The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,028
    Reaction score
    851
    Age
    64
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    By Laura Bassett

    After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

    “Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

    Read the Full Story - InStyle
     
    Wasn’t there discussion on the forum about Dershowitz being pro-Trump and his legal analysis is questionable? Now he is part of the defense team.
     
    Yeah, generically speaking it's not relevant. Sort of like when people say that innocent people have no reason to fear a prosecution. Or only guilty people need a criminal defense lawyer.

    I just posted it because it was Laura's commentary. And also because Dershowitz.

    Looks like Laura deleted it.
     
    Looks like Laura deleted it.

    Maybe she has a close relation who said, "easy now... BTW, I have been thinking about making a man cave ... is there anything in your old room that you want to save before I start my project?"

    Or worse, what was it that Terry Bradshaw did in Failure to Launch?😂
     
    That is a weird statement. So who attorneys have represented in the past reflects guilt or innocence on current clients?????
    I took it more as a "why you may or may not know their names"

    Or are you talking about the Tweet that is now unavailable? I didn't get to see what that said.
     
    I took it more as a "why you may or may not know their names"

    Or are you talking about the Tweet that is now unavailable? I didn't get to see what that said.

    The tweet was calling into question the selection of Dershowitz because he has represented bad actors such as OJ and Epstein.
     
    There being no standard of proof for this trial is kind of crazy. So if I'm a Senator and I decide that, because this is not a criminal proceeding I want to go with preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be entirely within my Constitutional rights, correct?

    I then don't understand what Derschowhatever is always going on about.
     
    Now wait for the cries of “never trump, liberal lapdog GAO”

    ......Yet Trump and his mouthpieces denied all — and set out to dismantle the credibility of Parnas and the GAO alike.

    “The GOA got it exactly backwards,” Trump tweeted Friday morning, sharing something he heard on Fox News. (He probably meant the GAO, not the Indian state of Goa.)

    Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) suggested a political motive at the GAO: “I think they shouldn’t be deciding who broke the law.”........

     
    It’s not required to have an indictable offense to impeach, though.

    For example, a future president could decide to give Alaska back to Russia, which wouldn’t be a crime, but would undoubtedly result in impeachment.
     
    ......Yet Trump and his mouthpieces denied all — and set out to dismantle the credibility of Parnas and the GAO alike.

    “The GOA got it exactly backwards,” Trump tweeted Friday morning, sharing something he heard on Fox News. (He probably meant the GAO, not the Indian state of Goa.)

    Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) suggested a political motive at the GAO: “I think they shouldn’t be deciding who broke the law.”........


    The hilarity of ANYONE trying to say that the GAO got it wrong is amazing.

    There is absolutely no way that anyone who can understand the english language can say that the GAO got it wrong. The GAO said that the OMB violated the ICA. The ICA requires the president to send a special message to congress informing them of any decision to hold off on spending money that congress authorized, explaining the reason why and how long it will be held up. The president told OMB to hold off on spending the Ukrainian aid that congress approved, and not to tell anyone that they were doing it. That is as clear a violation of the ICA that is possible.
     
    So this thread is the response to Dershowitz saying that abuse of power is not impeachable.



    ETA: Of course, Dershowitz in the 90’s had the opposite view, he reiterated then that abuse of power was enough to impeach.
     
    Last edited:
    So this thread is the response to Dershowitz saying that abuse of power is not impeachable.



    ETA: Of course, Dershowitz in the 90’s had the opposite view, he reiterated then that abuse of power was enough to impeach.


    Thanks for posting. Very informative thread.

    Dershowitz' claim that the conduct is not impeachable even if all the allegations are proven is where we've been heading all along. I'll never forget Senator Kennedy's mid-September 2019 TV interview when he kept saying "well let's just wait on the facts," implying that he hadn't made his mind up. It would be less discouraging if I thought these guys were dumb enough to be persuaded by the amateurish arguments Trump's legal team is putting into its briefs, but they're not -- not by a long shot. If there are any Trump defenders that are aware of how much damage they're doing to the rule of law, they're at the very top of the list, and I can only hope that's what they're eventually remembered for.
     
    Thanks for posting. Very informative thread.

    Dershowitz' claim that the conduct is not impeachable even if all the allegations are proven is where we've been heading all along. I'll never forget Senator Kennedy's mid-September 2019 TV interview when he kept saying "well let's just wait on the facts," implying that he hadn't made his mind up. It would be less discouraging if I thought these guys were dumb enough to be persuaded by the amateurish arguments Trump's legal team is putting into its briefs, but they're not -- not by a long shot. If there are any Trump defenders that are aware of how much damage they're doing to the rule of law, they're at the very top of the list, and I can only hope that's what they're eventually remembered for.



    Sounds like he thought something different when it was a Democrat being impeached.
     
    yes, for the past 4 years everytime Trump would say or do or tweet something I'd think to myself, "Trump is so much like Martin Luther King Jr it's scary"
    =================================================================================================

    Kellyanne Conway on Monday responded to a question on how the president is observing Martin Luther King Day by claiming the civil-rights leader would oppose the impeachment of President Donald Trump......

    Adding that the president and Dr. King would see eye-to-eye on “unity and equality,” Conway complained that it’s not the president who is “trying to tear the country apart through an impeachment process and a lack of substance that really is very shameful at this point.”...………….

     
    They are so damnably tone deaf. Trump’s tweet was more about him than MLK.

    It’s like they are parodies of themselves.
     
    So this thread is the response to Dershowitz saying that abuse of power is not impeachable.



    ETA: Of course, Dershowitz in the 90’s had the opposite view, he reiterated then that abuse of power was enough to impeach.

    This was a pretty good read and as someone with training in history, I appreciate the fact he uses British history to back up his argument.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom