• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump

chuckiechan said:
Impeachment relies on an informed electorate. “Clinton was impeached for a B.J.” No he was not. He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
About a blow job which they had no business asking other than satisfying the perversion of that little **** Starr.
 
Mach said:
Clinton was already investigated by Republican partisans for 4 years and impeached for a BJ.
Click to expand...
Yes, and Trump is being impeached for making a phone call.
 
MTAtech said:
See: Anderson v. Dunn (1821) and Wilkinson v. United States.

Article II of the Constitution requires the President to execute the law, and that the Executive Branch cannot define what the law is or interpret the law, as those powers are reserved for the legislative and judicial branches respectively.
Click to expand...


Gosh if only Obama hadn't set a precedent for obstructing Congress during Fast and Furious when he and Holder refused subpoenas to turn over documents.


I still recall the obvious glee Democrats showed when Obama thumbed his nose at Congress.
 
Obscurity said:
Obstruction of congress is low hanging fruit. They have sondland's testimony to confirm had the admin allowed evidence to move freely, Trump may have been exculpated. Then again, not everything is covered by executive privilege. But you already knew that.
Click to expand...

And Congress chose not to challenge the presdint's opinion on executive privilege.
 
GDViking said:
Exactly this has already been decided by the courts.

Nixon had to turn over his tapes.

Clinton had to give a blood sample...
Click to expand...


Ok.. And what did the courts rule when Congress went to them with regards to Trump?
 
MTAtech said:
Why obstruction of Congress is important is that the Trump-defense team has claimed, whether true or not, that 'there weren't any first-hand witnesses testifying.' Well, that's because Trump ordered those witnesses not to honor the Congressional subpoenas. In essence, their defense is the same as a mob boss who has witnesses against him killed, "you have no case because there aren't witnesses." The only difference is that we know Trump obstructed those witnesses for the purpose of preventing Congress from getting vital information related to the facts and Trump shouldn't be unduly rewarded for this obstruction.

The courts have already ruled in US v Nixon that the president can't prevent Congress from getting information in an impeachment inquiry. Oh, obstruction of Congress was an article in Nixon's impeachment too.
Click to expand...

Then it shouldnt have been a problem for Congress to fight the president in the courts
 
Cardinal said:
I've honestly come to suspect they're imagining there will never again be a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. Nothing else explains it.
Click to expand...

Or they just care so much about what Trump has promised (mainly keeping Mexicans out) that they're willing to trash what the founders designed.
 
Mach said:
They will vote on this in Judiciary later this week, before it's potentially brought to a full House vote.

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump - CNNPolitics

I thought Schiff's speech was well done and compelling at the end. Of course, I believe part of the country figures this is all true...but as long as Trump also gives them something in the deal, it's OK.
Click to expand...

I am too young to remember the Clinton impeachment, so I have nothing to compare. I heard Trump say the Senate will exonerate him, but is that accurate? The Senate is probably not going to remove him, but it’s not an actual criminal trial.

Secondly, I am anticipating the Senate to call in witnesses like Giuliani. I am anticipating the Senate to promote pro Russian conspiracy theories throughout the process.
 
Deuce said:
No, it would set the precedent that Congress is a co-equal branch and that’s why you can’t deliberately obstruct their investigations of a crime.
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't investigate crimes.
 
Moon said:
I’m not sure they could have picked two weaker offenses than what they did. Honestly, I think Obstruction of Congress is a non-starter if you support the concept of co-equal branches of government and separation of powers. If allowed to stand, that would set the precedent for future administrations that they have to do what Congress demands or be impeached. I don’t want an imperial presidency, but I certainly don’t want an imperial clown car, either.

If that was their best case, I think they came up short.
Click to expand...

In the context of 2 1/2 years of Schiff's proclaimed certainty of a long list of crimes committed by the President, very short.
 
Deuce said:
No, it would set the precedent that Congress is a co-equal branch and that’s why you can’t deliberately obstruct their investigations of a crime.
Click to expand...

Exercising his rights isn't an obstruction. President challenging a subpoena isn't obstruction. Congress was free to press the matter in court but chose not to.
 
MTAtech said:
See: Anderson v. Dunn (1821) and Wilkinson v. United States.

Article II of the Constitution requires the President to execute the law, and that the Executive Branch cannot define what the law is or interpret the law, as those powers are reserved for the legislative and judicial branches respectively.
Click to expand...

Attorney client privilege and executive privilege isn't something Trump dreamed up. If Congress doesn't like it they can enforce the subpoenas in court. The Democrats chose not to go the route prescribed by law to them through the courts.
 
Mach said:
They will vote on this in Judiciary later this week, before it's potentially brought to a full House vote.

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump - CNNPolitics

I thought Schiff's speech was well done and compelling at the end. Of course, I believe part of the country figures this is all true...but as long as Trump also gives them something in the deal, it's OK.
Click to expand...

A couple of things about this strike me as really smart on the Democrats' part. They picked just 2 charges. That keeps focus narrowed and makes the impeachment seem purposeful. Those 2 charges should be slam dunks for the Democrats in the Senate. Abuse of power is a little vague and will be completely supported by Democrats and completely opposed by Republicans. It's a nonstarter, but Democrats should have no trouble showing moderates and independents how Trump abused his power. Obstruction of Congress is a no-brainer. Every time Trump and Republicans tried to threaten/intimidate Pelosi, she gave them a more damning way to obstruct Congress. And they took it! Trump doubled down so many times that he's got $150 million on a pair of aces. He's obstructed Congress so flagrantly that Republicans who don't convict him on that charge will be faced with 2 harsh realities in November: They acquitted an obviously guilty person for purely political purposes. They gave express permission to every president from now on to ignore Congress. That, to me, is the clearest, most dangerous, most unconstitutional aspect of the charges.

Also, Trump thought he could stall in court long enough. The Democrats bitch slapped him back into his chair there too. They already have multiple court rulings in their favor and maintained control of timing.

Regardless of one's position on impeachment, I think it's clear that Pelosi and her team have had a better strategy than the Republicans all along. That is, the Democrats at least have an actual strategy.
 
Mach said:
Where does it say Congress has to wait to do its Constitutional duty? .
Click to expand...

They don't have to wait for anything. They could of petitioned the court to enforce their subpoenas the moment Trump chose to oppose them.
 
Moon said:
I’m not sure they could have picked two weaker offenses than what they did. Honestly, I think Obstruction of Congress is a non-starter if you support the concept of co-equal branches of government and separation of powers. If allowed to stand, that would set the precedent for future administrations that they have to do what Congress demands or be impeached. I don’t want an imperial presidency, but I certainly don’t want an imperial clown car, either.

If that was their best case, I think they came up short.
Click to expand...

Obstruction of Congress is the clearest thing Trump is guilty of. He didn't just protect executive privilege. He ordered the entire ****ing executive branch not to cooperate with Congress or comply with its subpoenas. That is terrifying. This really isn't about Trump at this point. The executive is trying to effectively nullify the Congress. It's unconstitutional and all Americans need to decide now what side of history they want to be remembered as being on.
 
dixon01767 said:
Attorney client privilege and executive privilege isn't something Trump dreamed up. If Congress doesn't like it they can enforce the subpoenas in court. The Democrats chose not to go the route prescribed by law to them through the courts.
Click to expand...

Prosecuting a sitting President wastes the country's time. We need the President to do his job. Personal legal battles are too time consuming for a President's 80 hour weeks.

Now, there's another important thing to understand. The President, as an individual, isn't very important. He's a figurehead for a party and pushes the party's agenda as possible via the executive branch. Whom, specifically, is the President is not very important in America. Our leaders are party leaders, not cult of personality leaders. The next Republican or the next Democrat could take over and nothing really changes. Policy drives the office. That's kind of a beautiful thing about democracy.

So, we remove the President from office before prosecutions take place. It's civilized.

That's why no one ought be going through the courts. Mueller was clear enough about the nation's responsibilities to political process.
 
mrdeltoid said:
This “ impeachment “ is a partisan exercise to effect the 2020 election. There were 7 republicans in the judiciary committee that voted to impeach Nixon, so he resigned. There are no republicans in favor of impeachment of Trump, and 2 Democrats that voted with republicans. There’s no chance the senate will convict. This, along with the indictments that Durhams probe will bring, will ensure Trumps re-election.
Click to expand...

Correct. Republicans have put party over country and justice.
 
Slavister said:
I don't get why they are not adding charges based on Mueller report. The OP link says



Yeah, but just like Mueller report adds context to Ukraine (see below), Ukraine adds context to Mueller findings. I don't think they could not justify a "yes" vote for Mueller report based findings.



Ok, but Mueller laid out 10 instances of Obstruction, and some included all 3 elements needed for formal charges (if it were not for the Presidents position).

I think NOT including Mueller report based Obstruction as a separate charge might be seen as if Mueller did not find anything impeachable, even though he clearly did.

Also, all the Emoluments Clause violations, both foreign and domestic, seem quite impeachable to me.
Click to expand...

That is the power of dishonesty, misinformation, and denial of information. I agree with you that the Mueller report is good stuff. Trump should be impeached for all kinds of things in it. But Republicans have done such a manic attack on it that the Democrats don't even want to touch it. That, and most Americans haven't read the Mueller report. In that regard, the findings of the Mueller report would have to be relitigated in Congress because so few people know what he did. That requires much more investigation and a lot more time, which would ultimately work against Democrats.
 
chuckiechan said:
Impeachment relies on an informed electorate. “Clinton was impeached for a B.J.” No he was not. He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury.

Trumps charges are nothing burgers in the minds of the majority of people, just like Bills B.J., except Bill lied to a G.J. Trump pissed of the bureaucracy of the deep state.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if Clinton had refused to testify that he should not have been impeached?
 
Mithros said:
Which subpoenas has the White House complied with?
Click to expand...

None, but that's not the point, the point is they are LEGALLY fighting them and LEGALLY waiting for the Courts to decide.....
 
dixon01767 said:
Attorney client privilege and executive privilege isn't something Trump dreamed up. If Congress doesn't like it they can enforce the subpoenas in court. The Democrats chose not to go the route prescribed by law to them through the courts.
Click to expand...
Executive privilege is never a blanket privilege for even showing up. Endlessly going to court just buys into Trump's objective of running out the clock. The fact that Trump doesn't want these people to testify just means they wouldn't testify favorably.
 
dobieg said:
I don't really think obstruction of whiny assed Dems in Congress is going to get much of a reaction from anyone except a shrug.
Click to expand...

That's a huge red flag. Trump isn't being charged for obstructing Democrats. He's being charged with obstructing Congress. So think about what you're saying. Imagine that Republicans control the House, Trump is found to have placed a bomb in the subway system, and that Republicans decide it's time to impeach him. Trump orders the executive branch to put Congress on block and not cooperate with the Republican investigation into the bombing. You're ok with that? Now imagine that Joe Biden becomes president and Republicans take the House. They decide to investigate Hunter Biden or whatever CT is convenient. Biden says nope and tells the executive branch the same thing. You're ok with that too?
 
CaughtInThe said:
well, Presidents obstructing justice is definitely not what our founders wanted. .
Click to expand...


This is congress, not criminal investigators or courts. Not obstructing justice but obstructing congress. Obstruction of Justice is what they alleged in the case of Comey's FBI or Muellars Special Counsel. The Ukraine show is all congress. And the President exercising his rights isn't obstruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom