Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[mrad25]

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.

Then you know how bribery is explained? BRIBERY - AS EXPLAINED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AS A FOREIGN COUNTRY BRIBING THE PRESIDENT, not the other way around.

The Framers include in the Constitution the specific legal terms “treason,” “bribery,” and “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. They designated that the Chief Justice, the highest-ranking member of the judicial branch to preside over the impeachment trial in the Senate or and empowered the Senate to impeach judges as well as a sitting president.

The Constitution does not bar the chief justice from doing what trial and appellate judges do every day — i.e., entertain motions to dismiss cases for failure to state a claim. Very simply the chief justice can decide such a referral on motion, if he determines the House has failed to state a claim — i.e., the facts alleged do not meet the legal definition of, for instance, “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee, researching ancient English law dating back to the 14th century, adopted the English construction of that phrase, in effect imposing a standard for the Senate to use in adjudicating whether the acts alleged meet that definition adopted by the House. And in a report issued on this very point, the committee concluded:

“It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”

According to scholarly sources, impeachable acts include “not prosecuting cases” and “arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament.” If President Trump did not investigate and prosecute potential crimes committed by Joe and Hunter Biden, and others, that would itself actually be impeachable.

Sorry Democrats, ‘High crimes and misdemeanors’ are not* whatever the House of Representatives says they are.

 

[Maximus1]

Judge: What do you suggest?
Answer: Pertinent witnesses and documentary evidence.
Trump Team: That’s our point! Present evidence and Trump doesn’t stand a chance.

 

[Maximus1]

That is not the same thing as the Defense developing the rules and procedure of the trial itself. Or that they decided the case before presentation of evidence.

 

[dvdjs]

Doesn’t change the fact the Senate has to coordinate with the defense team, just as Daschle did

You have not made a case that what McConnell has stated is “just and Daschle did”. That is the point.

How anybody can, with a straight face,

The important matter is not what you assume, but the fact that McConnell has impeached his own impartiality. As has Lindsey Graham.

Behind a paywall, but I’m sure,

Fascinating use of “I’m sure”

 

[Ender]

If he actually said it…

What is true is irrelevant, all that matters is how things are portrayed. The gap between the two sides is not bridgeable; there is no common ground. Those who see the just completed impeachment as necessary, fair, and reasonable will never reach an accord with those who see it as political, one sided, and outrageous.

It is worthwhile to argue the issue, but solely with the recognition that only those not yet committed to Trump’s destruction could conceivable be swayed. It is not possible to make headway with someone who can look at the process the House used and then express concern over what might happen in the Senate, or object to the lack of impartiality among Republican Senators while ignoring its complete lack in House Democrats.

There is no accommodation here…only surrender.

 

[Guinness]

Or that they decided the case before presentation of evidence.

The impeachment was televised, and the report was published. Everybody knows what the evidence, or lack of, is.

 

[Guinness]

The important matter is not what you assume, but the fact that McConnell has impeached his own impartiality.

The impeachment was televised and the report was published. Impartiality would have required sequestering the entire Senate, including Democrat presidential candidates, for the duration of the impeachment hearings. Absent that, Senators are going to draw conclusions.

 

[dvdjs]

What is true is irrelevant, all that matters is how things are portrayed.

What is true is relevant. And a commitment to truth rather than portrayal that given an advantage is the only think that can bind the nations.

It is not possible to make headway with someone who can look at the process the House used and then express concern over what might happen in the Senate, or object to the lack of impartiality among Republican Senators while ignoring its complete lack in House Democrats.

The House Democrats followed the House rules in investigating then in drawing up articles of impeachment. It is hoped that the Senate will also follow its rules. All the whining and portrayals aside, iti s that simple.

Impartiality would have required sequestering the entire Senate,

Not at all.

impartial

[imˈpärSHəl]

ADJECTIVE

1. treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just.

 

[Maximus1]

There is new evidence and material witnesses that need to testify. This is trial. Where evidence is presented

 

[Maximus1]

Mulvany and the NSA need to testify. And there was obviously new evidence. The goal is not concealment

 

[Ender]

The House Democrats followed the House rules in investigating then in drawing up articles of impeachment. It is hoped that the Senate will also follow its rules. All the whining and portrayals aside, iti s that simple.

There should be no problem then. McConnell wants to use the rules that are in place, Schumer wants to change the rules, but since “following the rules” is the only criterion regardless of what those rules are why won’t Nancy send up the articles?

There is new evidence and material witnesses that need to testify. This is trial. Where evidence is presented

This is the Kavanaugh approach: no matter what has already been investigated keep throwing up “new evidence” and “new witnesses”. The House is supposed to do the investigation and write the charges, the Senate is to try the case the House presents. If the House isn’t ready to try the case they shouldn’t have voted to impeach…well, assuming that going to trial was ever their intent in the first place.

 

[Maximus1]

New Evidence should always be considered. This is a pillar in our judicial system. You don’t say, well, that’s exculpatory, but the 24 second clock ran so to late, off to the gallows.
Also, the smoking gun is not excluded because the PEOPLE are entitled to justice and truth.
The Kavanaugh idea is completely misplaced. It was Grassely permitting ( albeit begrudgingly and in limited fassion) new evidence, that shows us the real rule. Of course how can you put on a witness who already confirmed quid pro quo on TV when he wasn’t under oath. The GOP is dedicated to concealment. It gets much harder to fixo when the Public sees truth

 

[Guinness]

There is new evidence and material witnesses that need to testify. This is trial. Where evidence is presented

Mulvany and the NSA need to testify. And there was obviously new evidence. The goal is not concealment

If the House hadn’t finished gathering evidence and witnesses, they should have waited to vote on Articles of Impeachment. If they need more evidence and witnesses, they’re conceding that there isn’t enough in the Articles to warrant removing Trump from office. My impression is that this was never about removing Trump from office, it was about giving him a black mark prior to the 2020 election and about getting their base off their backs. Essentially, the whole process is a political exercise, and now, Democrats are complaining that McConnell and the Republican lead Senate want to treat this impeachment as what it is, a political attack on a President Democrats don’t think they can defeat in 2020.

New Evidence should always be considered. This is a pillar in our judicial system. You don’t say, well, that’s exculpatory, but the 24 second clock ran so to late, off to the gallows.

Not really. Exculpatory evidence should always be considered, but the concept of a “fair trial” is to give the accused a “fair trial”, not to allow a prosecutor to conduct an endless trial until something, anything, comes up.

Of course how can you put on a witness who already confirmed quid pro quo on TV when he wasn’t under oath…It gets much harder to fixo when the Public sees truth

If the confirmed “quid pro quo” was on TV, then the “Public” has already seen it, or can if they want to. Of course, the problem there is that all foreign relations are transactional in nature, so “quid pro quo” is part of the process, and not illegal.

 

[Ender]

New Evidence should always be considered.

If that’s what the House thinks then that’s what the House should pursue. It really is an abdication of their own responsibility to try to get the Senate to do what they are responsible for and were unwilling to do themselves. Besides, they haven’t sent up the articles. They can always vote to amend them. Let them do their own job.

 

[Maximus1]

You are arguing about " what would be" the final value of evidence in a trial. Without knowing and hearing it.
That’s a whitewash by definition.
There is no way to justify hiding evidence then claiming the evidence is insufficient. Unless it is a trial of Ceasar and the withholding is based on his sovereignty or living god status.
So far thisc attempt to hide evidence has one basis. McConnell has the power to act as accessory.
The public has not seen a trial. That is certain. The jury has one fundemental function in a trial. To assess credibility and decide the “weight” of evidence. You can’t do that without evidence. That evidence INCLUDES all that is non verbal with live witnesses.

 

[Maximus1]

We do not know if they will Amend them, so you raise a valid point. I include additional charges in this idea of Amendment as it does not suggest a need to alter current charges. In this case the most obvious and fundemental truth is that Mulvany, Bolton , and others are " primary" source witnesses. They have been blanket prohibited from testifying. That is obstruction yes, but it is strategic obstruction that ultimately conceals truth. This exercise is ABOUT CONCEALMENT. THE FIGHT OF TRUMP AND THE GOP TO CONCEAL. Why are they concealing?

 

[Maximus1]

Requiring WITNESSES to testify at trial is not a guarantee. Of course if you create rules they will not be heard at all, that defies justice.

 

[Ender]

In this case the most obvious and fundemental truth is that Mulvany, Bolton , and others are " primary" source witnesses. They have been blanket prohibited from testifying. That is obstruction

The “Obstruction of Congress” charge is really an absurdity, and if the charges were ever sent to the Senate for trial would in all likelihood be dismissed by the judge (chief justice Roberts). The Executive branch is co-equal with Congress, and has no blanket obligation to accede to its demands any more than Congress has to bow to the wishes of the president.

If SCOTUS ruled against the president and he still refused they might have a case, but refusing to act when Schiff says jump…that one won’t fly.

Requiring WITNESSES to testify at trial is not a guarantee. Of course if you create rules they will not be heard at all, that defies justice.

Had you raised that concern about the House proceedings I might take this objection seriously, but given that Republicans were prohibited from calling their own witness this complaint about what the Senate might do rings more than a little hollow in light of what the House has already done.

 

[dvdjs]

McConnell wants to use the rules that are in place, Schumer wants to change the rules, but since “following the rules” is the only criterion regardless of what those rules are why won’t Nancy send up the articles?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. What is iot that McConnell, has said - among other things to the contrary - that makes you think he is standing for a fair an impartial trial by the rules of the Senate? What has Schumer said that is contrary to those rules?

 

[Maximus1]

Republicans did call their own witnesses.
So provide a name ofva specific witness and proffer his expected testimony so it can be evaluated the same way a court does( courts won’t let you call the prosecutors mistress just to besmirch for example).I see the exclusion of no material witnesses or arguments made. Save for the Whisleblowers, whose testimony has a bunch of public interest issues involved to conceal identity.
The House had to deal with a blanket denial of evidence via a privilege that does not exist. ( Bad faith). Lesser known is THAT TRUMP’S ADMINISTRATION NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. PUNDITS DID, BUT LEGALLY, IT WAS NEVER ASSERTED.
The bad faith nature of Trump’s actions had a single purpose. Delay justice untill well into the next term.
How could Democrats assent to that? Name any way? That assent becomes a legal POSITION that a president can invite foreign help in the next Election. IT DEFEATS THE CONSTITUTION.