How will Impeachment play out?

[+and-then]

39 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You do mean besides Sondland right?

When Sondland was directly asked if he heard Trump demand a QPQ he said NO... it was his( Sondland's) assumption based on things he'd heard elsewhere in the department.  I'll look for it but I know I heard him answer the exact opposite of what he'd previously said to Schiff or one of his inquisitors. 

39 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Hence obstruction of congress charges

I realize you simply refuse to accept his legitimate right as a president to Executive privilege but he has it nonetheless.  He went through over 2 years of an anal probe by Mueller and his men and not once did Trump refuse a request for documents, interviews with staff, NOTHING.  He could legally have refused ALL OF IT.  He didn't.  At the end of that, the D's launched a brand new gambit to start the investigations all over and he rightfully refused to go along.  As is his RIGHT as a CoEqual branch of this government.  A president cannot "obstruct" Congress by simply executing HIS powers as Chief Executive.  

I just read a piece by noted Constitutional scholar and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz and he stated that these two articles are so vague that the Senate could by routine majority vote simply refuse to take the case for trial based on the lack of any evidence for an offence that is listed in the Constitution.  I'm against that completely.  After all of the Sturm and Drang of the past few weeks, it is time for the House to vote it up or down and IF they deliver articles to the floor of the Senate then Trump should NOT be denied his chance to face his accusers.

39 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This opinion is insane. Ensuring the proper use of granted power and providing checks on power are the very reasons we have a constitution.

This is true but it is not a blank check to name any offense that suits the moment, politically, and attempt to take down a duly elected president.  There ARE checks on presidential power.  Vetos can be overridden and , as we've seen multiple times over the past 3 years, the judiciary can be called upon to decide if a president's actions are Constitutional.  Remember the 9th circuit's multiple injunctions to delay his Executive Orders?  THOSE are the kinds of checks that are allowed.  BTW, as I recall, EVERY injunction that was reviewed was decided in HIS favor.  Hell, the notorious RBG herownself stood up for him recently on the tax return ruling.  THAT blew me away.  I totally have to change my assumption of her being a hardcore political shill.  Congress acting as though the Chief Executive MUST supply them with fodder for perpetual ongoing political investigations is NOT a power that the Congress has.

That leads us to the next downside to the actions of the House.  They are setting precedent after precedent that will bite them in the future.  Resorting to raw power to try to remove the people's choice from 2016 will leave that door open to be used on future Democrat Oval Office dwellers.  They've made a tremendous mess and shown themselves to be willing to do ANYTHING to remove him.

Edited December 13, 2019 by and then

[+and-then]

On 12/5/2019 at 8:14 PM, DarkHunter said:

One Democratic representative is defecting, saying he wont vote for the articles of impeachment unless he sees something or learns something new, a second Democratic representative seems to have a high chance of not voting for it but hasn't given a definitive answer yet.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/05/politics/democrats-against-impeachment-jeff-van-drew/index.html

While small in number this could potentially be the start of defections, the Democrats have a 233 to 197 seat majority so to stop the articles of impeachment only 19 Democratic representatives have to defect for everything to end.

Nancy decided today to entertain some discussion over USMCA and I'm wondering if that "win" for Trump will come at the expense of those new Representatives in Red districts.  She's between a rock and the hard place.  If she whips her caucus and demands party line vote she could actually cut her own throat and lost the Gavel next election.  It will look equally bad if she allows some of the most vulnerable in her caucus to vote no while maintaining a bare majority to pass the Articles.

In truth the best way for this sideshow to end would be for her junior members to refuse to commit political suicide for a vote that isn't going to remove him.

[+and-then]

On 12/10/2019 at 9:10 AM, RoofGardener said:

If there was anything incriminating in them, they would surely have taken some sort of action ? 

As often as his businesses get audited, you can be sure that ANY actual violation of a serious criminal code would have leaked out LONG ago.  I think they want to stroll barefoot through his business so they can dredge up something embarrassing for him.  Impeachment was designed as a means to remove the Executive for truly serious actions WHILE PRESIDENT.  Digging up evidence that shows he committed a violation years prior to running  for office will fail like every other attempt.  That said, it would be gratifying to listen to the MSM trashing him and then see the returns had ZERO evidence of any misconduct.  The way things have been unfolding for the D's it wouldn't surprise me if that is exactly what happened.

[Farmer77]

27 minutes ago, and then said:

When Sondland was directly asked if he heard Trump demand a QPQ he said NO

Ill look too but I believe that was a bit of semantic play by the defense. No Trump didnt say the words he wants a quid pro quo, he in fact say he  didnt want a quid pro quo, he did however in that same conversation go on to demand the conditions that make up a quid pro quo.

This does of course lead us back to the obstruction charge

Quote

Sondland said he communicated to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that he “told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to ‘run a fully transparent investigation’ and ‘turn over every stone’ were necessary in his call with President Trump.”

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said.

 

27 minutes ago, and then said:

I realize you simply refuse to accept his legitimate right as a president to Executive privilege but he has it nonetheless. 

No man thats really not it. I accept that he won the election and just as a reminder I actually rooted for him to beat Hillary.

His interpretation of executive power is a dangerously wrong one. Despite his and his cronies insistence article 2 does not in any way shape or form give him or any POTUS the right to do "whatever he wants". 

While I dont agree with the concept of executive privilidge at all for any POTUS some of what has been requested certainly does fit under that definition, not all 71 documents and testimony.

Of course hes not really even arguing executive privilidge anymore he's arguing the WH has "absolute immunity". How do you feel about that?

27 minutes ago, and then said:

He went through over 2 years of an anal probe by Mueller and his men and not once did Trump refuse a request for documents, interviews with staff, NOTHING. 

Youre right, kinda, there however are 10 examples of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. That honestly makes this matter all the more urgent.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Farmer77

[+and-then]

 

18 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Despite his and his cronies insistence article 2 does not in any way shape or form give him or any POTUS the right to do "whatever he wants". 

That quote was in reference to firing Comey or anyone else in THE DOJ.  He  was accurate.  He definitely was not saying he could literally do anything without consequences.  That's a pull quote that the media are misrepresenting.

[+and-then]

Well, I hope the Senate actually gives him a chance to face his accusers and to either see them dodge and appear guilty OR make statements under oath.  I want the trial televised and witnesses called and deposed so that he can be vindicated rather than having Mitch or Graham hurry up and brush it under the rug.

Not having witnesses and a trial simply plays directly into the hands of his enemies.  

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, and then said:

It's totally irrational and partisan.

lol - you keep accusing me of being partisan when it comes to trump - I am because I have known of him for a very long time - and I am have frequently admitted same.

Nothing he could do or say will change my opinion of him.

But I also argue that anyone who thinks that, (within the context of the US impeachment process, which as you well know is not a court system), trump should not be impeached is equally partisan.

Edited December 13, 2019 by RAyMO

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, and then said:

hat quote was in reference to firing Comey or anyone else in THE DOJ

No it wasnt just that.  He has made that comment multiple times, particularly to the obstruction in the report.

Quote

“Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.”

 The founding fathers called on us to be vigilant, intentionally ignoring all context and placing each statement the chief executive makes into a vacuum as to make it acceptable is not being that.

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Well, I hope the Senate actually gives him a chance to face his accusers and to either see them dodge and appear guilty OR make statements under oath.  I want the trial televised and witnesses called and deposed so that he can be vindicated rather than having Mitch or Graham hurry up and brush it under the rug.

Not having witnesses and a trial simply plays directly into the hands of his enemies.  

There are no witnesses that can vindicate Trump this issue is settled. Thats why McConnel called the strategy youre proposing mutually assured destruction and Graham has already said he wont call any witnesses. Trump cant be vindicated  the best he can hope for is to drag as many people down with him as he can. 

Mitch McConnell calls Trump's demand for witnesses at his trial as 'mutually assured destruction'

 

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

For sure but that doesnt change the fact that Trumpians are the minority in the nation when discussing "the public's mind".

 

Are they? You believe pro-impeachment are in a majority?

Polls show all this dog and pony show hasn't changed opinions at all. Numbers of pro and against are basically the same since September.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-house-impeachment-hearings-failed-to-move-public-opinion/

A 3 point lead isnt a mandate.

[+DieChecker]

I was reading a article about if impeachment becomes a new normal. I believe that's a real threat. Imagine if we got a President Warren, or President Biden, and in 2022 there's a "Red Wave" and Republicans capture the House and Senate.... a Biden gaff, or Warren mis-spoke, will lead to articles of impeachment. And a confirm by the Senate and then.... Bye, Bye Warren/Biden. 

Very bad precedent, just like with Harry Reid and the Senate overrule "nuclear option". Without that the SCotUS candidates would have had to have been moderates.

Edited December 13, 2019 by DieChecker

[Doug1029]

6 hours ago, and then said:

Time WILL tell.  I'll make a prediction of my own.  The Democrat party will be hoist on its own petard in the aftermath of this blatant attempt at a coup.  There is NO law that says a presidential candidate OR president MUST produce his tax returns.  You know full well that all they want them for is more fodder to make accusations and demand more investigations.  Do you REALLY believe that Independents and even fair minded Democrats are going to stay on board forever with this kind of behavior?  I think we are going to see a major rejection of the Democrat party in 2020.  Whether we are treated to his tax returns or not.  Americans have heretofore been known for being supporters of equal treatment and innocent until proven guilty.  All that went out the window in the mad rush of your party and its propaganda arms to destroy this man by any means possible.  Do you think people are blind to what's been going on?  Do you?  

I heard a Democrat Representative from California basically saying they'd Impeach him as many times as it took to get rid of him.  THAT is insanity and I hope she and others like her repeat that same mantra next year.  It's the best way I can imagine for the D's to lose the House again.  While you are holding out hope about a "blue wave" you might want to remember that he wasn't standing for election in 2018.  He WILL be on the ticket in 2020 and his coattails are going to be a thing of wonder.

Trump is not being impeached for failure to produce his tax returns.  That issue is still being plaid out in the courts; although, it looks like Trump will lose.  THEN we'll see.  Congress, like the rest of us, are bystanders in these proceedings.

He is being impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, two Articles against which nobody, not even Trump, is contesting the facts.

As a practical matter, it takes months to prepare a case and present it to the Senate.  There is no time in 2020 to do that and IF Trump wins re-election, there will be only one realistic chance after the 2022 Senate elections.  By that time, after six years of Trump, there may be no good reason to try another impeachment.  So one more shot is all they CAN get.

Doug

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Doug1029

[+DieChecker]

If obstruction is a strong case, why wasn't Muellers report acted on? It had numerous obstruction examples...

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, and then said:

I realize you simply refuse to accept his legitimate right as a president to Executive privilege but he has it nonetheless.  He went through over 2 years of an anal probe by Mueller and his men and not once did Trump refuse a request for documents, interviews with staff, NOTHING.  He could legally have refused ALL OF IT.  He didn't.  At the end of that, the D's launched a brand new gambit to start the investigations all over and he rightfully refused to go along.  As is his RIGHT as a CoEqual branch of this government.  A president cannot "obstruct" Congress by simply executing HIS powers as Chief Executive. 

Trump never claimed executive privilege in regards to the Ukraine extortion/bribery deal.  That means it's not a Constitutional issue, but one of Trump just digging his heals in and throwing a tantrum.

Doug

[Doug1029]

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If obstruction is a strong case, why wasn't Muellers report acted on? It had numerous obstruction examples...

Politics.  Mueller didn't present a strong case.  He left it up to Congress to decide.  Pelosi's conclusion was that the Mueller Report was too vague to base an impeachment trial on.  He did it, but that doesn't mean that Congress can convince the public.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

22 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Politics.  Mueller didn't present a strong case.  He left it up to Congress to decide.  Pelosi's conclusion was that the Mueller Report was too vague to base an impeachment trial on.  He did it, but that doesn't mean that Congress can convince the public.

Doug

It appears their not being very convincing in this one either. Poll numbers havent significantly changed in several years. 

[Doug1029]

23 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It appears their not being very convincing in this one either. Poll numbers havent significantly changed in several years. 

This may be the reason:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/conspiracy-theories-belief-rooted-evolution-143309953.html

Doug

[Farmer77]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I was reading a article about if impeachment becomes a new normal. I believe that's a real threat. Imagine if we got a President Warren, or President Biden, and in 2022 there's a "Red Wave" and Republicans capture the House and Senate.... a Biden gaff, or Warren mis-spoke, will lead to articles of impeachment. And a confirm by the Senate and then.... Bye, Bye Warren/Biden. 

Very bad precedent, just like with Harry Reid and the Senate overrule "nuclear option". Without that the SCotUS candidates would have had to have been moderates.

All they have to do is not use the power of the office to coerce a foreign nation into interfering in our elections and it wont be a problem.

 

[+and-then]

13 hours ago, RAyMO said:

lol - you keep accusing me of being partisan when it comes to trump - I am because I have known of him for a very long time - and I am have frequently admitted same.

Nothing he could do or say will change my opinion of him.

But I also argue that anyone who thinks that, (within the context of the US impeachment process, which as you well know is not a court system), trump should not be impeached is equally partisan.

Nah, not so.  Even though modern Impeachment has become a political hit job, it didn't begin that way.  "High crimes or misdemeanors" had very specific connotations and it revolved around removing a president who was using the power of the office to betray the country.  The fact that you either don't understand or simply won't accept his clear authority to investigate or to call for investigation of known corruption doesn't change that fact.  The D's decided 3 years ago that they'd Impeach and now they have and he'll win, as usual and they'll lose.  It's becoming a bad habit for them but hey, they keep asking for it.  The Democrats have stoked such resentment and sheer hatred of the man for so long they have gotten steamrolled by their own machine.  They kept it up so long they couldn't turn away and now they're going to pay large for the thrill of feeling they've harmed him when in fact they've only benefited him at every turn.  

My only disappointment is that it looks like he won't get his day in court and the coup plotters won't have to risk legal jeopardy.  But, thass okay... there'll be another scandal along soon.  

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

He is being impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, two Articles against which nobody, not even Trump, is contesting the facts.

I read an article today by a constitutional scholar who said these articles are so vague that the Senate would be justified in simply rejecting them on a simple majority vote.  I'll say it again...the president has the power to "obstruct" Congress any time he chooses.  They are co-equal.  The Congress does not have authority over the president to the extent that he must answer to them.  The "abuse of power" is a REAL loose cannon to be priming up against a president.  Precedent...remember?  They are basically saying they don't believe his statement about a phone call and because he didn't immediately give them total access to every piece of paper or subpoenaed staffer then he is guilty.  It's ridiculous and you'll see that when the trial begins.  Not that I would expect you to accept what the Senate will do.  The Left will scream and cry and stamp their feet over the "partisanship" shown in the trial and will blame the R's for crimes of their own.  They'll run every campaign in 2020 with that theme and the only people who will be listening at that point will be those votes they already knew they could depend on.  Bottom line, Trump gets another four years, the D's get progressively crazier (if that's possible) and the work the people need them to be accomplishing will stand idle for the foreseeable future.  

[Farmer77]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Are they? You believe pro-impeachment are in a majority?

Polls show all this dog and pony show hasn't changed opinions at all. Numbers of pro and against are basically the same since September.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-house-impeachment-hearings-failed-to-move-public-opinion/

A 3 point lead isnt a mandate.

You're missing the context of the conversation. Or maybe I'm lost . I thought the "in the publics mind" thing came about in regards to roof Gardner and my conversation about public perception if Trump taxes end up being shown and being clean. 

The majority of the public understand Trump is a conman and it looks shady that he hid his taxes. Hell even Republicans deep down know - because the facts are there and undeniable see his most recent charity court outcome- that he is a conman. I just dont see a massive public backlash against the Dems regarding that issue. 

[RavenHawk]

8 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

This may be the reason:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/conspiracy-theories-belief-rooted-evolution-143309953.html

Boy!  If that isn’t a bunch of Socialist hooey.  The opening statement lays it all out.

 

“Despite creative efforts to tackle it, belief in conspiracy theories, alternative facts and fake news show no sign of abating. This is clearly a huge problem, as seen when it comes to climate change, vaccines and expertise in general – with anti-scientific attitudes increasingly influencing politics.”

 

“Despite creative efforts” – oh, you mean something similar to the “Cultural Revolution?  If you don’t parrot the party line or don’t allow yourself to be reprogrammed, you’ll just disappear?  That’s why the Left wants to do away with the 1^st Amendment (and 2^nd).  The Progs have been believing in conspiracy theories since before Trump became President.  They are still trying to find a crime. 

 

The anti-scientific attitudes are projected from the Left.  You need to read or listen to Eisenhower’s Farewell Address.  Most people remember it because one of his quotes is constantly being misused.  However, the Military-Industrial Complex is not the only institution he warned about.  “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”  The desire for funding destroys the integrity of scientific truth.  Scientific facts can be weaponized and are susceptible to abuse.  That is exactly what we are seeing now with Climate Change.

 

No one thinks that Climate Change does not exist.  The question is, is Man responsible for CC?  In a conversation I was having with someone a few days ago, we talked about rising sea levels.  Did you know that 4000 years ago, the sea level was 35’ lower than today?  And most of that rise came in the 2000 years before the common era.  That’s quite a bit before the Industrial Revolution.  In just the last 2000 years there have been 5 major climate periods (2 cooling and 3 warming) and we are currently in a warming period.  This cycle is completely separate from Man’s activities.

 

Later in the article, Schweitzer mentions “fact resistance” as a manifestation of social rationality as if the natural human is somehow undesirable and we need better social engineering.  It’s none of that, it’s simply Bull$-hit recognition.  A political agenda, disguised as scientific fact is easy to smell out.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

“Despite creative efforts” – oh, you mean something similar to the “Cultural Revolution?  If you don’t parrot the party line or don’t allow yourself to be reprogrammed, you’ll just disappear?  That’s why the Left wants to do away with the 1^st Amendment (and 2^nd).  The Progs have been believing in conspiracy theories since before Trump became President.

This is AWESOME. You accuse one side of believing conspiracy theories at the same time youre spreading your own

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The anti-scientific attitudes are projected from the Left. 

is truly the only response to this bit of nuttery

4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Later in the article, Schweitzer mentions “fact resistance” as a manifestation of social rationality as if the natural human is somehow undesirable and we need better social engineering.  It’s none of that, it’s simply Bull$-hit recognition.  A political agenda, disguised as scientific fact is easy to smell out.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 hours ago, and then said:

I read an article today by a constitutional scholar who said these articles are so vague that the Senate would be justified in simply rejecting them on a simple majority vote.  I'll say it again...the president has the power to "obstruct" Congress any time he chooses.  They are co-equal.  The Congress does not have authority over the president to the extent that he must answer to them.  The "abuse of power" is a REAL loose cannon to be priming up against a president.  Precedent...remember?  They are basically saying they don't believe his statement about a phone call and because he didn't immediately give them total access to every piece of paper or subpoenaed staffer then he is guilty.  It's ridiculous and you'll see that when the trial begins.  Not that I would expect you to accept what the Senate will do.  The Left will scream and cry and stamp their feet over the "partisanship" shown in the trial and will blame the R's for crimes of their own.  They'll run every campaign in 2020 with that theme and the only people who will be listening at that point will be those votes they already knew they could depend on.  Bottom line, Trump gets another four years, the D's get progressively crazier (if that's possible) and the work the people need them to be accomplishing will stand idle for the foreseeable future.  

I think your right they will not convict him under any circumstances, but the part about being Co-Equal and that he can obstruct Congress anytime he feels like it may change. I saw something today on the news about that very issue being sent to the Supreme Court, now what they chose to do about it may be nothing or they could set a precedent that changes everything. It's hard to say what they will do, they may not even look at it.

[Tatetopa]

35 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

No one thinks that Climate Change does not exist.  The question is, is Man responsible for CC? 

If lightening started a forest fire or a man throwing a cigarette out a car window started a forest fire and you were standing in its path, would you stand there and debate the issue or would you try to put it out or get out of the way?