Jump to content
knapplc

The First Trump Impeachment Thread

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

FYP, everyone knows McCabe lied in his official capacity. 

 

Hey look, it's a Republican who suddenly cares about lying.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post

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.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/15/2020 at 8:00 AM, Danny Bateman said:

 

Hey look, it's a Republican who suddenly cares about lying.

 

How soon we forget McCabe is a Republican. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2020 at 11:28 PM, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

 

I think the proliferation of hate speech, minority voter suppression, and immigrant bashing makes a good case, but this woman is holding up a t-shirt that says otherwise, so perhaps I'll have to rethink everything. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think the proliferation of hate speech, minority voter suppression, and immigrant bashing makes a good case, but this woman is holding up a t-shirt that says otherwise, so perhaps I'll have to rethink everything. 

 

That article reminds me of Carlos Correa saying he doesn't want to be known as the team that cheated to win a World Series.

 

Well sorry bud, but that's exactly what you were...

Share this post


Link to post

another one bites the dust - post acquittal 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ousts-top-defense-official-163101053.html

Quote

 

President Donald Trump has ousted the Pentagon's top policy official who had certified last year that Ukraine had made enough anti-corruption progress to justify the Trump administration's release of congressionally authorized aid to Kyiv in its conflict against Russian-backed separatists.

John Rood resigned Wednesday, saying he was leaving at Trump's request.

The Trump administration's delay in releasing the aid to Ukraine was central to the president's impeachment by the House on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate voted to acquit the president. But in the wake of the Senate trial, an emboldened Trump has gone after officials he has perceived as being disloyal.

Rood is the latest official to be purged. His forced resignation comes as Democrats on the Hill express concerns that Trump is on a vendetta in the wake of his acquittal. Just days after the Senate vote, the White House reassigned an Army officer, Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, a key witness in the impeachment inquiry, from the National Security Council, and pushed his twin brother, an NSC lawyer, out with him. Gordon Sondland, Trump's ambassador to the European Union who also was a key witness before House investigators, was recalled from his post.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

How soon we forget McCabe is a Republican. 

Mrs McCabe received money from the Clinton machine, while Mr was 'investigating' political candidates.  They didn't forget.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post

Senator Deb finally got back to me per impeachment. She says it's the House D's fault for not getting enough evidence, and since it's not her job - the new evidence is not her problem. She also assured me she was a fair and impartial juror. Of course her email came from an email I cannot reply to, so I guess that is that. Thanks Senator Deb! 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Mrs McCabe received money from the Clinton machine, while Mr was 'investigating' political candidates.  They didn't forget.

.the purge of the republican party is progressing well.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Senator Deb finally got back to me per impeachment. She says it's the House D's fault for not getting enough evidence, and since it's not her job - the new evidence is not her problem. She also assured me she was a fair and impartial juror. Of course her email came from an email I cannot reply to, so I guess that is that. Thanks Senator Deb! 

I got that letter too. Makes her look one of two ways. Clearly a biased liar who’s unwilling to do anything to cross their dear leader and therefore puts the nation second or just simply horribly incompetent as a Senator. Could be both.  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post

Any chance you kind people could post the actual text?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Any chance you kind people could post the actual text?

Thank you for contacting me about the impeachment trial for President Trump.

As you know, Article One of the Constitution stipulates that impeachment proceedings must originate in the House of Representatives and grants the Senate with the sole power to try an impeachment. On December 18, 2019, following its inquiry, the House voted to approve the impeachment articles for President Donald Trump.

The Senate begins every impeachment trial by voting on a set of rules to govern the proceedings. The rules for this trial were proposed in Senate Resolution 483, which was modeled after the procedures adopted during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999. The House managers and the president's defense team each had time equally divided to make their case. Senators also submitted questions in writing, which were read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts. Each side spent two days answering the questions of the Senators.

After closing arguments, Senators considered introducing additional evidence. I ultimately opposed this measure because senators had already received the same information the House used to pass the articles of impeachment. It is the responsibility of the House to conduct impeachment investigations -- to support specific charges with related evidence -- not the Senate's. The House managers presented 192 video clips containing testimony from 13 witnesses, and submitted more than 28,000 pages of documents. Additionally, senators were able to ask 180 questions of the House managers and the president's counsel for clarifications on their arguments. Furthermore, none of this evidence charged the president with a single crime.

On February 5, 2020, the Senate voted on each article of impeachment, separately. I voted to acquit the president on both articles because the House managers failed to make a compelling case that the president should be removed from office. Fewer than two-thirds of senators voted to convict on each article of impeachment, which resulted in acquittal of the president.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to be an impartial juror during the trial. I have given fair and careful consideration to the evidence presented during this trial and engaged in the questioning process. It is time for Congress to move forward and return to the people's business.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I am always ready to engage in a civil discourse on issues affecting Nebraskans and our nation. Accordingly, I believe it is important for Nebraskans, along with the rest of the country, to continue working toward reconciling tensions that persist and reuniting around our shared values as Americans. I remain committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to advance policies that improve the daily lives of the people of Nebraska and this nation.

Sincerely,

 

Deb Fischer

United States Senator

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Senator Deb finally got back to me per impeachment. She says it's the House D's fault for not getting enough evidence, and since it's not her job - the new evidence is not her problem. She also assured me she was a fair and impartial juror. Of course her email came from an email I cannot reply to, so I guess that is that. Thanks Senator Deb! 

 

That reminds me of a "Town Hall" Romney hosted at my middle school auditorium.  After the speech, the host took the microphone and handed it to 3 people in the crowd who asked obviously planted questions; 1 was a little girl who asked if he would keep lead out of toys.  No effort at all came to take questions from the rest of the audience.

Why do I remember such a banal moment in politics?  The banner hung above him said "Ask Mitt Anything."

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Senator Deb finally got back to me per impeachment. She says it's the House D's fault for not getting enough evidence, and since it's not her job - the new evidence is not her problem. She also assured me she was a fair and impartial juror. Of course her email came from an email I cannot reply to, so I guess that is that. Thanks Senator Deb! 

Can't she get her story straight with the rest of the Republicans? Rubio, Alexander and Collins said there was plenty of evidence against Trump. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...