The Impeachment Thread

[SearchingforPeace]

Also, I'm kinda feeling the need to put out that the Republicans are trying to hold a "trial" without allowing evidence or witnesses. It is a cover up. No amount of finger pointing about what the Dems should or should not have done up to this moment (and regardless of any demented fantasy about Democrat motivation) can effectively deflect from the fact that they are voting against allowing evidence and/or witnesses in the trial. Republican Senators are choosing to vote that way, and I find it stunning that morons across the nation are somehow buying the notion that Democrats are to blame for Republican Senators making this choice.

eta: I do realize it's too early to say this definitively, the vote might change, I'm just venting.

I hope you do understand that the House impeachment effort violated the required constitutional requirements. As such, it was a faux impeachment from the beginning. It was done intentionally to avoid constitutionally establish requirements and avoid judicial intervention. So expect continued 53-47 votes.

If Pelosi and company had conducted a proper impeachment in the House, the events in the Senate would be different. As it is, it is pure political theater.

I did read one theory: that this farce is taking place now to hurt Sanders and Warren and to help Biden. Sanders and Warren have been forced from the campaign by all this.

It would be typical DNC dirty tricks.

 

[Virtual ghost]

@Virtual ghost, I should have phrased it: *if* people are talking about it, what's their take? I assumed that was a given, didn't mean to presume everyone is following our drama.

And that is why I replied as I did. Those that seem to pay any attention to this are against him.
However we don't have the element of impeachment as you know it and therefore hoax or not it doesn't really ring bells here. What was core of your question.

 

[Virtual ghost]

But to expand on this:


Many here don't have a "fetish" on the guy but even the ones that don't care about politics notice that something is going on globally. Here the influence of USA is much weaker than it once was and the USA as a whole isn't seen as some kind of godlike country but as a "collapsing empire". While over the last years the influence of Russia and China went up immensely. Before we were a mixed economy and now we have a fair tilt towards government, especially since foreign governments joined the show. iPhone used to be pretty popular here while now most people have Huawei. It was almost unthinkable that we will have workers from China building our infrastructure here but today they are building bridges, new generation of hospitals and other stuff. They also bought some airports and parts of our ports, which are increasing profit now when they transport Chinese stuff. Tourists from China increased something like 500% over the last few years as direct airlines opened. On the other hand Russians have took over clearly the biggest supermarket chain in the country and made it profitable. They also overtook the newspaper kiosks as well as good portion of our food industry. Trade with Russia and it's satellites is growing. Plus we get energy from them and all attempts to create alternatives have failed. Etc.



This is what Trump's era represents here. In the case there is no EU factor this would be a complete disaster, but this gives us some chances to reverse the bad side of this.

 

[anticlimatic]

I'm a republican (or was until the fiasco of trump) Not left at all. History will show what Trump was.

Anytime people start talking about what "history" will show, or the right or wrong side of "history," I immediately assume I'm dealing with someone who is stuck in some kind of Nostradamus narriative of how the future is going to play out.

The idea of a “wrong side of history” will be considered unthinkable 50 years from now - Vox

 

[Jaguar]

I hope you do understand that the House impeachment effort violated the required constitutional requirements. As such, it was a faux impeachment from the beginning.

There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in the process or the decisions Speaker Pelosi made. Not that I expect you to care what is actually true, but some of us do. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to impeach and they are not bound by imaginary rules or claims drummed up by Republicans in order to impede progress or cast doubt - like you're doing right now by intentionally distorting facts in your post to Z Buck. The so-called violation the Republicans were bitching about was merely a vote that wasn't even necessary to begin with, but in fact did take place in December.

There was no "faux impeachment." Claiming one exists is as ridiculous as claiming there were "faux murders" of children at Sandy Hook.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in the process or the decisions Speaker Pelosi made. Not that I expect you to care what is actually true, but some of us do. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to impeach and they are not bound by imaginary rules or claims drummed up by Republicans in order to impede progress or cast doubt - like you're doing right now by intentionally distorting facts in your post to Z Buck. The so-called violation the Republicans were bitching about was merely a vote that wasn't even necessary to begin with, but in fact did take place in December.

There was no "faux impeachment." Claiming one exists is as ridiculous as claiming there were "faux murders" of children at Sandy Hook.

Ignorance is bliss, for you, I see.

The impeachment process has been heavily litigated, especially over the last 50 years, and definite legal process must be followed to be constitutional.

For example, the House has subpoena power only for oversight of Article I Section 8 defined powers, unless an impeachment inquiry has been voted on by the entire House, something that was not done. The House failed to do so, to avoid the consequences of such an action, as it would have given substance substantial rights to the Republicans in the House, as well as to the president.

Pelosi could not unilaterally change the rules, as these are based upon legal precedent, much like Trump can't unilaterally overturn Roe.

Here is opinion from the DOJ Office of Legal Opinion on the matter, which goes over this in some detail: OLC Opinion - Judicial Enforcement Authority 01-19-2020 | United States House Of Representatives | Congressional Oversight

As such, this was always a "show" impeachment and demonstrated that the Democrats were never seriously trying to remove Trump, but were just engaged in a kabuki theater process.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I hope you do understand that the House impeachment effort violated the required constitutional requirements. As such, it was a faux impeachment from the beginning. It was done intentionally to avoid constitutionally establish requirements and avoid judicial intervention. So expect continued 53-47 votes.

If Pelosi and company had conducted a proper impeachment in the House, the events in the Senate would be different. As it is, it is pure political theater.

I did read one theory: that this farce is taking place now to hurt Sanders and Warren and to help Biden. Sanders and Warren have been forced from the campaign by all this.

It would be typical DNC dirty tricks.

If you think there's something incorrect in what I post and you want to quote me, to post what you believe to be a correction, then do what you have to do. But fyi: I stopped reading your political posts a while ago, even if you quote me, so I won't be responding.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

But to expand on this:


Many here don't have a "fetish" on the guy but even the ones that don't care about politics notice that something is going on globally. Here the influence of USA is much weaker than it once was and the USA as a whole isn't seen as some kind of godlike country but as a "collapsing empire". While over the last years the influence of Russia and China went up immensely. Before we were a mixed economy and now we have a fair tilt towards government, especially since foreign governments joined the show. iPhone used to be pretty popular here while now most people have Huawei. It was almost unthinkable that we will have workers from China building our infrastructure here but today they are building bridges, new generation of hospitals and other stuff. They also bought some airports and parts of our ports, which are increasing profit now when they transport Chinese stuff. Tourists from China increased something like 500% over the last few years as direct airlines opened. On the other hand Russians have took over clearly the biggest supermarket chain in the country and made it profitable. They also overtook the newspaper kiosks as well as good portion of our food industry. Trade with Russia and it's satellites is growing. Plus we get energy from them and all attempts to create alternatives have failed. Etc.



This is what Trump's era represents here. In the case there is no EU factor this would be a complete disaster, but this gives us some chances to reverse the bad side of this.

Thanks for the responses. (Political climate notwithstanding, kinda cool that we can get into conversations with people on the other side of the world from the comfort of our homes, eh?)

I'm not sure if you've mentioned it before (and if you don't want to say, that's understandable), but where do you hail from?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

End impeachment's government shutdown | TheHill

Former Bill Clinton advisor Mark Penn might have a bit to say about impeachment for the otherwise ignorant and willfully blind.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Thanks for the responses. (Political climate notwithstanding, kinda cool that we can get into conversations with people on the other side of the world from the comfort of our homes, eh?)

I'm not sure if you've mentioned it before (and if you don't want to say, that's understandable), but where do you hail from?

Croatia, small country in what America defines as "Eastern Europe". The thing is that the whole so called free world is weakening and that has strong consequences to us that are on the edge of the Russian sphere of influence. Actually now we can even say that we are probably even in it, at least to some degree and especially since China is actively reinforcing Russia in these parts. However due to our history we learned to live without democracy and we can live without it again if we must. While on the other hand west insists on many things that people here don't like, since common people in the west don't like it either. What in the end created the great dilemma: Go West and enforce many things people don't like and which will put this nation on edge, while in the end you will probably fall together with the west. Or do you accept the money and opportunities that East offers, while giving up on the idea of democracy and thus you return to the "old ways". For now we play stupid since we want to see how the west will play it's final cards and when that happens the reality will basically decide for us. Even in our mainstream politicians you can generally sense that they don't know what to do about this.


What kinda explains why I am here.

 

[Jaguar]

Ignorance is bliss, for you, I see.

*braces for litany of conspiracy theories*

 

[SearchingforPeace]

*braces for litany of conspiracy theories*

Sorry if you believe actual constitutional law, as litigated by and through the federal courts, is a "conspiracy theory".... is the concept of "separation of powers" also a conspiracy theory?

 

[Jaguar]

Sorry if you believe actual constitutional law, as litigated by and through the federal courts, is a "conspiracy theory".... is the concept of "separation of powers" also a conspiracy theory?

You've been posting conspiracy shit for years, starting with Hillary. And it certainly didn't bother you to post a link to illegally obtained private emails from a foreign source, either. Anything to smear the woman. What are you, a "Bernie Bro"?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

You've been posting conspiracy shit for years, starting with Hillary. And it certainly didn't bother you to post a link to illegally obtained private emails from a foreign source, either. Anything to smear the woman. What are you, a "Bernie Bro"?

Again, are the concept of constitutional law and separation of powers "conspiracy theories"?

And the "horror" of being a "Bernie Bro".....lol

 

[Jaguar]

Again, are the concept of constitutional law and separation of powers "conspiracy theories"?

"faux impeachment"

 

[The Cat]

Typical politics. I'm still waiting on the peaches.

 

[Jaguar]

Is it constitutionally acceptable for the House speaker to initiate an impeachment “by means of nothing more than a press conference”? In short, yes.

The constitutional text on this issue is spare. The Constitution simply says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Ultimately, if the House wants to impeach someone, it needs to muster a simple majority in support of articles of impeachment that can be presented to the Senate. How the House gets there is entirely up to the chamber itself to determine. There is no constitutional requirement that the House take two successful votes on impeachment, one to authorize some kind of inquiry and one to ratify whatever emerges from that inquiry. An impeachment inquiry is not “invalid” because there has been no vote to formally launch it, and any eventual impeachment would not be “invalid” because the process that led to it did not feature a floor vote authorizing a specific inquiry.

McCarthy and Cipollone assert that the subject of impeachment should be able to present evidence to the House, object to the admittance of evidence, and cross-examine and recommend witnesses. They want something like a trial before an impeachment vote. Of course, the Constitution specifies that an impeached officer is entitled to a trial—in the Senate after a successful impeachment vote. The Constitution imposes no such procedural burdens or fact-finding requirements on the House, and it does not guarantee a federal officer the right to such procedures before being impeached.

Keith E. Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He teaches and writes about American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency. And if you have a problem with Keith, throw a peach at him.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

"faux impeachment"

An impeachment in violation of established constitutional law is a faux impeachment. Therefore, the existence of established constitutional law on the subject is vital and important and not a "conspiracy theory".

Even Mitt and other Trump haters in the Senate refuse to give in to the Democrats. If the Democrats had been serious, they would have followed all the necessary steps as required by constitutional law.

 

[Deprecator]

If the Democrats had been serious, they would have followed all the necessary steps

Indeed, I do think it's rather interesting how the Democrats could have argued in front of a judge to compel virtually any testimony that they wished. Instead they insisted that their case was already "iron clad", that time was of the essence, and that somehow Trump's mere request for judicial review provided even additional evidence for the ever elusive, "high crime or misdemeanor". Of course after the House passed their articles of impeachment, suddenly their "iron clad" arguments were in desperate need of more evidence, and their super time sensitive case could suddenly wait for weeks on end in the hopes that that the senate might help build their case for them.

Considering the absence of virtually any crime whatsoever and how even both sides readily concede that the outcome was preordained from the onset, it's hard to interpret this as anything more than a political stunt. Sure it may "rally" the radical left, their media allies and those who were already critical of Trump to begin with, but among Independents and Republicans Trump remains as strong as ever, and continues to stand as the heavy favorite for the 2020 landslide.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Indeed, I do think it's rather interesting how the Democrats could have argued in front of a judge to compel virtually any testimony that they wished. Instead they insisted that their case was already "iron clad", that time was of the essence, and that somehow Trump's mere request for judicial review provided even additional evidence for the ever elusive, "high crime or misdemeanor". Of course after the House passed their articles of impeachment, suddenly their "iron clad" arguments were in desperate need of more evidence, and their super time sensitive case could suddenly wait for weeks on end in the hopes that that the senate might help build their case for them.

Considering the absence of virtually any crime whatsoever and how even both sides readily concede that the outcome was preordained from the onset, it's hard to interpret this as anything more than a political stunt. Sure it may "rally" the radical left, their media allies and those who were already critical of Trump to begin with, but among Independents and Republicans Trump remains as strong as ever, and continues to stand as the heavy favorite for the 2020 landslide.

I am coming to believe more and more that there were 4 principal goals, none of which was the removal of the president: 1, hurt Sanders and Warren during the early primary season; 2, appease donors and the radical base; 3, hurt Trump for the general election; and 4, continue to cover up Obama presidency abuses.

The hurt Bernie and Liz reason would explain the month long delay.....