To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

Republicans lost the house due to the bogus Mueller investigation that turned out to be a dud. So far there is zero evidence of any guilt but the sufferers cannot see that through their hate.

 

You do not understand. Trump did not use executive privilege during the impeachment inquiry. That is why he is being charged with Obstruction of Congress. Dershowitz, as usual, is spinning his wheels as is everyone else who is trying to defend a guilty President.

 

Everyone knows at this point that Trump is refusing to allow current and former staffers to testify in the Senate trial. They will incriminate him. His chief of staff has already did that by telling the world that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to get what he wanted, investigations of the 2016 election and the Bidens.

As a consequence, in response to Schumer's request for such witnesses, McConnell made a complete fool of himself.

Fox News reports, "The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury, to hear a trial, not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

Ordinarily, witnesses are heard at a trial, and that is what happened in the case of Nixon and Clinton, but McConnell is scared to death of letting witnesses testify because he knows for certain they will incriminate Trump.

McConnell purposely is avoiding the obvious fact that if the House waited until the courts decided on the appearance of the witnesses this would drag on past the November elections. McConnell is assuming Americans are stupid.

McConnell thinks that Americans won't see that he wants Trump to benefit from a crime, Obstruction of Justice. It is Trump who prevented the witnesses from testifying during the House impeachment proceedings. McConnell is assuming Americans are stupid.

This gets worse by the day for Republicans. Americans will remember all this come November.

 

He isn't guilty unless the Senate prosecutor proves the assumptions made by Democrats are true. He is accused of no crime in asking Ukraine about investigating the Bidens'. He is accused of no crime in a delay of the aid which was sent before the deadline.

He is accused of trying to interfere with the 2020 election. The facts (about the investigation request and the delayed funds) are only being used to back up an assumption of guilt. Prosecution has to prove that his primary motive was to get competitive information on Biden for 2020. Trump's defense attorney only needs to prove that 2020 was not the motivation for Trump's words and actions.

This is how the House' impeachment report reads...

“The president engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage."

That's a presumption of motivation and a weak offense, and the accuser has the burden of proof.

 

Yes, we will remember and most voters will nonetheless make a decision based on differences between Trump's policies and the policies of the Demcrat's nominee, not on Ukraine or Russia.

 

Trump wasn't offered any involvement during Schiff for brains **** show.

 

Has McConnell called these people as witnesses?
No? How can you be right?
If McConnell does not call them as witnesses, has Trump refused to let them testify?
No? How can you be right?

You can't. As usual.

 

He isn't guilty unless the Senate prosecutor proves the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House are true.

Joe Biden is the leading Democratic candidate. In polls, Biden's margin of victory over Trump is larger than any other candidate. Asking for foreign interference in a presidential election violates federal law.

Trump said so himself. It is in the transcript. His chief of staff admitted that the military aid was withheld for domestic political reasons.

That would be difficult to prove because Trump said it again on Oct. 3.

After the July 25 phone call with Zelensky, as he usually does, Trump doubled down on the Biden investigation. On Oct. 3, in a news conference on the White House lawn, he called on Ukraine and China to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son.

“They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-investigate-the-bidens.html

 

Maybe, but I think voters will remember that Trump asked for foreign interference in our Presidential election for his benefit, used bribery as an incentive, and obstructed the investigation of his illegal activities.

Then they will remember that Republicans said this was okay with them. They exonerated him.

I really think that is what the voters will remember.

 

McConnell has admitted that he is talking to Trump's lawyers and he will do what they want him to do.

Are you saying that McConnell may allow Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff; Robert Blair, a senior Mulvaney adviser; John Bolton, the former nation-security adviser; and Michael Duffey of the Office of Management and Budget to testify?

I think not. We will see who is right.

Now you have to ask yourself a question. Why is it Trump and his lawyers do not want those closest to Trump, those who were in on the conversations regarding military aid to Ukraine, to testify?

When one faces reality, there is only one possible answer.

Or you can avoid reality, which is what you have been doing all along.

 

He refused to give the information didn't he? That is executive privilege. Again, a President doesn't have to declare executive privilege. They just have to refuse to give the information. You can claim that he did not use executive privilege all that you want. Reality doesn't care what you claim or think. And facts don't either.

 

We agree that voters will remember "Ukraine".

Of course people already set on voting for the Democrat will remember interference, bribery and obstruction.....then they'll vote on open borders, Medicare for All, and higher taxation, especially green taxes which will double or triple the price of gasoline and electricity.

People set on voting for Trump will remember our President taking a bunch of partisan grief for keeping his promise to expose corruption by Washington's long-standing ruling elite class...then they'll vote for controlled migration, a robust economy, lower taxation, infrastructure repairs, Space Force, vastly improved trade deals, and "Keeping America Great". Plus, the fact that Trump makes the DC elites' and mainstream media's heads explode is sort of icing on the cake.

 

On the eve of his impeachment, a stain that obviously torments him more than his enablers have let on, President Trump issued a rambling, unhinged and lie-filled letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It is difficult to capture how bizarre and frightening the letter is simply by counting the utter falsehoods (e.g., repeating the debunked accusation that Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired for investigating Burisma; claiming Congress is obstructing justice; arguing he was afforded no rights in the process), or by quoting from the invective dripping from his pen.

What is most striking is the spectacle of the letter itself — a president so unhinged as to issue such an harangue; a White House entirely unable to stop him; a party so subservient to him that it would not trigger a search for a new nominee; a right-wing media bubble that will herald Trump for being Trump and excoriate Democrats for driving the president to this point; and a mainstream media not quite able to address a public temper-tantrum (resorting instead to euphemisms such as “scorching,” “searing,” etc.). The letter and the response (or lack thereof) is the perfect encapsulation of the state of American politics — in which a major party has bound itself to the mast of a raging, dangerous narcissist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/17/so-many-hysterical-men/

 

Sandy, you seem upset more than most. I guess you democrats are taking this failure quite hard.

 

You are wrong. If the President is refusing a request from Congress in its oversight role, he must say why. He can't just refuse Congressional oversight.

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that executive privilege is an absolute privilege in United States v. Nixon. The case for allowing the executive branch to withhold essential information is even weaker in the impeachment context than in the criminal trial context. Executive privilege cannot prevent disclosure of information essential to resolving the inquiry into whether the House should impeach the President and the Senate should remove him from office.

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/executive-privilege-and-impeachment/

 

Are you concerned about my health again?

 

Trump's job approval rating among non-college educated whites is 67%. https://news.gallup.com/poll/205832/race-education-gender-key-factors-trump-job-approval.aspx

 

Yep, and all the other poor democrats that cannot get over their tragic 2016 landslide election loss. TDS is a tragic disease that apparently lasts for years driving some to post on forums more than 22,000 times and others to concoct imaginary events to actually try and overthrow an elected sitting president. I wiss them all well in their slow recovery.

 

No where in that does it say that he has to tell Congress that he is asserting executive privilege. Again, all he has to do is refuse to give it and that automatically makes it executive privilege.

Furthermore your liberal biased source tries to apply the Nixon impeachment process and EP to Trump's impeachment process and EP. There is a difference between the two. Nixon attempted to use Executive Privilege to cover up a crime in which he had his fellow conspirators try to break into the DNC. Trump on the other hand is using it not to cover up a crime but to protect foreign communication between himself, his staff and Ukrainian officials. That IS a legitimate use of EP because that is one of the MAIN reasons that a President has the use of EP. The other difference is that Congress took Nixon to court to enforce those subpoena's. They have not done that with Trump.

Now, that is not to say that the courts would definitely rule in Trumps favor. It's quite possible that they won't, simply because of the impeachment inquiry and it is generally accepted that in the case of an impeachment inquiry all papers concerning what that inquiry is about should be turned over. But the process to obtain them should be followed. Congress issues a subpoena, President says no (usually giving a reason why), and then the courts rule on whether Congress's subpoena is valid and if so orders the President to turn over the subpoenaed items....or doesn't and tells Congress that the subpoena is invalid due to EP. If the court tells Trump to turn over the subpoenaed items and he STILL refuses THEN it would be obstruction of Congress....and the courts.

That is how it has been in every single impeachment that we have had in the US. It was afforded to Johnson. It was afforded to Nixon. And it was afforded to Clinton. So why pray tell are the Democrats trying to skip an entire process? Why are they not even challenging Trumps use of EP to the courts? Congress does not have the power to assert that Trumps use of EP is invalid. That is the Courts job.

 

Unless McConnell calls the witnesses, it is impossible for Trump to block their testimony.
Thus, you cannot be right.
As per the norm.

 

You can keep saying that, but it won't make it true. You are forgetting Congressional oversight and the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that executive privilege is an absolute privilege in United States v. Nixon. The case for allowing the executive branch to withhold essential information is even weaker in the impeachment context than in the criminal trial context. Executive privilege cannot prevent disclosure of information essential to resolving the inquiry into whether the House should impeach the President and the Senate should remove him from office.

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/executive-privilege-and-impeachment/

I am not going to repeat myself again.

 

The Times reports, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi said President Trump had left Congress “no choice” but to proceed with impeachment. Final votes on two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — are expected this evening."

Real estate mogul, billionaire, reality show host, late-night show punch line, populist rabble rouser, norm-busting leader — impeached president.

Beyond the immediate ramifications of the all-but-certain outcome of this week’s vote, impeachment will always be attached to President Donald Trump. Years from now, it will be one of the first things students are taught about the 45th president.

It’s a reality that has tormented past presidents who faced the prospect of impeachment. In the days before his resignation, President Richard Nixon confessed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger his fears that Watergate would define his legacy. President Bill Clinton fretted behind closed doors about how history books would paint him, even as he projected a dismissive attitude in public.

“For Trump, now impeachment will appear in the opening paragraph of his life,” said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/18/trump-tainted-impeachment-086749

 

Yep, the dem clown show has no choice but to impeach for a phone call where no crime is evident.

 

Yes you are.
Across several topics.

 

Nothing in your post demonstrates that it is false; nowhere is there a legal requirement for someone to state "executive privilege" to assert said privilege.
Disagree? Cite the source and quote the text.

The executive branch need only respond to legal subpoenas; only a court can decide if a subpoena is legal.
When did a court declare the house's subpoenas to be legal?
Cite the source and quote the text.