Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[vincink]

You’re confusing impeachment and removal... it’s weird how often that happens on these forums. Almost like some posters have been paying no attention to what’s going on.

I wasn't talking about removal. I was talking about the truthfulness of prosecution.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Bills can originate in either the Senate or the House. An actual cynic would notice that the Senate hasn’t done much of anything while the House has. The Turtle is terrified of losing his power and has retreated into his shell. The do nothing Republicans are the issue here, not the get a shit ton done while STILL having time for impeachment Democrats.

- - - Updated - - -



You’re confusing impeachment and removal... it’s weird how often that happens on these forums. Almost like some posters have been paying no attention to what’s going on.

You're right, he's not getting removed and likely getting re-elected.

This impeachment thread isn't going to age well.

[Breccia]

You’re confusing impeachment and removal

It's worse than that. This is a dangerous precedent:
1) Claiming that motive is the only part of the charge that matters, and
2) Refusing to hand over required evidence, including testimony under oath, and
3) Then claiming that because motive was never shown, because they refused to testify about their motive, the charges must be dismissed.

Think about what that means. It means the President is impeachment-proof. That's unacceptable.

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. Based purely on what we've seen so far, I believe we'll see the same thing happen here.

Remember: so far, the only people who have testified under oath, have said that Team Trump did it for personal reasons. Team Trump is more than capable of taking the stand and setting the record straight.

[Draco-Onis]

I wasn't talking about removal. I was talking about the truthfulness of prosecution.

The incontrovertible evidence is Donald Trump, the transcripts, Mulvaney's press conference to doing it publicly and openly stating he is well within his rights to use his power in such a way. There's no denying of the facts in this case because the Trump has admitted to it so the question is do you think it's perfectly fine for the president of the United States to ask foreign countries to help him win elections?

When push comes to shove this is the only question that matters, if Trump is not removed that means the right is 100% supportive with future democratic presidents asking any country to help their side to win elections by whatever means they seem fit.

[The Royal We]

It will likely fall apart before it gets very far. The Articles of Impeachment are a public declaration, not the act of impeachment. The final say must happen on evidentiary grounds alone. The evidence must prove Mr. Trump had the intent of quid pro quo. If it is not there, the impeachment proceedings must stop. Simple as that. Impeachment must be performed meticulously or it risks setting a dangerous precedent. If Trump is impeached because of votes along party lines, then the impeachment is unconstitutional. Impeachment is by incontrovertible evidence and testimony alone. Not opinion, not emotion, not political grandstanding.

This is the truth independent of morals, beliefs, and political systems. If the Democrats or Republicans fail to follow the law, they must also be impeached.

Articles of Impeachment will list the charges against the officeholder and suggest further action, in this case, a vote for impeachment in the House. It will then head to trial in the Senate.

He will be impeached for more than the quid pro quo he already admitted to, read the impeachment inquiry report(can't link, too few posts).

And no, a vote along party lines is not unconstitutional, particularly in this case where one party is abstaining from their constitutional duty and deliberately trying to obfuscate the process for political survival.

[infinitemeridian]

Can someone explain to me how impeachment is even possible when we know full well the Senate will never approve it?

[vincink]

And no, a vote along party lines is not unconstitutional, particularly in this case where one party is abstaining from their constitutional duty and deliberately trying to obfuscate the process for political survival.

A vote along party lines means that the votes were because of political motivation, not evidentiary truthfulness. In criminal proceedings, this would be equivalent of a biased jury.

[omerome]

It will likely fall apart before it gets very far. The Articles of Impeachment are a public declaration, not the act of impeachment. The final say must happen on evidentiary grounds alone. The evidence must prove Mr. Trump had the intent of quid pro quo. If it is not there, the impeachment proceedings must stop. Simple as that. Impeachment must be performed meticulously or it risks setting a dangerous precedent. If Trump is impeached because of votes along party lines, then the impeachment is unconstitutional. Impeachment is by incontrovertible evidence and testimony alone. Not opinion, not emotion, not political grandstanding.

This is the truth independent of morals, beliefs, and political systems. If the Democrats or Republicans fail to follow the law, they must also be impeached.

So here is where I am confused. The White House issued a statement earlier saying that the Democrats should "just get on with" impeachment vote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...peachment-vote

But this week, we had an impeachment hearing where three witnesses said that the president committed impeachable offenses, based on the information available and one witness (the one the republicans brought in) could only argue on the process. He claimed that impeaching the president prematurely is setting a dangerous precedent.

“The president’s serious misconduct, including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power and obstructing justice and Congress, are worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

Turley, an opinion contributor to The Hill who noted he did not vote for Trump in 2016, warned that impeaching Trump prematurely would set a “dangerous precedent.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...inks-otherwise

So which is it? Should the Democrats just get on with the vote or should they continue to be meticulous and investigate more to continue to build their case? We should be doing the latter, but it's clear that's not what the GOP wants. Because if they were all about the facts, they would and should be in full support of anyone the current administration is blocking to testify. I mean, what are they afraid of?

- - - Updated - - -

Can someone explain to me how impeachment is even possible when we know full well the Senate will never approve it?

My understanding is, it's the House that votes for impeachment. But the Senate holds the trial to determine the removal, if necessary, is voted on. So while the ultimate goal of getting the resident out of the White House is slim, impeachment is a necessary method. It will show that no one is above the law and also not set a dangerous precedent for someone in the future to commit similar or even more nefarious acts.

[Machismo]

A vote along party lines means that the votes were because of political motivation, not evidentiary truthfulness. In criminal proceedings, this would be equivalent of a biased jury.

Yes, I agree. The Republicans are ignoring the evidence.

[Breccia]

The incontrovertible evidence

Actually, Team Trump could controvert it at any time. Just take the stand, go under oath, and deny it.

Like, right now. They could do it today if they wanted. "Schiff, put me under oath," Pompeo or Barr or even Trump could say, and you know full well he'd find time in his schedule. Trump has constructed a barrier between himself and the truth, a Wall if you will, and is hiding behind it.

Unacceptable. And fixable.

The evidence before Congress is controvertible, there's no need for the committee to retire.
But in all my years of posting, I have never heard before a man more terrified of the following the law.
The way Trump made them prostrate, the GOP House and Senate, fills them with the need to prevaricate.
Since Trump has revealed testifying is his greatest fear, I demand they be subpoena'd by a committee of their peers.
Tear down the Wall.

[vincink]

But this week, we had an impeachment hearing where three witnesses said that the president committed impeachable offenses, based on the information available and one witness (the one the republicans brought in) could only argue on the process. He claimed that impeaching the president prematurely is setting a dangerous precedent.

Let's be clear here, it was three democrat legal experts and one republican. The fact that the parties of the lawyers play into this at all means that the objectivity of the 4 arguments is lost (why is their political affiliation important?). The three democrat legal experts were arguing by what evidence has been gathered and drawing a conclusion from it but the republican legal expert was recommending that the government fight for objectivity in the process, not opinions or political bureaucracy. If objectivity is lost, then the constitution means little, in his opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I agree. The Republicans are ignoring the evidence.

The American people are asking for fairness. Not mudslinging. Let the evidence and the analysis of the evidence in accordance with legal process and precedent speak the outcome. Not opinion or emotions. Or politics.

[Machismo]

Let's be clear here, it was three democrat legal experts and one republican. The fact that the parties of the lawyers play into this at all means that the objectivity of the 4 arguments is lost (why is their political affiliation important?). The three democrat legal experts were arguing by what evidence has been gathered and drawing a conclusion from it but the republican legal expert was recommending that the government fight for objectivity in the process, not opinions or political bureaucracy. If objectivity is lost, then the constitution means little, in his opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

The American people are asking for fairness. Not mudslinging. Let the evidence and the analysis of the evidence in accordance with legal process and precedent speak the outcome. Not opinion or emotions. Or politics.

And as I stated, the GOP politicians were going out of their way to ignore the evidence.

The evidence has been presented, more evidence will come.

I agree, it's a shame that the GOP politicians are so determined to ignore the evidence.

[Breccia]

The three democrat legal experts were arguing by what evidence has been gathered and drawing a conclusion from it but the republican legal expert was recommending that the government fight for objectivity in the process, not opinions or political bureaucracy.

This...really isn't the defense you think it is. But it is a mirror of the process as we've seen so far.

The evidence, like documents and witnesses under oath (tweeting is not testifying) have pointed to a specific crime done by a specific person (aided by others). The "objectivity" is about looking for loopholes in the process. Yes, if you search a guy's house without a warrant and find the murder weapon, you don't get to use that, but you have to admit you found the fucking murderer. Considering the impeachment is largely public and 2020 is an election year, "you shouldn't have found out about all those crimes" isn't the defense the rabid fanbase wants right now.

I tell you what: the very day anyone in the WH testifies under oath, you can talk about "objectivity" all you want. Until then, it's hard to say "but partisaaaaaaaaan" when Trump is telling all his employees to fight subpoenas and to refuse to testify. It's just dishonest and hypocritical to say "the process is partisan" when only one side is showing up at all.

[vincink]

1) It’s not a criminal proceeding.
2) All it’s evidence of is the GOP’s lack of morals.

Actually, it is a criminal proceeding. Don't know where you live but in American legal proceeds, the initial appearance before a judge is the first step in criminal proceedings where the accusation by the state is made against the accused. The articles of impeachment is the "initial appearance" before the trial.

Second, the legal system must be free of political opinions-- e.g., statements like "GOP's lack of morals"-- and must adhere to truthfulness and objectivity.

[Breccia]

Actually, it is a criminal proceeding.

This statement is factually false.

[solinari6]

Actually, it is a criminal proceeding. Don't know where you live but in American legal proceeds, the initial appearance before a judge is the first step in criminal proceedings where the accusation by the state is made against the accused. The articles of impeachment is the "initial appearance" before the trial.

Second, the legal system must be free of political opinions-- e.g., statements like "GOP's lack of morals"-- and must adhere to truthfulness and objectivity.

yeah, but, you just made that up? It is NOT a criminal proceeding. The constitutional scholars specifically said a crime is not necessary for a impeachment (which clinton-era Lindsey Graham agrees with).

[Machismo]

No, actually, it most assuredly is NOT a criminal proceeding. Your inability to grasp what this process is is sad. Do some research and then come back.

He also stated that they must provide proof of a quid pro quo, when that's not actually the case at all. He's pushing talking points that are clearly originating from Republican pundits. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Barr himself.

No quid pro quo is required to justify an impeachment. Just because there was one, is simply the cherry on top.

[omerome]

Let's be clear here, it was three democrat legal experts and one republican. The fact that the parties of the lawyers play into this at all means that the objectivity of the 4 arguments is lost (why is their political affiliation important?). The three democrat legal experts were arguing by what evidence has been gathered and drawing a conclusion from it but the republican legal expert was recommending that the government fight for objectivity in the process, not opinions or political bureaucracy. If objectivity is lost, then the constitution means little, in his opinion.

Umm...even the fourth legal expert couldn't say that what the resident did was right. He could only focus on the process. Just like the rest of the Republicans. They can't say his actions were correct. They only want to say this process is a witch hunt.

There are witnesses who haven't testified because they are being blocked by the administration or hiding behind executive privilege who are actual participants in this. Why are we not hearing from them on the stand, testifying? Why are the American people not able to get ALL of the facts, not just the ones that the White House wants us to know. If they want to be cleared of wrong doing, allow the investigations to go through without interference.

But even with all of the interference from the administration, the facts that we now know are still pretty damning. And that to me is enough to determine that this is not a witch hunt at all. So fine, let's follow the recommendation of the republican legal expert in this case, let's get more evidence and not opinions. Let's bring in the Pompeos, the Giulianis, Mulvaneys, and the Pences into the mix and hear what they have to say, okay?

[vincink]

This...really isn't the defense you think it is. But it is a mirror of the process as we've seen so far.

The evidence, like documents and witnesses under oath (tweeting is not testifying) have pointed to a specific crime done by a specific person (aided by others). The "objectivity" is about looking for loopholes in the process. Yes, if you search a guy's house without a warrant and find the murder weapon, you don't get to use that, but you have to admit you found the fucking murderer. Considering the impeachment is largely public and 2020 is an election year, "you shouldn't have found out about all those crimes" isn't the defense the rabid fanbase wants right now.

I tell you what: the very day anyone in the WH testifies under oath, you can talk about "objectivity" all you want. Until then, it's hard to say "but partisaaaaaaaaan" when Trump is telling all his employees to fight subpoenas and to refuse to testify. It's just dishonest and hypocritical to say "the process is partisan" when only one side is showing up at all.

I'm not arguing that the process hasn't already happened. But I think you're making the mistake of assuming the evidence has already declared the accused guilty. The American legal system does not function like that. Evidence is gathered, analyzed, and presented; witnesses are summoned to testify, examined, and cross-examined; then deliberation happens. Even if the murderer was on site with a bloody knife in his hands, he will still receive a fair trial where evidence is gathered, analyzed, and presented; witnesses are summoned to testify, to be examined, and cross examined; the deliberation happens.

What I am arguing is that if anyone has already declared Trump guilty, they have robbed him of his rights as a US citizen. Arguing that the GOP is immoral or the democrats are angry tyrants is a disconcerting revelation of a lack of even a desire to see the truth come out on a fair, unbiased, objective trial stage.

[Machismo]

I'm not arguing that the process hasn't already happened. But I think you're making the mistake of assuming the evidence has already accused. The American legal system does not function like that. Evidence is gathered, analyzed, and presented; witnesses are summoned to testify, examined, and cross-examined; then deliberation happens. Even if the murderer was on site with a bloody knife in his hands, he will still receive a fair trial where evidence is gathered, analyzed, and presented; witnesses are summoned to testify, to be examined, and cross examined; the deliberation happens.

What I am arguing is that if anyone has already declared Trump guilty, they have robbed him of his rights as a US citizen. Arguing that the GOP is immoral or the democrats are angry tyrants is a disconcerting revelation of a lack of even a desire to see the truth come out on a fair, unbiased, objective trial stage.

I'm allowed to say Trump is guilty, and so are you. We are not robbing him of any rights. First off, We're not the fucking government. Secondly, one is permitted in this country to form opinions based on evidence... which people like me have.

He's guilty as hell, and a corrupt piece of shit.