Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment

[HomerJS]

Different matter entirely, and it's going to be a hard sell to the public. Impeaching the president for obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that there is no evidence of having occurred is going to be a tough sell to anyone that doesn't hate Trump. My hunch is that this is reason number two of why Nancy won't proceed with impeachment.

Really? DId you know ordering a murder in itself is a crime?

 

[HomerJS]

Trump will not get impeached. total waste of time and tax payers money to even try.

If not this then shouldn't we get rid of the impeachment clause in the Constitution? Not worried about the precedent it sets. Supposed we get someone worse then Trump?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Supposed we get someone worse then Trump?

I tried and sprained my imagination.

 

[tweaker2]

I tried and sprained my imagination.

You should try some of the stuff Trump must be taking because his ability to lie so creatively and with such nonchalance must be augmented by some kind of recreational pharmaceuticals that stretches his imagination to fib and fib so copiously such that it's way beyond the limits of human capability.

And yes, even though he may not act like one, he still looks mostly like a human, although I'm pretty sure he doesn't smell like one what with the hyena baby poop he trails behind him.

 

[DrDoug]

Time to revive this thread, via Politico: Nadler: ‘This is formal impeachment proceedings’

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said publicly for the first time on Thursday that his panel is conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, adding that the committee will decide by the end of the year whether to refer articles of impeachment to the House floor. The committee has said as much in recent court filings as it seeks former special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury materials and testimony from his investigation’s star witnesses. But it was a rare rhetorical escalation from the New York Democrat, who has privately pushed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to support a formal inquiry of whether to remove the president from office.

“This is formal impeachment proceedings,” Nadler said in a CNN interview. “We are investigating all the evidence, gathering the evidence. And we will [at the] conclusion of this — hopefully by the end of the year — vote to vote articles of impeachment to the House floor. Or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”

I'm sure the Republicans in the House will be working furiously to make "Or we won't" happen since they are guilty by association with Felonious D. If he goes down, they go down in the next election.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Time to revive this thread, via Politico: Nadler: ‘This is formal impeachment proceedings’

I think this is just the House Judicial Committee positioning themselves for an argument in court that Presidential privilege no longer applies because they are now officially doing impeachment proceedings. They are stripping away Trumps arguments on why he can withhold evidence and threaten people to not testify since SCOTUS has said that basically nothing can be kept from Congress during impeachment proceedings. So they are going to argue before the court that this is now an official impeachment proceeding and so that ruling applies. The Administration is going to argue that the SCOTUS meant a full impeachment trial. But that is not what the court ruling said so I'm guessing the Administration will lose unless SCOTUS wants to take this issue up again.

 

[compuwiz1]

The Democrats are going to regret listening to Nadler. You can take that to the bank. Even if the House votes to impeach, it will not clear the Senate. This is a fucking stupid idea that is going to have grave consequences for the Democrats in the next elections, if they move forward with this stunt. The way you deal with Trump is at the voting booth, then let him be held accountable as a civilian, where he has no immunity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Democrats are going to regret listening to Nadler. You can take that to the bank. Even if the House votes to impeach, it will not clear the Senate. This is a fucking stupid idea that is going to have grave consequences for the Democrats in the next elections, if they move forward with this stunt. The way you deal with Trump is at the voting booth, then let him be held accountable as a civilian, where he has no immunity.

If the House impeaches they can leave it right there with just exposing the facts as Republicans will back him if he shoots someone in the head point blank in the middle of a stadium in front of a hundred thousand and millions on the internet/media.

The possibility of letting go without further action is tantamount to flipping a coin on the future of the Republic and even if voted out there needs accountability seen if only with exposure.

 

[ch33zw1z]

IMO, if the democrats dont impeach, then the liberal base will go bonkers.

Start the process, leave it on the Senate doorstep.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The Democrats are going to regret listening to Nadler. You can take that to the bank. Even if the House votes to impeach, it will not clear the Senate. This is a fucking stupid idea that is going to have grave consequences for the Democrats in the next elections, if they move forward with this stunt. The way you deal with Trump is at the voting booth, then let him be held accountable as a civilian, where he has no immunity.

That all matters on what they find. I personally think there is enough skeletons in Trumps closet that a impeachment investigation will be productive. He has no immunity to a impeachment proceeding, no way to hide behind Presidential privilege, no ability to withhold documents or testimony. He can be forced to personally appear and testify under oath.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Start the process, leave it on the Senate doorstep.

The Senate can't avoid the trial if the House passes them an impeachment. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court resides over it, not Moscow Mitch. The House choses representatives to act as the prosecutors, not the Senate. The Senate is required to put down everything else and start the proceedings.

 

[soundforbjt]

That all matters on what they find. I personally think there is enough skeletons in Trumps closet that a impeachment investigation will be productive. He has no immunity to a impeachment proceeding, no way to hide behind Presidential privilege, no ability to withhold documents or testimony. He can be forced to personally appear and testify under oath.

Bet he will try to withhold or slow the process to a crawl. What's the recourse for him refusing to cooperate?

 

[hal2kilo]

That is not what was said.
He specifically said he was impeded by Trumpss obstruction of justice.
What you are referring to is "was your investigation shut down or limited by the ag". If you actually watch the hearing its quite obvious, any other interpretation is an alt right distortion of what happend.

Reading comprehension suffers greatly by the partisan filter.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Bet he will try to withhold or slow the process to a crawl. What's the recourse for him refusing to cooperate?

The 2nd Amendment. Honestly that is it. To the small extent that our Founding Fathers even considered that a President would simply refuse to obey the law they imagined the solution to be a revolution. The blood of patriots and all.

 

[hal2kilo]

The Republicans did way more than that with Obama and he was squeaky clean. In contrast I’m personally surprised at how FEW investigations of Trump are ongoing. This is by far the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States.

I mean the corruption is so off the charts that it’s no longer considered a big deal that the president runs a hotel down the street from the White House where foreign companies can directly bribe him and that’s only a modest scandal. His own personal lawyer and the Southern District of New York implicated Trump in a felony and that’s nowhere close to the most scandalous thing. Trump ran a scam university he had to pay $20 million to settle fraud claims against, etc. etc.

How has the Republican Party becomes so totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt that they think investigating these things is not only not important but is some sort of harassment? We are talking about bribes and felonies! Wtf??

Well it's kind of hard to do oversite when all of the witnesses lie as directed by the Orange Ape. They literally lie at every hearing about the smallest inquiries.

 

[IJTSSG]

The Senate can't avoid the trial if the House passes them an impeachment. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court resides over it, not Moscow Mitch. The House choses representatives to act as the prosecutors, not the Senate. The Senate is required to put down everything else and start the proceedings.

The only thing driving what the Senate does if they are handed an impeachment is the current Senate rules. Those rules can be changed seemingly on a whim and based on recent activity would probably be changed again. To say that the Senate is required to clear the decks and have a trial is probably, in all reality, nonsense.

Read this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

IMO it lends decent insight into this process.

 

[UNCjigga]

The Democrats are going to regret listening to Nadler. You can take that to the bank. Even if the House votes to impeach, it will not clear the Senate. This is a fucking stupid idea that is going to have grave consequences for the Democrats in the next elections, if they move forward with this stunt. The way you deal with Trump is at the voting booth, then let him be held accountable as a civilian, where he has no immunity.

I don't think you understand that nobody really gives a shit whether the House votes to impeach or doesn't--we all know it won't remove Trump from office because of Moscow Mitch.

However, opening formal impeachment proceedings within the Judiciary Cmte. is very, very important. Nadler's goal isn't necessarily to get an impeachment vote at the end of this--his goal is to air out any evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" publicly before the election. Even if they don't impeach, that evidence will still be available to a potential Dem DOJ in 2021 or numerous state AGs should they decide to press charges if Trump is no longer shielded by the office. Opening a formal inquiry helps him beat Trump and DOJ in court when they try to stonewall, as privilege claims will be more difficult.

 

[fskimospy]

The only thing driving what the Senate does if they are handed an impeachment is the current Senate rules. Those rules can be changed seemingly on a whim and based on recent activity would probably be changed again. To say that the Senate is required to clear the decks and have a trial is probably, in all reality, nonsense.

Read this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

IMO it lends decent insight into this process.

You are probably right that the Senate can just do nothing. After all, who would make them? Even if they were somehow forced to hold a trial they could make it 5 minutes long or whatever.

The reason the Democrats should impeach Trump is because it’s the right thing to do for the country, first and foremost. Let the senate do what it will.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The only thing driving what the Senate does if they are handed an impeachment is the current Senate rules. Those rules can be changed seemingly on a whim and based on recent activity would probably be changed again. To say that the Senate is required to clear the decks and have a trial is probably, in all reality, nonsense.

Read this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

IMO it lends decent insight into this process.

That could very well start a civil war. Many people, myself included, would not longer consider the President or the Senate a legitimate ruling body.

 

[fskimospy]

That could very well start a civil war. Many people, myself included, would not longer consider the President or the Senate a legitimate ruling body.

I have to say in a rare moment I’m on IJTSSG’s side. The Senate has the power to try impeachment’s and they can basically use that power however they want, including by declining to use it at all.

The Constitution relies on our elected officials to put their country before their party. There is no backstop if they decide not to.

 

[IJTSSG]

That could very well start a civil war. Many people, myself included, would not longer consider the President or the Senate a legitimate ruling body.

To be clear, I don't support the Senate doing anything other than what they've traditionally done, which is to clear their desks and hold a trial. I was simply sharing info and the conclusions I drew from it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The Senate has the power to try impeachment’s and they can basically use that power however they want, including by declining to use it at all.

I disagree. The Constitution makes it very clear that the impeachment of a President is supposed to be carried out by the entire government. That is why it was designed to bring in all parts of the government, with the Senate acting like the jurors, the SCOTUS as the judge, and the House as the prosecutors. It was not intended that the Senate could just bypass it altogether.

The Senate was intended to have the power to not convict if that was their will, but not just declare that there can be no trial at all. The President is not king. He can not be above the law or we have no law.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. The Constitution makes it very clear that the impeachment of a President is supposed to be carried out by the entire government. That is why it was designed to bring in all parts of the government, with the Senate acting like the jurors, the SCOTUS as the judge, and the House as the prosecutors. It was not intended that the Senate could just bypass it altogether.

The Senate was intended to have the power to not convict if that was their will, but not just declare that there can be no trial at all. The President is not king. He can not be above the law or we have no law.

I mean the only part of the Constitution that references this is the part that says ‘the senate will have the sole power to try all impeachments’ which to me says the Senate can basically do whatever it wants.

It’s like how the House can impeach for anything they want.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I mean the only part of the Constitution that references this is the part that says ‘the senate will have the sole power to try all impeachments’ which to me says the Senate can basically do whatever it wants.

It’s like how the House can impeach for anything they want.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

[fskimospy]

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Okay?