Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[RationalityIsLost101]

SCOTUS just granted cert to Trump's challenge of the House's subpoenas to produce his financial records. Whether SCOTUS eventually rules for or against him, just that they granted certiorari means the President is entitled to judicial review of his opposition of Congressional committee subpoenas.

The 2nd article of impeachment alleges the President "obstructed Congress" by refusing to immediately comply with House subpoenas for certain persons to testify and instead put it to the Supreme Court whether he had to comply (nevermind that Obama also refused to allow certain persons to testify, and never even sought to make sure he was in the right). But that's dead in the water now. SCOTUS says the President can validly dispute Congressional subpoenas. Trump might lose, Trump might win ... but the point is there's nothing wrong with the President referring the matter for resolution to the Courts.


This is what Turley was talking about here:

SCOTUS hearing those cases in my understanding are because of a variety of different reasons due to each case having a different set of arguments for seeking the information and the white-house refusing while seeking an appeal to a higher court. Not all of the are congress seeking information. One in particular involves a criminal trial in Southern district of NY. I believe they are grouping them together.

These are subpoenas for private financial information (federal or business tax records).

I argue that this isn't the same as refusing subpoenas of government officials and government documents from a formal impeachment inquiry that have direct knowledge of matters involving the inquiry. Precedent of past court decisions speak to support the house in this area.

I'll do some more reading on each case as I haven't dissected them in detail, only been following the occasional news report as I knew they were going to be appealed to supreme court eventually.

 

[GhostLatte]

Next stop is jail!

 

[TheCasketMan]

Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. In other words, this impeachment is a waste of time for the Democrats and landslide 2020/22 win for Trump & Republicans.

 

[Xzi]

Both articles of impeachment have now passed in the House, meaning Trump is officially the third* president in history to be impeached.

Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. In other words, this impeachment is a waste of time for the Democrats

Protecting the integrity of our elections is the last thing I'd call a waste of time. Though I'm sure the Senate won't even attempt to make the trial look legitimate, and Trump will view acquittal as a free pass to again seek foreign interference in 2020. I wouldn't bet against him being stupid enough to get caught a second time, either.

 

[Deleted User]

As much as I would like to see that goofball to be prosecuted. Trump is the Republicans best Candidate for Election 2020.
I can´t see them abandon him anytime soon.

 

[Xzi]

As much as I would like to see that goofball to be prosecuted. Trump is the Republicans best Candidate for Election 2020.
I can´t see them abandon him anytime soon.

He does have several primary challengers who have already declared they're running against him, but yes, Republicans will do whatever they can to protect king mierdas. The party has canceled primary votes in a few states ahead of time.

 

[Armadillo]

So quick question from someone outside the US.

So impeachment is basically just giving it the ok to go to "trial"? And then the senate is basically the jury? Except in this case the jury is made up of people on Trump's side?

So what's the point?

 

[TheCasketMan]

So quick question from someone outside the US.

So impeachment is basically just giving it the ok to go to "trial"? And then the senate is basically the jury? Except in this case the jury is made up of people on Trump's side?

So what's the point?

Just to waste people's time on this sham impeachment, same with the Russian collusion hoax from the past few years.

 

[Deleted User]

Can they put him on trial after his term is over? I mean take the Mueller report and investigate again?

 

[TheCasketMan]

Can they put him on trial after his term is over? I mean take the Mueller report and investigate again?

If they don't put him on trial now, then that proves how weak and partisan the Democrats impeachment case is.
If Trump loses re-election (which is now very very unlikely) then there's no point in convicting him in the Senate since the punishment for a Senate impeachment is just being removed from office, not jail time.

 

[Deleted User]

After rereading this article from the rolling stone about the Muelle report is was thinking that maybe there is a chance in 10 Years or so to put him on trial:

“You could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller responded, matter of fact.

JACKSON LEE: Does a conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of — a lot of years of time in jail?

MUELLER: Yes. Well, can you repeat the question just to make certain I have it accurate?

JACKSON LEE: Does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in jail if you were convicted?

MUELLER: Yes.

 

[IncredulousP]

Trump is officially the fourth president in history to be impeached.

The third . Nixon resigned before the impeachment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Next stop is jail!

Or the van

 

[osaka35]

Obviously won't pass senate as they don't care about laws or morals, just about winning. And the VP is just as devoid of moral integrity, so it wouldn't even change much if he was replaced.

But when it comes to deciding whether you do the morally right thing, or the easy thing, you should always try and do the right thing. And in this case, the democrats have done this. Kudos on them. Now let's hope they don't mess with the primary again.

 

[Hanafuda]

Though I'm sure the Senate won't even attempt to make the trial look legitimate

Well the House majority sure didn't bother with that much during their part of the game. They're sending less than probable cause to the Senate. If reduced only to admissible evidence (no hearsay, no presumptions, no opinions) it's fucking nothing. A faulty indictment.

When Bill Clinton was impeached, Sen. Robert Byrd introduced a motion to dismiss before the trial and all but one Democrat voted in favor. Including Schumer, Feinstein, and Biden. Even though Clinton's perjury was explicitly plain to everyone. The Republicans held the majority at the time, so that motion failed. But Democrats would have been more than happy to see that impeachment dismissed without trial.

 

[Xzi]

The third . Nixon resigned before the impeachment.

I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974. Two others were rejected. Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.

Well the House majority sure didn't bother with that much during their part of the game. They're sending less than probable cause to the Senate. If reduced only to admissible evidence (no hearsay, no presumptions, no opinions) it's fucking nothing. A faulty indictment.

What it boils down to is this: everybody willing to testify under oath, including a number of Trump's own appointees, say he did it. Among all those yelling that he's innocent, none of them are willing to testify under oath. If the American people in the majority are too stupid to understand which of these groups is more trustworthy, then our country deserves to crumble from within, and that's very likely to be its fate.

 

[Hanafuda]

I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974. Two others were rejected. Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.

Articles were adopted in Committee, but were not voted on by the full House. Nixon wasn't impeached, but only because his resignation made it moot.

 

[IncredulousP]

I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974. Two others were rejected. Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.

"The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a vote the House." - WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/

But yeah, the articles look similar because Trump and Nixon are/were crooked bastards that manipulate the less-abled populous into handing them unchecked power. Still can't believe how far this corruption has gotten and we still have morons defending this disgusting shit.

 

[Xzi]

Articles were adopted in Committee, but were not voted on by the full House. Nixon wasn't impeached, but only because his resignation made it moot.

"The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a vote the House." - WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/

But yeah, the articles look similar because Trump and Nixon are/were crooked bastards that manipulate the less-abled populous into handing them unchecked power. Still can't believe how far this corruption has gotten and we still have morons defending this disgusting shit.

Ah that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Hanafuda]

What it boils down to is this: everybody willing to testify under oath, including a number of Trump's own appointees, say he did it. Among all those yelling that he's innocent, none of them are willing to testify under oath. If the American people in the majority are too stupid to understand which of these groups is more trustworthy, then our country deserves to crumble from within, and that's very likely to be its fate.

They said they THINK he did. Big difference. And nobody's ever established that it would be an impeachable offense if they were correct. That question aside, those witnesses all got asked if they had any direct evidence, and direct eyewitness proof that this was bribery or quid pro quo, whatever, and they said no. Sondland did acknowledge that he thought there was definitely a quid pro quo, but about Zelensky getting a meeting. Not about the aid being held up until there was an investigation of Biden. That he could only presume ... same as the other witnesses who were there to say what Schiff needed said.


Anyway, I hope they just quit wasting time, money, and effort that could be spent on something productive, since we know this is going nowhere anyway. Instead of more hot air just agree to adopt the same exact procedural rules as the Clinton impeachment (they were approved unanimously) and get it over with.

 

[Xzi]

They said they THINK he did. Big difference. And nobody's ever established that it would be an impeachable offense if they were correct. That question aside, those witnesses all got asked if they had any direct evidence, and actual showing that this was bribery or quid pro quo, whatever, and they said no. Sondland did acknowledge that he thought there was definitely a quid pro quo, but about Zelensky getting a meeting. Not about the aid being held up until there was an investigation of Biden.

The semantics of whether to call it a quid pro quo, or bribery, or something else are not important, as that was all wrapped up into one big abuse of power article. And the question of whether or not this conduct is impeachable was largely put to rest when three of four constitutional scholars testified that it is. One went so far as to say, "if this isn't impeachable, nothing is." OTOH, if only one of the four had declared that this conduct was impeachable, I seriously doubt Democrats would have proceeded.

Where the aid is concerned, the timeline speaks for itself. It wasn't released until both a whistleblower complaint was filed and the impeachment inquiry had already begun. There is no assurance it would've been released at all if there was no outcry and/or no repercussions. The administration was quite literally caught in the act.

Anyway, I hope they just quit wasting time, money, and effort that could be spent on something productive, since we know this is going nowhere anyway.

The legislative process was in gridlock before impeachment, and it'll be in gridlock after impeachment. There are hundreds, if not thousands of bills sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk, dead on arrival. So unfortunately no, there is nothing more productive that could be happening right now. The Democrats won the House in 2018 with the expectation that they'd provide some level of accountability, and that's exactly what they've done.