to see a counter argument that argues otherwise with any support from foundational documents.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'd like to hear <insert usual suspects here>  defend the White House refusal to release documentation and to permit informed witness testimony.

If the records show that they're innocent, isn't it in their interest to produce those records?

The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.

[Alan Klein]

The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.

Nonsense.  That's a modern civilized procedure that won't get the results we want. We should place the accused Trump on the rack and stretch him until he begs for mercy and admits his guilt.   If it worked in the 14th century,  it should work now.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... To be fair, Trump or no Trump, MOST without a direct interest argue that statutory crimes are not required for impeachment...

Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.

[faberryman]

Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.

Asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political rival isn't enough for most Americans? Obviously not the conservatives, but most Americans?

[James Clark]

Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.

Agreed.  And certainly I'm no staunch originalist, (In fact, I think I've made the argument somewhere before on here that I find strict originalism patently ridiculous), so the idea that the reason for impeachment needs to be congruent with modern sensibilities isn't that big of a stretch for me in a general sense.   

Thing is, I think Trump's behavior easily reaches this standard.  Others disagree

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political rival...

This, of course, I just your opinion. I do not agree that's what happened.

[faberryman]

This, of course, I just your opinion. I do not agree that's what happened.

I didn't expect you to agree with me. I just don't buy the argument that choosing Joe Biden as the only person to investigate for corruption was a pure coincidence.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I didn't expect you to agree with me. I just don't buy the argument that choosing Joe Biden as the only person to investigate for corruption was a pure coincidence.

As is firing a single government official as the only person responsible for corruption in Ukraine.

[Alan Klein]

The argument that no crime has to have been committed is in opposition to the Constitution.  It's false and an argument used by the Democrats and those opposed to Trump to justify a political impeachment that had no basis as a crime, which is required.

The constitutional phrase says impeachment is for :"...Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."   The text uses the word crimes.  What could be clearer?  It also compares High crimes to Treason and Bribery which are crimes.  These are serious offenses and crimes that could lead to execution in the case of Treason.   Sure, Congress can do what it wants.  That doesn't mean they are conforming with the intent and specification of the Constitution. 

[Alan Klein]

Bottom line is the Senate should dismiss the impeachment based on the fact that it did not specify a crime.  This is important for the future. Otherwise, we will have political impeachments every time the congress and the presidents are from different parties or whenever congress feels that it;s a good idea to impeach.  There would be no standards.  By drawing a line now, the Senate will prevent stupid impeachments in the future.  Otherwise we're going to face this as a regular situation which is very destructive to the democratic process.  That's why we have elections.