The Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump

Amiga · Dec 13, 2019

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Click to expand...

Now that Congressional GOP members have fully adopted their cult leader style of openly lying, spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories, it's necessary to also track lies by significant congressional members. A real-time lie-o-meter is overdue.

Astrodome · Dec 13, 2019

Nadler is a boss! How does everyone think the vote will go?

Ubiquitin · Dec 13, 2019

Astrodome said: ↑

Nadler is a boss! How does everyone think the vote will go?
Click to expand...

Party line because Congressional Republicans are ready to end the Republic.

NewRoxFan · Dec 13, 2019

trump continuing to reach out to a foreign country to influence the election... right before our eyes.

NewRoxFan · Dec 13, 2019

Here's the republican congressional view of the most serious vote happening today...

NewRoxFan · Dec 13, 2019

As republicans talk about it being a partisan impeachment...

And as they talk about the reasons for impeachment...

Os Trigonum · Dec 13, 2019

@NewRoxFan when all this is over you should take a few days off and relax a bit

NewRoxFan · Dec 13, 2019

Would Donald Trump be the first president impeached without a cited crime?

In the days before articles of impeachment were unveiled against President Donald Trump, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot claimed that a Trump impeachment would be the first of its kind. Speaking on the "Journal Editorial Report," a show he hosts on Fox News Channel, Gigot attributed his information to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "This would be the first impeachment in American history — if it proceeds, as it will — without a specific criminal statute or crime that the president who is impeached would have allegedly committed," Gigot said. Trump roughly quoted Gigot’s statement in a tweet the next day.
Click to expand...

Neither of the two prior presidential impeachments cited specific criminal violations. But in one instance, a possible prison term was in play and in the other, a felony crime was alleged, though not formally charged. In addition, experts say impeachment isn’t based on citing a particular criminal statute. "Every scholar concedes that the presence or absence of a federal crime is beside the point when it comes to constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors," said Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, co-author of "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment."
Click to expand...

Our ruling... Gigot said if Trump is impeached, this would be the first impeachment in U.S. history "without a specific criminal statute or crime that the president who is impeached would have allegedly committed." The two presidents who have been impeached, Johnson and Clinton, were not charged with violating any criminal code. But that is only part of the story: Johnson was accused of breaking a law that carried a possible prison sentence, and Clinton was accused of the crime of perjury. The claim is partially accurate but takes things out of context. We rate the claim Half True.
Click to expand...

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...-trump-would-be-first-us-president-impeached/

NewRoxFan · Dec 13, 2019

So now the republican/trump defense is that "yea, well, he was only interested in stopping corruption"?

ROXTXIA · Dec 13, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

@NewRoxFan when all this is over you should take a few days off and relax a bit
Click to expand...

I'm on his side, impeachment-wise, but I do admit, carpal tunnel syndrome might not be far off for him.

ima_drummer2k · Dec 13, 2019

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Click to expand...

But this doesn't take into account the tweets he sent out when he misspelled corruption.

NewRoxFan · Dec 13, 2019

The other republican defense of trump... simply deny the facts and reality...

SamFisher · Dec 13, 2019

NewRoxFan said: ↑

So now the republican/trump defense is that "yea, well, he was only interested in stopping corruption"?

Click to expand...

Yes, this was the defense 3 weeks ago.

But remember, the sunbstance of the defense is not the point.

The Republican defense is to flood the zone with discredited idiocy to keep their flock in line or at least distracted while they wreck our country forever, basically Putin's tactic, with Putin kindly helping out, directly.

No Worries · Dec 13, 2019

jiggyfly said: ↑

You suck at this.
Click to expand...

QFTT.

DaDakota · Dec 13, 2019

The Republican defense was to Obstruct, and distract.

DD

Ubiquitin · Dec 13, 2019

DaDakota said: ↑

The Republican defense was to Obstruct, and distract.

DD
Click to expand...

Gaslight Obstruct Project

DaDakota · Dec 13, 2019

Ubiquitin said: ↑

Gaslight Obstruct Project
Click to expand...

It is embarassing, they are all taking that NRA/Russian money - the GOP is in the tank for mother Russia.

Nice ..

DD

jiggyfly · Dec 13, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

@NewRoxFan when all this is over you should take a few days off and relax a bit
Click to expand...

The gall you have to say that to another poster.

What, this is not fun?

dmoneybangbang · Dec 13, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

this is fun

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/the-democrats-bad-poker-faces.php

The Democrats’ Bad Poker Faces
Posted on December 12, 2019 by Steven Hayward

Everyone who plays poker is familiar with the “tell,” that is, a nervous tic or subtle mannerism that betrays when a player has a strong or bluff hand. I think the Democrats’ behavior this week includes several “tells” that their impeachment hand is weak, and might cause them to lose the whole political pot next year.

The first is the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that John notes immediately below. It was a big surprise Tuesday when Speaker Pelosi said the House was now ready to take up and presumably approve the new agreement, after months of delay. It may be true that the Trump Administration has made significant concessions for various special interests to gain support, but its passage will still be a large political win for Trump heading into the election campaign.

So why this major concession just now? I suspect Pelosi and other Democratic strategists can see that impeachment is not gaining traction, and moreover that refusing to take up USMCA would hand Trump a cudgel to beat up a “do-nothing Congress.” Trump’s approval ratings are way better than those of Congress, and even though the ratings of a president versus the ratings for an entire branch of government are not commensurate for a variety or reasons, the party in charge of the House can pay a real price for being purely obstructionist. Just roll back the historical tape to 1948 to see an example of this dynamic: Tom Dewey—the Joe Biden of that election cycle—thought he could cruise into the White House on the unpopularity of the crude incumbent.

The second “tell” of the week are the two articles of impeachment themselves. As Andy McCarthy notes, they are exceedingly weak: an improper use of power in his Ukraine phone call, and obstruction of the congressional investigation. That’s it? That’s all they got? Why only two? Why not throw in the obstruction of justice vibe of the Mueller Report? Why not an emoluments allegation, or something else? Previous presidential impeachment drives (Nixon and Clinton) involved at least four possible articles.

My hunch is that additional articles of impeachment would allow for more House Democrats from marginal districts to cover themselves by voting against one or two or them, and Pelosi needs to hold her caucus together to get a successful vote. There are several House Democrats who have indicated their lack of enthusiasm for the whole thing, and some calling for a mere resolution of censure instead. (The Constitution does not provide for censure against another branch, however, though it still might be politically effective for Democrats to charge next fall that Trump is “the only president ever censured by Congress.” Also, it should be added that the Judiciary Committee didn’t really devote sufficient time to backing up additional charges: they’re putting all their impeachment eggs into the Ukraine basket.)

Beyond this, one reason for limiting impeachment to these two weak items is that it makes it more likely the Republican Senate will make quick work of the matter and perhaps even dismiss the case on Day One of the Senate trial. Chief Justice Roberts won’t even have to skip lunch that day. And this becomes a political weapon for the Democrats for the election, where they are desperate to regain control of the Senate. They will tie every Republican senator who votes to dismiss impeachment to Trump. I’ve thought all along that Senate election politics played as big a role in the calculations and timing of impeachment as any of Trump’s actual deeds.

If the House had included additional impeachment counts, it would put pressure on the Senate for a longer and more substantive trial. Here’s where the two weak charges become another “tell” that Democrats are bluffing and playing pure politics. Do Democrats want a longer Senate trial? Ask yourself this: if the Senate holds a three or four-week trial starting in January, requiring the silent attendance of all senators (as the Senate rules stipulate), what happens to the presidential campaigns of Warren, Klobuchar, Booker, and Sanders? You know they want to be pounding the pavement in Iowa and New Hampshire, and not sitting silently in the Senate chamber. This is one reason Cocaine Mitch ought to threaten a long, six-day a week trial starting three weeks before the Iowa caucuses, just to see how Democrats respond. And then start spreading the word that impeachment is actually a DNC plot to smooth the way for Joe Biden’s nomination, just as the DNC tilted the playing field for Hillary against Bernie in 2016. Fun times!

Lastly, there is the question of whether the Senate ought to have a trial in which they call Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the “anonymous” whistleblower, and others as witnesses. Trump is said to favor this, while Mitch McConnell is said to be against it in favor of getting the whole thing over with quickly. He may be right about this, but it is certainly worth deploying his own very good poker face to suggest that just maybe the Senate will call on the Bidens for an accounting of things.

The final wild card, suggested by John Yoo, is that Trump himself could demand to appear in the Senate to defend himself. You could easily see Trump doing this, to the largest TV ratings in this history of the known universe. The earth itself might stop spinning on its axis. Sure, it’s high risk, but Trump likes this kind of high risk. It would be the greatest show ever. And I’ll bet Democrats would regret the impeachment mess they created.

Click to expand...

Lol... the other conservative blog you like to post.

Not very moderate of you... lololol.

Os Trigonum · Dec 13, 2019

dmoneybangbang said: ↑

Lol... the other conservative blog you like to post.

Not very moderate of you... lololol.
Click to expand...

"How to Argue on the Internet Without Losing Your Mind"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/...on-the-internet-without-losing-your-mind.html

Forums

The Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump

Amiga Member

Astrodome Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

ROXTXIA Member

ima_drummer2k Member

NewRoxFan Member

SamFisher Member

No Worries Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

jiggyfly Member

dmoneybangbang Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

The Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump

Amiga Member

Astrodome Member

Ubiquitin Member Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

ROXTXIA Member

ima_drummer2k Member

NewRoxFan Member

SamFisher Member

No Worries Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Member Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

jiggyfly Member

dmoneybangbang Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Share This Page

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member