Definitions.

[Torus34]

As the probability of a bill of impeachment being presented to the United States Senate increases, the senators are facing the challenge of defining what is and what is not an impeachable offense. The results of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton resulted in the precedent-setting decision that dalliance by a sitting president with an aide is not an offense worthy of removal from office. Nor, for that matter, is lying to the Congress of the United States about sexual peccadilloes.

This time, the senate will be able to consider such offenses as failing to turn over requested documents to Congress, instructing people not to obey Congressional subpoenas and withholding aid to a foreign government in order to gain their assistance in defeating a possible political opponent. All three will in all probability be added to the list of offenses not serious enough to force removal from office.

How this will affect the functional limits of future presidents is an interesting subject for the hot stove league. [Ed.: Or, perhaps, among the readers of this post.]

 

[Moderate Right]

As the probability of a bill of impeachment being presented to the United States Senate increases, the senators are facing the challenge of defining what is and what is not an impeachable offense. The results of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton resulted in the precedent-setting decision that dalliance by a sitting president with an aide is not an offense worthy of removal from office. Nor, for that matter, is lying to the Congress of the United States.

This time, the senate will be able to consider such offenses as failing to turn over requested documents, instructing people not to obey Congressional subpoenas and withholding aid to a foreign government in order to gain their assistance in defeating a possible political opponent. All three will in all probability be added to the list of offenses not serious enough to force removal from office.

How this will affect the functional limits of future presidents is an interesting subject for the hot stove league. [Ed.: Or, perhaps, among the readers of this post.]

Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.

 

[Yakshi]

The quid quo pro is an impeachable offense. Republicans will not impeach him for it.

It isn't difficult. Republicans simply don't care.

 

[Torus34]

Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.

Hi! And, unless I'm very much mistaken, Republicans are also tracing lines from dot to dot. Still, whether things have been overlooked in the past or not, there's a certain seal of imprimatur placed upon an action when the Congress of the United States of America decides and through a vote confirms that it falls outside the limits of presidential removal from office.

Regards.

 

[MrWonka]

Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas

Citation needed.

Executive Privileged has been used in some cases, but to my knowledge that has never happened in an impeachment investigation where the President himself is being investigated for a serious crime.

Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven.

Basically every witness who has knowledge of the event has testified under oath that there was in fact a quid pro quo.

Furthermore, I fully expect that when they take the step of moving forward with impeachment they will include articles of impeachment for everything found under the Mueller investigation as well. That will likely produce at least 10 additional charges.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.

Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that twump pushed public power and money for private gain, which itself is a serious crime. And he's admitted to having done so. On camera.

That you can't accept that simple fact won't make it go away.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As the probability of a bill of impeachment being presented to the United States Senate increases, the senators are facing the challenge of defining what is and what is not an impeachable offense. The results of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton resulted in the precedent-setting decision that dalliance by a sitting president with an aide is not an offense worthy of removal from office. Nor, for that matter, is lying to the Congress of the United States about sexual peccadilloes.

This time, the senate will be able to consider such offenses as failing to turn over requested documents to Congress, instructing people not to obey Congressional subpoenas and withholding aid to a foreign government in order to gain their assistance in defeating a possible political opponent. All three will in all probability be added to the list of offenses not serious enough to force removal from office.

How this will affect the functional limits of future presidents is an interesting subject for the hot stove league. [Ed.: Or, perhaps, among the readers of this post.]

IMHO, far too much fuss is being made about that (bolded above) motive alone. The fact that politicians do and say things purely for political gain is a given - see this House impeachment "inquiry" process.

 

[Moderate Right]

Citation needed.

Executive Privileged has been used in some cases, but to my knowledge that has never happened in an impeachment investigation where the President himself is being investigated for a serious crime.


Basically every witness who has knowledge of the event has testified under oath that there was in fact a quid pro quo.

Furthermore, I fully expect that when they take the step of moving forward with impeachment they will include articles of impeachment for everything found under the Mueller investigation as well. That will likely produce at least 10 additional charges.

They testified that it was their opinion that it was a quid pro quo.

 

[Moderate Right]

Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that twump pushed public power and money for private gain, which itself is a serious crime. And he's admitted to having done so. On camera.

That you can't accept that simple fact won't make it go away.

How would it be private gain? That's not proven. If Ukraine had investigated Biden (which they didn't) they might have found the Bidens squeeky clean and did nothing wrong or illegal. Why do you just assume that dirt would have been found, thereby being a gain to Trump?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

How would it be private gain? That's not proven. If Ukraine had investigated Biden (which they didn't) they might have found the Bidens squeeky clean and did nothing wrong or illegal. Why do you just assume that dirt would have been found, thereby being a gain to Trump?

He's asking them to investigate his main political rival for his benefit. He's not asking them to investigate any other 'corruption'. There is no credible evidence, whatsoever, of any corruption on his part and he was cleared earlier by Ukraine.

This is so obvious that it's embarrassing for you to cling to it.

And you don't even know it.

 

[MrWonka]

They testified that it was their opinion that it was a quid pro quo.

No, they testified that the quid pro quo was factual. That's not an opinion. Either it was or it wasn't. Based on the timing of the funding, and the transcript that we have it's incredibly obvious what happened. He's guilty. He did it. You know damn well he did it. The only question is will you turn a blind eye to it?

Trump literally committed the exact crime he was trying to get Biden investigated for in the first place. So if it's not a criminal act that would disqualify a president then why the hell did Trump want Biden investigated for it in the first place?

 

[Torus34]

IMHO, far too much fuss is being made about that (bolded above) motive alone. The fact that politicians do and say things purely for political gain is a given - see this House impeachment "inquiry" process.

Hi! Thanks for taking time to post.

Regards.

 

[Moderate Right]

He's asking them to investigate his main political rival for his benefit. He's not asking them to investigate any other 'corruption'. There is no credible evidence, whatsoever, of any corruption on his part and he was cleared earlier by Ukraine.

This is so obvious that it's embarrassing for you to cling to it.

And you don't even know it.

How would it be a benefit to Trump if the investigation came out the Bidens did nothing wrong? If anything, it would hurt Trump.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, they testified that the quid pro quo was factual. That's not an opinion. Either it was or it wasn't. Based on the timing of the funding, and the transcript that we have it's incredibly obvious what happened. He's guilty. He did it. You know damn well he did it. The only question is will you turn a blind eye to it?

Trump literally committed the exact crime he was trying to get Biden investigated for in the first place. So if it's not a criminal act that would disqualify a president then why the hell did Trump want Biden investigated for it in the first place?

It was their opinion that the quid pro quo was factual. They never heard Trump say quid pro quo. They connected the dots and formed an opinion.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

How would it be a benefit to Trump if the investigation came out the Bidens did nothing wrong? If anything, it would hurt Trump.

What twump did was laughably illegal, full stop. He's admitted to doing it, and has flatly stated that Fruity G was his pointman.

What hurts twump is his criminality and the actions he's taken. Biden is essentially irrelevant to all that.

Stop embarrassing yourself like this.

 

[Slavister]

IMHO, far too much fuss is being made about that (bolded above) motive alone. The fact that politicians do and say things purely for political gain is a given - see this House impeachment "inquiry" process.

The reason that motive alone matters is because THAT MOTIVE alone is what makes it foreign interference into our election. Not the investigation itself - heck, if they investigate Joe Smith who is not running for office, all the better. But investigation of political rival to the Presidency, thereby affecting election outcome.
And as you may know, Trump did not care about investigation at all. He only wanted PUBLIC statements about it. THAT was the important part.

So, it all comes down to foreign influence on our election.

And yeah, some people are really too paranoid about inviting foreign interference...

No. 68 in this series (usually attributed to the prolific Alexander Hamilton) said, "The desire [of] foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our counsels" was a source of corruption and "one of the most deadly adversaries of republican government."

...

In a letter written late in 1787, Adams wrote that he understood Jefferson being "apprehensive of foreign Interference, Intrigue and Influence." Adams said he shared that very concern and thought it was a good reason not to have elections too often.

"As often as Elections happen," Adams wrote, "the danger of foreign Influence recurs."
...

Washington ...: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ... the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

Source

 

[Moderate Right]

What twump did was laughably illegal, full stop. He's admitted to doing it, and has flatly stated that Fruity G was his pointman.

What hurts twump is his criminality and the actions he's taken. Biden is essentially irrelevant to all that.

Stop embarrassing yourself like this.

I'm confused. You say Trump lies all the time and then you say Trump admitted to doing it. Wouldn't that be a lie, meaning he didn't do it?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I'm confused. You say Trump lies all the time and then you say Trump admitted to doing it. Wouldn't that be a lie, meaning he didn't do it?

Irrelevant again. Not interested in your cutesy-poo attempts at word games.

twump has admitted, several times and on the air, to having committed very serious crimes.

No amount of spazz-dancing will change that fact.

 

[mrjurrs]

Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.

There is a huge difference in withholding aid to promote the national intererst and withholding it for personal benefit.

 

[mrjurrs]

Citation needed.

Executive Privileged has been used in some cases, but to my knowledge that has never happened in an impeachment investigation where the President himself is being investigated for a serious crime.


Basically every witness who has knowledge of the event has testified under oath that there was in fact a quid pro quo.

Furthermore, I fully expect that when they take the step of moving forward with impeachment they will include articles of impeachment for everything found under the Mueller investigation as well. That will likely produce at least 10 additional charges.

Or maybe just one article of 'Obstructing Justice' with multiple opportunities to find one they may vote for.

 

[mrjurrs]

How would it be private gain? That's not proven. If Ukraine had investigated Biden (which they didn't) they might have found the Bidens squeeky clean and did nothing wrong or illegal. Why do you just assume that dirt would have been found, thereby being a gain to Trump?

The outcome is not important, the ask is.

 

[mrjurrs]

IMHO, far too much fuss is being made about that (bolded above) motive alone. The fact that politicians do and say things purely for political gain is a given - see this House impeachment "inquiry" process.

It is an abuse of power, power that the president holds that no one else has and can create a demand without saying it out loud.

 

[MrWonka]

Or maybe just one article of 'Obstructing Justice' with multiple opportunities to find one they may vote for.

I think I'd rather see them cite each instance of Obstruction of Justice as it's own Article. If the house charges Trump with 30+ felonies it will send a much more effective message to the people of this country about the shear scope of his corruption, and make it harder for Republicans to deny reality.

Take the Manford case. They charged him with like 18 felonies. They only got convictions on 12, but with that many charges it was hard for the jury to find away to absolve him of everything he did. Even with a few Trump supporters on it who likely didn't want to find him guilty they kind of had no choice to accept reality.

 

[MrWonka]

How would it be private gain? That's not proven. If Ukraine had investigated Biden (which they didn't) they might have found the Bidens squeeky clean

You mean kind of like how four years of Republican investigations found that Hillary Clinton was squeaky clean? It didn't matter, the pure and simple fact that such a massive investigation was on going was enough to convince at least some % of voters that she was corrupt. With a margin of victory for Trump of only 77,000 votes in three states that was enough for him to win even though Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.

I guarantee you that if James Comey doesn't re-open the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election she would be the President of the United States today.

 

[mrjurrs]

I think I'd rather see them cite each instance of Obstruction of Justice as it's own Article. If the house charges Trump with 30+ felonies it will send a much more effective message to the people of this country about the shear scope of his corruption, and make it harder for Republicans to deny reality.

Take the Manford case. They charged him with like 18 felonies. They only got convictions on 12, but with that many charges it was hard for the jury to find away to absolve him of everything he did. Even with a few Trump supporters on it who likely didn't want to find him guilty they kind of had no choice to accept reality.

I don't disagree with you. I am however wary of the false uproar about no collusion no obstruction as a defense. I'd prefer a single obstruction of justice article from the Ukraine issue, and then an ongoing list of the Mueller obstructions. I'd hope that if a R senator sees one instance that is clearly obstruction they'd have to vote on that. I don't think there is a limit to the number of articles of impeachment that can be proposed, I wonder how a bunch of them would play politically?