Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[JonNC]

JonNC:

That’s okay. I’m not surprised at all by progressive Democrats. They’ve made it clear, with their opposition to the the first and second amendments, the electoral college, due process, representative governance through the senate, and their denial of the legitimacy of the 2016 election, that they oppose the American constitutional system.

None of these apply to me. And, frankly, most don’t apply to Democrats, either.

I don’t know about you, but the rest is effectively the Democrat platform

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

progressive Democrats.

As opposed to “non-progressive” Republicans who think nothing of subsidizing farmers, piling up debt, etc.

Well, you haven’t heard me support any of that.
I think we could cut spending by 40% and still not be within the limits of article 1 section 8
But none of that contradicts the post you replied to.

 

[pnewton]

I believe that republicans would be the first to launch action against him if he actually did do something illegal.

That is an opinion I cannot agree with, or even fathom.

 

[PaulinVA]

The only thing he was charged with, among those, is “refusing to allow his people to testify”, the technical term for which is “invoking executive privilege”, which he is allowed to do. Congress then has the option of going to court, which they declined to do because were in too much of a hurry to actually do their job.

@Guinness, Trump did not invoke Executive Privilege. He is asserting that Mulvaney and others have “absolute immunity” and don’t need to testify.

This is not a thing in impeachments.

Mulvaney, as an example, is simply not complying with a congressional subpoena because his boss told him not to because, one can conjecture, he knows that Trump committed impeachable acts.

 

[JButky]

just about all Americans who actually look at what they are doing in stunned disbelief of their reprehensible sedition).

It’s plainly obvious if you don’t selectively cut and paste what you want like the fake news media.

 

[ProVobis]

the Speaker wants to delay sending the articles to the Senate!

It doesn’t expire so why rush it?

 

[Mulligan2]

I don’t think IPOTUS has any interest in a full trial with Mulvaney, Bolton, and others are under oath. He blustered a lot about potentially speaking with Mueller, but he never did.

 

[ProVobis]

I think Trump has been wanting a full trial in the Senate.

But will he testify under oath?

 

[JanR]

There’s no way one can legitimately compare what Bernie Madoff did to what our president has achieved. Madoff ran a Ponzy scheme and ripped of millions of dollars from his clients, leaving them destitute.

POTUS has done just the opposite. He has improved this economy so that now many more have jobs and are prospering.

Madoff was a crook. POTUS isn’t.

 

[Allie1]

I think Trump has been wanting a full trial in the Senate. It’s Lindsay Graham and others who want to short-circuit it just to get it over with

I agree that I think that Trump wants a full trial. I think that senators Graham and McConnell made a calculated error on their part by declaring publicly that they are not objective jurors and have no intentions on calling witnesses for a Senate trial. It also was a big error on their part to publicy declare that they are coordinating the trial with the white house. It shows that their intentions is to acquit Trump. I think that Pelosi is being more calculating. She is mainting control of the articles of impeachment, and preventing acquittal of the president. On a side note, I also don’t think that the house Democrats are done investigating Trump by any means. Being how so many witnesses have been blocked from testifying. If more of their stories start coming out…Guiliani, Bolton, Mulvaney. And the supreme court will be taking up the matter of his tax returns after the new year. I think the house Democrats will find additional articles of impeachment to charge him with in the future. But that’s just my opinion

 

[Guinness]

Trump did not invoke Executive Privilege. He is asserting that Mulvaney and others have “absolute immunity” and don’t need to testify.

This is not a thing in impeachments.

Unless Congress fights it in court, it doesn’t matter what you call it.

 

[Theo520]

What’s crystal clear is that Nancy has sucked all the air out of the sails of the democratic primary candidates with this focus

 

[EricF]

Impeachment isn’t a single-shot gun. President* Trump will screw up again. It’s what the arrogant do.

 

[Guinness]

His job is to at as an impartial juror.
He has already spoke out against that.

No, he hasn’t.

Leaving aside the 1000 years bit, Schiff and Nadler are investigators in the House, not prosecutors.

No, the House prosecutes, the Senate acts as a jury.

Giuliiani works for Donald Trump.
The State Department works for the people of the United States.

Seems you don’t know how government works. Go give a State Department employee an order. You’ll find out very quickly that he doesn’t work for you.

 

[mrad25]

It expires with a new Congress in Jan 2021 I believe. Senate can force it by amending their rules. Trump could also send it to SCOTUS and ask for relief as well under a few factors since the Constitution is silent on all the minutia. The Senate I think will nuke 2/3 rule and take the articles up. Nancy pulled the pin on this grenade and can’t put it back in.

 

[HarryStotle]

What’s crystal clear is that Nancy has sucked all the air out of the sails of the democratic primary candidates with this focus

Focus? What focus?

“Whatever you want to call it…”

“We don’t know the arena we are in…”

Truer words…

 

[mrad25]

She should try to focus on cleaning up the grocery store floors in SF instead.

 

[HarryStotle]

Guinness:

The only thing he was charged with, among those, is “refusing to allow his people to testify”, the technical term for which is “invoking executive privilege”, which he is allowed to do. Congress then has the option of going to court, which they declined to do because were in too much of a hurry to actually do their job.

@Guinness, Trump did not invoke Executive Privilege. He is asserting that Mulvaney and others have “absolute immunity” and don’t need to testify.

This is not a thing in impeachments.

Mulvaney, as an example, is simply not complying with a congressional subpoena because his boss told him not to because, one can conjecture, he knows that Trump committed impeachable acts.

And I suppose, one can conjecture, that the reason Schiff and Nadler completely controlled who could and could not be called to testify was because they knew there were some who could completely exonerate President Trump.

We can also further suppose that Pelosi is going to hold on to the articles until … …whenever … …because she knows opening the Senate to all witnesses will result in testimony from a number of witnesses who will undermine every bogus claim made by Schiff and Nadler. That is why she will hold out until the terms meet her approval – which will be never.

My guess is this won’t even make it to the Senate because a full hearing is not what the Dems want. One can conjecture.

 

[HarryStotle]

She should try to focus on cleaning up the grocery store floors in SF instead.

She isn’t concerned about that arena.

She may, in fact, know nothing about it, despite that she is supposed to represent it.

 

[Ender]

I think that senators Graham and McConnell made a calculated error on their part by declaring publicly that they are not objective jurors and have no intentions on calling witnesses for a Senate trial.

The investigation is supposed to be done in the House, not the Senate; its job is to render judgment, but it is the House that has to make the case. There may be some cause for calling witnesses, but not to continue the investigation that was supposed to have been completed before the articles of impeachment were written.

But this is all sound and fury. The articles were never going to reach the Senate anyway.