Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. With Pelosi withholding transferring the articles and appointing impeachment prosecutors this is like prosecutors telling someone you have been indicted without going to court or a police telling you, you’re under arrest, but never arresting you. The House must vote on a resolution designating impeachment managers to prosecute the case against Mr. Trump in the Senate before delivering the articles. There are going to be some who say he was impeached and others who say it’s constitutionally questionable, since again impeachment is a process and not simply a vote under the Constitution. Yes, impeachment lies solely with the House but the House has not completed the impeachment process.

Trumps WH legal team reportedly is thinking about challenging and arguing that he hasn’t been impeached.
 
F_Marturana said:
You know maybe, he should realize on his own to not tweet things like this.
Click to expand...
Why not? What are the consequences to hom?
The president’s intense resistance to the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia systematically interfered in the 2016 campaign — and the blame he cast instead on a rival country — led many of his advisers to think that Putin himself helped spur the idea of Ukraine’s culpability, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

One former senior White House official said Trump even stated so explicitly at one point, saying he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because “Putin told me.” Two other former officials said the senior White House official described Trump’s comment to them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
What a mess.
On Friday, Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains a provision sanctioning Nord Stream 2. But the project is just weeks away from completion and analysts doubt the imposition of sanctions at this late stage can be effective, much less halt the project.

The Trump administration meanwhile is opposing the bipartisan Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, or “DASKA,” meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election and deter it from such actions in the future. The administration called the bill “unnecessary” in a 22-page letter to Congress. “The Trump administration stood up in defense of Russia against DASKA sanctions,” Russian media concluded.
Click to expand...
One positive note;
Novaya Gazeta , which is not part of the state media, concluded that Trump is obviously guilty and many Republicans realize he’s been deserving of impeachment for quite some time. Nonetheless, the GOP defends the president in order to preserve the party, while many of the Democrats are “honest people who are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of the ideas of the founding fathers.” Novaya Gazeta opined that re-election in 2020 “is in Trump’s pocket,” but the moral victory belongs to the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Loading…

www.thedailybeast.com
 
F_Marturana said:
From yesterday’s s twitter rant:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You know maybe, he should realize on his own to not tweet things like this.
Click to expand...
Am I missing something?

In history, the criteria is called the embarrassment criteria. In short, if your enemy is stating something about you it is more likely to be true.

Oh, I get it…

… you are tacitly claiming that Trump is Putin’s stooge so as part of the collusion coordination, Putin is just supporting Trump.

Well, if that were true, would Putin be so open about it? Or Trump for that matter? Perhaps they are both too dumb to know that deception works better than complete openness in matters like collusion?

You also need to reconcile the apparent collusion between the two with…
President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia’s state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union.
Click to expand...
From…


And the fact that, unlike Obama, President Trump has actually sent weapons to Ukraine.

Loading…

www.chicagotribune.com

Let’s face it, your narrative just doesn’t hold with the facts. Embarrassed yet?

Perhaps you should realize on your own that you should not post things like that. 🥴
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Well, if that were true, would Putin be so open about it? Or Trump for that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes!

Unfortunately this is the “new world order”. Do whatever you want in the open! If you declare it, it ceases to be a problem. And if it is not accepted, then back-pedal and deny it.
 
Lys said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Well, if that were true, would Putin be so open about it? Or Trump for that matter?
Click to expand...
Yes!

Unfortunately this is the “new world order”. Do whatever you want in the open! If you declare it, it ceases to be a problem. And if it is not accepted, then back-pedal and deny it.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept your claim.

So, back in your court.

You need to backpedal and deny.

Pretty shallow way to view reality, this “new world order.”

Perhaps the “new world order” is also just a narrative that has been “declared openly” in order that it no longer be seen as problematic and merely accepted?

Ergo, it is now up to you to backpedal and deny the “new world order” narrative. Your rules.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
As far as I can tell, the only rules that apply here regarding the House is…
Click to expand...
You are mistaken about the the rules governing the Houses of Congress.
Click to expand...
I asked you for the House rules, but you only refer to the Senate Rules.

How does that show that I am mistaken about the House rules?

By lumping together both houses under “the rules governing the Houses of Congress.” Pretty slippery of you and Pelosi.

There are no rules governing the House in terms of impeachment. You know that as do I. Which is why I made the point…
HarryStotle said:
…there are four views on the subject but no set rules:
Click to expand...
And you haven’t actually disproven that.

The “sole power” that guides the House of Representatives is very loose, which is why the Dems in the House are currently running with the Congressional Interpretation view – the one rejected by most legal scholars – the effect of which is to have the President serve only at the pleasure of Congress.

Effectively that will would mean the House is no longer a co-equal branch of the federal government but has prime authority. That won’t stand up in the Supreme Court.
 
Allie1 said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
There are many reasons for not testifying, especially before a partial committee of those bent on your destruction.

They did the right thing – wait for the impartial trial headed by a Supreme Court Justice where all relevant evidence can be presented and impartially assessed.
Click to expand...
Then why do you complain that no witnesses came forward before the house committees to testify on behalf of the president before impeachment.
Click to expand...
The reason I “complained” is because Schiff did not allow any witnesses that the Republican side could call to refute the allegations or cross examine the claims of the whistleblower, i.e., the one whose supposed testimony/evidence was the basis for the charges in the first place. Why were the minority members of those committees not allowed to call witnesses of their choosing or cross-examine the individual whose “testimony” formed the entire basis for the impeachment? That is where it was unfair.

That is where the entire hearing was unfair.

Think of a trial where the prosecuting attorney is the only one who could call witnesses.

Does your complaint that some of the witnesses called by the prosecutor refused to testify answer the basic unfairness in the fact that the defence was not allowed to call ANY witnesses?
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
The reason I “complained” is because Schiff did not allow any witnesses that the Republican side could call to refute the allegations or cross examine the claims of the whistleblower, i.e., the one whose supposed testimony/evidence was the basis for the charges in the first place.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. The witnesses were subpoenaed to testify under oath, but Trump forbade them to appear. Think about it. An accused allegedly has many witnesses to testify on his behalf, to show his innocence, but he explicitly forbids them to appear, and present their testimony (under oath). What kind of nonsense is that?
 
Nice summary of the case in National Review

Loading…

www.nationalreview.com
Advocates of a president’s removal from office by Congress should have to climb over four walls to reach their objective. First, they should have to show that the facts they allege are true. Second, they should show that the fact pattern amounts to an abuse of power or dereliction of duty by the president. Third, they should show that this abuse or dereliction is impeachable. And fourth, they should show that it is prudent for Congress to remove the president for this impeachable offense: that it would produce more good than evil.
…
… you know my answer to these questions. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal to protect us from officials, including presidents, who are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the common good that government is supposed to serve and their own narrow interests. Though he has done some good things in office, Trump is just such a president. Congress should act accordingly.
Click to expand...
 
Lys said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The reason I “complained” is because Schiff did not allow any witnesses that the Republican side could call to refute the allegations or cross examine the claims of the whistleblower, i.e., the one whose supposed testimony/evidence was the basis for the charges in the first place.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. The witnesses were subpoenaed to testify under oath, but Trump forbade them to appear. Think about it. An accused allegedly has many witnesses to testify on his behalf, to show his innocence, but he explicitly forbids them to appear, and present their testimony (under oath). What kind of nonsense is that?
Click to expand...
It is true.

You are missing the point here.

The witnesses “from the Republican side” were NOT witnesses called by the Republican side. They were all called by Schiff. The Republican side was not allowed to call any witnesses.

See the difference?
 
Lys said:
An accused allegedly has many witnesses to testify on his behalf, to show his innocence,
Click to expand...
The “accused” doesn’t have to show his innocence, the prosecution has to show his guilt.
 
Guinness said:
The “accused” doesn’t have to show his innocence, the prosecution has to show his guilt.
Click to expand...
In a criminal trial.
But even a crook like Nixon knew that the Presidency involved something more.
He knew that the “people have got to know whether or not their president’s a crook”.
This is not a matter of what a clever crook can get away with. It is about the people knowing whether that their president is not a crook.
 
Impeachment is not a criminal trial or a civil trial. The Senate only decides on removal.

Trump has been impeached which he richly deserves. He had his day in court.
 
To be impeached one has to be accused of high CRIMES or misdemeanors, aka CRIMINAL offenses.

Yes, impeachment is not a criminal or civil trial but historically, Presidents facing impeachment trials have been granted some protections like what defendants receive in criminal cases, such as the right to have a lawyer present and request witness testimony.

“Senators do function as jurors but they set the rules also for the trial and can declare their allegiance before trial and cannot be disqualified for bias, said Frank Bowman, an impeachment scholar at the University of Missouri School of Law. You can imagine what a mess the trial would be if disqualification motions would be entertained. Everybody would be moving to disqualify everybody, and then the question would be what body decides such a motion,” Bowman said.”

“U.S. law restricts what evidence is admissible in a criminal case. The complex rules limit the use of “hearsay,” or secondhand information. While these evidentiary rules do not apply to impeachment U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts could very likely block evidence from being used in the Senate trial on the grounds that it is irrelevant or hearsay, but such a determination could be overturned by a majority vote of the Senate”, according to many legal experts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top