The Trump Impeachment Thread

[UKMikey]

There certainly were sharp & bitter divisions in the '60's & '70's, but the news media was not polarized the way it is now. Walter Cronkite was often referred to as "the most trusted man in America". It's impossible to imagine any person in the news being considered that way now. Cronkite had views which nowadays would be considered "leftist" & "elitist" by the right wing media. For example:

"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen."

And:

"Even as with the American rejection of the League of Nations, our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil! Well join me... I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan."

The United States has not moved to the left since those days - in embracing Trump it has moved to a regressive, right wing & nationalist concept of what America should be.

Thanks for the link about Pat Robertson. I found it interesting that his 1988 presidential campaign seems to have been scuppered by his lying about his military service. I'm not sure that would be a showstopper today, either.

Robertson has described his military service as follows: "We did long, grueling marches to toughen the men, plus refresher training in firearms and bayonet combat." In the same year, he transferred to Korea, "I ended up at the headquarters command of the First Marine Division," says Robertson. "The Division was in combat in the hot and dusty, then bitterly cold portion of North Korea just above the 38th Parallel later identified as the 'Punchbowl' and 'Heartbreak Ridge.' For that service in the Korean War, the Marine Corps awarded me three battle stars for 'action against the enemy.'"[13]

Parts of Robertson's description of his service were later proven to be false. Former Republican Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Jr., who served with Robertson in Korea, wrote a public letter that said that Robertson was actually spared combat duty when his powerful father, a U.S. Senator, intervened on his behalf, and that Robertson spent most of his time in an office in Japan. According to McCloskey, his time in the service was not in combat, but as the "liquor officer" responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with alcohol. Robertson filed a $35 million libel suit against McCloskey in 1986.[14] He dropped the case in 1988, before it came to trial and paid McCloskey's court costs.[15] According to a newspaper report from 1986, Robertson confirmed elements of McCloskey's allegations and said that he never saw front-line duty.[16]

 

[TheGeologist]

Why is this thread titled the "non-impeachment" of Trump?

Even if the Senate finds him innocent, he is still considered an impeached president. He is now, and always will be a president who was impeached.

 

[TexRex]

Why is this thread titled the "non-impeachment" of Trump?

It's part of the "witch hunt" and "sham impeachment" narrative. The OP is one of those who, every step of the way, has pushed back against the idea that Trump has done anything for which a president should be held accountable. Casting many an aspersion but not bothering to elaborate on or substantiate any remark.

 

[Dotini]

Why is this thread titled the "non-impeachment" of Trump?

Even if the Senate finds him innocent, he is still considered an impeached president. He is now, and always will be a president who was impeached.

Noah Feldman, a Democratic Harvard Law School Professor, has written that the failure of the House to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate constitutes a failure to comply with the process of impeachment provided by the Constitution. Therefore, technically speaking, impeachment hasn't been satisfied until the Articles are delivered to the Senate for trial. When and if that happens, the thread title will revert to what it was before the Articles were held up, "The Impeachment of Donald Trump". I hope this makes it clear. It is a reiteration of what was already posted a few days ago.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Noah Feldman, a Democratic Harvard Law School Professor, has written that the failure of the House to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate constitutes a failure to comply with the process of impeachment provided by the Constitution.

The problem with quoting the disagreement of a single academic, however well respected and well established, is that it ignores the weight of legal thinking that stands against his view. Whether or not Feldman thinks he's spotted a technicality that invalidates the description of "impeachment" the impeachment is in place, it has happened, it is on this President's record for ever. Even the Republicans aren't saying that the impeachment hasn't happened, their counter-argument is that it's entirely politically motivated and that the cited facts are untrue/manipulated/irrelevant.

Your refusal to change the factually incorrect thread title is, in my opinion, a shame because it puts the thread into the same light as Flat Earth, Alien Power Tools and similarly edge-think categories.

 

[Dotini]

The problem with quoting the disagreement of a single academic, however well respected and well established, is that it ignores the weight of legal thinking that stands against his view. Whether or not Feldman thinks he's spotted a technicality that invalidates the description of "impeachment" the impeachment is in place, it has happened, it is on this President's record for ever. Even the Republicans aren't saying that the impeachment hasn't happened, their counter-argument is that it's entirely politically motivated and that the cited facts are untrue/manipulated/irrelevant.

Your refusal to change the factually incorrect thread title is, in my opinion, a shame because it puts the thread into the same light as Flat Earth, Alien Power Tools and similarly edge-think categories.

Yeah, you've got a fair point. But it's more fun this way, don't you think? It certainly is for me. Remember, there is a question mark there in the thread title, and I certainly won't hesitate to make the title conform to developments as they undoubtedly will continue to play out.

 

[Imari]

It'll be interesting to see how the next president deals with social media. If they're smart, they'll stay off of it for the most part.

I think they end up doing what companies do; it becomes a managed form of communication. Having the President tweeting directly is dumb. Hire someone who knows what they're doing and will make you look good. Someone with a spellchecker.

 

[Biggles]

The problem with quoting the disagreement of a single academic, however well respected and well established, is that it ignores the weight of legal thinking that stands against his view. Whether or not Feldman thinks he's spotted a technicality that invalidates the description of "impeachment" the impeachment is in place, it has happened, it is on this President's record for ever. Even the Republicans aren't saying that the impeachment hasn't happened, their counter-argument is that it's entirely politically motivated and that the cited facts are untrue/manipulated/irrelevant.

Your refusal to change the factually incorrect thread title is, in my opinion, a shame because it puts the thread into the same light as Flat Earth, Alien Power Tools and similarly edge-think categories.

What has been fascinating is to see Alan Dershowitz throw his lot in so completely with Trump.

 

[Liquid]

Noah Feldman, a Democratic Harvard Law School Professor, has written that the failure of the House to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate constitutes a failure to comply with the process of impeachment provided by the Constitution. Therefore, technically speaking, impeachment hasn't been satisfied until the Articles are delivered to the Senate for trial. When and if that happens, the thread title will revert to what it was before the Articles were held up, "The Impeachment of Donald Trump". I hope this makes it clear. It is a reiteration of what was already posted a few days ago.

Then why did you not retitle the thread "The Potential Impeachment..." for the bazillion weeks before the vote? Technically he hadn't been impeached then either. It seems desperate to care about semantics only now that he actually has been impeached;

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - they're not theories, they're hypotheses

The War On Drugs - Constitutionally, only Congress can declare war so even a metaphorical war is not valid without an official vote to announce such

United States of America - The 50 federal components are actually 46 states and 4 commonwealths and thusly the country should be renamed as such

Etc
Etc
Etc

 

[baldgye]

But it's more fun this way, don't you think?

Ah yes, this is how all reasoned, intelligent discussion concludes; I don't care if I'm wrong, because it's more fun to be wrong.

FakE neWs isN't faKE, iT's JuSt MorE fUn!

 

[TheGeologist]

Noah Feldman, a Democratic Harvard Law School Professor, has written that the failure of the House to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate constitutes a failure to comply with the process of impeachment provided by the Constitution. Therefore, technically speaking, impeachment hasn't been satisfied until the Articles are delivered to the Senate for trial. When and if that happens, the thread title will revert to what it was before the Articles were held up, "The Impeachment of Donald Trump". I hope this makes it clear. It is a reiteration of what was already posted a few days ago.

Stop quoting people with PhDs. That doesn't make you smarter. Can you think for yourself for once?

Impeachment has been satisfied. It was satisfied when the house voted on it. I don't want to hear these lame technicalities. President Trump is an impeached president. Calling it anything else is a lame attempt to spread misinformation.

 

[Dotini]

No, impeachment is definitely not over. If it is, then why is the impeachment process still continuing?? 100% proof it has begun but not concluded yet.

In a car race, the race is not over until the cars are off the track and the results are tabulated. In an impeachment, the impeachment is not over until the House managers deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. The present articles may be dropped or supplemented by different or stronger articles, backed up by new witnesses and evidence yet to be developed.

The process is in a delightful moment of stall in which spin is generated for partisan advantage.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/1...ting-democrats-says-harvards-alan-dershowitz/

 

[baldgye]

No, impeachment has definitely not occurred. If it has, then why is the impeachment process still continuing?? 100% proof it has not happened yet.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/1...ting-democrats-says-harvards-alan-dershowitz/

So the change in topic title is actually just a move to re-frame to conversation away from reality.

 

[Dotini]

So the change in topic title is actually just a move to re-frame to conversation away from reality.

No, the thread title was changed to accurately reflect the true reality at the moment. The day the articles are delivered to the Senate, I will change the thread title back to original.

 

[ryzno]

No, the thread title was changed to accurately reflect the true reality at the moment. The day the articles are delivered to the Senate, I will change the thread title back to original.

Don't waste your time, they can't take a joke. I commented about the change a week ago and no one said anything(you gave me a like), now that they've ganged up they have something to say about it... They just want something to complain about man.

 

[Dotini]

Don't waste your time, they can't take a joke. I commented about the change a week ago and no one said anything(you gave me a like), now that they've ganged up they have something to say about it... They just want something to complain about man.

Yes, it's hilarious when the majority gang up and make a joke of the minority. But when the shoe is on the other foot, see how angry they are! I just hope somebody doesn't wet themselves.

Seriously guys, your discomfiture won't last long, I'm sure. Maybe in the meantime you could watch a Jordan Peterson video?

 

[baldgye]

Yes, it's hilarious when the majority gang up and make a joke of the minority. But when the shoe is on the other foot, see how angry they are! I just hope somebody doesn't wet themselves.

Seriously guys, your discomfiture won't last long, I'm sure. Maybe in the meantime you could watch a Jordan Peterson video?

FakE neWs isN't faKE, iT's JuSt MorE fUn!

 

[Joey D]

In a car race, the race is not over until the cars are off the track and the results are tabulated. In an impeachment, the impeachment is not over until the House managers deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. The present articles may be dropped or supplemented by different or stronger articles, backed up by new witnesses and evidence yet to be developed.

My guess is that the articles will get delivered after the first of the year. Like most people, I assume Congress doesn't want to work over the holidays, or if I'm honest at all.

Yes, it's hilarious when the majority gang up and make a joke of the minority.

Welcome to America.

 

[Imari]

The impeachment is a done deal. The struggle now is over the trial and conviction.

Part of me does want to see the Senate hold a straight up kangaroo court, which is what they're threatening. But part of me also enjoys Trump raging about the Democrats holding up the process, when really the best outcome for him is probably that the Democrats simply hold the impeachment forever. He is not a smart man.

 

[TexRex]

The impeachment is a done deal. The struggle now is over the trial and conviction.

Part of me does want to see the Senate hold a straight up kangaroo court, which is what they're threatening. But part of me also enjoys Trump raging about the Democrats holding up the process, when really the best outcome for him is probably that the Democrats simply hold the impeachment forever. He is not a smart man.

It's clear that McConnell simply wants Trump acquitted as quickly as possible, and removing witness testimony helps to deliver on that end but it also minimizes the potential for bombshells that make the inevitable acquittal appear even more inappropriate.

 

[Biggles]

It's clear that McConnell simply wants Trump acquitted as quickly as possible, and removing witness testimony helps to deliver on that end but it also minimizes the potential for bombshells that make the inevitable acquittal appear even more inappropriate.

Apparently what Trump wants is a show trial in which the Senate majority gets to choose the witnesses & completely dismantles the impeachment case against him, proving him to be not only totally innocent, but the most innocent of any person in history ... ever.

 

[PocketZeven]

Apparently what Trump wants is a show trial in which the Senate majority gets to choose the witnesses & completely dismantles the impeachment case against him, proving him to be not only totally innocent, but the most innocent of any person in history ... ever.

Imagine how the USA would look like if the dems didnt take the majority in congress. Trump would be crowned emperor or president for life by now.

 

[Danoff]

I wonder if there is any chance the senate trial can be delayed until a potential second term. That way if enough senate seats change hands, even if the presidency doesn't, they could remove in 2021. Might be the best chance of getting mileage out of the house process.

 

[Joey D]

I wonder if there is any chance the senate trial can be delayed until a potential second term. That way if enough senate seats change hands, even if the presidency doesn't, they could remove in 2021. Might be the best chance of getting mileage out of the house process.

Never underestimate the power of the US government to drag its feet.

 

[Imari]

Apparently what Trump wants is a show trial in which the Senate majority gets to choose the witnesses & completely dismantles the impeachment case against him, proving him to be not only totally innocent, but the most innocent of any person in history ... ever.

And to be fair, that's a better idea than an obvious sham where they simply acquit him without doing any due diligence whatsoever. At least pretending to follow the forms of a trial gives the appearance of legitimacy.

If all the Senate does is show up, vote "nope" on the first day and go home, there's no way any reasonable person can claim that justice has been served. And there's no way to avoid the catastrophic precedent that it sets; that parties can simply ignore the checks and balances inherent to the government as long as they hold appropriate majorities.

It's one thing for the parties to hold different views on what is and isn't a convictable offence after a thorough investigation. It's another for a party to rule that no crime has occurred without even attempting to follow due process.

I wonder if there is any chance the senate trial can be delayed until a potential second term. That way if enough senate seats change hands, even if the presidency doesn't, they could remove in 2021. Might be the best chance of getting mileage out of the house process.

I feel like this tactic has the same problem of introducing dangerous precedents, although I suppose the Merrick Garland thing already accomplished that some time ago.

 

[PocketZeven]

I wonder if there is any chance the senate trial can be delayed until a potential second term. That way if enough senate seats change hands, even if the presidency doesn't, they could remove in 2021. Might be the best chance of getting mileage out of the house process.

Interesting. Can criminal trials be postponed for longer periods?

 

[TexRex]

Interesting. Can criminal trials be postponed for longer periods?

The use of 'longer' is ambiguous here. Is that longer as in longer than the amount of time proposed by the quoted individual, or is it used in another context, such as "longer than immediate"?

The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution grants certain rights, such as the right to a speedy trial.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

A continuance (postponement, extension) may be granted in favor of either the accused or prosecuting parties, but only if certain criteria are met, and that continuance may be subject to criticism by the accused's legal representation during the appeals process if the delay is believed to have been excessive and prejudicial.

Continuances are typically granted for the purpose of securing witness[es], and/or proper legal representation for the accused.

As a preemptive strike against obfuscation expected of certain parties, it should be noted that the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in the case of a post-impeachment Senate trial, as the accused in such an instance isn't subject to criminal proceedings.

 

[Danoff]

it should be noted that the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in the case of a post-impeachment Senate trial, as the accused in such an instance isn't subject to criminal proceedings.

The rules for impeachment are fast and loose.

If the Senate has already lined up to acquit without regard to process or impartiality (is that a word?), then I see the point for the Democrats. Why hand off articles to the Senate only to benefit the republicans and Trump. Hold them until it becomes more viable. All the way to the next term if necessary. Even if Trump loses in 2020, the Senate could still convict and vote to bar him from ever holding federal office again.

The least use the democrats will get out of the articles of impeachment is to hand them over right this second. Though people might turn on them for holding up the process, I doubt that would translate to a presidential candidate, and I doubt that the people holding it against them were swing voters.

 

[PocketZeven]

As a preemptive strike against obfuscation expected of certain parties, it should be noted that the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in the case of a post-impeachment Senate trial, as the accused in such an instance isn't subject to criminal proceedings.

How is jury bias handled in law?

 

[Rallywagon]

How is jury bias handled in law?

Typically by allowing both the defense and prosecutor to pick from a pool of eligible jurors picked by some sort of wizardry that has seen me on jury duty 4 times but not once for my wife.