They can impeach him on the technicality that he’s under age–no one seemed to realize that the country elected a six-year old.
Trump is exactly the kind of scam artist they were thinking about when they wrote the impeachment clause. In the future, the illustrated version will have his picture next to it.
Even back then they knew that a lot of Americans are like your elderly parents–someone has to be able to come in and disconnect the phone before “Microsoft” gets their credit card number, or the before the Nigerian prince gets his hands on their bank account.
Yeah – impeachment was made for Trump.
As other people have already noted, he broke the law and he is obstructing justice. Pointing out these facts is not treasonous, indeed, wannabe John Wayne, they are examples of true patriotism.
He broke the law and is obstructing justice.
I am happy to repeat that a third time if you require it.
Also, he is president, not king or dictator for life. Please review the differences, thank you.
I’m not so sure. It very well may end up relevant to this thread.
And don’t forget, they did nothing to aid the poor citizens of Alabama after the devastating breeze.
First, Max, and I’m not trying to be insulting here, but I’m not being paid by the hour to respond to your posts. There’s certainly value behind being complete–but at a certain point, overwhelming other posters with 16 paragraphs in a post gets to be more than I can handle as a volunteer. If you’re willing to try for a little more brevity in your posts, it’d be appreciated.
I’ll respond to one point you’re raising repeatedly: whether the house is violating its own rules. Again, and with feeling: this is none of the president’s business. The executive branch has zero say in how the House follows its rules. Their constitutional rights in this arena are exactly the same as mine. Any point the president is raising about impeachment that hinges on whether the house follows its own rules is constitutionally irrelevant.
I agree. In fact, I called up my Representative yesterday to tell him that.
While it breaks no law for the President to decide on his own to throw an ally under the bus and let another nation slaughter its people, it’s obviously a tremendous abuse of Executive power.
And the Republicans are treating this like another mass shooting: agreeing that it’s a Bad Thing that this is happening, and offering up thoughts and prayers, but making no effort to do anything about the problem.
It’s time for Trump to be impeached and removed as a preventive measure, because who knows what destructive thing he will do next.
This morning on NPR I heard a former White House Counsel saying that the President has certain rights (confronting witnesses, for example) during the inquiry. The host repeated the common grand jury analogy, noting and that accused have no rights to confront witnesses during such hearings. The guest said that comparing the inquiry to a grand jury/indictment was not accurate but I missed or didn’t understand why. The guest further said that in order to give the inquiry legitimacy the House should agree to some of the WH demands. One one hand I’ve heard//read that the letter from Cipollone was utterly lacking from a legal standpoint and now this guest was implying that he has a point(s). What’s the straight dope? Is there such a thing or is all dependent on they eyes of the beholder?
As I’ve heard it explained: the House sets all the rules for an impeachment (source: the Constitution). An impeachment inquiry is not a trial; there is no right of the accused, because there is no accused. It’s an inquiry.
To Marion Morrison: think of it this way, if it helps:
Trump used taxpayer money to advance his election. That’s embezzlement.
Trump used the power of the office of the President to extort a foreign power to help his campaign. That’s abuse of power.
Trump perverted US foreign policy for his own ends. That’s a violation of his oath.
Trump solicited election help from a foreign power. That’s a violation of federal campaign laws.
Trump tried to cover up all the above by burying the phone records, and is stonewalling legitimate congressional inquiry. That’s obstruction of justice.
So, take your pick. What the hell, let’s go with all the above.
A useful summary but alas, The Duke is now with the banned and thus will be unable to further opine upon it.
AIUI, just purposely holding up the money is an illegal act. The “power of the purse” belongs to Congress - if they assign money to something that’s not for the President to second guess. Along those lines, releasing those funds is directly part of his job and he’s asking for a favour before doing so. That’s asking for a bribe.
Two of Rudy’s Ukraine cronies have been arrested on campaign finance violations.
How much encouragement do you think they need to start singing like little birds?
I can appreciate that, and will summarize.
[ul][li]The process appears partisan because the Democrats are allegedly refusing to allow the minority to participate (and may be in violation of House rules)[/li][li]A partisan process is unlikely to result in conviction by the Senate, which requires a 2/3 (bipartisan) vote[/li][li]Without the threat of conviction, Congress (and the impeachment inquiry) has no teeth[/li][li]The president is under no obligation to comply with a toothless Congress[/ul][/li]
I believe the above summary refutes this in part.
The other point is that the president is effectively saying that the House of Representatives hasn’t actually subpoenaed him. Since there isn’t a full House vote authorizing any particular subpoena, the President (or his counsel) looks at the House rules which say the House can vote to give subpoena powers to committees. He then is saying that the vote hasn’t given the Oversight Committee the authority to subpoena him for an impeachment inquiry, therefore the House itself isn’t subpoenaing him, therefore he doesn’t have to comply.
~Max
Now I’ve got Bob Marley going on in my head. Every little thing’s gonna be all right, they sing.
New theory: this is what Trump’s phone call was about! He knew there were corrupt Ukrainians donating to his PAC, and he was asking the Ukrainian president to investigate. He said to contact Giuliani, because Giuliani was hip-deep in the corruption, and he hoped Ukraine could catch him red-handed.
Perfect phone call, nothing wrong with it at all. Drain that swamp!
What you’ve done here is made a huge assumption – that a partisan process is unlikely to result in a conviction – and based a terrifying precedent on it.
What if house Democrats put together a rock solid case all on their own, and the senate has no choice but to convict?
Even if bipartisanship is a pipe dream, it is necessary for conviction in the Senate.
~Max
Points 1-3 don’t apply. Only point 4 does, and it can be summarized this way:
-The only remedy against a criminal president is impeachment.
-If the Senate won’t convict, there’s no remedy.
But that’s not what the letter said.
As for his not having to comply with the subpoena, again, that’s not his decision to make.
Trump said that they would cooperate with the inquiry (paraphrasing) “If they (the House) give us our rights.” It does not stretch credulity much to believe that no matter what the House does, it will not be a sufficient amount of “rights” granted to convince the Trump administration to cooperate.
So? Hardly anyone is expecting a conviction. The idea is to bring all of this corruption to light, so more people come out to vote against Trump, as well as senators who continue to look the other way.
They were scheduled to undergo depositions by Congress this week - one of them today, the other tomorrow.
It’s far, far, far more likely that Barr had these guys arrested so they couldn’t make their depositions. In fact, I’d bet your mortgage on it! 