Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Reeve]

And yet more then one President has used it to cover their ass. It's called politics. You can hate it all you like, but I can sure as shit have faith that not one liberal on this board ever got mad at Obama for defending Holder over the death of a Government official.

Other presidents have used it on a case by case basis. None have ever just used it as a blanket reason to ignore all congressional oversight.

[DKjaigen]

The impeachment isn't about the whistleblower's identity, it's about Trump's malfeasance and abuse of power.

And that's very difficult thing to proof indeed . because 1 what constitutes as abuse of power is subjective and 2 you need to proof ill intent. and that's nearly impossible.

The whistleblower's identity is irrelevant to that question, and their testimony only mattered in identifying those with firsthand knowledge of events, all of whom were either asked to testify or who were blocked from doing so by the White House. There's literally nothing to gain by bringing in the whistleblower, other than to tear off their legally-required protection via anonymity, so that they can be targeted for harassment. That's it. That's the only possible reason to want to expose the whistleblower. We already have their testimony.

Perhaps but not a single testimony proofs guilt or even wrong doing.

[eschatological]

So the Supreme court says it is derived from the Executive branch area of constitutional activity. I am confused if the Supreme court says it is derived from the constitution, how is it not in there?

Are you telling me the strict constructionalist conservative is saying we should have implied rights stemming from the Constitution? The horror!

[cubby]

I don't understand why the House didn't subpoena him. The optics for Democrats are horrible imo.

Bwwwwahahahahahahaha. The optics for the Democrats are horrible? Holy fuck - you get the Mental Gymnastics Gold for that statement.

The optics for the Democrats is about getting the truth out. The GOP seems desperately afraid of the truth (no witnesses, blocking all House subpoenas, Trump literally ordering all Executive Branch employees to ignore any/all House Subpoenas, etc). The GOP is in the death throws of their eternal cover up, and it could still work of course, but if the truth does come out, this country will spend the next 10+ years finding out what the Trump Crime Family wrought on the United States.

But first things first - how about some witness testimony?

[Endus]

And that's very difficult thing to proof indeed.

What you seem to not "get" is that it was already proven. See the Articles of Impeachment.

Impeachment proceedings aren't a direct translation to criminal trials. In essence, what occurs is that the House determines guilt or innocence. The Senate determines sentencing. They can say that Trump shouldn't be removed from office, but they do not get to throw out the Articles of Impeachment.

because 1 what constitutes as abuse of power is subjective and 2 you need to proof ill intent. and that's nearly impossible.

Neither of those statements are true.

Perhaps but not a single testimony proofs guilt or even wrong doing.

And who'da thunk it, they've got way more than a single testimony backing up the impeachment.

[cubby]

The process needs to play out. We are a nation of laws are we not?

I don't think the GOP knows that. Otherwise, they would be following the law. So far, they are suing their way out of having to follow the law. I know that's confusing, if you need help understanding, just ask.

[DKjaigen]

Other presidents have used it on a case by case basis. None have ever just used it as a blanket reason to ignore all congressional oversight.

Perhaps the democrats should not have told everyone from 2016 to now that their ultimate goal was to impeach trump. I find it amusing that people did not expect resistance after such statements.

[cubby]

Conducting a thorough investigation takes time...several years for both Nixon and Clinton. Cutting corners in a 'rush to impeach' completely undermines the credibility of the process and makes it look like a politically motivated witch hunt.

So Trump admitting to it on live television wasn't enough for you? The evidence is overwhelming, and now there is even more - which is why the Senate Dems want to call witnesses and provide evidence. If you're confused about any of this, you should ask. We're here to help!

[Edge-]

Right you keep posting a link that says the Supreme court rules it is derived from the constitution. I don't understand you contradicting your own post.

They interpret it as derived from, but it is not an expressly granted Constitutional right.

And I imagine if Scalia was still alive, he's be bristling at this "interpretation" of a literal document.

[Levelfive]

There are checks and balances betweent he 2 branches. I'd like to check you on the fact you have said you Republicans have contempt for the constitution and yet the democrats say that it is impeachable because Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

More from cafeteria Constitutionalists who think executive privilege is in the Constitution and conveniently ignore that Article II is preceded by something. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it can't be used to withhold criminal evidence, and therefore has limits subject to forces outside of Trump's control. Also, since it's really only a vague, implied thing, nobody's really obligated to be bound by it if they don't feel like it. He doesn't actually have the power--yet--to stop anyone from testifying unless they want to be stopped.

[Reeve]

Perhaps the democrats should not have told everyone from 2016 to now that their ultimate goal was to impeach trump. I find it amusing that people did not expect resistance after such statements.

If Trump hadn't done such an enormous number of impeachable things, that would have been totally irrelevant. Despite the blatant impeachability of numerous things the President did in his first year, Pelosi intentionally avoided it for a long ass time, because she knew it would put her moderate Democrats in a bad spot. She didn't want to impeach. Trump forced the issue.

[Captain N]

I wonder if the people that are being restricted by the White House from testifying are afraid that Trump might Take Them Out similar to what he said about Yavonovitch or maybe they'll Pay the Price like Schiff if they don't do what he says.

[Stormspellz]

Perhaps the democrats should not have told everyone from 2016 to now that their ultimate goal was to impeach trump. I find it amusing that people did not expect resistance after such statements.

maybe team Trump should not of done impeachable offenses then .

[Levelfive]

I wonder if the people that are being restricted by the White House from testifying are afraid that Trump might Take Them Out similar to what he said about Yavonovitch or maybe they'll Pay the Price like Schiff if they don't do what he says.

I read that Don McGahn was afraid it would be taken out on his law firm. Of course, that's a feature of Trump and his administration. So yes.

[kaid]

More from cafeteria Constitutionalists who think executive privilege is in the Constitution and conveniently ignore that Article II is preceded by something. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it can't be used to withhold criminal evidence, and therefore has limits subject to forces outside of Trump's control. Also, since it's really only a vague, implied thing, nobody's really obligated to be bound by it if they don't feel like it. He doesn't actually have the power--yet--to stop anyone from testifying unless they want to be stopped.

In theory it also only protects you from people currently still in your admin. A private citizen I don't believe is bound by this even in theory unless it is a matter that is actually classified.

[cubby]

It will be like when Schiff said the Republicans can call witnesses....only ones he approves. But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called. But then it's a "coverup". Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that? Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower? We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

More relevant witnesses and testimony will only bring out the truth in these Impeachment Trial Proceedings, which is all any thinking human being wants in this process.

[DKjaigen]

What you seem to not "get" is that it was already proven. See the Articles of Impeachment.

Impeachment proceedings aren't a direct translation to criminal trials. In essence, what occurs is that the House determines guilt or innocence. The Senate determines sentencing. They can say that Trump shouldn't be removed from office, but they do not get to throw out the Articles of Impeachment.

The senate is the more or less the judge and they will determine Trumps guilt. No idea why you believe that the house determines guilt.
If you are not going to condone the president on actual crimes it will devolve into a political argument where only the majority of the senate is the guideline . Republicans have the majority so they are right. I don't think you want that situation

[Paranoid Android]

Trump would be nightmare on the stand....as he and the truth have a rather promiscuous relationship.

The Republicans learned from Clinton Impeachment in they know not to ever let the President testify or give evidence to share. If you want to give them credit sure, go ahead. Sadly the Dems if faces with this would likely let witnesses and evidence be entered, since they think it is fair.

[cubby]

I only dip in and out of this (we have our own drama going on in the UK) but holy shit, the open contempt that Senate Republicans have for truth, justice and the US Constitution is ridiculous.

It's something that I cannot recall ever seeing in recent United States politics - at least mainstream, on the Senate Floor, last 100 years kind of thing. The Senate GOP is going out of it's way to cover up some fairly blatant crimes, and they are bringing in some heaving hitting names ("celebrity lawyers") to do so. What that means to the actual and full truth being covered up, we may never know. If Trump loses the 2020 election, the Document Burn Party they have in early December should be enough to raise the sea levels a few millimeters.

[DKjaigen]

More relevant witnesses and testimony will only bring out the truth in these Impeachment Trial Proceedings, which is all any thinking human being wants in this process.

How about actual evidence . Because i have no interest in hearing peoples opinion of trump or more second hand information. To determine guilt we need to determine ill intent was involved. And unless you have a written or spoken testimony of trump where he admits that his actions where to discredit Joe Biden the chances of a successful impeachment is 0

- - - Updated - - -

maybe team Trump should not of done impeachable offenses then .

According to the senate there are no impeachable offences.