Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

House Democrats launch official impeachment i

308 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Source?

This is frequently discussed. But the consensus is that if the President is immune, then why is NY making so much noise of actually indicting Trump?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-one-of-trumps-biggest-legal-threats-is-new-yorks-attorney-general/

Quote

Finally, legal experts told me that if New York officials have sufficient evidence against Trump and the appetite for a protracted legal battle, they may have the best chance at testing a high-stakes constitutional unknown: Is it possible to issue a criminal indictment against a sitting president?

Unlike their federal counterparts, state prosecutors are not bound by a Department of Justice policy that says that a sitting president is immune from indictment (a former president is fair game). “I think it would be hard for a judge to tell New York that it can’t pursue charges for criminal violations of its own state law by Donald Trump that occurred before he was president,” said Andy Wright, former associate counsel to President Obama.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-one-of-trumps-biggest-legal-threats-is-new-yorks-attorney-general/

Quote

But because Trump’s businesses and his presidential campaign are registered in New York, state officials have the authority to investigate and potentially prosecute him for violations of state law.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-asked-why-trump-wasnt-indicted-for-campaign-finance-violations-11563561750

Quote

WASHINGTON—The House Oversight Committee chairman asked Manhattan federal prosecutors whether a Justice Department policy barring charges against a sitting president played any role in their decision not to indict President Trump for campaign-finance violations in which he was implicated.

In a letter Friday to Audrey Strauss, the deputy U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) asked whether prosecutors had identified evidence of criminal conduct by Mr. Trump and whether the Justice Department policy had “played any role in your office’s decision not to indict President Trump for these hush money crimes.”

If the office did uncover evidence of criminal conduct by Mr. Trump, Mr. Cummings wrote, “this would be the second time the president has not been held accountable for his actions due to his position. The Office of the President should not be used as a shield for criminal conduct.”

Former special counsel Robert Mueller earlier this year said upon the conclusion of his investigation he opted not to make a decision on whether the president had obstructed justice, in part because of the Justice Department policy that bars charging sitting presidents. But, he said in May, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Mr. Cummings also requested the evidence Manhattan federal prosecutors gathered during their campaign-finance investigation, as well as information about whether Attorney General William Barr or other Justice Department officials had influenced the U.S. attorney’s office’s decisions during the probe.

Sounds to me like it is Possible for a State to indict a President, even if it has never been done before. The rule that the President can't be indicted is a Federal DOJ rule, and doesn't necessarily apply to all governments everywhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Sounds to me like it is Possible for a State to indict a President, even if it has never been done before. The rule that the President can't be indicted is a Federal DOJ rule, and doesn't necessarily apply to all governments everywhere.

Well he's on tape conspiring to commit the crime that Cohen is serving time for and is an unindicted 'coconspirator' in the documents, so apparently it does. Either that or there's another reason they haven't indicted.

But it doesn't matter why they've not indicted, because, as the tapes show, Trump is as guilty of that crime as Cohen - something that is definitely an impeachable offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

So how do you know he's innocent if he hasnt been investigated? 

Well, that's a phillisophical point. If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, did it ever really exist ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

This is frequently discussed. But the consensus is that if the President is immune, then why is NY making so much noise of actually indicting Trump?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-one-of-trumps-biggest-legal-threats-is-new-yorks-attorney-general/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-one-of-trumps-biggest-legal-threats-is-new-yorks-attorney-general/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-asked-why-trump-wasnt-indicted-for-campaign-finance-violations-11563561750

Sounds to me like it is Possible for a State to indict a President, even if it has never been done before. The rule that the President can't be indicted is a Federal DOJ rule, and doesn't necessarily apply to all governments everywhere.

Well then... let them do so ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well he's on tape conspiring to commit the crime that Cohen is serving time for and is an unindicted 'coconspirator' in the documents, so apparently it does. Either that or there's another reason they haven't indicted.

But it doesn't matter why they've not indicted, because, as the tapes show, Trump is as guilty of that crime as Cohen - something that is definitely an impeachable offence.

Meh... Cohen confessed to it. He wasn't found guilty. Lots of people said he shouldn't have, because there was no way it could be successfully prosecuted. Some say he did so to avoid a bigger charge of something else.

Just because a person pled guilty to a crime does not mean a "Conspirator" is automatically guilty. History is full of examples of people who committed crimes trying to pull others down with them, and those other people being found not guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well then... let them do so ? 

Let them try anyway. Decide the issue of State against President once and for all.

Plus, IMHO, there's not enough there for any of these State inquiries (Other then possible real estate issues?), to find him guilty of anything.

Enough to bring charges is one thing. Enough to convict is another.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
19 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Meh... Cohen confessed to it. He wasn't found guilty. Lots of people said he shouldn't have, because there was no way it could be successfully prosecuted. Some say he did so to avoid a bigger charge of something else.

Just because a person pled guilty to a crime does not mean a "Conspirator" is automatically guilty. History is full of examples of people who committed crimes trying to pull others down with them, and those other people being found not guilty.

Trump is on tape directing Cohen.

Your argument doesn't hold up. A judge doesn't sentence someone to time in prison for something that is not a crime.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Trump is on tape directing Cohen.

Your argument doesn't hold up. A judge doesn't sentence someone to time in prison for something that is not a crime.

Directing him how? As a private citizen, and thus no Campaign Finance issue. Or, as the prospective President, and thus MAYBE causing a campaign finance issue.

I've read that the defining question is if what was done could have been expected to have been done if the person would not running for office. And... being who he was.... Trump does fit that expectation. So...... It would be super hard to prove. And obviously, from what I've read, they determined just that... that it was impossible to prove.

EDIT: That campaign finance crimes are a crime, is not in doubt. Cohen confessed, and pled guilty. Thus a Judge sentenced him. That in no way means that what he pled guilty to actually happened the way he said it did.

EDIT: In addition there were dozens of other people involved in the payments, and in the campaign, who were investigated, and are not being charged. Cohen is an idiot to have pled guilty. 

Quote

While Cohen pleaded guilty last August to charges that the payoffs amounted to illegal campaign contributions, others involved remained uncharged, including Trump himself and executives at the Trump Organization and American Media Inc., the company that owns the National Enquirer.

 

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well he's on tape conspiring to commit the crime that Cohen is serving time for and is an unindicted 'coconspirator' in the documents, so apparently it does. Either that or there's another reason they haven't indicted.

But it doesn't matter why they've not indicted, because, as the tapes show, Trump is as guilty of that crime as Cohen - something that is definitely an impeachable offence.

It is a crime if he knew it was a crime. If you listen to that conversation he ask Cohen basically should he write a check? ( Which would leave a paper trail) and Cohen replied No, no, no. Cohen knew it was wrong, Trump wanting to write a "check" obviously did not. If he knew it was a crime he wouldn't have offered to write a "check" and any prosecutor is going to agree.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

It is a crime if he knew it was a crime. If you listen to that conversation he ask Cohen basically should he write a check? ( Which would leave a paper trail) and Cohen replied No, no, no. Cohen knew it was wrong, Trump wanting to write a "check" obviously did not. If he knew it was a crime he wouldn't have offered to write a "check" and any prosecutor is going to agree.

That's possible.

Thing is, Congress doesn't need to prove a crime happened, they only need to show that he's corrupt. The impeachment process isn't a court of law, so our opinions don't matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

That's possible.

Thing is, Congress doesn't need to prove a crime happened, they only need to show that he's corrupt. The impeachment process isn't a court of law, so our opinions don't matter.

LOL... you've given yourself away there @ExpandMyMind. "We don't need to prove a crime happened.. we just have to prove that we don't like him". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

So how do you know he's innocent if he hasnt been investigated? 

He is innocent by default, unless proven guilty in a court of law. 

This is BASIC jurisprudence. Well, in any civilized country. They might do it differently in Nigeria or China or California and various other authoritarian fascist states. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

LOL... you've given yourself away there @ExpandMyMind. "We don't need to prove a crime happened.. we just have to prove that we don't like him". 

I'm just repeating the facts of the impeachment process, which have been posted here on numerous occasions. It's not a court of law, and as such does not have to reach the same standards of proof.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm just repeating the facts of the impeachment process, which have been posted here on numerous occasions. It's not a court of law, and as such does not have to reach the same standards of proof.

Yup. So Impeachment is basically a popularity contest :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yup. So Impeachment is basically a popularity contest :D 

He is leaving out the most important aspects for whatever reason.  The lower house of congress can vote to impeach with a simple majority for whatever hey deem a high crime or misdemeanor.   Obviously the crazies that are running at house now see Trump breathing as a high crime so we get what we get.,  It then goes to the upper house, the senate and they need a super majority to remove or even censor the president for said high crime or misdemeanor.  Obviously, given the current state of affairs and the lack of any crime, the democrat congress impeachment ruling would get laughed out of the senate and Pelosi would most probably lose the gavel she so cherishes come November 2020. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

For me, the real question is, how much damage will this do to the democrat party when impeachment fails?

I hope they do this by 2020

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

For me, the real question is, how much damage will this do to the democrat party when impeachment fails?

I hope they do this by 2020

If history serves then it would be devastating just like it was to the republicans when they impeached Clinton, and he actually committed a felony.

As an aside, when faced with the likely outcome one has to ask why would Nadler and Schiff move forward with this. One answer may be that Nadler is facing a primary challenge and said challenger promises to impeach Trump so Humpty must be running scared, he may have no choice but to pursue impeachment no matter how much it hurts the party.   I have no explanation for Schiff.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

For me, the real question is, how much damage will this do to the democrat party when impeachment fails?

I hope they do this by 2020

OooKAY. The title of this thread is "house democracts launch official impeachment investigation". 

So then.. has the investigation actually started, or is this just another piece of empty "virtue signalling" by the Democrats ? Full of Media Fury, signifying nothing ? 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

He is leaving out the most important aspects for whatever reason.  The lower house of congress can vote to impeach with a simple majority for whatever hey deem a high crime or misdemeanor.   Obviously the crazies that are running at house now see Trump breathing as a high crime so we get what we get.,  It then goes to the upper house, the senate and they need a super majority to remove or even censor the president for said high crime or misdemeanor.  Obviously, given the current state of affairs and the lack of any crime, the democrat congress impeachment ruling would get laughed out of the senate and Pelosi would most probably lose the gavel she so cherishes come November 2020. 

He won't release his tax returns that we demand, so we must impeach him! We need those returns so we can make up false conjectures! The IRS doesn't know what it is doing like we in Congress do! We will find something in them!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 8/4/2019 at 6:01 AM, DieChecker said:

Meh... Cohen confessed to it. He wasn't found guilty. Lots of people said he shouldn't have, because there was no way it could be successfully prosecuted. Some say he did so to avoid a bigger charge of something else.

Just because a person pled guilty to a crime does not mean a "Conspirator" is automatically guilty. History is full of examples of people who committed crimes trying to pull others down with them, and those other people being found not guilty.

I know I must seem ignorant, but I didn't know that.

Could you give just one example out of history of someone who committed a crime and went to prison in the hopes of implicating someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

One answer may be that Nadler is facing a primary challenge and said challenger promises to impeach Trump so Humpty must be running scared, he may have no choice but to pursue impeachment no matter how much it hurts the party.

Advice from my mother comes to mind.  "If your friends jump off a cliff does that mean you have to do it too?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Advice from my mother comes to mind.  "If your friends jump off a cliff does that mean you have to do it too?"

I believe it is more about who can be the most virulent anti-Trump candidate.  Check out this politico article to read about old Nadler's woes.  https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/07/23/nadler-challenger-looks-to-make-him-face-of-inaction-on-impeaching-trump-1114295

I am guessing Mueler's failure to deliver Trumps head has only enraged Nadler's constituency further which heats up the pot Nadler is being cooked in even more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I believe it is more about who can be the most virulent anti-Trump candidate.  Check out this politico article to read about old Nadler's woes.  https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/07/23/nadler-challenger-looks-to-make-him-face-of-inaction-on-impeaching-trump-1114295

I am guessing Mueler's failure to deliver Trumps head has only enraged Nadler's constituency further which heats up the pot Nadler is being cooked in even more.

I suppose you are right.  It still seems about equivalent to jumping off a cliff.  Congress people better start thinking about other issues though or none of them will be welcomed back.   Personally, I am in favor of that, 8 years max for anybody, maybe less for Congress.  Gives them less time to burrow in.   Same for both parties and any new ones that come along.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Let's say 6 years Senate, 8 years house and if they're serious about their convictions they'll try harder to get things done instead of kicking the can down the road playing politics worrying about elections 8 years down the road.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
31 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I suppose you are right.  It still seems about equivalent to jumping off a cliff.  Congress people better start thinking about other issues though or none of them will be welcomed back.   Personally, I am in favor of that, 8 years max for anybody, maybe less for Congress.  Gives them less time to burrow in.   Same for both parties and any new ones that come along.

Agreed on all your points.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.