Amendment to Formalize Impeachment

[interchange]

I did contribute, ass.

Fair. Been a rough day for me. Thanks for the call out.

 

[theeedude]

Impeachment is a political process. So is the "trial" in the Senate. It's not a judicial process, so no point trying to pretend that it is.

 

[HomerJS]

Whats so LOL? The transcript shows likely abuse of power, but not quid pro quo.

Mulvaney already admitted in public the was a QPQ. He is in a position to know.

 

[interchange]

Impeachment is a political process. So is the "trial" in the Senate. It's not a judicial process, so no point trying to pretend that it is.

Yeah it shouldn't be, I agree. The role of the judiciary in my mind would be to enforce the pre-established rules and defuse any bad faith actions that could be taken by simple majority. Also to answer more swiftly legal challenges, e.g. RE: privilege so we can't let someone force an obstructing act to go through months/years of judicial review and appeals just to get to the next obstructing act.

Separately, I think it would be good to have an amendment to address the question directly of whether a sitting President can be charged with a crime. I would say an emphatic yes except that rests on the idea that investigatory bodies don't act corruptly, for which I think there is little protection and a lot of jurisdictions out there. Obviously, there would have to be a grand jury to actually charge with a crime, but the mere permission to bring charges if appropriate can cause a lot of noise in starting a corrupt investigation that leads nowhere. Also possible are minor offenses being pursued and causing problems which really aren't of any serious concern. Perhaps limitation to federal felonies and requirement that indictments be sealed for prosecution after leaving office and a deliver to the House judiciary committee so that they can decide whether an Impeachment inquiry is warranted. I think the public knowing that a sealed indictment was delivered to the committee would pretty much guarantee pursuit of impeachment and make it very hard not to end up going for that.

 

[theeedude]

Limitation to federal felonies means he could only be charged if his own appointed AG and professional cover up artist Barr decides he should be.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah it shouldn't be, I agree. The role of the judiciary in my mind would be to enforce the pre-established rules and defuse any bad faith actions that could be taken by simple majority. Also to answer more swiftly legal challenges, e.g. RE: privilege so we can't let someone force an obstructing act to go through months/years of judicial review and appeals just to get to the next obstructing act.

Separately, I think it would be good to have an amendment to address the question directly of whether a sitting President can be charged with a crime. I would say an emphatic yes except that rests on the idea that investigatory bodies don't act corruptly, for which I think there is little protection and a lot of jurisdictions out there. Obviously, there would have to be a grand jury to actually charge with a crime, but the mere permission to bring charges if appropriate can cause a lot of noise in starting a corrupt investigation that leads nowhere. Also possible are minor offenses being pursued and causing problems which really aren't of any serious concern. Perhaps limitation to federal felonies and requirement that indictments be sealed for prosecution after leaving office and a deliver to the House judiciary committee so that they can decide whether an Impeachment inquiry is warranted. I think the public knowing that a sealed indictment was delivered to the committee would pretty much guarantee pursuit of impeachment and make it very hard not to end up going for that.

You have to look at your proposal from the standpoint of how can it be abused. So I’ll let you respond in how you think your process could be abused because as we’ve seen under the trump presidency, norms not codified in law or laws/rules not backed up by any enforcement mechanism is ripe for abuse. Also, as seen under Obama’s presidency, abuse of congress to do investigations of political opponents is a real threat to our democracy and political processes.

 

[HomerJS]

Oath for Senators before trial...

‘‘I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [President Donald Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

For those who made public statements they will NOT be impartial, when they take the oath is that immediate perjury??

 

[interchange]

You have to look at your proposal from the standpoint of how can it be abused. So I’ll let you respond in how you think your process could be abused because as we’ve seen under the trump presidency, norms not codified in law or laws/rules not backed up by any enforcement mechanism is ripe for abuse. Also, as seen under Obama’s presidency, abuse of congress to do investigations of political opponents is a real threat to our democracy and political processes.

Which part, specifically? Thinking that it might be ok to allow indictment of a sitting President? Or codifying the impeachment process, or some aspect therein. Abuse of the process is the reason for the discussion in the first place. Frankly, there is no way to eliminate that anyway. Either you do things by majority and accept that whoever controls the House/Senate dictates what happens should they so choose or you require a higher threshold and allow a corrupt minority to prevent any attempt at action. I would only hope to mitigate some of the process pitfalls. Impeachment is political. It should be political, also. But politics should be about the country's interest. There are times in the past and foreseeable in the future where bipartisan looks at oversight operate at least to some extent. Bottom line is that would always be a prerequisite to removing a President anyway. Helping that go smoothly is important. Helping keeping attempts at oversight in a hyperpartisan environment like that of today from furthering that division is important even when its existence dictates futility of Impeachment succeeding in ultimately removing a corrupt President their own party is willing to support.

 

[Moonbeam]

The question is see is is whether or not there is a Truth. Here the question is, how to insure that a President that should be impeached is impeached, or is that simply a question the number of people who think one way or another, with no reference to any objective reality, all things being a matter of subjective opinion. In the case of the former there is a thing called justice that stands beyond opinion, and in the latter, justice is just a matter of opinion. Thus there are three kinds of people, those who believe in nothing but vote self interest, those who think they know and don’t, and hose who actually know.

if so, those who know, know, and the rest of humanity is asleep and doest’t know that it is. If humanity IS asleep, there is no reaching them. In that case, the question becomes for each of us, who might be dissatisfied with that reality, how do I personally awaken. Who even thinks in those terms?

 

[ch33zw1z]

The Democrats are the real crooks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/02/americans-dont-believe-or-like-trump/

 

[Bitek]

Nope.
Founders left it vague so we could find out own way. I wouldn't condemn future generations to our visions of a one size fits all process.

 

[compuwiz1]

The Democrats are the real crooks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/02/americans-dont-believe-or-like-trump/

I don't like him either. It was never about likeability, but about policy and what he said he would do. He has fulfilled a lot of what he promised. And, at this point we can say it is Trump's economy. Things are pretty damn good. My 401k performance is through the roof. We haven't had the doom and gloom that the Democrats have predicted and my constitutional rights are still intact too.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't like him either. It was never about likeability, but about policy and what he said he would do. He has fulfilled a lot of what he promised. And, at this point we can say it is Trump's economy. Things are pretty damn good. My 401k performance is through the roof. We haven't had the doom and gloom that the Democrats have predicted and my constitutional rights are still intact too.

You could've elected a rock and gotten the same results. Trump didn't have a policy, MoscowMitch and lyin'ryan did, nothing new, same ole playbook. Judicial activism, tax cuts for the wealthy, shielding a grifter with questionable ties to hostile foreign powers. That's what the GOP has done since 2016.

Where's the infrastructure? Where's the healthcare fix? You think most America treat a 401k like it matters?

You Won't Believe How Many Americans Have No Retirement Savings | The Motley Fool

It's a disturbingly large percentage, and it needs to change.

www.fool.com

So, back in reality, voting for Trump wasn't about policy, he didn't have one on anything. Just a cool chant, and hiliary still roams free, hide yo babies.

 

[ShookKnight]

Trump was right though, he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and no one would do anything about it.

An actual crime was committed. And the party of law & order is not doing a damn thing about it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't like him either.

Me either, he is a bit of an ass. We can agree here.

It was never about likeability, but about policy and what he said he would do.

We agree with that too, but a lot of the reason I don't like him is because of the things he said he would do and the things he has done.

He has fulfilled a lot of what he promised.

Really? Like what? He managed to get a massive tax cut for the rich, I'll give him that. Other than that I'm at a loss of what he has actually done.
Repeal the ACA? Fail.
Ban Muslims from entering the United States? Fail.
Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it? Fail.
Get US military out of the Middle East? Fail.
Bring manufacturing jobs back? Fail.

We haven't had the doom and gloom that the Democrats have predicted and my constitutional rights are still intact too.

You might not have personally seen the doom and gloom, but there are a lot of children in cages that would disagree with you. There are LTBT+ people that disagree with you. More people are suffering then before he was elected. That is the doom and gloom predicted.

 

[soundforbjt]

The Turtle's on TV right now performing for his Master.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't like him either. It was never about likeability, but about policy and what he said he would do. He has fulfilled a lot of what he promised. And, at this point we can say it is Trump's economy. Things are pretty damn good. My 401k performance is through the roof. We haven't had the doom and gloom that the Democrats have predicted and my constitutional rights are still intact too.

Trump has fulfilled almost nothing of what he promised, what are you talking about? How's great health care for everyone going? How's balancing the budget and eliminating the national debt going?

You can basically break it down into two categories:

1) xenophobia and racism based things like the wall, Muslim bans, etc. He's largely delivered on the racism.
2) things that actually make Americans' lives better. Health care, tax policy, etc. He's either failed at this (health care) or made it actively worse (tax policy).

 

[cytg111]

I Googled this and all I could find was impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice Do you have a link to support your claim?

For fun shit and giggles... If Clinton had copied Trumps playbook, how wouldhe handled that blowjob after the fact? Refuse to coorporate. No perjury. Done. Also, a BJ from an intern? EP baby, EP all the way.