Impeachment does NOT require a crime

I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole with me proving you wrong and you popping in another place making another false assertion.

Read Article I.

 

The subpoenas were all ordered by DP bosses, not by the House or authorized committees of the House.
They were invalid - illegal.

 

That's not what happened. Read the ruling and prove her wrong.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6560650/McGahn.pdf

 

You really didn't say much of anything...but I expect to hear more of it on Monday. Schiff's "parody" was explained as such in the same hearing...end of story. Mueller addressed two issues: Conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Trump's obstruction of justice. He failed to find sufficient evidence to rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt on the first issue and decided not to pursue the second further, due to the DoJ policy prohibiting an indictment. So, he documented what was found on both issues for possible future prosecution or impeachment. He did indict numerous Russians on the hacking of the DNC and Clinton campaign manager's e-mail account. Those indictments were consistent with the earlier findings of our intelligence agencies.

After today's opening defense remarks, I am surprised that they've apparently decided to run on Putin's "Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory." Doubt it's going to help in November, no matter how the Senate GOP votes.

 

You understand of course that the articles of impeachment are based on the events and actions of Trump primarily in 2019, don't you? Perhaps you should take the time to read the charges?

 

Then link me to his "Special Message" to Congress expressing his intent to withhold appropriated funds to Ukraine.

 

I have read Article I and it does not include any of your three examples. Are you claiming the House impeached Trump because someone sent an email that said Trump is holding up military aid? That would exceed even the gross stupidity of the House.

 

Judge Jackson mainly relied on a 2008 ruling by Judge Bates which was overturned by the Appeals Court, which as far as I could find, Jackson nimbly avoided citing in her 120 page opinion.

 

Yeah, it quickly became a "parody" after Trump released the real transcript and knocked all of the lying wind out of Schiff.

 

I've read the charges and accept them for what they are, basically causes for impeachment numbers 13 and 14. My only assertion was that, given enough time, numbers 15 plus will follow this impeachment after it is dismissed by the Senate.

 

HUH??? Is this supposed to be a reply to my post????

 

Time to wack-a-mole again.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said as a practical matter, the case cannot be resolved before the current session of Congress ends, so a new Congress will have to decide whether to pursue the matter."
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/court.miers/index.html

The ruling wasn't overturned on legal grounds but rather as a matter of timing. So..........your attempt to dismiss the legality of her ruling FAILED.

 

Congressional Repubs understand perfectly well Schiff was using parody. But nothing riles The Following like phony outrage so how could they resist manipulating them with garbage once again.

 

If a legal ruling is not carried out it FAILED (emphasis yours). The reality is that the two that Judge Bates ruled had to testify never did testify. It is quite a stretch for Judge Jackson to rely on Judge Bates for her ruling. Besides, Judge Jackson's ruling will get overturned. Per a well understood (for those experts, laymen and judges who care) constitutional axiom -- the separation of powers -- congress cannot compel the president or his aides to testify regarding their official business (actually cannot compel the president to testify at all), as the president cannot compel any congressperson to testify about theirs.

 

I agree. There will be more. He can't help himself.

 

I don't know what some Republicans understood, but Schiff was in no way using parody when he introduced the whistle blower complaint and in part cited "word for word" what he professed to be part of the Trump-Zelensky. If you believe Schiff's report was a parody from the start you'll believe any and all Democrat garbage that crosses your mind.

 

Yes...it's specific. The law requires red him to send a "Special Message" to Congress of his INTENT to withhold funds. He didn't do it. It's a very special civic violation of law. Why wasn't the law obeyed? Why within two hours of the "perfect call," did the White House ensure that DoD was withholding funds? As the President has requested...read the transcript≥ Where is the word "corruption?" Where is the discussion of aid being withheld? This isn't a concern for general corruption in Ukraine or wanting other European countries to contribute more (which wouldn't have been a Presidential prerogative). It was a quid pro quo using the threat of withholding Congressionally appropriated funding in exchange for the announcement of two investigations...one helpful to Trump's 2020 campaign, the other beneficial to Putin for his 2016 claim.

 

Trump hasn't and won't have to do a thing. The House gets causes for impeachment by driving down back allys and incessant garbage diving. Any garbage and lies that they think the public might believe is quite good enough. As I have said, impeachment of the president was the cause célèbre before Trump was even president, which is physically and constitutionally impossible: proof that the House needs no reality or facts or actual actions -- let alone high crimes and misdemeanors or other quaint reasons -- to impeach. Hate is totally sufficient. They just have to dress it up a bit.

 

It's the back alleys and the garbage dumps where you find Trump and his friends. Yes, some saw Trump's corruption before he was elected and predicted impeachment, but the GOP put him forward as their nominee out of fear that he would be another Ross Perot, splitting the Republican vote and allowing another Clinton victory. Well...as the saying goes...when you lie down with dogs expect to get fleas.
You think "high crimes and misdemeanors" is "quaint?" What other parts of the Constitution would you like to get rid of because of their quaintness? Maybe the whole thing, eh?

 

Wrong. The basis, the legal justification for Jackson's ruling was sound. You have failed (wack-a-mole) AGAIN to show why it wasn't.

 

Trump did not "determine that all or part of any budgetary authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided" as you asserted. That is why he did not "send a message" to congress.

This is fast getting silly, but I'll play. So it is your belief that the word corruption was not used in the call meant Trump had no concern about corruption??? Are you claiming that there wasn't a concern over corruption in the country that for years was the poster country of corruption? There was also no mention or hint of the 2020 election but you all claim that is what the call was about???? (and what he is being impeached for) There was no mention of Biden [maybe] becoming a political opponent but you all claim that is what the call was about???? (and what he is being impeached for) There was no mention of "dirt" but you all claim that is what the call was about???? There was no mention or hint of any quid pro quo but you all claim that is what the call was about???? (and what he is being impeached for) Why would or should Trump discuss aid? Does Trump now have to review what he plans to say with you, congress, and/or the NYT and get everybody's OK before calling another head of state? And if he doesn't, is that an impeachable offense? Does Trump now have to review his schedule, like the timing of when he follows up of directives he has given, with you, congress and/or the NYT and get everybody's OK first? And if he doesn't, is that an impeachable offense?

Take as much time as you need.

 

You just explained why what he did was illegal. Thanks.

 

I don't think high crimes and misdemeanors is quaint in the least. The House does. The have dumbed down, as former senator Moynihan would say, the definition of high crimes all the way to the 10th basement.

Sorry to see you getting stuck in the mud.

 

HUH??!!?? How on earth did you come to that conclusion?? I said Trump was legal because he did not do anything described in the quoted law that required an immediate message to congress. It ain't rocket science.

 

"Subchapter II - Congressional Consideration of Proposed Recessions, Reservations and Deferrals of Budget Authority, Paragraph 682. Definitions, For purposes of sections 682 to 688 of this title - (1) 'deferral of budget authority' includes - (A) withholding OR DELAYING the obligation or expenditures of budget authority (whether by establishing reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or a activities...". I've already quoted the portion of the law that requires a "Special Message" to both chambers of Congress informing them of the President's PROPOSED action.
I have no idea what the President thinks about Ukraine corruption. I find it odd that the word was not mentioned in a tel-con, which the President now says was about corruption. I also find it strange that the WH would check with DoD, within two hours of the "perfect call," to make sure aid was being withheld, when such withholding wasn't mentioned in the "perfect call." You haven't addressed my questions, other than question my right to question the activities of the President. He's been impeached. We're now in the trial phase. I understand Dershowitz has now decided that the "quaint" phrase of "high crimes and misdemeanors," contrary to the opinions of most constitutional experts, must include an actual crime from the criminal code, so you seem to be in step with the Party line. I look forward to listening to the defense presentations.