Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts


On 2/12/2020 at 7:27 AM, TGHusker said:

Full Stone trial team resigns.   This is how dictators take control.  Change the definition of right and wrong, innocence & guilt,  justice & injustice.   Pardons for friends and criminals, purge the honorable.      Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels would be so proud as would his Minister of Justice Franz Schlegelberger 

 

https://apnews.com/f9addeca0df46d91442701d1420ed046

 

 

 

 

 

So do the dictators have the judge and jury more or less predisposed to hate the accused?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 during the House Judiciary hearing:

Quote

What happened in 2016 was bad enough: there is widespread agreement that Russian operatives intervened to manipulate our political process. But that distortion is magnified if a sitting President abuses the powers of his office actually to invite foreign intervention. To see why, imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded, “‘I would like you to do us a favor.’ I’ll meet with you and send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.”? Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, betrayed the national interest, and tried to corrupt the electoral process?

Professor Karlan.

 

Thinly-veiled, corrupt QPD is no less wrong just because it is blatant and public.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment

Can we impeach the guy again??   Actually, this 'confession' tells me the guy is confident he can get away wt anything now. 

 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-biden_n_5e4691d3c5b64433c614e787

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-biden-141733650.html

Quote

 

President Donald Trump now admits he sent his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, a central part of Trump’s impeachment. 

Trump on Thursday explained why he chose to “use Rudy” in an interview for Fox News host Geraldo Rivera’s podcast, perhaps feeling at ease after being acquitted by the Republican-led Senate earlier this month.

“Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?” Rivera asked Trump.

“No, not at all,” Trump said.

Here’s my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy,” he continued, referring to former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired in 2017 after the FBI began investigating his 2016 campaign. The investigation mushroomed into special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election interference.

Trump said he has “a very bad taste” for U.S. intelligence officials because of Mueller’s investigation, so he chose Giuliani to do his bidding.

“So when you tell me, why did I use Rudy? And one of the things about Rudy, number one, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor,” Trump told Rivera. “But also, other presidents had them. FDR had a lawyer who was practically, you know, was totally involved with government. Eisenhower had a lawyer. They all had lawyers.”

In November, Trump denied that he sent Giuliani to Ukraine, despite congressional testimony from multiple witnesses, including career diplomats and government officials, who said Giuliani met with and pressured Ukrainian officials as part of Trump’s plot to coerce a foreign government into aiding his reelection.

“No, I didn’t direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior,” Trump said in an interview on former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s radio show, when asked if he instructed Giuliani to “do anything” in Ukraine.

But then-ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that Trump gave him “express direction” to work with Giuliani.

Giuliani also was mentioned in Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, when Trump told Zelensky to “speak to him.”

“Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man,” Trump said, according to the summary of the call released by the White House. “He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.”

Giuliani said this week his Ukraine snooping uncovered “smoking gun” evidence of the Bidens’ involvement in corruption. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a prominent Trump defender, said Attorney General William Barr told him there would be an “intake process” for Giuliani to funnel his dirt to the Justice Department.

 

 

Link to comment

Impeachment is over.  Trump and Barr are trying to clean it all up to fit their view.  Fire those who testified against Trump (the innocent) and try to diminish or overturn the sentences of the friends (the guilty).  

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-opens-inquiry-fbi-interview-heart-flynn-s-guilty-n1136481

Quote

 

The Department of Justice recently opened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the FBI's interview of Michael Flynn while he was serving as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.

Flynn pleaded guilty to giving false statements to the FBI during that interview, but recently asked to withdraw that plea, further delaying his sentencing.

 

Attorney General William Barr asked the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeffrey Jensen, to look into Flynn's FBI interview, the people familiar with the inquiry said. The inquiry began within the past month, they said.

Around that same time, federal prosecutors on the Flynn case came under pressure from senior Justice Department officials to recommend a lighter sentence for him than they had proposed, according to people familiar with the matter.

A third person familiar with the inquiry said Jensen is broadly reviewing the Flynn case.

Asked about the inquiry into Flynn's FBI interview, a spokesperson for Jensen said, "I can't answer those questions" and directed queries to the Justice Department.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment.

One of the people familiar with the inquiry described it as "very sensitive."

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Excellent article copied in part below.  Reform is needed and the royal presidency must be kicked to the curb and Congress must again become a co-equal part of govt.  It won't happen if a party will not provide proper oversight.  This is what happens when party comes before duty.

 

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/beyond-impeachment

Quote

 

First, impeachment has lost its sting. At the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry said, “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” That fear is harder to imagine now, and not only because of the conduct and outcome of the Senate proceedings.

Now three times in American history a president has been brought to trial. In none was he removed from office. In the Clinton and now Trump impeachments, no article even attained a majority vote in the Senate, let alone the two-thirds needed for removal. (Of course, Richard Nixon resigned before he was impeached, and would likely have been removed.)

One aspect of this year’s confrontation that has received little comment is the fact that every other impeachment happened when both houses of Congress were controlled by a different party from the president. Never before did senators get asked to try a president of their own party. We now see how that goes, at least in this age of tribal partisanship.

Second, how the Senate acted will deepen the sense that Congress has stopped acting as a coequal branch of government as opposed to a bunch of party apparatchiks. Trump’s team made absurd constitutional arguments, claiming in effect that the president was above the law, even that any step he took to advance his reelection was per se legal. In July, Trump proclaimed, “I have an Article II [of the Constitution], where I can do whatever I want as president.” Just two days later he made his infamous “perfect” phone call to strong arm Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

By voting for Trump, this Senate effectively endorsed this maximalist view. This extraordinary abdication of constitutional obligation raises serious concerns about the unchecked power of the presidency. This will ripple outward in courts, in policy, and in a political party now devoted to a notion of executive prerogative that would cheer the caesars.

It all guarantees that this issue of executive power and its abuse will be a central public topic in years to come — whether in a second Trump term, or in the early days of a new Democratic incumbent.

Some of the answers will come from legislative solutions to restore checks and balances. This includes bolstering congressional oversight, allowing for a more forceful vetting of nominees, reforming emergency powers, and reinforcing whistleblower protections with penalties for retaliation. And, all presidents and vice presidents should release their tax returns and place their business holdings and remaining assets in a blind trust.

Congress must step up in other ways. Presidential abuse fills the vacuum left by legislators. A key step would be to reform the National Emergencies Act and other emergency powers to impose commonsense constraints on the president’s ability to use these powers, and to make it easier for Congress to terminate emergency declarations. It can address core war powers issues by repealing or revising the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which continues to offer a legal umbrella nearly two decades after enactment. It should assess the presidential appointments process to ensure that appointees are qualified, free of conflicts of interest, and serve in the public’s interest. In areas including recusal rules and judicial review for special prosecutor removals, we must safeguard our systems from the possibility of political interference into investigations of the president, senior political aides, and close personal associates.

Courts must fulfill their responsibilities as well. Chief Justice John Roberts dutifully sat silent in presiding over the trial; he can’t do that when he’s back on the bench. A trio of cases in the Supreme Court seek to reveal Trump’s dodgy finances. Another key case, about whether a subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn is enforceable, also is working its way through the courts. The stakes have just gone up immeasurably for these cases. (And while we’re at it, Trump claims an “absolute right” to pardon himself. Congress should pass a resolution making clear it is appalled by such a self-pardon.)

 

 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...