The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming | The American Conservative

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
But he is constrained by impeachment not to use his power corruptly.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. The normal, constitutional way for Congress to provide oversight is through its control of the budget.
 
A violation of a criminal statute is not a HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR as contemplated by the Constitution. Period! Alternate facts cannot make it so.
Nothing is made up. We heard the sworn testimony. And he hides Mulvany who admitted the charges and said get over it.
Right now Trump continues the only defense he has. Prevent testimony and document production. Then take over the trial against himself. Unprecedented curruption.
And not one house Republican said a word in defense of Trump. Nobody said he would never do what he is accuse of. NOT A SINGLE PERSON ARGUED ABOUT HIS CHARACTER! NOT ONE!
 
Last edited:
Only the last minute amendments included a reference legal crimes. I think they slipped in bribery to respond to the complaint I mentioned
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
MikeInVA:
Impeachment is an extraordinary measure.
Click to expand...
So is corrupt abuse of power.
Click to expand...
So you are referring to the abuse of power we have seen in the FBI or in the
House of Representatives recently with the democrats?

@dvdjs
 
Last edited:
They chose just two articles as a strategy because they are not facing a defense that pretends to be legal or factual and they are tasked with clarity and simplicity. That’s all.
 
Tonight one of the lawyers for the democrats said he is not officially
impeached yet.

But the poster I was responding to posted about abuse of power.
 
7_Sorrows said:
So you are referring to the abuse of power we have seen in the FBI or in the
House of Representatives recently with the democrats?

@dvdjs
Click to expand...
No. I am referring to the actions of Trump as specified in the articles of by which he has been impeached.
 
7_Sorrows said:
You mean the fake impeachment with no clear evidence?
Click to expand...
Have you read the articles of impeachment and the summary of evidence contained in them?
If not, you are in no position to call them fake and without evidence.
 
Why weren’t they forwarded to the Senate then? Why is Nancy hanging on to
them? If they were in such a hurry to impeach the president, why not follow through and send them to the Senate before you leave town? Why are they hinting
now they may not send them? What is Nancy afraid of?

There is more evidence of abuse of power in the FBI with the FISA applications
and the abuse of power by the democrats during this impeachment process
than there is for President Trump.

Even Putin is on to the democrat’s game. They are embarrassing our country
in front of the whole world.

If there ever is another democrat president, do you wonder what it will be like
deal with Russia and Ukraine after this? Way to go Nancy!
 
MikeInVA said:
Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. The normal, constitutional way for Congress to provide oversight is through its control of the budget.
Click to expand...
You mean the money Congress appropriated for foreign aid that the President withheld by putting personal conditions on it?

If the President really did hold up foreign aid approved by Congress in order to achieve personal goals, that is definitely a matter that Congress could consider a grave infringement of their jurisdiction and an abuse of power by the Executive. Of course, members of Congress who share the political goals he was trying to achieve wouldn’t see it that way, but the members of Congress who don’t would understandably see this as a grave matter.

That’s why I think that Congress is so divided on the permissibility of what the President is alleged to have done.
 
Last edited:
There is no divide here on substance. Everyone knows what he did.
Not one Republican I the debate made an argument, " this presídent would ever do that." Not one argument based on character from 190+ members.
Of course in the Senate they have announced that they will follow a procedure designed and approved by the DEFENDANT/ IMPEACHED president. While they claim an absence of testimony from critical witnesses makes the trial testimony incomplete they have committed to a trial that will not seek testimony of those witnesses. ( They will not let their testimony. ) Even though one of the articles they are committed to try I the unlawful obstruction of those witnesses testifying.
The obstruction charge comes to them with a record of blanket refusal to testify at all. Privilege, executive privilege, was specifically never asserted by Trump. So no recognised privilege was ever asserted. Instead Trump asserted an unrecognised impermissible privilege. Which is an assertion that he can prevent an appearance globally upon no legal grounds. Witnesses could come and state their name and much information clearly not privileged. One court already stated no such privilege exists. Privilege can only be asserted on a question by question basis under the law. Trump’s tactic therefore was a frivolous non legal assertion. Through this frivolous assertion forcing it to go through the courts then after a SCOTUS decision, then presumably to then call them, where they would attempt a question by question assertion, where they try to assert executive privilege and go through the entire judicial process a second time. In every normal case, privilege not asserted would be waived but here they hope a presidential exception. Delaying justice on a frivolous assertion for years. This " tactic" is one of bad faith and designed solely for the purpose of obstructing justice.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
I’ve always found it best to ask my boss what he wants, not trying to read his mind. That includes asking what his intent is for a given action. In can be difficult, especially when my boss thinks my questions are a challenge to his authority, but I’ve found it a better solution in the long run.
Click to expand...
But, Mike, you can’t have that conversation when what you understand the President is asking is illegal. That makes you a coconspirator and implicates the President. Instead, you wink and go off to do what you think he asked.

But, what you’re implying is that the President didn’t really want any illegal activity to be engaged in, which is contradicted by the evidence. Trump never said that his people did things he didn’t want.
MikeInVA said:
Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. The normal, constitutional way for Congress to provide oversight is through its control of the budget.
Click to expand...
Through control of the budget and in oversight hearings, which the Executive Branch is supposed to cooperate in. This administration is not doing that when the oversight could reveal wrongdoing.
 
Last edited:
Forever yes. I understand the merits of Pelosi’s reluctance to send the Senate articles for a patently farcical trial. Such an action by definition is meaningless. Why participate I a farce. Eventually, at the end of the term if she chooses, she can send the articles. And she will. But there is no rush when the Senate has already announced a result without beginning a trial. The argument about being in a hurry to impeach is specious,if before she sends them the majority has already declared one possible result . Hurry, no hurry, is superfluous because McConnell has announced the verdict of the jury before the trial begins. Her attempt here has merit. It is an attempt to hold an authentic trial where jurors hear evidence before they decide the case. They are free to absolve Trump after evidence is fully presented. The only possible form of an authentic trial.
 
Which if not challenged, is the equivilent of the Congress declaring they no longer serve any function under the Constitution. A declaration of monarchy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top