Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JanR said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trump abused the power of his office to without aid form an ally in need on order to extract a personal benefit. He sought to have a foreign government to interfere in out electoral process.
POTUS is a guilty of the high crimes an misdemeanors that the founders envisioned as meriting impeachment.
 
dvdjs said:
Trump abused the power of his office to without aid form an ally in need on order to extract a personal benefit. He sought to have a foreign government to interfere in out electoral process.
Click to expand...
So is that what he’s charged with in the articles of impeachment? I haven’t read them so I don’t know what’s in there.
 
Allie1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the uncalculated error on the part of Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi, who declared publicly that they are “objective jurists” who have no intention of permitting any defence witnesses to speak or testify on behalf of President Trump?

Seems to me that by “declaring publicly that they are not objective jurors” shows that they (Graham and McConnell) are at least being honest. Whereas, Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi declaring their unimpeachable (pun intended) objectivity are irrefutably presenting themselves as unmitigated liars.
 
Last edited:
“OUR COUNTRY has been through a lot, I’d like for you to do US a favor”. Not “me” or “I” a favor. This was about corruption and the 2016 election. SIMPLE. Trump committed no crimes, aide was eventually given. Case is dead on arrival and the Senate will kill it as such. Pelosi is just trying to put the pin back in the grenade. Too late.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
Ender:
I haven’t read them so I don’t know what’s in there.
Click to expand...
Why not read them?
Click to expand...
Perhaps @Ender doesn’t enjoy fiction as much as you do?
 
HarryStotle said:
Seems to me that by “declaring publicly that they are not objective jurors” shows that they (Graham and McConnell) are at least being honest.
Click to expand...
They are required by oath before God to act as impartial jurors.
Being honest about breaking the oath is no virtue.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Seems to me that by “declaring publicly that they are not objective jurors” shows that they (Graham and McConnell) are at least being honest.
Click to expand...
They are required by oath before God to act as impartial jurors.
Click to expand...
I suppose that didn’t disqualify the Democrats in the House, who weren’t “required by oath before God to act as impartial jurors, because they weren’t the jurors?” So they could concoct whatever they wished to present as “evidence?”

Very convenient for the House that such a stipulation only applies to the Senate, as the “jurors.”
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
I suppose that didn’t disqualify the Democrats in the House, who weren’t “required by oath before God to act as impartial jurors?”
Click to expand...
It didn’t. They are not acting jurors and do not take a juror’s oath. IN the House they are investigating and gathering evidence.
HarryStotle said:
Very convenient for the House that such a stipulation only applies to the Senate, as the “jurors.”
Click to expand...
The House rules for investigations were written by Republicans recently.
The Senate rules for impeachment were written long ago.
You may not like them, but that is really neither here nor there.
 
If Pelosi doesn’t want to release the impeachment articles to the Senate, this would sound like “obstruction of justice” and she should be charged as such. Also it sounds like she is trying to influence the rules in the Senate, which can be construed as “bribery” or quid-for-pro. 🙂

There is NO constitutional requirement that the Senate wait until the House appoints “impeachment managers". McConnell has no obligation to let them address the Senate or even have access to the Senate. He also has no obligation to negotiate with Schumer. McConnell can call the Senate, bring in the Chief Justice to preside, and vote to either to dismiss both charges, acquit the President, or go ahead with the trial on his own schedule, in whatever manner the Senators choose. The rules are up to them. Withholding the articles is a toothless bluff on Pelosi’s part. McConnell absolutely must stand up to her. As Glinda the Good Witch said to the Wicked Witch of the West (Pelosi), “You have no power here! Begone! Before somebody drops a ‘House’ on you, too!”
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
If Pelosi doesn’t want to release the impeachment articles to the Senate, this would sound like “obstruction of justice” and she should be charged as such
Click to expand...
What a fantastic imagination.
mrad25 said:
Also it sounds like she is trying to influence the rules in the Senate, which can be construed as “bribery” or quid-for-pro.
Click to expand...
Amazing that anyone is still in the dark about the requisite element of corrupt gain for a quid pro quo transaction to be a crime of an abuse of power.
mrad25 said:
There is NO constitutional requirement that the Senate wait until the House appoints “impeachment managers".
Click to expand...
The rules are that the House managers prosecute the case in the Senate.
The Senate might try to change the rules, but until they do, they cannot lawfully proceed as you describe.
 
They absolutely can proceed as described. You are confusing House procedure with Constitutional requirements. The House procedure doesn’t take precedent over Senate procedure. The Constitution is silent on the impeachment process beyond giving the House the power to impeach and the Senate the power to conduct the trial. There is no Constitutional requirement that there be impeachment managers/prosecutors or that the articles be formally transmitted to the Senate. The House has impeached President Trump. That’s it. It’s Constitutional function is at an end. Any further involvement is a matter of negotiation with the Senate. Additionally, the Senate could easily adopt a rule to the effect that the House passing articles of impeachment triggers the process for a trial in the Senate with no further House action. There is no requirement that the Senate wait until the House appoints “impeachment managers/prosecutors” There is certainly no obligation by the Senate to allow those “managers” to address the Senate or even have access to the Senate. In fact, Mitch McConnell has exactly as much authority to try this impeachment without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the House as the House has to refuse to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. In short, Pelosi’s gambit is, well, toothless. It has NO legal power.

Trump got impeached for what Pelosi is now doing: Abuse of Power (extortion, bribery, Quid Pro Quo) and Obstruction of Congress (refusing the President his right to a trial for possible acquittal by withholding impeachment records from the Senate).
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
The House rules for investigations were written by Republicans recently.
Click to expand...
Let’s tackle this, shall we?

During Clinton’s impeachment, the House did not do any evidence gathering, but relied upon a competent independent counsel, Ken Starr, who delivered boxes of evidence along with recommendations for charges. During Nixon’s the House considered evidence gathered after months of investigations by specially appointed prosecutors – Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. In both, the impeachments only followed extensive law enforcement investigations where actual malfeasance was determined by independent parties according to existing laws.

The House Intelligence Committee took on the principal role of assembling the case against Trump and only heard from those the majority side decided should be heard as witnesses. There was no supplemental Justice Department investigation. None of the evidence came from eye witnesses, and the only fact claim was from a witness who specifically heard Trump say, “I want no quid pro quo.”

That smacks hard of partiality, and will come back to bite the Democrats once the frivolity of their case is fully digested by the public, even if a trial in the Senate is waylaid indefinitely by Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
POTUS is a guilty of the high crimes an misdemeanors that the founders envisioned as meriting impeachment.
Click to expand...
True, POTUS is guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors that the founders of these impeachment hearings envisioned in their dreams as meriting impeachment.
 
mrad25 said:
They absolutely can proceed as described.
Click to expand...
The confusion is yours. I identified the process as defined by rules, not Constitutional law, and noted that the rules w could, in principle, be changed. But unless and until they are the procedure that you describable would break the existing rules.
HarryStotle said:
Let’s tackle this, shall we?

During Clinton’s impeachment …
Click to expand...
the rules for House investigations were written after Clinton’s impeachment.
 
HarryStotle said:
As opposed to the uncalculated error on the part of Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi, who declared publicly that they are “objective jurists”
Click to expand...
Did they now? When did they do that? Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi are not jurors in any way. They belong to the House, not the Senate. The House investigates and then indicts with articles of impeachment, it is the role of the Senate to try the the president and behave as impartial jurists. When did they even make the claim of being jurists? They are not senators.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
The confusion is yours. I identified the process as defined by rules, not Constitutional law, and noted that the rules w could, in principle, be changed. But unless and until they are the procedure that you describable would break the existing rules.
Click to expand...
Nope the confusion is yours.The House rules have no bearing on the Senate rules once the articles of impeachment reach the Senate. The only rules in play are the Senate rules and the Constitution, which again say nothing about impeachment managers.

The House has no business dictating to the Senate how they carry out their business. When they refer the articles of impeachment to the Senate then the Senate will start their process. Again if Pelosi holds back the articles of impeachment, all they really have is a very partisan non-binding House resolution in effect. It’s a talking point that they impeached the President. The House does not dictate to the Senate any more than the Senate dictates to the House.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Amazing that anyone is still in the dark about the requisite element of corrupt gain for a quid pro quo transaction to be a crime of an abuse of power.
Click to expand...
And even more astounding that some in this thread cannot see Biden’s quid pro quo transaction on behalf of his own son as corrupt gain, bribery and nepotism, which would all be abuses of power and very likely criminal.
 
And the “House” Pelosi could have dropped on her could very well be the new Republican House majority that gets voted in next time there’s a Congressional election. I think her goose is cooked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top