Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nepperhan said:
Impeachment is not a criminal trial or a civil trial.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are admitting it’s nothing more than a popularity vote, no need for actual charges and evidence, no opportunity to refute claims made.
 
mrad25 said:
high CRIMES or misdemeanors, aka CRIMINAL offenses.
Click to expand...
Please refer to the Federalist 65 or to the testimony on of any of the Constitutional experts in the house hearings to help you dispel this mistaken notion.
 
dvdjs said:
Please refer to the Federalist 65 or to the testimony on of any of the Constitutional experts in the house hearings to help you dispel this mistaken notion.
Click to expand...
Please read Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution : “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors .”
 
Last edited:
Politics, partisanship, and contentiousness aside, I wish you ALL a blessed Christmas.
 
dvdjs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, where is the bar set? Does he have to convince all the people that he’s not a crook or just some? And how do you measure it? To me, it seems the rules you (not you specifically) want are whatever they need to be to get Trump removed from office, which seems to cast don’t on any proclaimed desires for a “fair” process.
 
Not much hope for the rule of law if that is true
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
At the place reflected by two-thirds of impartial Senators, voting, oath before God, impartially…
Click to expand...
That’s always where the bar has been set. Your position seems to be that if they don’t vote to remove from office, it’s because they’re not impartial and honoring their oath. Catch-22. /shrug
 
Last edited:
Adherence to the present and long existing Senate rules, contrasting with the remarks of McConnell and others - is what is being sought.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs . . . .
Here are the articles of impeachment framed by the House Judiciary Committee against Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
Yeah but are they turned in to the Senate yet?
Remember the “urgency” and “prayerful” reflection, and the “good” of the country and all that?

And how this was NOT a political stunt?

Have the Democrats now turned this dire emergency “work” over to the Senate so America can finally get some relief?
 
dvdjs said:
Adherence to the present and long existing Senate rules, contrasting with the remarks of McConnell and others - is what if being sought.
Click to expand...
Well, on the plus side, their are 47 completely impartial Democrats who everybody accepts will vote in lockstep to convict, so you have that going for you.
 
dvdjs said:
I am fully aware of this passage in the Constitution. It just doesn’t mean what you indicate that it means in your post #337.
Click to expand...
😂 The words are there and clear for all to see high crimes or misdemeanors. If you want to trick yourself it says something differently be my guest.
 
Last edited:
What we are seeing and hearing from the Democrats is exactly what the founding fathers feared about impeachment. If Chuck Schumer were running the Senate right now, we all know what would exactly happen — or would have already happened. (Result in this case: Nancy Pelosi would be sworn in as the UNELECTED President, Justice Ginsberg would retire, and the UNELECTED Pelosi would immediately nominate the next justice, whom the Democrat Senate would rubber-stamp. It would actually constitute a coup against the judiciary in addition to a coup against the executive branch of government by the legislative. It’s why it’s so important to show this effort to be what it is and smack it down hard, with no negotiation whatsoever. It’s also why Republicans need to keep the Senate and get the House out of Democrat hands, as they would take a machete to the Constitution if it meant they could stay in power.
 
dvdjs said:
Adherence to the present and long existing Senate rules, contrasting with the remarks of McConnell and others - is what if being sought.
Click to expand...
This, like everything else about this impeachment, is false. McConnell said from the beginning that the rules in place for Clinton, which were approved by every member of the Senate, should be used for this impeachment as well.
mrad25 said:
What we are seeing and hearing from the Democrats is exactly what the founding fathers feared about impeachment.
Click to expand...
It’s also why the founders made it a requirement that 2/3 of (those voting in) the Senate vote guilty, and not just a simple majority.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
the words are there and clear for all to see high crimes or misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
Yes but apparently some have not take the trouble to do a bit of research to discover what those words, as written by the founders, mean. There is quite of bit of scholarship out there.
Ender said:
McConnell said from the beginning that the rules in place for Clinton, which were approved by every member of the Senate, should be used for this impeachment as well.
Click to expand...
If he actually said it, he said it among contradictory statements to the contrary. His statement about coordination with the president’s defense team was appalling. Neither Daschle nor Lott did that.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
His statemtn about coordination witht he president;s defense team was appalling. Neither Daschle nor Lott did that.
Click to expand...
Daschle did coordinate with the Clinton White House on impeachment.

.
@TomDaschle

tells me just now: “My former staff reminded me this morning that while I was not in contact with the White House during the trial, they were. There was a need to coordinate on many levels. So I want to be sure that I didn’t give you the wrong impression.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1205501129997590528?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Click to expand...
Cue sad trombone…
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
Cue sad trombone…
Click to expand...
It is a shame that mindless equivocation on a twitter stream is brought forward as though meaningful.

Here is what McConnell is up to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...white-house-dictate-trumps-impeachment-trial/
“Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.”

He added later that “exactly how we go forward I’m going to coordinate with the president’s lawyers, so there won’t be any difference between us on how to do this.”

And then he said that “I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers.”

McConnell also, notably, said there is “no chance” Trump will be removed from office. This, he indicated, is why he’s not treating the trial with much regard.
Click to expand...
Now, kindly leaving out equivocation on “coordination”, as though that “proves” something please find something akin to that from Daschle.

Here is what Lott wrote with Daschle:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...te-can-hold-fair-impeachment-trial-we-did-it/
Can today’s Senate, consisting of senators holding strongly opposed views and representing a deeply divided nation, put aside those differences and conduct a fair, nonpartisan presidential impeachment trial, if it comes to that? It is a challenge with a high degree of difficulty, but we believe it can and must be done. And we hope senators will look to the Senate’s last presidential impeachment trial as a model.

In December 1998, the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, leaving to us, as the then-majority and minority leaders, the task of negotiating procedures for a trial in the Senate. This was not easy; while we were committed to “do impartial justice,” as our impeachment trial oath required, we had very different perspectives on key questions — as did our caucuses — and, indeed, those differences remained throughout the trial and the final vote. But from the outset of our negotiations, we both understood how vitally important it was to rise above those differences in order to conduct a trial that would inspire the confidence of the public and withstand the unsparing scrutiny of history. …
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Here is what McConnell is up to:
Click to expand...
Behind a paywall, but I’m sure, according to WaPo, he’s supping with the Dark Lord himself even as we speak. Doesn’t change the fact the Senate has to coordinate with the defense team, just as Daschle did, and please don’t expect anyone to accept Daschle’s assertion that he was impartial. He wasn’t, and neither are current Democrat senators. How anybody can, with a straight face, claim that Schumer, Warren, Sanders, Booker, etc are impartial Is beyond me. It’s laughable. They were calling for impeachment before his inauguration.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top