The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,029
    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
     
    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.

    The idea that there is no "sound basis" itself lacks a sound basis. One of the great legal minds of the 19th Century made the same argument during the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson.

    Justice Benjamin Curtis on impeachment said:
    My first position is, that when the Constitution speaks of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offenses against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done; and I say that this is plainly to be inferred from each and every provision of the constitution on the subject of impeachment.

    "Treason" and "bribery." nobody will doubt that these are here designated high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States, made such by the laws of the United States, which the framers of the Constitution knew must be passed in the nature of the Government they were about to create, because these are offenses which strike at the existence of that Government---"other high crimes and misdemeanors." Noscitur a sociis. High crimes and misdemeanors; so high that they belong in his company with treason and bribery. That is plain on the face of the Constitution in the very first step it takes on the subject of impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors; so high that they belong in this company with treason and bribery. That is plain on the face of the Constitution; in the very first step it takes on the subject of impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" against what law? There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law, written or unwritten express or implied. There must be some law; otherwise there is no crime. My interpretation of it is that the language "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "offenses against the laws of the United States." Let us see if the Constitution has not said so.

     
    There’s always one crackpot, Jim, right? (That was a joke, btw).

    Seriously, though, did you read his thread? I don’t think you can get 100% agreement on much of anything, therefore one person disagreeing against all of his examples doesn’t invalidate his legal opinion on this subject as someone who teaches law. At least for me in my inexpert opinion.

    Which current constitutional scholars agree with Dershowitz? I’ve read that there are none. I have no way to know if that’s true, maybe you know?

    Also, doesn’t it seem odd that Dershowitz would argue the exact opposite of today in years past? The Constitution hasn’t really changed, only who is paying him, I suppose.
     
    President Trump’s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions.

    While Republicans continue to express confidence that Democrats will fail to persuade four GOP lawmakers to break ranks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has opposed calling any witnesses in the trial, they are readying a Plan B just in case — underscoring how uncertain they are about prevailing in a showdown over witnesses and Bolton’s possible testimony..........

     
    There’s always one crackpot, Jim, right? (That was a joke, btw).

    Seriously, though, did you read his thread? I don’t think you can get 100% agreement on much of anything, therefore one person disagreeing against all of his examples doesn’t invalidate his legal opinion on this subject as someone who teaches law. At least for me in my inexpert opinion.

    Which current constitutional scholars agree with Dershowitz? I’ve read that there are none. I have no way to know if that’s true, maybe you know?

    Also, doesn’t it seem odd that Dershowitz would argue the exact opposite of today in years past? The Constitution hasn’t really changed, only who is paying him, I suppose.
    I have no way of knowing what other scholars agree with Dershowitz. But I am not really concerned if it can be proven Dershowitz is the only one advancing the argument today. The fact is that there is historical support for his view, and that support comes from one of the great legal minds of the 19th Century - certainly a legal scholar with far more weight than John Mikhail - which if here were being honest, would himself agree.

    I am not sure of the finer points of Dershowitz's argument - but it seems likely he is arguing for how impeachment should be seen. Clearly, I think, there is precedent for having abuse of power as a charge for impeachment. But that doesn't make an argument against such precedent as "unsound."

    In fact, I think from a practical point of view Dershowitz's take is far superior, even though I am not sure I would hamstring Congress' power in that way. But it would, at a minimum, lessen to some degree the politicization of impeachment.
     
    I would like to thank all members of the impeachment team for re-electing Donald Trump. Ugh ill still vote for for him over the dem field but that's not saying much.


     
    All of these politicians (democrats, republican, independents) probably go to the same private exclusive club together celebrating how they are screwing the public again.
     
    I would like to thank all members of the impeachment team for re-electing Donald Trump. Ugh ill still vote for for him over the dem field but that's not saying much.



    What do you believe that Rudy and his guys were up to in Ukraine?

    Do you believe that the President withheld aid approved by Congress because he wanted an announcement of an investigation because it would harm his main opponent in the next election?

    Do you believe that a President could be impeached for abuse of power?
     
    What do you believe that Rudy and his guys were up to in Ukraine?

    Do you believe that the President withheld aid approved by Congress because he wanted an announcement of an investigation because it would harm his main opponent in the next election?

    Do you believe that a President could be impeached for abuse of power?
    Rudy was running around on a possible wild goose chase about Russian/Ukraine involvement in the 2016 election.

    I believe Trump was looking into the 2016 election because that is what Trump does. Everyone says that the Russian hacked the election for Trump so of course Trump will be Trump and will try and find evidence that someone somewhere worked against him in the 2016 election. This is, in a sense, Trump arguing about crowd sizes. Rudy just played along.

    Yes, because so far, he has. Removal from office, maybe.
     
    Not sure if anybody is listening, but Adam Schiff is absolutely destroying any type of justification for Mitch McConnell and his rules for this "trial".

    Not that it will make a difference with Republican Senators, but it's good to hear somebody make the case for impartial justice, since we won't be getting any of that in the trial.

    I hadn't even realized the McGhan subpoena from the Russian Interference was still being fought in court. Wow. Just proves that waiting on the courts to address every subpoena of documents and witnesses was never a viable path forward for the House investigation in this impeachment.
     
    Not sure if anybody is listening, but Adam Schiff is absolutely destroying any type of justification for Mitch McConnell and his rules for this "trial".

    Not that it will make a difference with Republican Senators, but it's good to hear somebody make the case for impartial justice, since we won't be getting any of that in the trial.

    I hadn't even realized the McGhan subpoena from the Russian Interference was still being fought in court. Wow. Just proves that waiting on the courts to address every subpoena of documents and witnesses was never a viable path forward for the House investigation in this impeachment.
    The House already voted to impeach without waiting on the Court's ruling.

    Schiff's argument is weak. The Senate's job should not be to cure deficiencies in the House's impeachment.
     
    GOP already amended the resolution for the rules to change opening arguements from 2 days and 24 hours for each side to 3 days and 24 hours. Since the hearing starts at 13:00 every day, that would prevent it from running to 0100 every night.
     
    The House already voted to impeach without waiting on the Court's ruling.

    Schiff's argument is weak. The Senate's job should not be to cure deficiencies in the House's impeachment.

    Yes, the Senate jobs is to have a trial. What trial have you ever heard of or been a part of that didn't have witness testimonies or documents entered into evidence and just rested on opening statements?
     
    Here's the question I've been trying to get someone to answer...

    is there anyone out there who can provide a decent answer as to how anyone is better served by not having witnesses and evidence presented?

    I mean, there are two options:

    A) Allow both sides to call relevant witnesses and present relevant evidence.
    B) Allow no witnesses or evidence to be presented.

    How is option B better for everyone?
     
    The House already voted to impeach without waiting on the Court's ruling.

    Schiff's argument is weak. The Senate's job should not be to cure deficiencies in the House's impeachment.

    The Senate's job is to decide whether or not the President should be removed from office. If Senators feel that there is relevant evidence that is not currently part of the record, then they should feel obligated to complete the record.

    If the Senate votes to acquit, and a week later John Bolton's book comes out and he says he was personally aware of a direct quid pro quo involving the Ukraine aid, it will not excuse the Senators who voted to acquit.
     
    Yes, the Senate jobs is to have a trial. What trial have you ever heard of or been a part of that didn't have witness testimonies or documents entered into evidence and just rested on opening statements?
    This isn't a criminal trial. It's got its own rules and decorum.
    Chief among those is that the Senate can summarily dismiss without comment.
    In that regard, it has more in common with the Supreme Court than the House.
     
    The Senate's job is to decide whether or not the President should be removed from office. If Senators feel that there is relevant evidence that is not currently part of the record, then they should feel obligated to complete the record.

    If the Senate votes to acquit, and a week later John Bolton's book comes out and he says he was personally aware of a direct quid pro quo involving the Ukraine aid, it will not excuse the Senators who voted to acquit.
    First, it's the Senate's job to decide whether or not to even accept or decline the articles provided by the House.

    Let's not jump the gun here.
     

    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