Impeaching Donald Trump

[Peter McLennan]

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.

They have been asked this question several times.  They'll never, ever answer.

The alternative, they say is "Take it to court" - a process which would take years to resolve, as Schiff pointed out.  Far too late, in other words. 

"Justice delayed is justice denied"

[Alan Goldhammer]

George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right.  The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!!  A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/

[Peter McLennan]

An excellent perspective, Alan.  Thanks for that. It perfectly answers the question of why Trump will never testify.

Of course, <insert usual suspects here> will say "You have the right to remain silent".   So I'll save them the keystrokes.

[LesPalenik]

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.

I watched it. It was a good speech. Even by Republican standards.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I love it how the usual suspects are now compiling a list of excuses for the botched impeachment.


Mommy, mommy, snif, they didn't want to testify    Mommy, why do we need to wait for years for courts to come to our rescue?! Whaaaay, mommy, whaaaay!? 

[Rob C]

I love it how the usual suspects are now compiling a list of excuses for the botched impeachment.


Mommy, mommy, snif, they didn't want to testify    Mommy, why do we need to wait for years for courts to come to our rescue?! Whaaaay, mommy, whaaaay!? 

Slobodan, you need a good dinner with some excellent wine to get your mind out of this place, this vale of sorrows, fibs and madness. I need one too (good dinner), but unlike you, I can't eat the damned thing unless I am prepared to sit up all night to avoid suffocating myself. Bon appetite!

:-(

[JoeKitchen]

George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right.  The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!!  A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/

Really?  So you’re telling me Trump would just be believed and not accused of lying?  Or Schiff would not make up his own “parity” of it? 

I have a bridge I am trying to get off my balance sheet if you’re interested. 

PS, I say let’s really drag this out and bring in everybody, Bolton, Mulvaney, Parnes, Hunter, Biden.  Let’s make it a party.

[Craig Lamson]

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).

Thanks for the insight Chris, you always bring interesting things to the table.  Btw, are you an attorney?

[Chris Kern]

Btw, are you an attorney?

I have a law degree and am a member of the District of Columbia Bar, but I've never practiced law.  Many years ago, as a young news reporter, I spent 12 years covering the U.S. Supreme Court, the Watergate investigations of the Senate select committee and the U.S. special prosecutor, and the hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives that resulted in the preparation of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon.

[Craig Lamson]

I have a law degree and am a member of the District of Columbia Bar, but I've never practiced law.  Many years ago, as a young news reporter, I spent 12 years covering the U.S. Supreme Court, the Watergate investigations of the Senate select committee and the U.S. special prosecutor, and the hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives that resulted in the preparation of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon.

Thank you.  That’s a very interesting background.  And your photography is quite interesting as well. 

[Alan Klein]

George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right.  The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!!  A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/

Why would anyone testify when the whole thing is a Democrat party political hit job that's been going on for 3 1/2 years? Why add credibility to the circus?  No, he's better off just going about doing the president's business serving the public's interest like he has been doing signing deals with China for example.  Just let the politicians throw pot shots at each other.  The public will see it for what it is.  Politics.  Nothing more.

[LesPalenik]

So, how long before we hear the verdict?

[James Clark]

So, how long before we hear the verdict?

A few weeks ago.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A few weeks ago.

Exactly, and that's probably why Nancy Pelosi decided to stay (at least) one step ahead and not wait for more evidence. Adam Shiff did well in making the case, thus forcing the Rebublicans to oppose (action --> reaction):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo89S64CBWA

The outcome of the impeachment trial is predetermined, so she focuses on inflicting as much damage to the Trump reelection campaign as possible. It's the period after the trial when the evidence is going to be presented to the American voters, and it's going to be made clear that the (Senate) Republicans were actively not trying to find the truth (thus violating their oath to protect the constitution).

Step 1 is to make sure that the people understand that the logical thing (from a truth-finding perspective) for the Senate to do, is to call more witnesses, which they won't because of the Republican majority.

A next step is disclosing the body of evidence that Lev Parnas has only started to reveal, as a personal insurance policy to avoid being 'eliminated':
What Does Audio Of Trump Seeming To Order Yovanovitch's Firing Change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5YuM_7Ba8

This too, will be 'ignored' by Republicans, "because it was not entered as evidence for the impeachment trial".

One of the next things, after the trial, may be an increasing pressure on revealing the role of Mike Pompeo, who has gotten 'surprisingly' little attention for his role in the scheme that he was fully aware of. Bolton was clever enough to distance himself from the 'drug deal'. Pompeo has larger ambitions, so he is forced to stay on board, until he bails to avoid being dragged under.

This also helps Pelosi to improve the odds of a Democrat winning the elections, despite the relatively 'weak' line-up of candidates ...

Brilliant, chapeau...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The outcome of the impeachment trial is predetermined, so she focuses on inflicting as much damage to the Trump reelection campaign as possible...

 


So, it is not about the Constitution, national security, truth, blah, blah, blah... but about inflicting as much political damage to Trump 2020, as Karla Marx already blurted out. Sounds like a great boomerang strategy. No doubt it is going to work.

[JoeKitchen]

LOL Bart. 

I know that most of what leaves the USA in terms of opinion are from our media and celebrities.  But if you are basing your opinion on how we feel about Trump on them, then you are going to be off. 

It is a fact that pretty much everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 plans on voting for him in 2020.  The never-Trumper conservatives, who were primarily worried about electing a liberal dressed as a Republican, are more then satisfied with his conservative bona-fides in his first terms and most will be voting for him in 2020.  Then, in other polling, a sizable amount of people who voted for HRC in 2016 have already said they plan on voting for Trump in 2020. 

Throw into that that many conservatives who end up being polled lie and say they will be voting Blue just to screw with the pollsters. 

Last, this whole ordeal is making me think of Brexit.  Basically you had elites in office who thought they knew better then the country and tried to undo their vote.  In the end it only made the voters more and more irate.  The same thing is happening with this impeachment. 

Throw into that nothing but flawed candidates on the Dems side, and the Dems are heading for a reckoning in November. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

 


So, it is not about the Constitution, national security, truth, blah,[...]

Of course the impeachment about the Constitution, but the Republicans seemingly don't care.

So, wadaya gonna to do ..., have it backfire on them.

[Alan Klein]

Of course the impeachment about the Constitution, but the Republicans seemingly don't care.

So, wadaya gonna to do ..., have it backfire on them.

Bart: You can;t take back what you said.  Slobodan called you on it.  It's about damaging Trump for the re-election.  That's all it's been about for 3 1/2 years.  Nobody gives a damn about the constitution.  These are politicians we're talking about.  All they care about is power. 

[JoeKitchen]

Bart: You can;t take back what you said.  Slobodan called you on it.  It's about damaging Trump for the re-election.  That's all it's been about for 3 1/2 years.  Nobody gives a damn about the constitution.  These are politicians we're talking about.  All they care about is power.

I was watching a recent interview with Daniel Hannan on Brexit and he made an interesting point.  He noted that after a while, the Labour Party's constant objections on the conditions of the Brexit deal made it obvious it was about voiding the vote and staying in the EU.  This did nothing but piss off the voters who choose to leave and set up the perfect condition for the recent win for Boris Johnson and the Tories. 

Yesterday, I was listening to an interview with Victor Davis Hanson who, without even mentioning Breixt or Daniel Hannan, pretty much said he is seeing the same set up with our election this year.  Even within his state of CA, he seeing a lot of anger amongst conservatives about having the last 3 years robbed from them by the Dems' non-stop partisan inquiries. 

Unless Biden suddenly become charismatic and creates a level of enthusiasm beyond, "we need to vote for him because he says he can beat Trump," the Dems are in for a rude awakening this Autumn. 

[Rob C]

I was watching a recent interview with Daniel Hannan on Brexit and he made an interesting point.  He noted that after a while, the Labour Party's constant objections on the conditions of the Brexit deal made it obvious it was about voiding the vote and staying in the EU.  This did nothing but piss off the voters who choose to leave and set up the perfect condition for the recent win for Boris Johnson and the Tories. 

Yesterday, I was listening to an interview with Victor Davis Hanson who, without even mentioning Breixt or Daniel Hannan, pretty much said he is seeing the same set up with our election this year.  Even within his state of CA, he seeing a lot of anger amongst conservatives about having the last 3 years robbed from them by the Dems' non-stop partisan inquiries. 

Unless Biden suddenly become charismatic and creates a level of enthusiasm beyond, "we need to vote for him because he says he can beat Trump," the Dems are in for a rude awakening this Autumn.

I will grant you this: in the Brexit fiasco, we saw the parallel of your Trumpian status, in that those with the more insular eye voted as they voted. I kinda suspect that your great "American People" are much the same as the wider British population in that what happens in Germany, Ethiopia, Iraq, Israel , and the rest of the world matters not a jot in Kansas or Ohio, for example.

I mean no disrespect with the "American People" number; I quote it as I do because since US politics has almost replaced British politics on our tv, our politicians and commentators have started to refer to the "British People" too, something quite revolutionary in linguistic terms: we previously, historically, referred to ourselves as British, the British in the collective sense of the island population, or English, Scottish etc. when being more specific. We never spoke of our countrymen as the British People; it's an unwelcomed aberration.

It used to make sense when speaking of the Navajo People or members of tribes; not when talking about the Brits. It reeks of too much exposure to US media, largely bequeathed us courtesy the era when an Australian owned Sky News. Diluting the Brtish heritage is a sweet kind of revenge for the creation of Australia, don't you think?

:-)