Impeachment

[theiioftx]

This is even dumber than bringing the impeachment to begin with. Trump and the RNC are grateful for the ammunition.

If she doesn’t bring them to the Senate, the American public sees what a waste of time this really was. If she does, the Senate squashes it anyway. Meanwhile, the economy roars.

 

[Horn6721]

So far no Dem pol or talking head has explained why IF Trump is such a threat to national security Nancy would not send the articles that were SO important to vote for, not send them to the Senate.

 

[theiioftx]

So far no Dem pol or talking head has explained why IF Trump is such a threat to national security Nancy would not send the articles that were SO important to vote for, not send them to the Senate.

Great point. Their rush was because of “national security.” The libs in this forum have been strangely silent too.

 

[bystander]

Great point. Their rush was because of “national security.” The libs in this forum have been strangely silent too.

The American public is about to enter (if not already) the great detachment zone of Christmas and New Years. Most people don't want to think of anything other than free time and enjoying the season for it's intended purpose, regardless of religious beliefs or not. Lights, family, food, drink, football, travel, relaxation... not politics. Does she get this?

The delay will mean this will be waiting for us all on January 2nd. That will be the day she must remind us about the impeachment. Expect new exhortations of the evil Republicans to kick start the anger in the American people. We will see if it works.

 

[Horn6721]

The House goes back on Jan 7. We won't hear from her until then.

 

[horninchicago]

The House goes back on Jan 7. We won't hear from her until then.

Thank Gawd!

 

[OUBubba]

Maybe she's holding out to get, I don't know, material witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. to testify at some point. I mean, if he's innocent it wouldn't hurt, right? Why have they not been offered as witnesses to prove the innocence?

 

[Horn6721]

His innocence of what?

 

[horninchicago]

Are defendants supposed to prove their innocence?

 

[bystander]

Maybe she's holding out to get, I don't know, material witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. to testify at some point. I mean, if he's innocent it wouldn't hurt, right? Why have they not been offered as witnesses to prove the innocence?

The stipulation here is that the Republicans should take the bait that this is a sincere indictment. That the process was full-proof, unbiased and a rational application of the law.

But what difference does it make? Our Vice President will be more than happy to continue with the policies of this Administration. That is why I think this indictment is more about fear than corruption because Trump is nothing they've ever encountered before. Hillary was next in line for the throne. She lost. Now they know their candidates are corrupt (Biden) or communists. Trump will crush them in 2020. He has the bravado and fearlessness to attack them head-on and let the American people know that vote-buying, abject socialism into a pit of government entitlements and hatred is NOT THE AMERICAN WAY.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Are defendants supposed to prove their innocence?

Apparently yes.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Why have they not been offered as witnesses to prove the innocence?

Why haven't you proven your innocence against the charge of repeatedly raping your 14 year old cousin, Bubba?
Why haven't you proven your innocence against the charge of being Oklahoma's top drug lord?

Oh, that's right. You don't have to prove your innocence. Your accusers have to prove your guilt. Their burden, not yours. Applies to Trump too. Remember, no man is above the law, and the law says you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[bystander]

Apparently yes.

I would suppose you could just let the evidence as presented in the indictment stand but if it is misleading then you might want to challenge it. I've had an appeal filed against me before and it was tough to decide whether to stand on the record (this was my divorce; long story), facts and transcripts or rebut the appeal. I had hoped the judges would see through the appeal on their own but I decided to pay for a response. I won but it cost me five grand. You don't have to defend yourself at all in some cases. Pleading the 5th in a criminal trial is in essence, not defending yourself.

In this case, it seems it's not EXACTLY ON POINT that Trump ordered/demanded/extorted a quid pro quo. So theoretically if you are the Dems you'd like to question everyone about intent including Trump and the folks named by OUBubba. Would they all say the same thing: We were not ordered to extort/bribe the Ukraine? What if they did say that. THERE IS ZERO CHANCE IT WOULD MATTER TO THE LIBERALS and we all know it, including the Republicans in the Senate. So why indulge them? It's a political knife-fight. So all's fair apparently including altering or abandoning any norms associated with a regular trial.

 

[OUBubba]

Why haven't you proven your innocence against the charge of repeatedly raping your 14 year old cousin, Bubba?
Why haven't you proven your innocence against the charge of being Oklahoma's top drug lord?

Oh, that's right. You don't have to prove your innocence. Your accusers have to prove your guilt. Their burden, not yours. Applies to Trump too. Remember, no man is above the law, and the law says you are innocent until proven guilty.

A. I don't have a 14 year old cousin.
2. He is accused of two things. a) abuse of office and b) obstruction of justice.
Withholding military aid and dangling a white house visit for personal political gain. Bolton called it a drug deal and recommended to his staff that they confer with counsel. This is a reasonable charge that is worthy of requiring a defense. His obstruction makes Nixon seem cooperative so that's at least worthy of a defense as well.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Prove it! Your burden, not Trump's.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Maybe she's holding out to get, I don't know, material witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. to testify at some point. I mean, if he's innocent it wouldn't hurt, right? Why have they not been offered as witnesses to prove the innocence?

She could have them anytime she wants. But somebody would have to walk a few blocks down to the courthouse. If she isn't willing to have someone do that, why should McConnel? You can't expect the Senate to take the impeachment more seriously than the House did.

 

[Mr. Deez]

His obstruction makes Nixon seem cooperative so that's at least worthy of a defense as well.

That's not true at all.

 

[horninchicago]

That's not true at all.

Right. The President does not serve at the pleasure of The Congress. That's what the 3 Branches are for.

(I know you know that)

 

[Mr. Deez]

Right. The President does not serve at the pleasure of The Congress. That's what the 3 Branches are for.

(I know you know that)

And Switzer is ignorant. Trump turned over the transcript, which has been by far the biggest piece of real evidence. Most of what the "witnesses" (and I use that term loosely because most of them didn't actually witness anything) offered was opinion, conjecture, and speculation that wasn't based on personal knowledge of anything.

Nixon claimed executive privilege on the most important piece of evidence and had to be taken to the Supreme Court. However, in 1974, Congress actually took its role seriously.

 

[horninchicago]

And Switzer is ignorant. Trump turned over the transcript, which has been by far the biggest piece of real evidence. Most of what the "witnesses" (and I use that term loosely because most of them didn't actually witness anything) offered was opinion, conjecture, and speculation that wasn't based on personal knowledge of anything.

Nixon claimed executive privilege on the most important piece of evidence and had to be taken to the Supreme Court. However, in 1974, Congress actually took its role seriously.

This whole thing boils down to career gubment people thinking their wishes and ideas are the policies the POTUS, whomever that may be, should follow. Vindman, et al, and their hurt feelings are why Trump was impeached.

Well, Pelosi, et al, would have impeached anyway, but the impetus was butthurtedness.

(I know you know this)

 

[bystander]

This whole thing boils down to career gubment people thinking their wishes and ideas are the policies the POTUS, whomever that may be, should follow. Vindman, et al, and their hurt feelings are why Trump was impeached.

Which is another real world example of Socialism being hard to define but knowing it when you see it: A large unaccountable bureaucracy that considers itself the real government with all the power inherent in that statement and given the consent of the people by proxy (Congress).

 

[OUBubba]

The real work on the ukraine drug deal was done by Rudy and his associates. Crime bosses aren't always idiots.

The House has proven it to a reasonable level. The problem is the Senate wouldn't convict him of a murder that happened on live TV.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The real work on the ukraine drug deal was done by Rudy and his associates. Crime bosses aren't always idiots.

You don't know that though. You're speculating.

The House has proven it to a reasonable level. The problem is the Senate wouldn't convict him of a murder that happened on live TV.

What exactly have they proven by actual witness testimony? Very little, if anything. Trump was impeached on by far (and it's not even close) the weakest evidence of any federal official in the history of the United States.

 

[OUBubba]

You don't know that though. You're speculating.

Reasonably, but yes. That said, Mulvaney (who admitted that a quid pro quo happened), Bolton (who referred to it as a drug deal and recommended them getting counsel and then resigned) and even nut job America's mayor could all straighten that stuff out. Much like we did with Monica's blue dress - much more heinous and high crimes.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Reasonably, but yes. That said, Mulvaney (who admitted that a quid pro quo happened), Bolton (who referred to it as a drug deal and recommended them getting counsel and then resigned) and even nut job America's mayor could all straighten that stuff out. Much like we did with Monica's blue dress - much more heinous and high crimes.

A quid pro quo isn't illegal or unethical by itself. We have no idea what Bolton called it or what he meant by it. We have one quote from Fiona Hill. However, even if he called it a drug deal, that is a characterization or opinion. It isn't fact evidence. The dress was nothing like that. It was conclusive, scientific proof of facts. Clinton blew his wad on Monica's dress and conclusively proved that he had perjured himself. There was nothing opinionated about it. It was facts - 100 percent.

 

[OUBubba]

A quid pro quo isn't illegal or unethical by itself. We have no idea what Bolton called it or what he meant by it. We have one quote from Fiona Hill. However, even if he called it a drug deal, that is a characterization or opinion. It isn't fact evidence. The dress was nothing like that. It was conclusive, scientific proof of facts. Clinton blew his wad on Monica's dress and conclusively proved that he had perjured himself. There was nothing opinionated about it. It was facts - 100 percent.

Doesn't that indicate that it might benefit us from hearing from them before we pronounce him innocent or guilty? Heck, why not have the President testify? Clinton did under oath.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Let me throw this out there. The impeachment could have been done correctly. I'm not just ripping the House Democrats without saying how they could do it right. Let's break this down.

First, they didn't want a special prosecutor and chose to investigate the matter through the House Intelligence Committee. OK, they have that right. They can do that.

Second, they chose to conduct their investigation in private and highlighted the fact that prosecutors and investigators work in private. OK, that's a plausible justification. However, they chose to selectively leak information. That isn't per se against the law, but it undermines their credibility when they claim to be serious and solemn operators.

Third, they chose to launch an impeachment inquiry from the very beginning. There isn't some big legal implication of that. However, it is a major political move. It locks them into a box. As a practical matter, once that train starts, it doesn't stop almost no matter what the evidence shows. It makes it damn near impossible for them to backpedal if things don't go exactly as they expect.

Fourth, the Intelligence Committee invited testimony from several people, but they only actually received testimony from people they knew would testify favorably. Privileges were asserted by the people who dealt directly with Trump, and the committee chose not to assert any legal remedies to compel their testimony. Well, the problem with this is that the people who testified for them knew damn near nothing relevant, because they had no dealings with Trump, and he was the guy they were trying to impeach. Sondland had some dealings, but they were extremely limited - not enough to get anything really damning if you look at the specifics. They threw a ****-fit about privileges being asserted, but that is customary. Were the assertions overbroad? Probably, but that's where the court comes it. It can sort that out, but somebody has to decide to appear in court. The House blew that off, and that was indefensible. If I operated that way, I would have been sued for legal malpractice.

So what did all that leave them? It left them with a bunch of wildly overblown rhetoric about "bribery" and "treason," but when the **** hit the fan, they couldn't come up with any statutory violations. In other words, they couldn't prove that he broke a single law. Bribery was off the table. Obstruction of justice was off the table. All they had was a catch-all "we don't like what he did" abuse of power article that isn't supported by the evidence and an "obstruction of Congress" article that is facially nonsensical.

How could they have done it differently?

1. Don't start with an impeachment inquiry. That immediately turns it into a dog and pony show. Start with routine oversight hearings. That's far less of a political **** storm, and they can still use subpoena power. Refer it to the Judiciary Committee as an impeachment matter after the evidence is found.

2. Take the process as seriously as they pretended to. Instead of calling a bunch of witnesses and having them Trump-bash and not much else, use their subpoena power to get testimony from the people who actually have knowledge of relevant facts. Yes, that takes longer, but if you actually care about what you're doing, it's the only right way to proceed. And it doesn't have to take forever. Courts can expedite matters of particular importance. They do it every frigggin' day. That's a ******** excuse.

3. Don't overstate the case, before you have the facts. Don't just start mouthing off about bribery. Have your counsel come up with questions that will elicit the testimony to prove bribery, and when you get that on the record, then you can talk about bribery.

4. Cut the ******** sanctimony. No serious person bought any of that. The matter was treated as an entirely partisan and politically-driven exercise from the beginning (which is why the investigation was so sloppy in the first place). The sanctimony only made them look like phonies.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Doesn't that indicate that it might benefit us from hearing from them before we pronounce him innocent or guilty? Heck, why not have the President testify? Clinton did under oath.

YES, IT WOULD!! That is exactly the point. It's called a subpoena. You serve John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Mick Mulvaney with subpoenas. If they resist, then you set the matter for hearing. It's very straightforward. However, if the House isn't willing to take the process seriously enough to do that, then why should anyone else?

Also, we don't pronounce people innocent. They are presumed innocent until pronounced guilty after evidence is presented.

 

[OUBubba]

YES, IT WOULD!! That is exactly the point. It's called a subpoena. You serve John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Mick Mulvaney with subpoenas. If they resist, then you set the matter for hearing. It's very straightforward. However, if the House isn't willing to take the process seriously enough to do that, then why should anyone else?

Also, we don't pronounce people innocent. They are presumed innocent until pronounced guilty after evidence is presented.

potato/potatoe.

 

[Mr. Deez]

potato/potatoe.

Actually, it makes a pretty big difference.