Impeaching Donald Trump

[PeterAit]

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

You have an odd definition of "rush." The inquiry was officially opened on Sept 24. In Oct the three committees involved started deposing witnesses and gathering (or requesting) other evidence. On Dec 16 the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment and on the 18th the full house voted to send them to the Senate. This is rushing?

[Peter McLennan]

It would appear that it’s the Republicans who are doing all the rushing.

[JoeKitchen]

You have an odd definition of "rush." The inquiry was officially opened on Sept 24. In Oct the three committees involved started deposing witnesses and gathering (or requesting) other evidence. On Dec 16 the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment and on the 18th the full house voted to send them to the Senate. This is rushing?

Well then, since they did such a thorough job, I guess they don’t need to worry about new evidence or testimony. 

[JoeKitchen]

It would appear that it’s the Republicans who are doing all the rushing.

wait until Bloomberg and Steyer start rising in the polls and Bernie, Warren and Biden start going down. 

[Rob C]

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.

 


Of course, but how does any of that relate to the refusal to allow your own cats to mew in court? It doesn't, as you obviously know.

Rob

[Rob C]

He's gone from Davos.

Oh good, it's a start!

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh good, it's a start!

:-)

Yes, it is the beginning of his next five years as our President.

[Rob C]

Oh good, it's a start!

He was socking it to the fundamentalists today in the abortion argument; I was most taken by a blonde behind him with constantly shining teeth and a red coat. They all looked so happy as he looked so seriously earnest as he blew his achievements trumpet. It's sure to get him elected again. Ayatollahs take note: you need more chicks on show.

:-)

[Rob C]

Yes, it is the beginning of his next five years as our President.

Quite possibly; after all, even Boris managed to lie his way to victory in what some imagined a sophisticated country.

It's not what they say or do, it's what the population wants to image they are saying and doing. Reality and result are secondary to cant. Payment comes later.

Remember olde Nigel, anyone?

Rob

[LesPalenik]

Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.

At least it was reported that way. Then after the first injury reports about 11 soldiers hurt, Trump referred to them as “headaches”. The latest report states 34 injured soldiers.

Trump had initially said he was told that no troops had been injured in the Jan. 8 strike. he Jan. 8 strike. The military said symptoms were not immediately reported after the strike and in some cases became known days later.

After the first reports that some soldiers had been hurt, Trump referred to them as “headaches” and said the cases were not as serious as injuries involving the loss of limbs.

Hoffman’s disclosure that 34 had been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, or TBI, was the first update on the number injured in Iran’s missile attack on Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq since the Pentagon said on Jan. 17 that 11 service members had been flown out of Iraq with concussion-like symptoms.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brain-injuries-iraq-missile-strike_n_5e2b2b4fc5b6d6767fd38146

[PeterAit]

Well then, since they did such a thorough job, I guess they don’t need to worry about new evidence or testimony.

They did as thorough a job as they could given the three or four important witnesses whom Trump ordered not to testify, despite subpoenas. Now we'd like to hear from these people so the evidence is more complete. But the last thing the GOP wants is complete evidence.

[JoeKitchen]

They did as thorough a job as they could given the three or four important witnesses whom Trump ordered not to testify, despite subpoenas. Now we'd like to hear from these people so the evidence is more complete. But the last thing the GOP wants is complete evidence.

But they (the Dems) refused to argue their subpoenas in court.  They even went so far as to pull John Bolton's subpoena after he, himself, went to court to see if he could testify. 

That's right, John Bolton said he wanted to testify and went to court to see if he could.  And then, the Dems pulled his subpoena.  Not the best optics for their case. 

So, no, they did not do a thorough job.  If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not. 

Since they lacked the courage of their convictions, I see no reason why the Senate should do their job for them, unless of course they are okay with Hunter Biden taking the stand. 

[JoeKitchen]

Peter, for someone who writes with a sense of authority, you have a fairly sophomoric understanding of US Civics. 

You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.  Are you purposely ignoring this, or just that uninformed on civics? 

[James Clark]

Peter, for someone who writes with a sense of authority, you have a fairly sophomoric understanding of US Civics. 

You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.  Are you purposely ignoring this, or just that uninformed on civics?

:/

[Peter McLennan]

Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.


.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations..

Broadcast networks' impeachment viewership falls short of soap operas, study says


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-ratings-soap-operas[/font][/font]


   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.

From a Facebook post:

[Alan Klein]

Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.


.

I didn't watch it.  But I agree he's an effective speaker; most politicians are.  Although there's something sleazy about him that comes off.   I suspect the Republicans will have some effective speakers as well. 

[PeterAit]

But they (the Dems) refused to argue their subpoenas in court.  They even went so far as to pull John Bolton's subpoena after he, himself, went to court to see if he could testify. 

That's right, John Bolton said he wanted to testify and went to court to see if he could.  And then, the Dems pulled his subpoena.  Not the best optics for their case. 

So, no, they did not do a thorough job.  If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not. 

Since they lacked the courage of their convictions, I see no reason why the Senate should do their job for them, unless of course they are okay with Hunter Biden taking the stand.

A thorough investigation does not mean a perfect investigation. Maybe the Dems figured (correctly) that they had enough damning evidence without those witnesses and didn't want to play, as I have heard it called, rope-a-dope and drag things out. Christ, when you Trumpies are not accusing the Dems of rushing you are accusing them of dragging things out.

And answer me this: Why is the "innocent" Trump so anxious to keep so many witnesses and documents away from Congress? We all know why, some of us just won't admit it.

And, by the way, the Senate calling witnesses is not "doing the House's job for them." It is doing their own job. But, with the Chinless Worm running things, I have little hope--unless enough GOP senators discover their spine and do what is right.

[Chris Kern]

So, no, they did not do a thorough job.  If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not.

You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

This a complex issue and the case law is sparse.  But the two Supreme Court decisions that are directly applicable hold (1) that a president may not assert executive privilege to avoid complying with a subpoena issued pursuant to a criminal investigation* and (2) that the enforcement of a congressional subpoena issued as part of the impeachment process is a nonjusticiable "political question" that the courts are not constitutionally authorized to resolve.**

___
*In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court decision involving President Nixon, the subpoena was issued by the Watergate special prosecutor.  In other words, the Court resolved a dispute about a claim of presidential privilege between the president and another official of the executive branch of the federal government.

**Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a case involving the impeachment of a different Nixon (a federal judge).