The Trump Impeachment Thread

[huskeR32]

OMG My source was the source of your sources.

Your source is the topic the articles I read were discussing, and adding their own information to, yes. They weren't simply passing on his word as if it were unimpeachable truth.

If you had your way, every time the president loses the house, and that is very common, then they can impeach over anything they don't like.

You're dodging. Again. What I do or don't want has nothing to do with the question you won't answer. What are the "other" crimes that are "equal" to bribery and treason?

If you don't know which crimes are impeachable, how do you know which aren't?

Is that what you want?

You already dictated to me what I want.

That is not what the founder wanted.

How do you know that? If Dershowitz is your only reasoning for that, and you can't see that the president's own lawyer might not be the most credible source of constitutional analysis here, then I'm not sure what else to say.

--

EDIT:

Alan Dershowitz is probably the most respected constitutional scholar in America. He was hired to testify, but he was against impeachment long before the impeachment. He has been a famous lawyer for decades. He was not only around for the Clinton impeachment, but also for Nixon's.

He is a democrat.

He wrote a book about this impeachment before it even happened.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/151074228X/?tag=gtplanet-20

None of that has anything to do with what he pointed out: Dershowitz is currently serving as one of Trump's representatives. His party, his fame, his book... none of those are relevant.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

EDIT:

None of that has anything to do with what he pointed out: Dershowitz is currently serving as one of Trump's representatives. His party, his fame, his book... none of those are relevant.

I don't think the guy is from around these parts. I was just giving a little background into who Alan Dershowitz is. Dershowitz is probably not a household name where he lives.

And I'll take the word of Dershowitz over that bug eyed liar Schiff and any of those democrats, any day.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't think the guy is from around these parts. I was just giving a little background into who Alan Dershowitz is. Dershowitz is probably not a household name where he lives.

And I'll take the word of Dershowitz over that bug eyed liar Schiff and any of those democrats, any day.

Cool. What he pointed out to you about Dershowitz is true, and is utterly unaffected by any of the background you deemed him in need of.

You also have ignored my questions again.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Cool. What he pointed out to you about Dershowitz is true, and is utterly unaffected by any of the background you deemed him in need of.

You also have ignored my questions again.

My point is Dershowitz is not going to sell himself out for Trump. Dershowitz knows the law better than anyone.

 

[eran0004]

Alan Dershowitz is probably the most respected constitutional scholar in America. He was hired to testify, but he was against impeachment long before the impeachment. He has been a famous lawyer for decades. He was not only around for the Clinton impeachment, but also for Nixon's.

He is a democrat.

He wrote a book about this impeachment before it even happened.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/151074228X/?tag=gtplanet-20

Defence attorneys are obliged to protect their client’s interests. Their bias is an intended feature of the legal system, because it allows the court to test the case against reasonable doubt. A good attorney is not someone who is impartial and truthful, a good attorney is someone who makes it difficult for the prosecutor.

And he certainly didn’t write a book about this impeachment.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

And he certainly didn’t write a book about this impeachment.

My 'Post Reply' button must not be working.

 

[Imari]

I don't know, but I know missing the deadline of distributing foreign aid isn't one.

Is refusing to enact the lawful order of another part of the government one? Because that's the sort of thing that seems like it should be impeachable, or at least warrant consideration on the specifics of the situation. If the branches of government refuse to stay in their lanes then the system of checks and balances starts to break down, and that seems like an issue.

Dershowitz seems to think that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress aren't a problem, but I'd suggest that if you allow those then you're not actually that far away from the sort of monarchy that is exactly why the United States was founded in the first place. I suggest that the list of impeachable offenses should include anything that undermines the structure and function of the governmental system.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Is refusing to enact the lawful order of another part of the government one? Because that's the sort of thing that seems like it should be impeachable, or at least warrant consideration on the specifics of the situation. If the branches of government refuse to stay in their lanes then the system of checks and balances starts to break down, and that seems like an issue.

Dershowitz seems to think that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress aren't a problem, but I'd suggest that if you allow those then you're not actually that far away from the sort of monarchy that is exactly why the United States was founded in the first place. I suggest that the list of impeachable offenses should include anything that undermines the structure and function of the governmental system.

Disagreements between the executive branch and the congress should be settled through the judiciary branch. Here they weren't.

The democrat majority house stupidly voted to impeach. They stupidly voted to impeach with so little evidence, that now they claim they need more.

If they didn't have the evidence, they shouldn't have impeached.

 

[eran0004]

My 'Post Reply' button must not be working.

It’s probably fine, I’m more concerned about your calendar.

 

[Imari]

Disagreements between the executive branch and the congress should be settled through the judiciary branch. Here they weren't.

This is going to sound like a dumb question, but I'm not American so I legitimately don't know:

If the judicial branch is supposed to settle these sorts of disagreements (and that seems pretty reasonable, a third group to mediate the other two), why does impeachment/conviction through the House and Senate even exist as a thing? What is it supposed to accomplish that couldn't be accomplished by the Supreme Court?

 

[eran0004]

As for interpreting “other high crimes and misdemeanours”, I found this interesting:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense

They are offenses (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and ( 3 ) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books.

 

[mustafur]

You could Easily have Trump on the Saudis using and overpaying to stay in Trump Hotels in America.

 

[Dotini]

This is going to sound like a dumb question, but I'm not American so I legitimately don't know:

If the judicial branch is supposed to settle these sorts of disagreements (and that seems pretty reasonable, a third group to mediate the other two), why does impeachment/conviction through the House and Senate even exist as a thing? What is it supposed to accomplish that couldn't be accomplished by the Supreme Court?

This seems like a good question: "Why is removal of a President accomplished by Congress and not the Supreme Court?"

My hunch is that the framers of the Constitution wanted the removal of a President elected by the people to be removed primarily by another election of the people or, in an extreme emergency case, removed by elected representatives of the people. Since the Supreme Court are appointees serving for life, they are not directly serving or responsive to the people. So, bottom line, it's a democracy thing.

 

[Imari]

This seems like a good question: "Why is removal of a President accomplished by Congress and not the Supreme Court?"

My hunch is that the framers of the Constitution wanted the removal of a President elected by the people to be removed primarily by another election of the people or, in an extreme emergency case, removed by elected representatives of the people. Since the Supreme Court are appointees serving for life, they are not directly serving or responsive to the people. So, bottom line, it's a democracy thing.

That makes sense. I guess in a lot of other places, like Australia for example, our Supreme Leader isn't elected directly; they're merely the top dog of the party in power. In the US, the President is elected directly, and so it seems sensible make an effort to keep the electorate as involved in his impeachment or otherwise as possible. Using elected representatives is probably the best compromise to achieve that.

Ironically, what we have is a Governor General, who is basically a direct representative of the British monarchy. The one time that the power was used to dismiss a Prime Minister it was not taken well, so I see a lot to like in a more democratic system.

 

[Danoff]

This seems like a good question: "Why is removal of a President accomplished by Congress and not the Supreme Court?"

My hunch is that the framers of the Constitution wanted the removal of a President elected by the people to be removed primarily by another election of the people or, in an extreme emergency case, removed by elected representatives of the people. Since the Supreme Court are appointees serving for life, they are not directly serving or responsive to the people. So, bottom line, it's a democracy thing.

The supreme court is more directly tied to the executive than congress. The executive appoints supreme court justices, and has the ability to pardon. That's why it's congress.

 

[Danoff]

I contacted Cory Gardner's office last night in hopes of putting whatever pressure I could on allowing witnesses.

I will listen to Dershowitz.

Just about the most biased source you can pick. He's literally being paid to be as biased as he can in favor of Trump. Instead of trying to figure out who you should listen to, try to figure out what is true and what is not.

The democrat majority house stupidly voted to impeach. They stupidly voted to impeach with so little evidence, that now they claim they need more.

Impeachment is an indictment, not the trial. The trial happens in the Senate. They had plenty of evidence. It's not their fault that some Senators need more convincing.

One of the big narratives that has come out of this process has been "why are you having a trial in the House, it's too early", and "why didn't you have a trial in the House, it's too late". It's never the right time to investigate Trump apparently.

If they didn't have the evidence, they shouldn't have impeached.

You're very practiced at keeping your fingers in your ears. Do you understand what a terrible position it is to not want evidence? What do you think it's going to show? What has already been shown 10 times over? Yes... that's exactly what it's going to show. Because it's what happened (and what Trump said happened).

Violating the ICA is definitely an abuse of power, and Presidents get impeached over that kind of thing. This President was not impeached for it (and I think that probably should have been one of the grounds, but it wasn't). This President, while certainly guilty of that particular abuse of power, and other obstruction of justice (as clearly laid out in the Mueller Report), was impeached for bribing Ukraine (which he admitted to) and for obstruction of justice in the investigation of that bribery (which is sufficiently evidenced from his twitter account alone).

Just take a step back and ask yourself. Do you really think that Donald Trump, the guy who asked Russia to hack Hillary, who asked China to investigate the Bidens, who told the cameras that he is withholding aid to get investigations, and who told cameras that he is asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens... that guy... the guy who was investigated for years for his campaign's involvement in seeking aid from Russia against Hillary (and his advisers were convicted for it or plead guilty to it). You think that person did not withhold aid (which you said yourself had a "hold") to Ukraine for failure to announce an investigation into the Bidens?

Seriously?

Just say it straight. For the record. You think Trump did not withhold aid to the Ukraine for failure to announce an investigation into the Bidens.

 

[TexRex]

Ya know, @Chrunch Houston, for this thread to ever approach anything resembling productive conversation between differing opinions, it'll take answers to questions like this. Intellectual cowardice gets us nowhere.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
-- Thomas Paine

OMG My source was the source of your sources.

Fourth wall break inside a fourth wall break; that's like...16 walls.

He is a democrat.

And I'll take the word of Dershowitz over that bug eyed liar Schiff and any of those democrats, any day.

Oops.

I contacted Cory Gardner's office last night in hopes of putting whatever pressure I could on allowing witnesses.

Are...are you sure?

Of course I don't think you made the same error; I was simply reminded of that funny story.

One of the big narratives that has come out of this process has been "why are you having a trial in the House, it's too early", and "why didn't you have a trial in the House, it's too late". It's never the right time to investigate Trump apparently.

Also Republicans: [if not the above, and mind you there is no threshold for this; it was always going to be one or the other] "They dragged it out."

 

[UKMikey]

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
-- Thomas Paine

Liking this post just in case I ever have to steal this quote one day.

I lost the colour in your font by the way and tried unsuccessfully to put it back. What is it? Red? Orange? Brown? Green and I'm colour-blind?

[EDIT] Fixed. It's #cd6600 Tawny.

 

[TexRex]

I lost the colour in your font by the way and tried unsuccessfully to put it back. What is it? Red? Orange? Brown? Green and I'm colour-blind?

Yes.

You (and anyone else) can select the text and use the "eraser" at the top right of the post formatting menu above the text entry window to remove all formatting from the selected text. I add the formatting to my posts for myself and have no expectation of it being retained when quoted.

 

[Biggles]

I think many Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, would have preferred not to have impeached Trump & let the 2020 election play out. This is particularly true given that the likelihood of having Trump removed by the Senate was never high. I think one compelling reason why the Democrats decided to push ahead with impeachment is because they feared that leaving Trump unchallenged over the Ukrainian affair would encourage him to continue to use US foreign policy to further his own personal interests.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Anything new actually happen yet today?

 

[Dotini]

Anything new actually happen yet today?

The presentation phase has ended and now the Q&A phase is entered.

 

[huskeR32]

So, inside of 48 hours, Dershowitz goes from arguing that impeachment for abuse of power sets a dangerous precedent that will give future Congresses too much power, to saying that a president cannot be impeached for doing anything that helps get them elected:

"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

How that doesn't constitute a dangerous precedent is absolutely beyond me. Chrunch, my man, you were right; this guy is thinking on a level way above us mere mortals. I'm sorry I doubted.

 

[Danoff]

So, inside of 48 hours, Dershowitz goes from arguing that impeachment for abuse of power sets a dangerous precedent that will give future Congresses too much power, to saying that a president cannot be impeached for doing anything that helps get them elected:



How that doesn't constitute a dangerous precedent is absolutely beyond me. Chrunch, my man, you were right; this guy is thinking on a level way above us mere mortals. I'm sorry I doubted.

It's not always the best tactic for attorneys to advocate for incompatible positions within a trial, but it is sometimes, and it does get used. It kinda depends on the nature of the argument they're making, and how much credibility they're trying to maintain. In some cases, you just need something to stick, and you have no real credibility, and so you shotgun a bunch of incompatible stuff hoping that something is persuasive.

 

[Imari]

So, inside of 48 hours, Dershowitz goes from arguing that impeachment for abuse of power sets a dangerous precedent that will give future Congresses too much power, to saying that a president cannot be impeached for doing anything that helps get them elected:

Wow. I thought the dangerous precedent argument at least had enough merit to be worth discussing, as there's potentially a legitimate argument on what you want to allow the president to be able to do. I don't think using public power to force foreign powers to investigate political rivals is one of those things, but I'm sure someone could make a case for it.

The idea that the president cannot be impeached for doing anything that helps get them elected is just straight up bat:censored:, and barely worth discussing at all. I mean, straight up stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent votes would help a president get elected, but that's not impeachable? Assassinating ones opponent in the middle of Fifth Avenue? I would argue that would definitely be impeachable; presidents are only supposed to murder enemies of the state.

Hopefully people think about that one for more than two seconds and realise that there's actually a whole boatload of things that might help someone win an election that you really, really don't want to encourage your president (or pretty much anyone) to do.

 

[Dotini]

Wow. I thought the dangerous precedent argument at least had enough merit to be worth discussing, as there's potentially a legitimate argument on what you want to allow the president to be able to do. I don't think using public power to force foreign powers to investigate political rivals is one of those things, but I'm sure someone could make a case for it.

The idea that the president cannot be impeached for doing anything that helps get them elected is just straight up bat:censored:, and barely worth discussing at all. I mean, straight up stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent votes would help a president get elected, but that's not impeachable? Assassinating ones opponent in the middle of Fifth Avenue? I would argue that would definitely be impeachable; presidents are only supposed to murder enemies of the state.

Hopefully people think about that one for more than two seconds and realise that there's actually a whole boatload of things that might help someone win an election that you really, really don't want to encourage your president (or pretty much anyone) to do.

From your cited article;

Dershowitz said there were three possible motives for a quid pro quo in foreign policy: the public interest, personal political interest and personal financial interest. In the end, he argued, only the latter is corrupt.

 

[PeterJB]

I haven't been following any of this particularly closely, but is there a set date for the verdict?

 

[Dotini]

I haven't been following any of this particularly closely, but is there a set date for the verdict?

No.
First the Q&A must end. Then any new witnesses or evidence agreed and voted will be heard. This could entail lengthy delays, as there could be objections or appeals to Executive Privilege or classified information issues that would require adjudication by outside agencies such as courts. Sometimes court decision can take months, but if they are required in this case then you can expect for them to be expedited.

 

[Danoff]

Trump is apparently trying to slap "classified" on Bolton's book.

 

[Dotini]

Trump is apparently trying to slap "classified" on Bolton's book.

Some of the information relating to the JFK assassination is still classified.