The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[Ulty]

7 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

This is along the line of what I am also wondering. What stops Trump from committing more crimes to distract us from the original and stop the investigation all together? 

 

I guess I can't think of a reason why Trump would ever stop committing crimes. It's the only thing he knows how to do, other than profuse lying, and he's never been held accountable. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

Come on Adrian.  I used to actually respect you.

 

 

[Ulty]

20 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

 

 

You can't spell "jury tampering" without "Trump".

 

This is great

[TGHusker]

31 minutes ago, Ulty said:

There may not be constitutional language to address such a situation, because the founders may not have imagined this level of corruption actually existing!

Founding fathers envisioned a citizen congress and president - not life long entitled people who enrich themselves via their 'service' to the country.  Yea, I think the founders would have had a hard time foreseeing this mess.

[TGHusker]

Interesting article about Mitt Romney, how conservatism has changed and why Romney's support for impeachment will fall on deaf GOP ears.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/31/20925074/gop-trump-mitt-romney-conservatism-impeachment

 

[NM11046]

So Lindsay Grahm just stepped out of the Judiciary Chair position, and Grassley will step back into that role.   Wondering:

 

1. How soon it all happens?
2. If this has anything to do with Grassley's long history advocating on whistleblower rights?
3. If Lindsay is taking a position in the WH (COS perhaps)?
4. If Lindsay is going to be slotted for VP in place of Pence?
5. If something big is about to be uncovered about him ...

[schriznoeder]

 

[BigRedBuster]

Good Lord.

 

 

[schriznoeder]

On a lighter note...

 

 

[knapplc]

What it all boils down to:

 

 

 

[QMany]

18 hours ago, Ulty said:

So constitutionally, I wonder what the possible ramifications could be. If these payments are legally challenged as "bribes" before an impending impeachment hearing, I assume it would be SCOTUS who would hear the arguments...then what? Could some Senators be disqualified from taking part in the process? If so, would removal from office then be up to two-thirds of the remaining number of eligible jurors instead of the original 100? Is the President's impeachment trial put on hold while the Senators who accepted the bribes are themselves impeached and potentially removed from office first?

 

There may not be constitutional language to address such a situation, because the founders may not have imagined this level of corruption actually existing!

 

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present." 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.

 

In civil cases I have tried, we may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, otherwise known as "strike for cause." The judge hears arguments why that juror should be removed or remain and rules accordingly. I was too young and/or disinterested during Clinton's proceedings to know whether this would be the same process. 

 

John Roberts alone would hear arguments, not SCOTUS. And I believe the Constitution is unambiguous (for once), it is 2/3 of Senators present. 

[TGHusker]

15 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Good Lord.

 

 

Funny, isn't this 'soviet style' process the dems are using the very same process the GOP put in place some years ago??

[TGHusker]

Very good WSJ editorial by Peggy Noonan.     If you don't know her, she was one of Reagan's speech writers during his admin. 

She thinks the Dems have the goods on Trump (it is obvious to all as noted in the highlighted quote  box). 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-is-getting-real-11572561439

It is all so very grave, yet it feels only like a continuation of the past three years of fraught and crazy political conflict. But impeachment of the American president came much closer this week.

I believe retired Gen. John Kelly, President Trump’s former chief of staff, when he told the Washington Examiner that he had told Mr. Trump that if he did not change his ways he would get himself in terrible trouble. “I said, ‘Whatever you do don’t hire a yes-man, someone who won’t tell you the truth—don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.’ ”

He knew his man. Mr. Kelly was in the White House for 17 months, from July 31, 2017, to Jan. 2, 2019. I ask Trump supporters, or anyone with even a small knowledge of what a White House is, to consider how extraordinary it is for a chief of staff to say such a thing to the president. Can you imagine James Baker saying to Ronald Reagan, “Keep it up, buddy, and you’ll break the law and be thrown out”? You can’t because it does not compute, because it isn’t possible.

When Mr. Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, “But he’s got the generals around him.” His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, unled army.

In fact the president wasn’t so interested in the generals’ experience and expertise. In fact he found them boring but with nice outfits. One by one they left or were fired. This should disturb the president’s supporters more than it does. And they should have a better response than, “But they’re jerks.”

To impeachment itself. It received a powerful push forward when the House voted Thursday for a new, public phase in the inquiry. This means among other things that the Democrats think they have the goods. They wouldn’t go live unless they did.

Quote

Quote

 

They feel the great question is clear. That question is: Can we prove, through elicited testimony, that the president made clear to the leader of another nation, an ally in uncertain circumstances, that the U.S. would release congressionally authorized foreign aid only if the foreign leader publicly committed to launch an internal investigation that would benefit the president in his 2020 re-election effort?

The odd thing is I think most everyone paying attention knows the answer. It’s been pretty much established, from leaks, reports, statements and depositions. Can I say we all know it happened? I think the definitive question for the hearings will turn out not to be “Did he do it?” but “Do the American people believe this an impeachable offense?”

 

 

The president’s defenders have argued that in the transcripts of the phone call the White House released, he never clearly lays out a quid pro quo. I suppose it depends how you read it, but in a book I wrote long ago I noted that in government and journalism people don’t say “Do it my way or I’ll blow you up.” Their language and approach are more rounded. They imitate 1930s gangster movies in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom he’s demanding protection money, “Nice place you have here, shame if anything happened to it.”

In the past I’ve said the leaders of the inquiry will have to satisfy the American people that they’re trying to be fair, and not just partisan fools. So far that score is mixed. Republicans charge with some justice that it’s been secretive, the process loaded and marked by partisan creepiness. If I were Adam Schiff now I wouldn’t be fair, I’d be generous—providing all materials, information, dully inviting the Republicans in. That would be a deadly move—to show respect and rob Republicans of a talking point.

It should be communicated to the president’s supporters that they must at some point ask themselves this question: Is it acceptable that an American president muscle an ally in this way for personal political gain? If that is OK then it’s OK in the future when there’s a Democratic president, right? Would your esteem for Franklin D. Roosevelt be lessened if it came to light through old telephone transcripts found in a box in a basement in Georgetown that he told Winston Churchill in 1940, “We’ll lend you the ships and the aid if you announce your government is investigating that ruffian Wendell Willkie”? You’d still respect him and tell the heroic old stories, right?

Some of the evidence in the hearings will be colorful and stick in the mind. There will be phrases from testimony or questioning that encapsulate the scandal, such as “What did the president know and when did he know it?” and “There’s a cancer growing on the presidency.” That will have impact. If White House workers attempted to deep-six evidence of the president’s conversation, doesn’t that suggest consciousness of guilt?

 

There is John Bolton’s testimony, if he testifies. He’s not known as a shy man. He is a conservative who has made his career as a professional (worked for four presidents, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, head of the National Security Council), a foreign-affairs tough guy, a Fox News contributor. Some, perhaps many conservatives were heartened when he came aboard with the president in the spring of 2018.

He would know a great deal about the issues at hand. Did the president act in a way he disapproved of on Ukraine? Was there a side-game foreign policy? All that would be powerful. But what if he was asked to think aloud about what he saw of the way Mr. Trump operates, of what he learned about the president after he came to work for him, of what illusions, if any, might have been dispelled? To reflect (as the generals who used to work for the president reflect, off the record)? What if he is questioned imaginatively, even sympathetically, with a long view as to what history needs to be told?

 

If he did this under oath and answered as he thought right, honest and helpful, if he was asked the question, “After all you’ve seen, is it good for America that Donald Trump is president?” “Tell us about what you’ve observed about the nature and mind and character of Donald Trump.” “Share your thoughts as a respected professional who has worked with presidents and who knows what the presidency is.”

Public candor would take plenty of guts and could have reputational repercussions.

But it would not just be powerful, it could be explosive. History, at least, would appreciate it.

[BigRedBuster]

It’s very interesting sitting back and watching stuff like this when you’re not part of a party. 
 

 

[Danny Bateman]

Anything that lets Trump and the GOP continue to play victims is the play.

 

It's quite amazing how much the party under Trump relies on perpetual angry victimhood to sustain itself.