Trump impeachment

historia · Post by **historia** » Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm

On September 24, 2019, the US House of Representatives began an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump.

Most political analysts agree that the House, which has a Democratic majority, is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. While the Senate, which has a Republican majority, is unlikely to reach the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office.

Questions for debate:

1. Should Trump be impeached?

2. Should Trump be removed from office?

3. If the process plays out as analysts expect, will this redound to the Democrats' or the Republicans' benefit in the 2020 elections?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:16 pm

IMPEACHMENT, Charles Black, written during Watergate is a good guide to the process. â€œA model of how so serious an act of state should be approached.â€�â€”Wall Street Journal

Illustrating the point that a specific crime may not be necessary, using reductio ad absurdum, Black offers an extreme examples of behavior that is non-criminal but is outrageous enough to warrant removal.

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for impeachment and removal?"

The most important book ever written on presidential impeachment is only 69 pages long. Charles Black, Jr.,â€™s Impeachment: A Handbook was published in the summer of 1974, at the height of the Watergate crisis, and reissued in October 1998, two months before Bill Clinton became the second president..."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeach-pre ... rles-black

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:49 am

Daedalus X wrote: How do you get a conviction when there is no violation of law?

By having two thirds of the Senate vote that the president has committed impeachable offenses obviously.

Trump did use the word 'however' so I will meet you half way, if we could impeach a president on 'a preponderance of the evidence', then you could have a case. The problem is that we need evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

That's an easily solvable problem.

So, if it is at all possible that President Trump was investigating corruption and not trying to bolster his 2020 campaign, then we can't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What? No, that's not how reasonable doubt works. There's a huge difference between "at all possible" and "not reasonable to believe."

The Democrats need to look inside the Presidents head and know what he was thinking when he was on that phone call.

Or you can question witnesses and present evidence to build a picture of what the President is thinking. Or was that what you meant by looking inside his head?

If I said something to lead you to believe that I thought a quid pro quo is a huge deal, then I misspoke. For the record if the President did or did not commit a quid pro quo it is not a huge deal, as long as it was not a solicitation for a bribe or extortion or some other illegal thing.

Ok.

Agreed.

Great.

Because, if one knows that an impeachment requires a two thirds vote and one has less than a half, then one is irrational or just very bad at math to undertake such an impeachment.

As before, that just begs the next question, why do you believe that is irrational? Can you just skip straight to the end?

As I said, justice requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And the Democrats do not have it.

That's debatable.

By Russia I mean the government of Russia. And no, I don't know what the government of Russia is doing. There may be non government Russians or people pretending to be government Russians trying to divide our nation. Or it may be the Russian government. But until I see evidence of this activity, I can only say accused of doing something. Even the government of Russia gets the presumption of innocence till proven guilty.

That's where the Miller report comes in.

I don't think Rudy Giuliani is making treaties with the Ukraine in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.

The act goes beyond treaties, as for controversies, you seem to have missed out over the outcry of the US diplomatic staff.

I would like you to do me a favor though, would you explain to me why there is a law called the Logan Act, what possible purpose does it serve?

Maybe, what is it that I was supposed to get in return?

Politicians need to be watched closely, if a person does not want to be scrutinized then don't go into politics. President Trump has been investigated up the wazoo, and surprisingly little has been found. We need more investigations not less, but that is just my opinion.

Yet earlier you wanted the Democrats to fast forward the investigation, why?

Some people don't care what their politicians are doing behind our backs but I do. If the American people don't know what happened to any aid we sent to the Ukraine or any other country, then we need to investigate why we don't know what went on. I am disappointed that so many people are willing to impeach a president for trying to find that out on behalf of all Americans.

But you don't seem to care about what the President does behind your back?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:59 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Daedalus X wrote: How do you get a conviction when there is no violation of law?
By having two thirds of the Senate vote that the president has committed impeachable offenses obviously.

Trump did use the word 'however' so I will meet you half way, if we could impeach a president on 'a preponderance of the evidence', then you could have a case. The problem is that we need evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
That's an easily solvable problem.

We do NOT need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden of proof mentioned in the impeachment clause. 2/3 of the Senate is a difficult burden however.
Not only is there already sufficient evidence for a reasonable and impartial jury to convict, but Trump is withholding evidence (and also obstructing Congress) by refusing to submit requested documents and by influencing witnesses not to testify. The latter is also a crime.

The House could have challenged those refusals in Court; however, that would have taken considerable time as the legal process wound its way to the Supreme Court. The urgency for the removal of this man who puts the United States' interests in jeopardy prevents such a long delay which would also push the impeachment trial close to the 2020 election if not beyond.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:37 pm

Danmark wrote:
The House could have challenged those refusals in Court; however, that would have taken considerable time as the legal process wound its way to the Supreme Court. The urgency for the removal of this man who puts the United States' interests in jeopardy prevents such a long delay which would also push the impeachment trial close to the 2020 election if not beyond.

If it's so urgent, why is Nancy Pelosi dragging her feet in submitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate? Holding out for a "fair trial" like the one she gave President Trump in the House? Seriously?

Isn't Pelosi the one who said we should not impeach a president unless there is clear bi-partisan support for the action? And is that what we have?

This has been political from the start. There are more than a few Democrats who have been working for Donald Trump's impeachment for a long time now.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:12 pm

Elijah John wrote:
Danmark wrote:
The House could have challenged those refusals in Court; however, that would have taken considerable time as the legal process wound its way to the Supreme Court. The urgency for the removal of this man who puts the United States' interests in jeopardy prevents such a long delay which would also push the impeachment trial close to the 2020 election if not beyond.
If it's so urgent, why is Nancy Pelosi dragging her feet in submitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate? Holding out for a "fair trial" like the one she gave President Trump in the House? Seriously?

I knew someone would make that argument. That is why I referred to many months of delay, to nearly November of 2020 compared to a few days during the holidays where nothing ever seems to get done. It is also clever and strategic because new evidence keeps pouring forth, the latest being that Trump ordered the withholding of $ to Ukraine just an hour and a half after the call. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a ... d=67869710

A January trial is reasonable, one in September or later much less so. Trump is clearly guilty of these articles of impeachment (and much more), put it takes time to let the evidence sink into the consciences of the jury, not to mention Trump's base, which he himself has called 'stupid,' according to Jared Kushner.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:13 pm

[Replying to post 65 by Danmark]

I have no doubt that you were a good attorney. But so is Alan Dershowitz and he does not think the House Dems have a case worth making, or defending. He does not think President Trump should be impeached. Yeah, I know it's an appeal to authority as I do not understand all the specifics. But reasonable people can, certainly do disagree on this.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:09 am

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 65 by Danmark]

I have no doubt that you were a good attorney. But so is Alan Dershowitz and he does not think the House Dems have a case worth making, or defending. He does not think President Trump should be impeached. Yeah, I know it's an appeal to authority as I do not understand all the specifics. But reasonable people can, certainly do disagree on this.

Correct, your argument is an appeal to authority. I admit I do not understand Dershowitz lately. It appears he has sold out. He is in the vast minority of legal scholars.
Legal scholars, like the rest of us, are prone to letting their political biases influence their judgment. I've made my arguments. Trump is not fit for office by moral standards. He is not fit for office due to his apparent emotional and mental instability. He should be impeached because he tried to bribe Ukraine for personal interests, because he is in contempt of congress and has obstructed justice.

I do not say this on my authority. I have none. I say it because that is where the facts lead me. He has not only admitted on tape that he tried to extort Zelensky, he has admitted it by refusing to allow witnesses to testify and to allow documents to be released. These witnesses and documents could give evidence for or against his impeachment. By withholding them, he admits they will show his guilt.

This is not just my argument; as I have presented before, there is a rule of evidence that says when a party who has exclusive control of evidence, does not bring that evidence forward, it may be presumed it will hurt him.

BTW, one of my daughter's professors at Harvard Law was Alan Dershowitz. She liked him. Another friend, my own age, a staunch Republican and former Repbublican candidate for governor of Washington State referred to him (in a private conversation) as something the rules of this forum prohibit me from stating.

Daedalus X · Post by **Daedalus X** » Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:48 am

Danmark wrote:
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 65 by Danmark]

I have no doubt that you were a good attorney. But so is Alan Dershowitz and he does not think the House Dems have a case worth making, or defending. He does not think President Trump should be impeached. Yeah, I know it's an appeal to authority as I do not understand all the specifics. But reasonable people can, certainly do disagree on this.
Correct, your argument is an appeal to authority. I admit I do not understand Dershowitz lately. It appears he has sold out. He is in the vast minority of legal scholars.
Legal scholars, like the rest of us, are prone to letting their political biases influence their judgment. I've made my arguments. Trump is not fit for office by moral standards. He is not fit for office due to his apparent emotional and mental instability. He should be impeached because he tried to bribe Ukraine for personal interests, because he is in contempt of congress and has obstructed justice.

I do not say this on my authority. I have none. I say it because that is where the facts lead me. He has not only admitted on tape that he tried to extort Zelensky, he has admitted it by refusing to allow witnesses to testify and to allow documents to be released. These witnesses and documents could give evidence for or against his impeachment. By withholding them, he admits they will show his guilt.

This is not just my argument; as I have presented before, there is a rule of evidence that says when a party who has exclusive control of evidence, does not bring that evidence forward, it may be presumed it will hurt him.

BTW, one of my daughter's professors at Harvard Law was Alan Dershowitz. She liked him. Another friend, my own age, a staunch Republican and former Repbublican candidate for governor of Washington State referred to him (in a private conversation) as something the rules of this forum prohibit me from stating.

Just a reminder, I would still like you to back up your previous claims by answering these questions ==> viewtopic.php?p=989675#989675

Forum Rules:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:40 pm

According to the Babylon Bee Trump just said:
"... and who is doing more for Christians today? Not Jesus. He disappeared; no one knows what happened to him."

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-i-hav ... _rRbu3Q4qA

If this bears out as a true Trump quote it should prove to evangelicals who Trump really is, but I doubt even this will change their minds. Many of them would support Hitler if he promised to appoint anti abortion judges and keep brown people out of the country.

In any event, this is likely satire, but it does sound like Trump.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:45 pm

Elijah John wrote: This has been political from the start.

The only reason this is "political" is because the Republicans refuse to acknowledge the truth.

The Republicans are flushing your free democracy down the toilet. Why aren't you outraged with them? Would you prefer to toss free democracy out the window in favor of surrendering to a totalitarian autocrat? Because that's exactly what you are about to get.

Trump guilt has already been exposed beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet Mitch McConnell and company are prepared to support Trump to the end. And for what purpose. He'll throw any one of them under the bus in a split second if they dare to challenge him on anything. Why they are supporting him is beyond me. Apparently they aren't capable of recognizing their own enemy.

They swore an oath to defend the USA against all threats foreign and domestic. But clearly they don't have the courage or intelligence to stand up and honor their oath. Instead they have all decided to play the role of Trump's DEFENSE TEAM. That's NOT their job. They are all in violation of the oath they took in the eyes of God and swore to the people of the United States of American.

It's the Republicans who are about to have a sham trial to exonerate a guilty man.

The question is why? Clearly all they are thinking of political gain, and NOT the preservation of a Free Democracy. We are watching the USA die right before our very eyes. And the Republicans are guilty for letting this happen.