Insiders Predict Pelosi May Not Go Through With Impeachment After Hearings

When you read the Abuse of Power Article it is clearly referring to the Campaign Finance Laws that PROHIBIT the solicitation of anything of value from a foreign power. Withholding the funding was extortion.

Just because the specific statutes were not mentioned does not mean that there are no underlying crimes committed by the BLOTUS.

The wording of the Articles is to put the case for REMOVING the IBLOTUS on a Constitutional basis.

 

If you can't hear papers ruffling in the senate, did anyone really hear an impeachment?

 

Oh, I fully agree that there are statutory crimes referenced, but they were specifically left out and he was still impeached.

Ipso facto quid pro quo ergo quod erat demonstrandum, you don't need a statutory crime to impeach...

I see we both updated our signatures to work the Impeached concept into them!! Props..

 

Props to you too!

I like IMPOTUS and I will use it the next time someone asks what IBLOTUS means.

 

Well take that to the ballot box then where it belongs.

 

The OLC said there were no FEC statutory crime violations.

Trump's DOJ clears president of violating campaign finance law in Ukraine-Biden call

...However, the criminal division, after reviewing the matter, determined there was no campaign finance violation and “has concluded the matter,” a DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec said Wednesday. The news comes as Trump faces an impeachment inquiry in the House and a growing number of House Democrats who support such an investigation...
https://www.mycentraloregon.com/201...g-campaign-finance-law-in-ukraine-biden-call/

That's why it's not in the impeachment.

 

The Republicans and Trump can wait her out and the longer she delays the more partisan and weak she looks. As long as she holds them up Trump is President.

 

And a very happy Winter Holiday season to you, too, Te!

Yes, your colleague, Mr TLegal provided a link to the articles in .pdf form, and I read them.

Can I say at the outset that I have no dispute with the right of the House to impeach the president -- for any reason it likes! Ostensibly, reasons are supposed to include charges involving "bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors", but unfortunately for all of us, the Constitution leaves it all pretty wide-open. I have pointed out in other threads that merely spitting on the sidewalk is, in fact, a bonafide 'misdemeanor' in a number of different areas of the country! Nevertheless, the Constitution clearly states that the House of Representatives exclusively has the right of impeachment, and that right MUST be upheld!

What I'm all in a froth about today, though, is this apparent effort now on the part of the Democrat House leadership to deliberately STALL the constitutional next-step -- passing the Articles of Impeachment on to the Senate for trial! Pelosi and company ram-jammed the 'articles' through at break-neck speed, and now she's going to sit on them?! No way are Democrats going to get away with a stunt like THAT.

Please read what one of the country's most respected legal experts (and he's a long-time Democrat, too), Alan Dershowitz has to say today about this bizarre behavior in the House, in my post #205 in the Forum thread, "McConnell rips Pelosi for impeachment delay, says Dems ‘afraid’ to transmit ‘shoddy’ articles". Briefly put, Dershowitz uses surprisingly strong language to condemn what's happening!

As I've said a hundred times, the House can impeach for any reason it likes... fine! Then the trial should be conducted in the Senate... also fine. And if Trump is found guilty of those enumerated crimes by the Senate, he should be removed -- exactly as it says in the Constitution. But this whole thing should not be conducted like they did things in Nazi Germany, where people were accused of crimes and then not even given a trial at all!

 

Oh, I never thought the campaign finance violation concept applied HERE either.... I was talking about other statutory crimes...

As you well know, I fully believe Trump committed CFV's with other actions from his stormy past (Wink Wink Nod Nod)

"Trump's DOJ".... there's your problem right there...

 

LOL, criticizing Comey is trashing the whole FBI but now it is OK to trash the whole DOJ. Hypocrisy much?

 

Your indignation is understandable but McConnell has been OUTSPOKEN that he will ENSURE that the IBLOTUS does NOT get a "fair trial".

How can the IBLOTUS have his name cleared when the Senate trial is RIGGED on purpose? If anything that makes the IBLOTUS look even MORE GUILTY than the AOI does.

The Senate is doing a DISSERVICE to the IBLOTUS by openly declaring that they are KNOW that he is GUILTY but they will turn a blind eye to his egregious CRIMES and just PRETEND that they never happened?

You brought up Nazism and that is essentially what it meant to BELONG TO THE PARTY. You could commit any heinous crime at all as long as you were a PARTY MEMBER and NOTHING would happen to you.

In essence this is the LEVEL that McConnell wants to DRAG our nation down to.

So if you want to deprive Pelosi of her excuse demand that McConnell and Graham RECUSE themselves entirely from the Senate trial. Then she won't have any excuse to delay it. Call her bluff and force her hand. That would be the smart move for the GOP, right?

So what is stopping them?

 

Can you save any froth for these statements from some members of the only jury pool available??

"I have clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process. So I don't need any witnesses. ... I am ready to vote on the underlying articles. I don't really need to hear a lot of witnesses." - L. Graham

"I'm not an impartial juror," - M. McConnell

You do know that statements like this from a potential jury pool would be reason for dismissal in a normal jury situation.

SNIP
125.2 FORM OF OATH TO BE ADMINISTERED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER SITTING IN THE TRIAL OF
IMPEACHMENTS

``I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that
in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment
of ------ ------, now pending, I will do impartial justice
according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.''
ENDSNIP

 

OK, then... Instead of replying with something hateful to you, may I suggest that, YES, the House was fully within its right to impeach the president. Now, YES, the accused President Trump has a right to a trial in the Senate, exactly as it says he has the right to, in the Senate.

Game on! The House impeaches, and the Senate conducts a trial, holds a vote, and a president is either exonerated or thrown out of office. This is nothing new, and we've all known that the House would be looking for any excuse it could find to impeach Trump as soon as they were able to. Again -- FINE! That is the exclusive right of the House of Representatives!

But, Egoboy, this ain't Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union. In the United States, the accused (even a president) has an equally important RIGHT TO A TRIAL!

 

Just Barr, not the whole DOJ...

 

Right to a FAIR trial.... and that cuts both ways in the United States...

But I tell you what, if Nancy is still sitting on the articles on January 7th, we can talk further...

 

Oh, and now do you want me to inundate YOU with a series of quotes from a host of House Democrat legislators where they clearly indicated that they were intensely in pursuit of the impeachment and removal of President Trump even before their Democrat leaders began proceedings in the House?!

We can volley those points back and forth, Ego, but it's a pointless waste of time, and it's "the pot calling the kettle black". Badminton would provide more interesting 'rallies'.... Understand this much with crystal-clarity -- the House can impeach any president for any reason it likes with a majority vote. The Senate conducts the subsequent trial and renders judgement. If you can't accept that, then get your faction to start a motion to re-write the Constitution.

 

Just make sure your guys "render judgement" and not "sweep under rug"... that's all anybody (including Nancy) is saying, but apparently, even the appearance of impartiality is beyond this sycophantic crew.

Nobody expects removal, but I would think anybody should condemn those 2 statements I posted...

 

Noah Feldman, one of the main democrat witnesses in the impeachment hearings in the house and Harvard law professor added this:

"Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial," he argues. "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. IF THE ARTICLES ARE NOT TRANSMITTED, TRUMP COULD LEGITIMATELY SAY THAT HE WASN'T TRULY IMPEACHED AT ALL."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Pelosi is going to have to wipe and get off the pot at some point or there was never no impeachment.

 

You disagree with a Trumper, and all of a sudden you're a "socialist", etc.

I am one of the owners of a small business. I am a devout capitalist, and my country's history, traditions and the rule of law are important to me. These notions and concepts are not as flexible as the trumpers seem to think they are.

Meanwhile, the lyrics of a Super Tramp song come to mind:

"I said, watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical
Liberal, oh fanatical, criminal---"

 

"Insiders Predict Pelosi May Not Go Through With Impeachment After Hearings"

fake news, the Senate will get this in January 2020, lets hope the Jurors let witnesses tell what they know, but as jurors letting Trump run the show, probably not

juror tampering is a crime, why is the defendant in this case allowed to do that?

 

No reasonable person could interpret my post as anger. I do not like Trump, but that is no excuse for this abuse of power. When the pendulum swings and we have a Dem for president, the Reps may have the numbers to strike back with a frivolous impeachment.

 

OLC found NO criminal violations. You may not like what he did or how he handled it but it was not illegal or impeachable. Don't vote for him.

 

You don't think Schumer and the vast majority of Democrats had up their minds before the articles are even transmitted, had made them up even before the articles were voted on?

 

Possibly, but the vast majority of Democrats AND Republicans aren't such blithering idiots to say it out loud either...

 

The wingers don't know that song because it's called "The Logical Song"... I certainly owned that album (yes, I said album) back in the day...

 

I do agree with you in principle, believe it or not. If Trump is guilty of "bribery, crime, or misdemeanor" than he should be sent packing! But the Constitution rules supreme! Many of us took oaths a different points in our lives to defend that same Constitution against ALL enemies, "foreign and domestic"... and the oath never expired.

Clearly, this is a situation that has been building in various ways for decades, and it started even before Trump, and yes, even before Obama. We've been tearing ourselves apart, slowly but surely, ever since the damned Vietnam War, very honestly. I'm an old guy, Ego, and I've seen it all happen in my lifetime.

When this Senate trial is finally over, I can only hope that no matter how it ends that we can find a new beginning (as corny as that sounds), "bury the hatchet", and rediscover ourselves as loyal CITIZENS of the United States of America. If we don't, I can promise you that our adversaries and opponents around the world will take advantage of our ongoing political civil war and continue to gain strength while we flounder around pointing fingers at each other and consuming ourselves with worsening hatred....

. "If the Americans want to commit suicide, then LET 'EM!"