The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Also sounds like the eight years of Republican opposition and obstructionism when Obama was president, if we’re just applying that term without further considerations.

Anyway, we have a republican, constitutional government. Normal operations of the legislative branch and acting according to the articles of the Constitution isn’t seditious or rebellious.

The charges against Trump are completely overblown. Using the Constitution and twisting it’s purposes for purely political ends is seditious. They made up the Russia drama and when that didn’t work they kept grasping at straws to find “something” to charge him with. Now we have the nonsense of not turning it over to the Senate. Democrats play dirty and change the rules at will to serve their purpose.

This is just republican (the system, not the party) politics. Republicans (the party) did the same thing and used the same tactics.

 

[Elizabeth3]

This is just republican (the system, not the party) politics. Republicans (the party) did the same thing and used the same tactics.

I understand that both sides will use tactics in their own favor in these things. However, using the process of Impeachment for things that aren’t crimes and saying they are, impeaching without hard evidence, and now playing games with turning it over to the Senate, goes beyond anything that I’ve ever seen in terms of “tactics.” As I said, they play dirty.

 

[JulianN]

There are no facts presented in the Impeachment claims.

Many people disagree. And on that, I’m out. This looks to be a circular discussion, with those who agree with the premise of the article only doing so in the current situation, but not when applied to the other party’s president.

That’s inconsistent logic, and further conversation is unlikely to make it so.

 

[dvdjs]

Sure sounds like what the Democrats have been up to since 2016.

Impeachment ix part of the established order.

There were actual crimes committed by Clinton. His impeachment was legitimate.

Please consider reading commentary fo the founders to get a better idea of what they meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Federalist #65 is a good start.

The charges against Trump are completely overblown.

In fact the specific idea of foreign interference on our electoral process was, in the minds of the founders, very high on the list of impeachable offenses. See ref. above.

There are no facts presented in the Impeachment claims.

Srsly? I am not sure how the meaning of “fact” could be twisted to accommodate that statement.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Please consider reading commentary fo the founders to get a better idea of what they meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Federalist #65 is a good start.

I do not believe nor have I seen any hard evidence that Trump committed anything close to a high crime or misdemeanor that would qualify for impeachment.

n fact the specific idea of foreign interference on our electoral process was, in the minds of the founders, very high on the list of impeachable offenses. See ref. above.

I understand that they are charging Trump with inviting foreign interference in our electoral process based solely on the fact that Biden is a political opponent. However, this wasn’t about the election. The President is fully within the rights of his office, to request an investigation into a possible crime. There is nothing that says that when the person being investigated is a political opponent, they are off limits for investigation if they are suspected of participating in corruption with a foreign power. In fact, I think the it does the electorate a service. They deserve to have the facts in order to make an informed decision.

Srsly? I am not sure how the meaning of “fact” could be twisted to accommodate that statement.

The witnesses gave opinions and conjecture about the phone call and third party information. Not facts based on hard evidence.

 

[niceatheist]

" Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority."

Sure sounds like what the Democrats have been up to since 2016.

Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. We can debate the appropriateness of its use in this instance, or in any instance, but it most certainly is not subversion. But if it is, then were Republicans not guilty of precisely the same sin in impeaching Bill Clinton, or in the near-constant attacks on Obama, up to including the declaration that they were going to oppose his every measure?

I don’t mean to invoke whataboutery here, but I think this is an important point. What it really amounts to is “undermining a President is only bad when it’s a President I vote for”. I think it’s bad on both counts, and what’s more I think both in the Clinton and Trump cases, where the House’s impeachment almost certainly is not going to lead to conviction and removal in the Senate, it’s a waste of time and resources that could better be spent in other areas. But the fact is that the House has a constitutional right to impeach a president.

 

[Elizabeth3]

But if it is, then were Republicans not guilty of precisely the same sin in impeaching Bill Clinton, or in the near-constant attacks on Obama, up to including the declaration that they were going to oppose his every measure?

No.

…

 

[dvdjs]

I do not believe nor have I seen any hard evidence

I am not sure what you consider “hard evdidence”. A confession? The evidence developed through the testimony is sufficient to bring Trump to trial precisely for the kind of abuse of power that the framers had in mind. And that is not a matter of belief; their writings on the subject are clear.

The President is fully within the rights of his office, to request an investigation into a possible crime.

Typically, matters of this kind, if there were in fact an honest basis for an investigation, woudl be handled through the DoJ and, if there were international implications, through State. Not by special request of the president himself, made with the assistance of his personal attorney, and the removal of professionals in State. The aim would be for a real investigation, done without public announcement, not just the sham of public announcement than than a real investigation. Moveover, it would not involve the withholding of appropriated funds, which pretty much everyone involved in the cabinet knew to be illegal. These are relevant facts in the case. Not sure how you have missed them.

The witnesses gave

The fact witnesses testified about the facts that they were privy to. That was enough to move to trial.
It is not the opinion of the fact witnesses that is matiuerial to the case, but the assessment of the facts by the Senate. And the Senate, at the trial, is n position to force the testimony of others close to Trump who refused to testify in the house.

 

[Elizabeth3]

That was enough to move to trial.

If it was enough, why is Nancy not moving to trial?

 

[dvdjs]

If it was enough, why is Nancy not moving to trial?

What makes you think that she won’t?

 

[Elizabeth3]

What makes you think that she won’t?

I don’t know what she’s waiting for. She may or may not but it’s unprecedented and the reasons she’s giving for doing so are not within her authority to control.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

dvdjs:

That was enough to move to trial.

If it was enough, why is Nancy not moving to trial?

If the articles are not released by the time the Senate is ready to consider them, then you will have a point. For now, Congress has been on break and couldn’t have done anything with them anyway.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t know what she’s waiting for.

I think that has been. She is looking for negotiations in the Senate to establish a legitimate process there. She will wait to appoint managers that best suited to the process a s the Senate establishes it. She is not dong a thing that is outside of her control.

 

[Elizabeth3]

If the articles are not released by the time the Senate is ready to consider them, then you will have a point. For now, Congress has been on break and couldn’t have done anything with them anyway.

She’s not holding them because they are on a break. Being on break isn’t a legitimate reason to hold them anyway.

 

[dvdjs]

Being on break isn’t a legitimate reason to hold them anyway.

There is nothing in the law that requires immediate reading of the articles in the Senate by the House managers. She is within her authority t move them forward when she will.

 

[Elizabeth3]

he is looking for negotiations in the Senate to establish a legitimate process there. She will wait to appoint managers that best suited to the process a s the Senate establishes it. She is not dong a thing that is outside of her control.

It’s an abuse of power. What she means by a “fair trial” is one where she is assured of the outcome she’s looking for. Currently, she knows it’s not going to happen. I also think it’s a political move going into an election year by hanging the impeachment vote out there without resolution in the Senate, she thinks will be better optics for the Dems.

 

[dvdjs]

It’s an abuse of power.

What power, specifically, is being abused?

What she means by a “fair trial” is one where she is assured of the outcome she’s looking for …

There is not basis in fact to support any of these ideas, all of which contradict what she has said.

 

[PaulinVA]

In any case, since this impeachment has no hope of passing the Republican-controlled Senate, it appears to be more a political feint than an exercise in constitutional defense.

So, does this say more about the charges, or more about Senate Republicans?

Some Senators are saying they aren’t taking their job seriously, will not be impartial. I think historians will be writing about this in the future, how the Republican congresspeople and Senators were totally co-opted by the Trump party.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What she means by a “fair trial” is one where she is assured of the outcome she’s looking for. Currently, she knows it’s not going to happen. I also think it’s a political move going into an election year by hanging the impeachment vote out there without resolution in the Senate, she thinks will be better optics for the Dems.

It is easy to hypothesize nefarious motives of those with whom you disagree. It is much harder to support those outrageous hypotheses. As for a fair trial, all that is needed is open mindedness on the part of the jurors. Who ever heard of a juror who announces before the trial that he will be acting in total coordination with the defendant?

 

[Elizabeth3]

There is nothing in the law that requires immediate reading of the articles in the Senate by the House managers. She is within her authority t move them forward when she will.

Except, the House is done with their part of the process. It’s supposed to be in the hands of the Senate. She doesn’t have the authority to dictate how the Senate will handle the process. There’s nothing in the law about needing to know how the Senate will handle things so they can appoint managers. Trump has a right to be able to defend himself and as long as she refuses to hand over the articles, she can prevent the public from hearing any part of his defense. That’s unconsitutional.