Jump to content

Are Democrats building a collapsible impeachment?

Rate this topic


flyangler

Recommended Posts

9 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

What good would that do???

Seriously Trump believes his will is law.... do you think a censure is going to get him to modify his behavior?

it will just embolden him,

 

the ONLY thing it will do is allow Republicans some pretense of claiming they stood up to him when history judges them harshly,

and it will.

Yes, please proceed directly to an Impeachment vote in the House.

 

Let's see which Democrats have the balls to put party before reelection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

What good would that do???

Seriously Trump believes his will is law.... do you think a censure is going to get him to modify his behavior?

it will just embolden him,

 

the ONLY thing it will do is allow Republicans some pretense of claiming they stood up to him when history judges them harshly,

and it will.

You just don’t listen, do you. I have explained, multiple times, that I believe Trump has done nothing impeachable. Thus, I have no concerns about what Trump thinks about censure. 

 

My censure comments (and you can search them all because I am the only one talking about this) have been made solely from the perspective of Pelosi and the Dems. 

 

The rest of your comment is just you acting like a child. 

 

As for censure, what would the Dems have accomplished if they pass impeachment on a strictly partyline vote in the House and have it fail in the Senate? That is a partisan rebuke of Trump that he will survive, just as Clinton survived. It will become an asterisk in history, and nothing more. 

 

Compare that with a censure resolution that Pelosi can craft in such a way that it is a strong rebuke and can draw 20-40 House GOP to make it seriously bipartisan. 

 

Same endpoint in a rebuke but not stained with a failure in the Senate. Gets support from GOP who are sick of Trump’s antics, but do not think he should be removed from office. 

 

And if you want to get crazy, McConnell allows that resolution, or a form of it, to be brought to a vote in the Senate, where it would like draw some GOP like Romney, Collins and others. McConnell would vote against it but he would smile inside being able to tweak Trump in that way. 

 

 

“No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.”

- Victor Davis Hanson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 min ago, tomkaz said:

You just don’t listen, do you. I have explained, multiple times, that I believe Trump has done nothing impeachable. Thus, I have no concerns about what Trump thinks about censure. 

 

My censure comments (and you can search them all because I am the only one talking about this) have been made solely from the perspective of Pelosi and the Dems. 

 

The rest of your comment is just you acting like a child. 

 

As for censure, what would the Dems have accomplished if they pass impeachment on a strictly partyline vote in the House and have it fail in the Senate? That is a partisan rebuke of Trump that he will survive, just as Clinton survived. It will become an asterisk in history, and nothing more. 

 

Compare that with a censure resolution that Pelosi can craft in such a way that it is a strong rebuke and can draw 20-40 House GOP to make it seriously bipartisan. 

 

Same endpoint in a rebuke but not stained with a failure in the Senate. Gets support from GOP who are sick of Trump’s antics, but do not think he should be removed from office. 

 

And if you want to get crazy, McConnell allows that resolution, or a form of it, to be brought to a vote in the Senate, where it would like draw some GOP like Romney, Collins and others. McConnell would vote against it but he would smile inside being able to tweak Trump in that way. 

 

 

I agree with a lot of that.  Pelosi never wanted to impeach. I’m not so sure she gives 2 effs about bipartisan but it’s a good talking point if it goes down in flames.  She doesn’t need this crap going into an election unless it’s moving the needle.  I don’t see house voting to impeach on strictly party lines moving anything. 

"I have ... put a lump of ice into an equal quantity of water ...  if a little sea salt be added to the water we shall produce a fluid sensibly colder than the ice was in the beginning, which has appeared a curious and puzzling thing to those unacquainted with the general fact."- Joseph Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomkaz said:

I have mentioned this article by Turley but originally did not share it. However, after yesterday and Pelosi’s comment today, I thought it worth sharing now. 

 

From The Hill:

Are Democrats building a collapsible impeachment?

As impeachment hearings begin, some have raised dubious objections to the process from a constitutional basis. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker suggested there can be no impeachment since “abuse of power” is not a crime. Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi argued that President Trump was denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the closed hearings held by House Democrats.

 

Neither argument is compelling. The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.

 

The physics is simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy is not such a foundation, and Democrats continue to build a structurally unsound case that will be lucky to make it to the Senate before collapsing.

 

For three years, Democrats in Congress have insisted that a variety of criminal and impeachable acts were established as part of the Russia investigation. Even today, critics of Trump insist that, at a minimum, special counsel Robert Mueller found as many as ten acts of criminal obstruction of justice. That is not true as he investigated those acts of obstruction but found evidence of noncriminal motivations that would have made any criminal case highly unlikely to succeed. For that reason, Attorney General William Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agreed there was no case for criminal obstruction.

 

Putting aside that legal judgment, the glaring absence of any articles of impeachment related to Russia would raise a rather obvious problem. If these criminal or impeachable acts are so clear, why would Democrats not include them in the actual impeachment? There are only two possible reasons why these “clearly established” crimes would not be included. Either they are not established, as some of us have argued, or Democratic leaders do not actually want to remove Trump from office.

 

For three years, some of us have warned that Democratic leaders clearly were running out the clock on impeachment and doing little in terms of building a case against Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been openly hostile to impeachment. Now, after moving at a glacial pace, Democratic leaders are insisting on an impeachment vote on the basis of a presidential phone call made this summer. They are in such a hurry that they have said they will not even seek to compel the testimony of key witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton.

 

Ironically, the strongest impeachment was the one that never happened with President Nixon. It was so strong that he resigned shortly before a vote. The contrast with the Nixon impeachment is so concerning in the current context. In the Nixon impeachment, public opinion shifted after months of public hearings and testimony. The evidentiary record showed that Nixon knew of criminal acts and sought to conceal them.

 

The result was a deeply developed evidentiary record. A presidential impeachment requires this period of maturation of allegations to swing public opinion. In contrast, after years of discussing Russia allegations, Democrats want to move forward on a barely developed evidentiary record and cursory public hearings on this single Ukraine allegation. Democrats also are moving forward on a strictly partisan vote.

 

That brings us back to architecture. Bad buildings often are built in slapdash fashion. The infamous Fidenae Stadium in Rome was built in a rush to restart the gladiator games, an atmosphere not unlike the current bread and circus frenzy in Washington. It eventually collapsed, killing or injuring 20,000 spectators. The two prior impeachments show the perils of building slender and tall. Take, for instance, the foundation of the Clinton impeachment. I testified during those hearings, as one of the constitutional experts, that President Clinton could be impeached for lying under oath, regardless of the subject matter. Democratic witnesses and members insisted that such perjury is not an impeachable offense when it concerned an affair with a White House intern.

 

The Clinton impeachment was broader than the one being discussed against Trump but it still was quite narrow. It did involve an alleged knowingly criminal act committed by Clinton. A federal judge later found that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which he was never charged, despite thousands of Americans who have faced such charges and jail. Yet Clinton was impeached on lying to the grand jury and obstruction of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Notably, he was not indicted on other allegations, like abuse of power in giving pardons to his own brother or Democratic donor Marc Rich. The result was an acquittal in the Senate by a largely partisan vote. The articles discussed against Trump would be even narrower and rest primarily on an abuse of power theory.

 

Then there is the impeachment of President Johnson, which also failed in the Senate. While encompassing nearly a dozen articles, it was narrowly grounded in an alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson removed War Secretary Edwin Stanton in defiance of Congress and that law. The impeachment was indeed weak and narrow, and it failed, with the help of senators from the opposing party who would not stand for such a flawed removal, even of Johnson, who was widely despised.

 

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is a reminder of those who strive for great heights without worrying about their foundations. If Democrats seek to remove a sitting president, they are laying a foundation that would barely support a bungalow, let alone a constitutional tower. Such a slender impeachment would collapse in a two mile headwind in the Senate. This certainly may not be designed to last. Much like the Burning Man structure raised each year in the Nevada desert, this impeachment may well be intended to last only as long as it takes to burn it to the ground.

 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings.


I guess in this day and age Nixon having aides getting opposition details via breaking was not a crime

it could have been argued there was no evidence he directed them

agreeing to pay off people to keep them quiet is not a crime either 

I guess 

 

I would concede the Country is in a different place today

 

there is a much higher tolerance for unethical behavior that may or may not border on criminal behavior

 

Whittaker took too many hits playing football. I think his cognitive abilities are not what they should be.

 

offering money to a foreign government official, or threatening to withhold money based on a condition of getting something for personal political benefit is a crime. There’s no debate to be had.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 mins ago, JimW said:

I agree with a lot of that.  Pelosi never wanted to impeach. I’m not so sure she gives 2 effs about bipartisan but it’s a good talking point if it goes down in flames.  She doesn’t need this crap going into an election unless it’s moving the needle.  I don’t see house voting to impeach on strictly party lines moving anything. 

Exactly, it goes beyond just face-saving, the Dems could get some mileage out of this, and put Trump on the defensive as well. 

“No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.”

- Victor Davis Hanson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 mins ago, Gotcow? said:

Why should he listen to you?

You're not saying anything that he wants to hear.

 

His echo chamber only plays one tune. 

One can hope, but it was more rhetorical. As we saw yesterday, Frank keeps asking me to condemn Trump and I continue to provide him alternative views on how Trump did not break the law. Reasonable doubt so to speak. 

 

But yeah, pearls before swine....

“No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.”

- Victor Davis Hanson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeM58 said:

If this moves to the Senate, I believe they have to meet for six consecutive days at a time during the trial (I might be off, but it's at least 5) until it's over.  Going at the snails pace these things go at, imagine all the time on the campaign trail Biden, Sanders, Warren et al will lose sitting in the impeachment trial!   They can't very well blow off the impeachment to go to Iowa or someplace can they? Shooting themselves in the foot again?  

The Democrats wanted Mueller to nail Trump.

When that failed, they scrambled to get something in to frame him on before the election because they know they will not win in the ballot box with the insane clown posse they are running.

So, we are where we are when we are, and they have to squeeze it in before the primaries kick off.

 

 

Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.
-Thomas Jefferson
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
-Soren Kierkegaard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 mins ago, dena said:

The Democrats wanted Mueller to nail Trump.

When that failed, they scrambled to get something in to frame him on before the election because they know they will not win in the ballot box with the insane clown posse they are running.

So, we are where we are when we are, and they have to squeeze it in before the primaries kick off.

 

 

^^^ Is paying attention. 

“No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.”

- Victor Davis Hanson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 mins ago, dena said:

The Democrats wanted Mueller to nail Trump.

When that failed, they scrambled to get something in to frame him on before the election because they know they will not win in the ballot box with the insane clown posse they are running.

So, we are where we are when we are, and they have to squeeze it in before the primaries kick off.

 

 

Amazing isn't it?  With the MSM behind them, they get to smear Trump for awhile, but they are still stuck with that group they have running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 mins ago, tomkaz said:

You just don’t listen, do you. I have explained, multiple times, that I believe Trump has done nothing impeachable. Thus, I have no concerns about what Trump thinks about censure. 

 

My censure comments (and you can search them all because I am the only one talking about this) have been made solely from the perspective of Pelosi and the Dems. 

 

The rest of your comment is just you acting like a child. 

 

As for censure, what would the Dems have accomplished if they pass impeachment on a strictly partyline vote in the House and have it fail in the Senate? That is a partisan rebuke of Trump that he will survive, just as Clinton survived. It will become an asterisk in history, and nothing more. 

 

Compare that with a censure resolution that Pelosi can craft in such a way that it is a strong rebuke and can draw 20-40 House GOP to make it seriously bipartisan. 

 

Same endpoint in a rebuke but not stained with a failure in the Senate. Gets support from GOP who are sick of Trump’s antics, but do not think he should be removed from office. 

 

And if you want to get crazy, McConnell allows that resolution, or a form of it, to be brought to a vote in the Senate, where it would like draw some GOP like Romney, Collins and others. McConnell would vote against it but he would smile inside being able to tweak Trump in that way. 

 

 

 

If the Democrats hold an Impeachment vote, and even one Democrat votes not to, with all the Republicans, could the vote be seen as a bipartisan vote not to impeach? Even if all the remaining Democrats vote wins the day?

Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.
-Thomas Jefferson
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
-Soren Kierkegaard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 mins ago, tomkaz said:

Exactly, it goes beyond just face-saving, the Dems could get some mileage out of this, and put Trump on the defensive as well. 


I don’t know if the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act applies to a President, his personal attorney acting in a non official capacity, or other associates who had full knowledge.  
 

this is a very serious crime. 
 

I don’t think the House Dems can look the other way on this one

 

there may be additional laws that apply more directly to public officials in this context 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...