‘Garbage Dressed Up as Legal Argument’: Lawyers, Law Profs ‘Baffled’ by Trial Memo’s Defense of Trum

I got lucky, we only have 11 years left.

 

Will do.

I mean...unless you think the Supreme Court of Ireland says I shouldn't?

 

50%. Glad I could handle that math for you.

Which is approximately 20% higher than the highest polled level of support seen for the impeachment for Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, Harrison, Arthur, etc. etc.

Nearly every President will see support for their impeachment hit ~25-30% at some point during their tenure. The fact that Trump got to ~50% in his first term is because of his own **** up.

 

Knock yourself out. You always do.

 

Good thing then that Trump is facing Impeachment and not facing criminal prosecution because that would be a violation of the Constitutional limits against Ex Post Facto Laws.

 

Yeah that sounds hard to obtain the other 50% then. Great point.

Sure, but that was before we set the precedent of impeachment without a crime, and impeachment for seeking judicial review was clarified.

You know, back when there was sanity in the government.

Democrats are welcome to keep goose stepping their adherents to victory. Let's see how that strategy works out in the end for you.

 

So let's go ahead and address another bit of idiocy from Trump's legal team related to the point you continue to raise.

They argue that Abuse of Power can not be an impeachable offense because there was no "settled" definition against such at the time that the US Constitution was written. The problem there is that the only source of a "settled" definition, at the time that the US Constitution was written, for Bribery - something explicitly enumerated as impeachable grounds - was the common law definition. And there was a common law definition for Abuse of Power at the same time.

 

Sure, impeachment for non-crimes has multiple examples in our 200+ year history.

 

I gladly accept the (non-existent) risk.

 

The GAO would like a word with your continued declaration of "non-crimes" in this instance.

 

If only the framers had discussed maladministration and partisan impeachments we might have some basis.

 

Great, have the GAO prosecute their findings.

 

Odd, just up thread I got the impression the topic was your Mongolian Bar Association status as the ridicule litigator of the Manchurian steppes.

 

Here's a question for you. In Johnsons impeachment why did Congress not try and impeach him until after they had made the Office of Tenure Act and waited for Johnson to fire Stanton before impeaching him for breaking the law? If Congress truly doesn't need a crime to happen then why did they do this? They'd been "hating on him" for a long time before they did that.

 

Thank you for establishing that you FAILED to do any subject matter research beforehand!

 

Agreed because you don't understand it in the first place and are therefore unable to explain it to anyone else!

 

Inane non sequitur response duly noted FTR!

 

Don't you ever learn from being PROVEN WRONG over and over and over again?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/

 

My understanding is that Congress had tried to impeach Johnson twice before that moment. But the reason that Congress passed that law in order to justify Johnson's impeachment is probably a matter of public sentiment. That is to say, they were previously unsuccessful (and I admit I am just guessing here because I have not read more than a small amount about Johnson's impeachment) because they did not get the public to rally around the call until after they could trot out the violation of this law as justification.

But here's something else to consider from Johnson's impeachment. The Law that Johnson violated was later declared Unconstitutional. And yet the impeachment against Johnson still stands, right? If Johnson had been criminally convicted of a law which was later deemed unconstitutional, then his criminal conviction would also be overturned. Impeachment does not require an underlying criminal statute because it is a political process.

 

*LOL*

God.

 

I think you're understanding may be wrong. The Office of Tenure Act was passed in March 1867. Johnsons Impeachment wasn't until 1968. Almost a full year later. The reason that the Office of Tenure Act was passed and not vetoed was because Congress had a supermajority made up of Radical Republicans. They could have gone ahead with impeachment at any time. They had the majority of votes. Enough to override a Veto. Which means that they had enough to vote to impeach. The ONLY reason that he wasn't removed was due to one lone Radical Republican stepping out of line and voted with Republicans to not remove him. And he wasn't re-elected because of it.

Anyways, prior to The Office of Tenure Act Johnson had gone on a campaign to convince the public to side with him and elect Congressmen that would not act like the Radical Republicans were acting towards Reconstruction. However he apparently didn't conduct himself very well and instead of convincing people to vote for Congressmen that were more moderate they instead elected more Radical Republicans in the election of 1866. Enough to get a veto proof super majority. They then commenced to pass the laws that led to what we know of today for Reconstruction. They could have had impeachment at any time that they wanted for a full year. Yet they didn't. They waited until he did something that they knew he would do. Fire Stanton. Which would violate the Office of Tenure Act.

I do wish that Dems of today had taking Trumbull's words to heart though. (the one Radical Republican Senator that voted against removal from office). I feel that they have done exactly what Radical Republicans did only took it a bit farther. His words:

Link: Lyman Trumbull

 

Sorry, forgot to address this...

Was there ever a resolution to remove his impeachment from the record? Not that I've ever heard. So it will always stay on his record. And I don't think that they ever will. It would be an admission that Congress acted wrongly. And Congress isn't exactly known for admitting such.

But even if they did vote to remove it, would it really matter? It will still be a matter of public record that Johnson was the first President to ever be impeached by the HoR. That will always be there regardless if Congress voted to remove it from his record or not.

 

Congrats on falling for Russian disinformation
Derkach—described by the Treasury Department as “an active Russian agent for over a decade, maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services”—stands accused of orchestrating a “covert influence campaign centered on cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives” about the Bidens via “edited audio tapes and other unsupported information,” which launched “corruption investigations in both Ukraine and the United States designed to culminate prior to election day.”

 

Says the Democrats: the only people to have worked with foreign governments and taken money from Putin in this story.

Poor timing, what with Brennan's notes coming to light, eh?

 

His notes about Russian disinformation? Lol