Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[PetraG]

High crimes and misdemeanors are criminal offenses , and are criminal law cases…

Tell us…if the Congress impeaches the President and the Senate convicts, what court of appeal does the President have?

As far as I know, there isn’t one. I don’t think the Chief Justice has the authority to rule on what evidence is admissible, for instance. I think the Senate can admit what they decide to admit and decide to remove based on what they decide is a basis for removal. If I’m wrong…well, who tells Congress they have overstepped their authority on this? I don’t think there is a mechanism for that in the Constitution.

That pretty much makes whatever the Congress decides is an impeachable offense into an impeachable offense, practically speaking.

This is an honest question. I have no idea what redress a President would have if he were removed on what he didn’t even think was a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[mrad25]

Your questions have never been challenged, so I don’t have the answers for you. The only challenge I could see perhaps would be on a Constitutional basis - challenging what they were actually impeached on and if it was based on the Constitution and what is says about impeachment.

But I do know if you don’t allege a violation of any crime (criminal or civil law ) and if you don’t allege the law was broken then it’s simply NOT a high crime or misdemeanor. It’s pretty simple.

 

[HarryStotle]

That pretty much makes whatever the Congress decides is an impeachable offense into an impeachable offense, practically speaking.

This is an honest question. I have no idea what redress a President would have if he were removed on what he didn’t even think was a high crime or misdemeanor.

If there is no standard except what Congress decides then that leaves open any Congress with a sufficient majority to impeach a President for nothing except policy differences.

That isn’t what the experts claim about impeachment.

Jonathan Turley in his testimony before Congress stated…

…one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

And…

“As I have stressed, it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power. However, although criminality is not required in such a case, clarity is necessary. That comes from a complete and comprehensive record that eliminates exculpatory motivations or explanations,… The problem is that this is an exceptionally narrow impeachment resting on the thinnest possible evidentiary record. During the House Intelligence Committee proceedings, Democratic leaders indicated that they wanted to proceed exclusively or primarily on the Ukrainian allegations and wanted a vote by the end of December. I previously wrote that the current incomplete record is insufficient to sustain an impeachment case, a view recently voiced by the New York Times and other sources. In the current case, the record is facially insufficient…

“Whatever Congress decides” is not a proper standard for impeachment.

 

[Maximus1]

He could shoot someone on fifth Ave and," they will still vote for me."
If that is true, and I believe it is for millions, ( share Trump’s belief) who cares how many elements fit someone’s definition of a cult. It is radical and dangerous.

 

[Maximus1]

Does he address the issue of obstruction fully? I didn’t think he did. The intentional and complete stonewalling and non cooperation with Congress to defeat the power of impeachment?
It is precisely consistent with
Guilt
A willingness to subvert the Ballance of powers.
It actually is an act of someone who has chosen to enhance the powers of president and extend them into the relm of authoritarian.
His idea of exhausting remedies is in fact potentially self defeating in terms of the remedy. " The most dangerous" of potential president’s would be free to produce the most damage to the Republic.

 

[Maximus1]

You think?
First, it is clearly true if one is objective. If you disagree, it does not diminish his effort and it’s quality.
But it does offer insight. The need to somehow lower the opponent as a " lesser" man , because of strongly held views. It explains the old time wartime propaganda where cartoons of the enemies distorted facial features and things like that.

 

[mrad25]

it is clear that Trump had no interest in corruption, but was more interested in damaging his political opponents.

Completely contrived. Trump wasn’t and isn’t going to be interested in the abstract in every corruption in Ukraine or someone sticking up a 7/11 in Ukraine. Trump is not the Ukraine President. What Trump wants investigated is corruption involving the United States, and of a VP. It is always legitimate and is the RESPONSIBILITY to investigate serious corruption like this.

Only in the imagination of someone that hates Biden would an investigation be justified. There was no controversy about what Biden did for almost a half decade. Only when Trump felt that Biden could become a challenger to him was there interest in an investigation. Of course, Trump did it in secret because it was nefarious (unlike Biden who was quite public about what he did) and was really only interested in an announcement so the right wing propaganda machine in the US can claim Biden is corrupt without any evidence to that effect. Kind of like what you are doing here

Lets look at Burisma and the corruption.

1. The owner of Burisma was also the minister of natural resources for Ukraine who was responsible for granting natural gas licneses and was granting his own company all the licenses.Think about that. It’s the epitome of buying gov’t influence. Was Exon founded on that? Burisma was crooked from the start.
2. In early 2014 Biden stepped forward and said he would be the point person for Obama on Ukraine. Biden was the face for Ukraine and talking to it’s President over and over again.
3. On April 13th 2014 Devon Archer ,business partner with Hunter Biden and John Kerry’s stepson, gets named to the Board of Burisma.
4. On April 28th 2014, 2 weeks after Devon Archer joins the Burisma Board Britain’s serious fraud bureau freezes 23 million in Burisma assets.
5. On May 12th 2014, 2 weeks later Hunter Biden is named to the Board of Burisma. Hunter is a not a geoarchaeologist or geophysicist. He has no background in Ukraine and doesn’t speak the language. How much was he paid? Well who really knows the answer to that one, lol. BUT reports were intially he was paid 50k a month or 600k a year, which then went up to 83,333k a month or 1 million a year. Now in comparison do you know what a Board Director of Exon Mobile makes? Their cash compensation is 110k a year. Hunter Biden was getting 10 times as much. And Hunter admitted the reason he got on the board was nepotism.
6. What did the Head of Ukraine’s anti corruption action center say? “If an investigator sees the son of the VP of the US is part of the management of a company that investigator will be uncomfortable pushing the case forward.”
7. What did Chris Heinz cut business ties with Hunter Biden, because of “lack of judgement”, his own words and what did he say about Devon Archer working with Burisma “it was unacceptable” .

 

[mrad25]

Con’t…

1. What did Joe Biden say to Hunter Biden when Hunter joined Burisma "“You better know what you are doing!”
2. What did the Washington Post (not exactly a conservative outlet now) say about the appointment of Hunter Biden to the Board of Burisma in 2014? “The appointment of the Vice President’s son to the Board of Burisma looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worse.”
3. What did a New York Times 2015 headline say? "Joe Biden, his son and the case against a Ukrainian Oligarch” . The NYT must forget that because they have a field day echoing whatever the House Dems say now about Hunter Biden and Burisma.
4. What did members of the Obama administration think? Well Obama’s Special Envoy for Energy Policy said "He raised the matter with Joe Biden because he was concerned with the conflict of interest.: and what did the Deputy Assistant of State George Kent say? Well he testified that he raised his concerns about how he thought it created a conflict of interest and he was was told “The VP didn’t have time to deal with his concern”.

So this sudden notion there is nothing here to see with Burisma and Joe Biden is quite different than what we were hearing some time ago. And did we ever get an investigation into all of this? No, we got the opposite calls for the firing of the prosecutor investing Burisma by the VP.

And again why does Trump want it investigated? Maybe because it the only company we know of that had the son of a US VP making a million dollars and potentially impacting US policy.

This timeline from the raid of Burisma owner’s house to the actions of Joe Biden + show it for what it is.

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

 

[Maximus1]

Yes we hid all the evidence, what’s wrong with that?
And
Perfect phone call
How can you look good making those arguments?
And of course an exoneration in a Kafkaesque trial prohibiting witnesses and evidence. We move strait into the fog.
" Your honor, no more evidence, Trump got away with it fair and square."

 

[Maximus1]

Are you kidding? 15k lies or 14k, if you could question a thousand. Or two thousand( because of points of view or ambiguity). You say all? Wow

 

[7_Sorrows]

There were 12 other people on the phone call.

 

[Maximus1]

Do you realize Biden can ONLY BE RELEVANT :slight_smile:To the extent Trump actually knew details and then acted based on that knowledge.
Any " facts" obtained after he set this thing in motion are irrelevant. He didn’t rely on them. AND THAT LEAVES THE ELECTION AS TO WHY HE STARTED THIS.
Hi

 

[Maximus1]

I miss the point. It’s early.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It wasn’t just President Trump and one other person on the phone that day. There were 12 other people on the
call.

 

[Maximus1]

I am aware there were others. I am missing the point.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Where’s the evidence? You posted it was a perfect call.

Maybe I am missing your point.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, here are 500 constitutional scholars who say that Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses. I’ll leave it at that.

Loading…

www.businessinsider.com

“His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution,” the letter added.

The scholars said they did not reach the conclusion lightly and that they take no position on whether Trump “committed a crime.” But they added that “conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable” and that the “standard here is constitutional ; it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.”

 

[Maximus1]

It is not my opinion it was a perfect call. ( Maybe Don Corleone might think it was).
As we know Trump insists it was and the Defense Lawyers have to take their clients position

 

[Donkey]

I haven’t been this excited about watching Saturday morning television since I was a kid.

Actually, feels even better than when I was a kid.

 

[Jeanne_S]

So now this is the new meme from m the desperate Dems? Those who support our president are falling under the spell of a cultist? Seriously,this is just pathetic.