Impeaching Donald Trump

[Peter McLennan]

“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"

The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.

[Alan Klein]

“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"

The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.

The problem was that the jury in the House was made up of Democrats, apparently sworn to destroy Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.

[James Clark]

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.

Absolutely and completely incorrect. 

Federalist #65 establishes that impeachment is a proper recourse for violation of the public trust, that the phrasing and the model are informed by the basis of English common law, and is prescient in addressing the exact problem we see today:

Quoth Publius

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Continued...

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Look, then, to the impeachment process and usage of "high crimes" in English common law.  Time has a nice overview.

The concept of impeachment was used by the British Parliament as early as 1376, as a legislative safeguard against overreach by the aristocracy, and the terms in question were part of the process early on.

“In England a lot of the impeachment cases had relied on this language of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ from the 1640s onward,” Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, explains.

But the phrase didn’t have a set definition in British practice; it was used to describe whatever thing the person was being impeached for, according to Bowman. There were several things for which people were impeached during this era: ordinary crimes, treason, corruption, abuse of power, ordinary incompetence and misbehavior in relation to foreign policy. Notably, the King could not be impeached.

Later, we can see the process by which this concept was adapted into the US Constitution:

When the framers of the U.S. Constitution realized they needed a way to remove executive officials who abused the nature of their positions, they decided to add a definition for an impeachable offense. Though many suggestions were made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, by the end of the summer they’d winnowed it down to two examples: treason and bribery.

But George Mason of Virginia took issue with limiting it to the two definitions, arguing they were too narrow. At the same time the Constitution was being drafted, newspapers were covering the impeachment of a statesman named Warren Hastings for misconduct during his time the Governor General of India. Mason pointed out that under their current definition, Hasting wouldn’t be impeachable. Mason suggest they broaden the definition to include “maladministration,” meaning mismanagement or ineffective governance. James Madison argued back that the word would be too broad, and make it so the President would be serving at the “pleasure of the Senate.” He worried Senators could remove the President if they disliked a policy move.

George Mason then proposed including the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead, and that’s the term they settled on.

[Peter McLennan]

The problem was, there were several witnesses who delivered corroborated, sworn testimony implicating Trump of crimes, including a type of bribery (QPP) and abuse of power.

Mulvaney copped to the QPP on television, realized his error and recanted what he said on the video recordings.  How much proof do you need?

Later, he effected obstruction of Congress by refusing to release documentation and continues to do so.

Despite Slobodan's partly valid excuse of "innocent until proven guilty", you can't in your wildest dreams call the Senate shenanigans a fair trial.  Withholding evidence remains a crime.

You're okay with this stuff?  You really think this is "all just politics"?  You really think he's innocent? 

Or are you just playing politics yourselves?

[James Clark]

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.

See what I wrote above.  This concern is specifically why "high crimes and misdemeanors" language is used.  As with some other instances, the Founders left it vague, sometimes intentionally (in my opinion). 

[faberryman]

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.

I know that you don't like to educate yourself by reading about a topic before pronouncing on it, but a perusal of Federalist 65 will show that you are mistaken.

[JoeKitchen]

“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"

The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.

Why would a prosecution rush through an inquiry, and then expect the judge and jury to find evidence to help him out? 

[JoeKitchen]

The problem was, there were several witnesses who delivered corroborated, sworn testimony implicating Trump of crimes, including a type of bribery (QPP) and abuse of power.

Mulvaney copped to the QPP on television, realized his error and recanted what he said on the video recordings.  How much proof do you need?

Later, he effected obstruction of Congress by refusing to release documentation and continues to do so.

Despite Slobodan's partly valid excuse of "innocent until proven guilty", you can't in your wildest dreams call the Senate shenanigans a fair trial.  Withholding evidence remains a crime.

You're okay with this stuff?  You really think this is "all just politics"?  You really think he's innocent? 

Or are you just playing politics yourselves?

Annnnd ... no. 

Mulvaney was making the point that all foreign affairs involve a QPQ, like every single one.  And the vast majority of the time, it is not illegal. 

Furthermore, the President is allowed to claim privilege and deny the house documents as he sees fit.  This is not obstruction, but regularly excepted practice by the courts.  Now, if the house disagrees, they can then take the President to court and argue their case, which they did not do.  It is only after a judge rules in favor of the house and president still refuses, that it become obstruction. 

In this case, since the house refused to argue any subpoenas in court, Trump can not be legally guilty of obstruction.  They even went so far as to retract Bolton's subpoena after Bolton himself went to court to see if he could testify. 

[Peter McLennan]

Preposterous bafflegab.  Mulvaney said what he said.  Go and review the tape if you like.


Even the Government Accountability Office called the aid-withholding a crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-government-watchdog-says-trump-illegally-withheld-aid-to-ukraine-2020-1

[JoeKitchen]

Preposterous bafflegab.  Mulvaney said what he said.  Go and review the tape if you like.


Even the Government Accountability Office called the aid-withholding a crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-government-watchdog-says-trump-illegally-withheld-aid-to-ukraine-2020-1

Nope.  Mulvaney was making the point all foreign affairs have QPQs.  Always have, always will.  Your TDS is just keeping you from looking at what he said objectively. 

Insofar as the GAO, please.  The GAO said in 2018 Trump broke the law keeping the National Parks open during the shut down.  I guess the Dems were a year late taking out the very dangerous Trump for allowing people to visit our parks. 

The GAO said Obama broke the law with the Bo Bergdahl trade.  I guess Obama should have been impeached too. 

You guys have a weak case, and you know it.  That is why the Dems keep on calling for the Senate to get them more evidence and testimony.  You cant have a strong case but still need more evidence; it's a basic contradiction. 

The Dems rushed through the inquiry, did not do their work, and are now expecting the Republicans to do for them.  Tough.  Either except you did a bad job, or go back back to the House and start a new fact finding inquiry. 

[JoeKitchen]

Okay, so I think we can all get a laugh out of this one. 

Lawmakers only allowed to drink milk, water on the Senate floor

[Rob C]

Has Trump gone yet?

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Has Trump gone yet?

Dream on 🙃

[LesPalenik]

Has Trump gone yet?
:-)

He's gone from Davos.

[PeterAit]

Okay, so I think we can all get a laugh out of this one. 

Lawmakers only allowed to drink milk, water on the Senate floor

Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !

[JoeKitchen]

Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !

White Russians?   

[RSL]

Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !

Peter, as a psychiatrist are you still handing out free diagnoses? If so you might want to give us one on Schiff. The question is, can he be gotten under control with medication or will it require confinement?

[JoeKitchen]

I think Senator Cruz put it that best, "if you have the facts, you bang the facts, if you have the law, you bang the law, and if you dont have either, you bang the table! ... we've seen a whole lot of table banging." 

Man, so many great Billy C. jokes here. 

[Martin Kristiansen]

I think Senator Cruz put it that best, "if you have the facts, you bang the facts, if you have the law, you bang the law, and if you dont have either, you bang the table! ... we've seen a whole lot of table banging." 

Man, so many great Billy C. jokes here.

And if all you have is Stormy Daniels? 

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. If just popped into my mind.

[JoeKitchen]

And if all you have is Stormy Daniels? 

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. If just popped into my mind.

Get ready to learn new maneuvers.