Impeachment does NOT require a crime

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

 

Your assertion is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

 

Oddly I agree... but the trial and evidence should be public so that voters can hold each House accountable

 

You need to hush so that the adults can speak.

 

ONCE AGAIN, DID I MISS THE CITATION TO ANYONE ANYWHERE OF NOTE AND INVOLVED IN THIS CLAIMING THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES A STATUTORY CRIME?

Until then, Straw Man of a thread keeps stumbling along like the walking dead fallacy that it is.

 

I would say that the voters keep each chamber accountable regardless. If the voters want public hearings enough and one chamber refuses, it will be reflected in their votes. If it does not reflect in their votes, they did not care enough about the issue for it to impact their votes. Their subsequent vote may show that they cared a great deal, or it may reflect apathy on the subject. In either case, the public is voting based off their actions, whatever those actions may be.

 

▶ Hillary Clinton says : "At this point what does it matter ?"

 

His political opponent knows a little bit about missing IMF loans.

And Biden is running against democrats not Trump

 

He was acquitted

 

Ridiculous.

New CNN Poll: 69 Percent of Respondents Support Additional Witnesses at Senate Impeachment Trial
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/new-...tional-witnesses-at-senate-impeachment-trial/

 

....and this is relevant how? You are confused.......AGAIN.

Like I said. Let the adults speak. Hush.

 

It's clear that the radical left in this country support a coup.

These are dangerous people.

 

I'm curious: What is the weather like in dream world? I bet it never storms.

 

All you have is snark since the facts are against you.

Please direct me to where in the Constitution or anywhere else that states the Prez has the authority to decide what documents and witness testimony get presented in his own impeachment trial.

 

What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

Several experts have argued that the House might have a stronger legal position in disputes with the executive branch over information and witness appearances if it were undertaking impeachment proceedings rather than investigations. Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations.

 

Agreed. Quite obviously, Trump has been impeached and no crime was committed. This impeachment is about overturning the 2016 election, not about any crime.

 

This is worth a watch:

 

If the voters hold the 2 houses of Congress accountable, as you claim, witnesses being called during the Senate procedure would already have been agreed to.

I keep forgetting I have to spoon feed the obvious to you.

 

~ They have to "win" somehow ...

 

Thanks so much for posting that video.

 

‘Constitutional Nonsense’: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Defies Legal Consensus

WASHINGTON — As President Trump’s impeachment trial opens, his lawyers have increasingly emphasized a striking argument: Even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime.

Their argument is widely disputed. It cuts against the consensus among scholars that impeachment exists to remove officials who abuse power. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” means a serious violation of public trust that need not also be an ordinary crime, said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and the author of a recent book on the topic.

“This argument is constitutional nonsense,” Mr. Bowman said. “The almost universal consensus — in Great Britain, in the colonies, in the American states between 1776 and 1787, at the Constitutional Convention and since — has been that criminal conduct is not required for impeachment.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/us/politics/trump-impeachment-legal-defense.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

Please do not take my words out of context and then argue against your out of context interpretation when the full context was short and right in front of your eyes.

What I said was... I would say that the voters keep each chamber accountable regardless. If the voters want public hearings enough and one chamber refuses, it will be reflected in their votes. If it does not reflect in their votes, they did not care enough about the issue for it to impact their votes. Their subsequent vote may show that they cared a great deal, or it may reflect apathy on the subject. In either case, the public is voting based off their actions, whatever those actions may be.

The key word there is "enough". Do they care ENOUGH for it to impact their vote? You will not know that answer until the election. If it does NOT reflect in their vote ( and I will take your 69% claim as correct), then they clearly did not care ENOUGH for it to impact their vote. There are almost limitless things that people may support but they dont care enough about the issue that it turns out to be a deciding factor in how they vote. For example, I am socially liberal, but I vote based on my economic principles, thus I would literally NEVER vote for a Liberal politician. There are plenty of Republicans that may desire for there to be witnesses (although likely for different reasons than Democrats), but to assume that means that if witnesses arent produced they will vote Democrat, is probably a stretch in logic to say the very least. If it does NOT reflect in their vote, then clearly they didnt care about it ENOUGH to change their vote.



LOL.....spoon feed the obvious? So a link with no explanation somehow qualifies as being obvious as to what is your point relative to that link? Just explain your point and nobody will misunderstand your meaning. A link with literally NO explanation conveys nothing. It is illogical to assume that people are going to see your link and automatically understand what point you are trying to make with that link.

 

You must believe that heapin' helpin' of word salad worked to your benefit. It didn't. In the matter of impeachment witnesses (and others) the expressed intentions of the Repubs........to date.........is to thwart the will of the majority. So much for your theory.

 

You just invalidated a vast majority of LW posts to this forum. Bravo!

But why not take your words out of context? the whole thread is premised on a straw man.

 

LOL....I realize that you are the person that thinks that a link without explanation qualifies as a response, and that you dont need to look at the entire context of a reply, so it makes perfect sense how you would interpret a reasoned yet brief reply as a "word salad". Bless your heart.

I hope this reply wasn't too long for you.