Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 41383 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #300 on: December 31, 2019, 03:11:43 PM »
I'm inclined to suspect that with regards to the Impeachment Trial, the Court would invoke the fact it is supposed to be a trial, and every indication from the Founding Fathers was that the Prosecution bringing "new evidence" during trial, by design, is not intended. As such, the request would be denied possibly on 6th Amendment Grounds.

I don't know what this means, but there's no restriction on introducing new evidence at trial.  The restrictions are on how it can be introduced and allowing the defense adequate notice and ability to prepare.

The biggest fault with the "record" to date, is the House's shoddy work, which effectively prevented any vetting of the "evidence" by the defense.  There's no good reason the Republican's in the Senate should voluntarily bend over backwards to fix the mess the House deliberately created.

I'm given to understand that when it comes to trials, that Courts set a very high bar for circumstances where the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence before the court which hadn't been provided to defense during the discovery pre-trial phase of the process.

What the House just did is the equivalent of sending a case to trial while it is still under active investigation, and in fact, expect the Trial itself to fulfill taskings that should have been carried out before it reached the stage it is at now. And given the prosecution(the House) is the one who controlled the time-table on that, they're the ones with the burden, not the defense.

"Fair Trial" in the context the Founders used is actually a slight misnomer. They deliberately skewed things strongly in favor of the defense, because the State(prosecution) has numerous advantages that the common citizen generally cannot hope to overcome.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #301 on: December 31, 2019, 03:46:09 PM »
Quote
It wouldn't have done any good.  They were specific about maladministration (an you missed it) and about high crimes and misdemeanors and the House ignored that.

My point wasn't that the word in the Constitution had to be "maladministration", but that the Constitution shares the sense that the spirit of impeachment is not directed at commission of crimes.  "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a good and more officially worded analog to "maladministration".

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #302 on: December 31, 2019, 03:48:13 PM »
Quote
'm given to understand that when it comes to trials, that Courts set a very high bar for circumstances where the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence before the court which hadn't been provided to defense during the discovery pre-trial phase of the process.

Sigh, once again this isn't a judicial system proceeding.  It's a trial in form, but not according to the same rules.  Anything the leaders of the Senate Parties agree to is likely permissable.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #303 on: December 31, 2019, 04:07:31 PM »
I'm given to understand that when it comes to trials, that Courts set a very high bar for circumstances where the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence before the court which hadn't been provided to defense during the discovery pre-trial phase of the process.

There's no limit on the prosecutors continuing to investigate matters and to introduce new evidence.  Disclosure doesn't have to stop just because the trial starts.  If you've ever watched Law and Order (at least the old episodes - which were very good for tv presentation of trials) you'd have seen that occur on occasion.

Now that doesn't mean the Senate has to authorize fishing expeditions.  The court doesn't go on fishing expeditions on behalf of the Prosecutor. If the prosecutor wanted to call a witness not on their list, they'd have to explain the reason and the expected testimony to the court and the defense.  Pretty much like how they would have had to establish some kind of reasonable basis based on facts to get the courts to compel their testimoney during the impeachment.  Again, I don't see a reason for the Senate to prop up the failures by the House to investigate (the Senate's innate authority to compel testimony is no different than the House's, ergo the House should have fought the battle to get he information it needed - and I would treat that as compelling evidence that they waived the opportunity). 

The defense on the other hand was denied any ability to call witnesses or cross examine them, and they should be provided the right to do so.

Quote
What the House just did is the equivalent of sending a case to trial while it is still under active investigation....

Don't kid yourself.  What the House did is the equivalent of filing charges on a politically motivated "hot topic" where there's little chance the court's are going to agree to apply guilt, solely for publicity.

The House's decision to file the articles of Impeach is their representation that the record they relied on is sufficient to prove the case.  If it's not, then everyone that voted yes failed to uphold their oath to the Constitution.

Quote
...and in fact, expect the Trial itself to fulfill taskings that should have been carried out before it reached the stage it is at now. And given the prosecution(the House) is the one who controlled the time-table on that, they're the ones with the burden, not the defense.

I agree with you here, the DNC wants to force the Senate to do the House's job.  They wanted to "Impeach" for political purposes, nevermind about building an actual case.  Nothing could get in the way of that political statement in time for the election.

Now they want the Senate to take damage - again for political reasons - in how the trial of their sham impeachment is prosecuted. 

Honestly, if this was a real trial, it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.  If the prosecutors got to "submit their case" then none of what they've collected to date should be considered admissable.  It was collected without benefit of cross examination.  Depositions taking before trial are not admissable as evidence of facts, they can be for purposes of impeaching a witness with their prior statements, but the defect of not allowing cross examine or resolution of objections is not correctable with respect to the transcripts.

The Senate trial, of necessity, has to operate on a different basis because of the House's public release of those transcripts.  But that' s just more evidence that the House manipulated the process and operated in bad faith.

Quote
"Fair Trial" in the context the Founders used is actually a slight misnomer. They deliberately skewed things strongly in favor of the defense, because the State(prosecution) has numerous advantages that the common citizen generally cannot hope to overcome.

Yes, and what's telling is how much the DNC violated every norm of a fair trial in the process so far.  I haven't heard a single bit of good explanation for why it was okay to violate principals that we put in place because we think they are necessary for justice and fairness.

The answer is that it wasn't okay, it was pure politics and is factual evidence of how unAmerican the DNC's leadership actually is.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #304 on: December 31, 2019, 04:09:09 PM »
Quote
It wouldn't have done any good.  They were specific about maladministration (an you missed it) and about high crimes and misdemeanors and the House ignored that.

My point wasn't that the word in the Constitution had to be "maladministration", but that the Constitution shares the sense that the spirit of impeachment is not directed at commission of crimes.  "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a good and more officially worded analog to "maladministration".

But your point is expressly wrong.  The Founders considered maladministration and expressly rejected it.  Therefore it is not an analogue to what they decided to include but rather a specific example of conduct that IS NOT IN FACT high crimes or misdemeanors.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #305 on: December 31, 2019, 04:35:36 PM »
Quote
But your point is expressly wrong.  The Founders considered maladministration and expressly rejected it.  Therefore it is not an analogue to what they decided to include but rather a specific example of conduct that IS NOT IN FACT high crimes or misdemeanors.

The point is that you're missing the point.  I'm aware that they considered using the word maladministration because it conveyed the correct intent but decided against it because it wasn't specific enough. 

Quote
Mason [] moved to add the word "maladministration" to the other two grounds. Maladministration was a term in use in six of the thirteen state constitutions as a ground for impeachment, including Mason's home state of Virginia.

When James Madison objected that "so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate," Mason withdrew "maladministration" and substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors agst. the State,"which was adopted eight states to three, apparently with no further debate.

Enough of this?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #306 on: December 31, 2019, 04:40:50 PM »
Again.  NO.  Absolutely NO.  They rejected maladministration because it conveyed the WRONG intent.  Not because it was not specific enough, but expressly because it was too low of a standard to apply in the context of impeachment.

You are absolutely wrong in trying to claim that maladministration was their intent, or that it is the correct interpretation of an impeachment.  Maladministration expressly includes conduct that IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR IMPEACHMENT.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #307 on: December 31, 2019, 06:22:04 PM »
No... No! Madison rejected the term because it was too vague, not because it had the wrong intent. It was already used in the Constitutions of several states, BECAUSE IT CONVEYED THE CORRECT INTENT.

Let's pick this up again sometime next year

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #308 on: January 02, 2020, 03:06:09 PM »
I don't see a point in "picking it up."  Maladministration was expressly rejected because of it's over inclusive nature, and "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was used instead.  While the term is still flexible it is far less flexible than maladministration (which for example, includes negligent acts, or even potentially acts that have a negative consequence without any wrongful intent - ie mistakes of judgment).  There is no principal of legal construction that allows one to take an expressly rejected term and reapply it as the "intent" of a provision from which it was struck.

And in this case it's actually telling that the reason it was struck - it's vagueness - directly speaks to it being overinclusive, ergo your attempt to use it will also over include non-impeachable conduct.

And honestly, there's no reason to try and argue for it.  High crimes and misdemeanors is an adequate definition, if you had any proof - as of  yet - that they actually occurred.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #309 on: January 02, 2020, 03:32:04 PM »
I think it has always been clear that impeachment is supposed to be for illegal acts, but also unethical acts that may not rise to the level of a crime. As opposed to maladministration, which could mean just about anything. Including failure to enforce each and every federal law or any foreign policy decisions.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #310 on: January 02, 2020, 03:58:45 PM »
Quote
I think it has always been clear that impeachment is supposed to be for illegal acts, but also unethical acts that may not rise to the level of a crime. As opposed to maladministration, which could mean just about anything. Including failure to enforce each and every federal law or any foreign policy decisions.

And more than "unethical acts," as in violations of the oath of office.  My last gasp, since you're new to this discussion:

Quote
Col. Mason: "Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason.  Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments."

He moved. to add after `bribery’ `or maladministration’.
Mr. Gerry seconded him—
Mr Madison: "So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate."
“Mr Govr Morris: "it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration."
“Col. Mason withdrew `maladministration’ & substitutes `other high crimes & misdemeanors’<agst. the State’>
“On the question thus altered [the Convention agreed].

The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #311 on: January 02, 2020, 04:08:11 PM »
The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

That quote does not seem to reinforce your previous position, which was that "maladministration" was their real intent but was a bit too vague. This bolded quote is saying that "treason and bribery" is too restrictive and that other dangerous offenses should be included as well. Since this comes at the issue from the opposite direction you were going before (too inclusive) and is now about being too exclusive, I don't see how this quote is relevant to your point.

It would also seem to be the case that by quoting this you're implying that Trump was attempting to subvert the constitution by doing what he did. What part of his action was unconstitutional? Or are you referring to the bribe part of the clause?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #312 on: January 02, 2020, 04:10:01 PM »
I've read the history before Kasandra.  Mason asked to include maladministration and that was not accepted, specifically on the grounds that it's too vague (read broad) and that it would lower the standard of impeachment effectively to at the pleasure of the Senate.  At the time, I don't think it really occurred to them that the Senate would ever primarily be made of political animals without a shred of honor, and they expected that by change the standard it would be honored.

High crimes and misdemeanors was largely understood to be crimes against the interests of the state, whether by treason or by taking bribes or by other means.  So again, there is plenty of room to make that case if you have evidence.  The only reason to argue for maladministration is specifically because you don't have any evidence tying this to Trump.  Accordingly, you need to make a claim that the circumstances are a failure to properly execute the office of the President.  Unfortunately that is exactly why maladministration was rejected.  Impeachable conduct has got to be by the President to impeach the President, if it was by staff acting on their own it's that staff that should face consequences.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #313 on: January 02, 2020, 04:13:16 PM »
It would also seem to be the case that by quoting this you're implying that Trump was attempting to subvert the constitution by doing what he did. What part of his action was unconstitutional?

This is actually a far more material problem for them than you may realize.  There's a legitimate school of thought that argues foreign aid is not in the interest of the US (e.g., Rand Paul has expressed this, as has the far left columnist Ted Rall, among others).  By that political position withholding Ukrainian aid could never be impeachable conduct in and of itself.  It would have to be tied to a misuse of office.  This will come up in the future as Dems try to assert that evidence of withheld aid proves  impeachable conduct on a "maladministration" theory, even though they have - as of yet - provided zero evidence of conduct by Trump that is impeachable.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #314 on: January 02, 2020, 04:32:50 PM »
This is actually a far more material problem for them than you may realize.  There's a legitimate school of thought that argues foreign aid is not in the interest of the US (e.g., Rand Paul has expressed this, as has the far left columnist Ted Rall, among others).  By that political position withholding Ukrainian aid could never be impeachable conduct in and of itself.

I suppose that makes sense, although their argument doesn't seem to be that withholding aid was the primary problem, but rather that it was doing so for personal gain. My main problem with this argument is that demonstrating intent to gain personally, while not benefitting the state, seems like an unlikely demonstration to be able to put on. Although amazingly the headlines today seem to show leaked proof that Trump did order the hold himself. But I don't see how that is even relevant to whether in doing so had a nefarious motive.

My question to Kasandra about the constitutional issue is in what way constitutionality is even relevant to this issue. Wouldn't that have more to do with the structure of government rather than the manner in which the President pursues foreign policy?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #315 on: January 02, 2020, 08:20:11 PM »
...their argument doesn't seem to be that withholding aid was the primary problem, but rather that it was doing so for personal gain. My main problem with this argument is that demonstrating intent to gain personally, while not benefitting the state, seems like an unlikely demonstration to be able to put on. Although amazingly the headlines today seem to show leaked proof that Trump did order the hold himself. But I don't see how that is even relevant to whether in doing so had a nefarious motive.


I think for sake of wrongdoing they need to go further and show total absence of legitimate executive motive.  And that's a high bar that AFAIK no one's even tried to reach.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #316 on: January 03, 2020, 06:10:34 AM »
The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

That quote does not seem to reinforce your previous position, which was that "maladministration" was their real intent but was a bit too vague. This bolded quote is saying that "treason and bribery" is too restrictive and that other dangerous offenses should be included as well. Since this comes at the issue from the opposite direction you were going before (too inclusive) and is now about being too exclusive, I don't see how this quote is relevant to your point.

Mason felt that "treason and bribery" weren't comprehensive enough, so to give additional grounds he wanted to add "maladministration" to cover other unspecified acts deserving of impeachment.  You're saying that somehow he failed to do that and changed the term to "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in a shift of his objective.  That makes no sense.  According to all known records, he agreed to the new phrasing without argument or delay.  In other words, he was saying "Sure, I'm ok with the old English phrase here."

Quote
It would also seem to be the case that by quoting this you're implying that Trump was attempting to subvert the constitution by doing what he did. What part of his action was unconstitutional? Or are you referring to the bribe part of the clause?

"Subvert" in 1789 (and now) meant "undermine" as well as "overthrow,"  In the context of their deliberations, all of the delegates understood it to mean the use of corrupt intent for personal gain or perversion of the proper objectives of government.  Rather than asking whether you agree that Trump is guilty of doing that here, but wondering whether you think that is what the first impeachment article against Trump is based on.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #317 on: January 03, 2020, 06:30:31 AM »
Quote
The only reason to argue for maladministration is specifically because you don't have any evidence tying this to Trump.

You're basically saying that the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit, as if he had "perfect"ly good reasons to withhold the funding. But if it was improper, he was a passive victim of his staff's actions. Either way he's in the clear because the House produced no proof of nefarious motive or actions by anybody.  You're entitled to your opinion.

Since I don't expect any member of Trump's staff to testify honestly if they are called, the vote on the first article of impeachment is foreordained.  IMO, the prosecution has a stronger argument on the second article, whether Trump is guilty or innocent, precisely because he refused to cooperate with the legitimate investigation that the House undertook.  I think it's silly to insist that the House should have let Trump run out the clock stonewalling, because that empowers future Presidents to similarly reject oversight by Congress whenever they choose.  Unless the Senate vote is conducted by secret ballot, it's a guarantee that he'll be acquitted on that charge, too.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #318 on: January 03, 2020, 08:04:03 AM »
You're basically saying that the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit, as if he had "perfect"ly good reasons to withhold the funding.

Was the funding withheld or did Ukraine get it? Does Ukraine think the funding was ever withheld? I'll answer too ... they got it and the did not have an inkling about it being withheld. That's why the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #319 on: January 03, 2020, 08:56:36 AM »
Was the funding withheld or did Ukraine get it? Does Ukraine think the funding was ever withheld? I'll answer too ... they got it and the did not have an inkling about it being withheld. That's why the articles of impeachment against him are completely without merit.

Yes, yes, yes, you're wrong, and you're entitled to your opinion....
« Last Edit: January 03, 2020, 09:00:50 AM by Kasandra »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #320 on: January 03, 2020, 09:13:30 AM »
I'm not wrong. The funding was, in fact, delivered. Zelensky and his government had no idea anything was going on. That's not an opinion, it's fact.

Kind of hard to do the quid pro quo thing when nobody thinks anything is happening.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #321 on: January 03, 2020, 12:31:49 PM »
I'm not wrong. The funding was, in fact, delivered. Zelensky and his government had no idea anything was going on. That's not an opinion, it's fact.

Kind of hard to do the quid pro quo thing when nobody thinks anything is happening.

You can't see what you won't see.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #322 on: January 03, 2020, 12:59:03 PM »
The money quote from Mason is highlighted above.  I'll leave you to decide if Mason meant any kind of malfeasance or "attempts to subvert the Constitution," as he himself says.

That quote does not seem to reinforce your previous position, which was that "maladministration" was their real intent but was a bit too vague. This bolded quote is saying that "treason and bribery" is too restrictive and that other dangerous offenses should be included as well. Since this comes at the issue from the opposite direction you were going before (too inclusive) and is now about being too exclusive, I don't see how this quote is relevant to your point.

Mason felt that "treason and bribery" weren't comprehensive enough, so to give additional grounds he wanted to add "maladministration" to cover other unspecified acts deserving of impeachment.  You're saying that somehow he failed to do that and changed the term to "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in a shift of his objective.  That makes no sense.  According to all known records, he agreed to the new phrasing without argument or delay.  In other words, he was saying "Sure, I'm ok with the old English phrase here."

This is why I don't think it's profitable to "debate" this with you.  Mason wasn't the sole author of the Constitution, he wanted maladministration and DID NOT GET IT.  The agreed language is not "the same as" maladministration or it too would have been rejected.

There was no question about this for 250 years.  In fact, the only place I can find a question about it is in the current House DNC write up on impeachment, which of course the liberal media has widely dispersed.  I suggest you retune your google searches to preclude materials written since Trump was in office if you want to get to a less biased version.  It should still be plenty good, because the Republicans really wanted to impeach Clinton.  But it's not going to get over this hump.

No matter how often you repeat it, it's still a "post truth" assertion to claim that maladaministration, despite be EXPRESSLY rejected as too vague, is the proper equivalent for impeachable conduct.  It's a lie.  It's false information.  And it's literally a claim made solely to try and support a political conviction.

Quote
Rather than asking whether you agree that Trump is guilty of doing that here, but wondering whether you think that is what the first impeachment article against Trump is based on.

Polling and political wishing is what the first article is based on.  It's deliberately vague because the House didn't find convincing evidence of impeachable conduct, ergo they passed an article that lets anyone construe their dislike of Trump as "guilt."

There's no defense against vague charges, which is EXACTLY why the courts find vague statutes passed by Congress unConstitutional on a regular basis.   But again, basic principals of justice and fairness that are guaranteed to all Americans can't be found in how the House is operating.

Although amazingly the headlines today seem to show leaked proof that Trump did order the hold himself. But I don't see how that is even relevant to whether in doing so had a nefarious motive.

It's not, which is why Kasandra and other proxies arguing on behalf of the DNC are trying to resurrect maladministration.  No need to show intent.  And that's also why it was not accepted in the first place.

The fact that such a bad argument, that's absurd on its face if you actually look at the history and meaning, is apparently so convincing to some is deeply troubling.  I do conclude I agree with Kasandra that we are in the "post truth" era, but not because of Trump, rather because those who keeping making the claim are literally revealing their own projection of how they think.  It doesn't matter what anything actually means or the intent behind it, so long as it "appears" the way the left wants it to look they are entitled to impose whatever interpretation or intent they find politically convenient on the situation.

That's why they can do things like openly misconstrue Trump on things like there being fine people on both sides and deny that he ever criticized the KKK and get away with it.  They have words that - without context - can be used to claim the intent they want to project but wasn't there, and through repetition and echo techniques convince massive amounts of people on the point.

I mean look at the thread hear.  Kasandra is literally trying to gaslight everyone.  Maladministration was rejected.  And yet he'd have you believe somehow that it was expressly incorporated.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #323 on: January 03, 2020, 03:29:25 PM »
Quote
This is why I don't think it's profitable to "debate" this with you.  Mason wasn't the sole author of the Constitution, he wanted maladministration and DID NOT GET IT.  The agreed language is not "the same as" maladministration or it too would have been rejected.

I NEVER SAID it was "the same as".  I hate when you do this.  You're almost as bad as Crunch.  The intent was to hold the President accountable for misdeeds while in office.  The precise language chosen satisfied the intent with more specificity.  You see a thousand shades of nuance in your own arguments but consistently treat what I say as black and white.  The rest of your argument continues this pattern, so it's not worth commenting on.  BTW, why do you keep referring to the "House DNC" but never the "House RNC"?  Hint, it's just another example of your black and white compartmentalization of all things left of your cherished opinions.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #324 on: January 19, 2020, 10:11:38 AM »
The shampeachmeny has moved to the senate, finally.

To recap, there is no alleged crime, no law broken.


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #326 on: January 19, 2020, 06:27:03 PM »
He was not impeached for that.

But if you like it, GAO: Obama White House Violated Law in Engagements With China. That’s one of seven times the GAO ruled Obama that way.

Why do you believe it was ok for Obama to do so 7 times but a problem for Trump only once?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #327 on: January 19, 2020, 07:00:21 PM »
He was not impeached for that.

But if you like it, GAO: Obama White House Violated Law in Engagements With China. That’s one of seven times the GAO ruled Obama that way.

Why do you believe it was ok for Obama to do so 7 times but a problem for Trump only once?

Don't forget the Obama Admin actions that were ruled unconstitutional by SCotUS.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #328 on: January 19, 2020, 07:44:45 PM »
He was not impeached for that.
Here is an excerpt of the articles of impeachment (in relation to ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.)
Quote
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
So yes, withholding aid to Ukraine was very much a part of the first article of impeachment.

As to the rest of your post - I just pointed out that yes, indeed, there was a breach of law, and it was known prior to your post where you erroneously claimed otherwise. That's it.

You do realize that a broken law is neither required nor necessarily sufficient for impeachment, right?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #329 on: January 19, 2020, 08:03:20 PM »
Here is an excerpt of the articles of impeachment (in relation to ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.)
Quote
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
So yes, withholding aid to Ukraine was very much a part of the first article of impeachment.

As to the rest of your post - I just pointed out that yes, indeed, there was a breach of law, and it was known prior to your post where you erroneously claimed otherwise. That's it.

You do realize that a broken law is neither required nor necessarily sufficient for impeachment, right?

That's nice, now can anyone prove it was only about 2020?


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #331 on: January 19, 2020, 08:13:36 PM »
That's nice, now can anyone prove it was only about 2020?
Well, Lev Parnas has publicly made that claim, consistent with what the witnesses during the impeachment process have also stated.

Maybe the Senate should subpoena him...

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #332 on: January 21, 2020, 01:17:11 PM »
Lol, yeah DonaldD, sure that's less relevant to the Dems claim than Hunter Biden is to Trumps, which is a "side show" even though it goes to establish an actual motive (investigating what looks like corruption).

In any event, just read McConnell's motion for the rules.  It looks to me like if it passes, the House's entire record will be inadmissible.  "No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses."  Since the House failed to conduct a just investigation it's all effectively garbage that'd have to be redone to be usable.  Of course that could just refer to the Senate process.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #333 on: January 21, 2020, 02:00:02 PM »
Quote
even though it goes to establish an actual motive
It really doesn't, though - only what Trump knew or suspected would go to his motive.  What Trump did not know could not factor into his motivations.
Quote
Lol, yeah DonaldD, sure that's less relevant to the Dems claim
You're kidding, right?  Evidence that Trump was leaning on Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election is irrelevant to the impeachment claims?  Have you read them?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 02:02:27 PM by DonaldD »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #334 on: January 21, 2020, 02:46:57 PM »
Quote
even though it goes to establish an actual motive
It really doesn't, though - only what Trump knew or suspected would go to his motive.  What Trump did not know could not factor into his motivations.

That may be most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. Trump knew about Hunter's problems, they were common knowledge and he directly referenced them.  Pretty clear as a motive.

I've seen zero evidence tying this to 2020, and clear evidence of intent to investigate it as related to corruption generally in the Ukraine. 

Quote
Quote
Lol, yeah DonaldD, sure that's less relevant to the Dems claim
You're kidding, right?  Evidence that Trump was leaning on Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election is irrelevant to the impeachment claims?  Have you read them?

The Impeachment claims are garbage as written.  They violate many basic tenants of law, but one in particular strikes here.  Accusations must be specific not general.  You can't have different jurors voting to convict on different actions but not agreeing on a common action for which there was guilt.  There's literally zero direct attributions - in the record - of the 2020 tie in.  You just think it's obvious that this is what it must be about (just like I think it's obvious the House misused the impeachment power to influence the 2020 election  which makes them guilty of the same crime).

But what I was referring to was your claim about the GAO opinion.  The illegality (or non-illegality, which is still really up for debate) has nothing to do with the motive claim or the 2020 interference claim.  Hunter's actions go directly to the motive, which the House asserts can only be 2020 interference, even though facially on the record the other motives appear. 

Let's be honest.  If you can't admit the House abused fairness and justice, you're really not being a serious person.   There's no part of that process that matches with what we expect from American justice.  It was fundamentally abusive and injust and not remotely designed to get to the actual truth, to the point where it would be thrown out summarily in any court.  If you can admit that and still want to argue it has merit of some sort, please do so.  But it's not possible to ignore that reality, without being just a tribalism mouthpiece.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #335 on: January 21, 2020, 03:11:50 PM »
Quote
Trump knew about Hunter's problems, they were common knowledge and he directly referenced them.  Pretty clear as a motive.
So there's no need to call Biden as a witness, since he had nothing to add to the facts that were already independently 'known'.   So what was your point?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #336 on: January 21, 2020, 03:20:57 PM »
I don't see a good reason to call the Bidens as a witnesses if this was a court rather than a political witchhunt.  The fact is that their actions are 100%  relevant to the defense, but calling them (oddly) seems an indirect way to point that out.  They can only testify to whether or not they did it - which is actually irrelevant to whether or not Trump thought they did it.

But the House picked the "rules" which are about swaying public opinion rather than actually finding evidence.  In that game, which if the House got to play it the defense has to be allowed as well, proving that the Bidens are guilty is actually decisive.  If the Bidens are guilty the public support for this impeachment would crater.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #337 on: January 21, 2020, 03:39:39 PM »
I would say an investigation into the obvious Biden and son graft in Ukraine is called for even if nothing illegal was done so the public can understand what actually went on and with our politicians decide if that's something that should be legal or if that's something that we might need to take a look at passing laws to guard against. Just because it wasn't illegal doesn't mean the public doesn't have a right to know. Transparency and all that.

Now if any laws were broken by the Bidens, that opens up a can of whuppin' worms against the Democrats who are then guilty of collusion to cover up crimes. Either way though Trump was right to want an investigation and not only is that not an impeachable offense, it's actually a commendable action to give the public more information about how our elected politicians use their positions or have their positions used to make money for their families with our tax dollars acting as leverage.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #338 on: January 21, 2020, 04:43:33 PM »
Just read Schumer's amendments request and now I see where they are going with this.  It's a classic poison pill.  If it's adopted, it requires the Chief Justice to execute the subpeona on Trump - who then exerts executive privilege.  The privilege claim is litigated through the DC circuit where it's controlled 7-4 by Democratic judges and already on record as hostile to the President.   Ultimately they expect the unfavorable result to get appealed to the SC, where lo and behold the demand will be for the Chief Justice to recuse himself because he was the person that issued the subpeona.  That leaves a 4-4 split decision with the order staying in force.

Of course, that's only if its adopted.  If its not adopted, its the basis for the exoneration of Trump to be declared illegitmate and for the House to reopen it's active Impeachment investigation.  They get to say Trump is Impeached, run on the Senate "illegtimately saving" him and on an active investigation to get to the "truth" that their constituents can highly motivate on.

I think the only thing they have right is that the Impeachment really is all about 2020, but not Trump's part in it, just their own.  With the media in their corner they won't pay a price for this.

So what can the Republicans actually do?  Just make them look stupid and petty, it's not hard, Schiff and Nadler are petty and reckless.  But this was what the rush was about.  The Impeachment inquiry was a flop, but selling the Senate trial as a sham makes Impeachment 2.0 a winner (at least that's what they think). 

The only other thing would be for the DOJ to get off their asses and actually start bringing the real criminals to justice (yeah right, like those deep staters are going to put other deep staters in jail).

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #339 on: January 21, 2020, 05:59:15 PM »
...So there's no need to call Biden as a witness, since he had nothing to add to the facts that were already independently 'known'.   So what was your point?

There is every reason to examine his actions in giving million of USA money to Burisma with his son on the board. There is a serious matter of the Ukrainian Oligarch who owns Burisma stealing that money. ...Not to mention the Chinese connection.

It's not just about the 2016 election or the 2020 election.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 06:02:03 PM by wmLambert »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #340 on: January 21, 2020, 06:07:29 PM »
There is every reason to examine his actions in giving million of USA money to Burisma with his son on the board.
You really have to stop doing this to yourself...

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #341 on: January 21, 2020, 06:21:11 PM »
...about the GAO opinion.  The illegality (or non-illegality, which is still really up for debate) has nothing to do with the motive claim or the 2020 interference claim.

All Constitutional experts note that the Constitution gives the sole power of Foreign policy to the president. The House is prohibited from anything but perhaps refusing to fund his policy directives. They do not have the authority to make foreign policy. ...Funny they can not fund things they do not control, but then say the President must fund what he does control.

The GAO is turning law upside down - but they are a House adjunct.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #342 on: January 21, 2020, 06:26:48 PM »
The GAO is turning law upside down - but they are a House adjunct.
Yes, the GAO is part of the deep state, too!  Boogaboogabooga! (there's got to be a tinfoil hat emoji around here somewhere...)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #343 on: January 21, 2020, 06:47:17 PM »
He was not impeached for that.
Here is an excerpt of the articles of impeachment (in relation to ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.)
Quote
President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
So yes, withholding aid to Ukraine was very much a part of the first article of impeachment.

As to the rest of your post - I just pointed out that yes, indeed, there was a breach of law, and it was known prior to your post where you erroneously claimed otherwise. That's it.

You do realize that a broken law is neither required nor necessarily sufficient for impeachment, right?

What law from the US code are you alleging was broken?

You sure you want this new standard for impeachment? Really? It’s gonna work out about as well as your nuclear option for judges. You know that, right?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #344 on: January 21, 2020, 06:48:39 PM »
The GAO is turning law upside down - but they are a House adjunct.
Yes, the GAO is part of the deep state, too!  Boogaboogabooga! (there's got to be a tinfoil hat emoji around here somewhere...)

Can you point to the article f the constitution that give foreign policy power to the GAO and not the president? That’d be really helpful.  Thanks

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #345 on: January 21, 2020, 06:51:46 PM »
...Yes, the GAO is part of the deep state, too!  Boogaboogabooga! (there's got to be a tinfoil hat emoji around here somewhere...)

You don't agree that the GAO is a House adjunct? It is supposed to be non-partisan, but somehow came up with a Democrat-slanted statement that embues the House with UnConstitutional powers and says Trump broke the law by making his own foreign policy. The head of the GAO was named under Obama in 2010. Want to bet he has webbed feet? If he is not part of the Swamp, why did he weigh in and make UnConstutional statements?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 06:53:58 PM by wmLambert »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #346 on: January 21, 2020, 06:58:10 PM »
What law from the US code are you alleging was broken?

You sure you want this new standard for impeachment? Really? It’s gonna work out about as well as your nuclear option for judges. You know that, right?
It seems like you are moving on, and you now accept that he was, indeed, impeached for that?

I am not alleging anything - it's the GAO that is stating that the Trump admin violated the law... that terrible, partisan, low I.Q. office full of... auditors!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #347 on: January 21, 2020, 07:00:13 PM »
Just read Schumer's amendments request and now I see where they are going with this.  It's a classic poison pill.  If it's adopted, it requires the Chief Justice to execute the subpeona on Trump - who then exerts executive privilege.  The privilege claim is litigated through the DC circuit where it's controlled 7-4 by Democratic judges and already on record as hostile to the President.   Ultimately they expect the unfavorable result to get appealed to the SC, where lo and behold the demand will be for the Chief Justice to recuse himself because he was the person that issued the subpeona.  That leaves a 4-4 split decision with the order staying in force.

Given the nature of the impeachment process, I think it'd be an interesting point regarding recusal on Robert's part. Personally, I'd say the basis for his recusal is n/a'd by virtue of the matter that he wasn't actually the one who decided to issue the subpoena, he merely is one required to sign off on it--with no legal means/process to avoid doing so to the best of my knowledge.

So he's be able to wear "two hats" in that case, as the "other hat" which creates the basis for his "conflict of interest" merely consists of his acknowledging that Senate Rules for issuance of the subpoena were followed. Which is a far cry from him certifying said actions as being constitutional or not--which is the "second hat" in this case.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #348 on: January 22, 2020, 01:00:33 PM »
I would not be surprised if the Courts declined to tell the Senate how to run its impeachment trial.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #349 on: January 22, 2020, 02:39:26 PM »
I would not be surprised if the Courts declined to tell the Senate how to run its impeachment trial.

They generally stay out of it, IIRC there even one SCotUS finding where the majority response was that "Impeachment is a political process" and thus outside their purview generally speaking.

But that doesn't mean the political process itself cannot run afoul of the Constitution in such a manner that SCotUS needs to rule on a separation of powers matter.