Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I think when the House passes the articles, and the matter is tried before the world, the evidence of Trump's efforts to obstruct both the Mueller Investigation, and the investigation in the H. or Reps. will be apparent to those with an open mind who put our Country and its security before any political party or personal desires.

I believe the people's vote in the 2018 election was a reaction to one party dominance, and to the overreach (breach of power) by The President, supported by McConnell and without objection from Ryan.

 

[Acadia]

100% correct. There is no such thing as obstruction of Congrass. It is another made up law that doesn't exist anywhere in any statute.

You are correct that they are co-equal. If the president can obstruct congress then the congress can be charged with the same thing g for not doing exactly what the president wants.

Abuse of power is meaningless nonsense.
This means that anytime the president doesn't do what congress thinks he can be charged with abuse of power.

You are right. You notice that they didn't charge him with bribery or extortion or quid pro quo or anything else that they were claiming that are actual impeachment qualifications.

New buzz words from focus groups is where they got their impeachment charges.

As we've known all along, the "whistleblower" was a foil.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

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.

 

[CaughtInThe]

No, that’s not what I said.

i know, right...

...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...

so what you're arguing is that the President, Democrat or Republican, can obstruct and Congress should not be able to perform oversight.

that's just crazy and is very much like a monarchy.

 

[Moon]

Calling this “disagreement between branches” is absurd.

But that’s what it boils down to.

 

[gdgyva]

Turley, the Republican's pick for defending POTUS, disagrees with the impeachment? Say it isn't so.
Clinton was already investigated by Republican partisans for 4 years and impeached for a BJ...but you're sensitive to the madness that will follow when Trump is impeached for abuse of power?

Turley is a ****ing idiot. That you can't post in your own words, is unfortunate.

stop with the damn lies

Clinton was NOT impeached for a BJ...everyone knows it except you apparently

He was impeached because he was stupid enough to commit perjury....

Can you admit that truth?

 

[Moon]

Trump is not the last US president. A Democrat will almost certainly be in the White House in either 2020 or 2024.

Don't expect the Democrats to play by a different set of rules indefinitely. If Trump wins in 2020 then *THIS* is the new norm. The next Democratic administration will be equally corrupt because without consequences, all of the incentives will be on the side of corruption. How will you stop them from doing the same thing? When a democrat is actively engaged in election fraud you're going to have to be fine with doing nothing, watching an election with widespread cheating, and then stewing over the inevitable result when your side loses. The only people who think that's a good plan are New England Patriots fans.

Ambition tempers ambition. Checks and balances only work so long as each branch has leverage over the other.

I do not support doing nothing, I support following the process we’ve had since the beginning of either negotiating demands between the branches or let the courts decide. I would not support this action if circumstances were reversed.

 

[MTAtech]

100% correct. There is no such thing as obstruction of Congrass. It is another made up law that doesn't exist anywhere in any statute.

You are correct that they are co-equal. If the president can obstruct congress then the congress can be charged with the same thing g for not doing exactly what the president wants.

Abuse of power is meaningless nonsense.
This means that anytime the president doesn't do what congress thinks he can be charged with abuse of power.

You are right. You notice that they didn't charge him with bribery or extortion or quid pro quo or anything else that they were claiming that are actual impeachment qualifications.

New buzz words from focus groups is where they got their impeachment charges.

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.

 

[PirateMk1]

I'll just be glad when this damn witchhunt is over.

:lamo Sorry bub but this is just the end of the first act.

 

[Moon]

i know, right...



so what you're arguing is that the President, Democrat or Republican, can obstruct and Congress should not be able to perform oversight.

that's just crazy and is very much like a monarchy.

Again, that’s not what I said.

Congress needs to either negotiate their demands for witnesses or documents with the Executive branch or let the courts sort it out. Just like has been done since the beginning.

 

[Mithros]

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.

So in summary

• Democrats are impeaching the president for political reasons
• Impeachment politically helps the President

Ergo... Democrats are impeaching the President to help the President's reelection chances?

How about this... Clinton was impeached with 38% support. 31 Democrats joined in the effort. Right now 50% of the public (give or take) want the president impeached and removed. So with so much more public support for Trump than either Nixon or Clinton, why is there currently zero support for even an inquiry? (Could it be that the only GOP member to support impeachment was kicked out of the party?)

 

[gdgyva]

Face the facts my conservative Trumpster Diver, Your cult leader is being impeached. Elections have consequences.:2wave:

votes have consequences

once this gets through judiciary, then the WHOLE house votes on it

how many democrats will vote NO? how many democrats in those 31 trump districts are going to try and save their ass

and if it does pass the house...what then? the senate trial?

omg...really?

look at the polls...46% for and against impeachment...46%

i couldnt have asked for more of a christmas gift from Nancy....

 

[CaughtInThe]

Again, that’s not what I said.

Congress needs to either negotiate their demands for witnesses or documents with the Executive branch or let the courts sort it out. Just like has been done since the beginning.

well, Presidents obstructing justice is definitely not what our founders wanted. hell, they had just escaped having one person shove everything down their throats with basically no recourse.

so, they built this thing so that congress could get rid of a corrupt president if they decided he was doing things like enriching himself personally or bribing people or keeping the people (us thru Congress) from knowing what really happened.

i know all that sucks for anyone that supports a crook.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Imagine a future Democratic President unbound by Congressional oversight.

 

[year2late]

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.

Put him on the stand under threat of perjury and he won't make it 10 minutes. He lies (badly) on regular basis.

 

[Mithros]

I do not support doing nothing, I support following the process we’ve had since the beginning of either negotiating demands between the branches or let the courts decide. I would not support this action if circumstances were reversed.

Actually that's supporting doing nothing. The president has declared absolute immunity from compelling testimony and producing evidence for anyone in his administration or not. Even though they have lost conclusively at every step, they have appealed every ruling in an effort to run out the clock. The election is 11 months away. In the 10 months the Democrats have held the House the White House has produced zero subpoenaed documents or persons. ZERO. There's no reason to suspect that the Trump administration will comply with any request before the election.

You can identify as someone who supports following the constitutional process. But it doesn't change reality. You'd rely on the result of compromised election to determine if Trump compromised the election.

 

[sjmay]

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.

Except those subpoenas were being lawfully fought in Court...and the House didn't want to wait.....how can you argue obstruction because you are impatient?

 

[Mithros]

Except those subpoenas were being lawfully fought in Court...and the House didn't want to wait.....how can you argue obstruction because you are impatient?

Which subpoenas has the White House complied with?

 

[GDViking]

Where did I say anything about executive privilege? The entire issue should have been decided by the courts. If successful, Congress will have elevated themselves above the Executive branch to the point where a future President (maybe someone you like) is impeached for not giving Congress something they demand.

You mean as was written in the Constitution?

Any president that has something that important that he thinks he needs to hide it from congress is not a president that I would support...

 

[CaughtInThe]

Imagine a future Democratic President unbound by Congressional oversight.

it's friggin crazy.

 

[Cardinal]

it's friggin crazy.

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.

 

[prometeus]

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.

Really? What did Congress demand that he do?

I don’t want an imperial presidency

So what is it that you like, the ass kissing?

 

[Mach]

Except those subpoenas were being lawfully fought in Court...and the House didn't want to wait.....how can you argue obstruction because you are impatient?

Where does it say Congress has to wait to do its Constitutional duty? That is limiting the power of the Legislative branch's Constitutional oversight powers.
Suddenly the Congress is subordinate to both the executive AND the judicial...they have to get a pass from both to exercise their Constitutional power?

That's stupid smjay.

They sent subpoenas as part of the impeachment investigation, which is a Constitutional responsibility of the House.
Executive has to comply with some of that...records, all witnesses, etc., were blocked. All of it.
I could see that argument if it was just Pompeo or Mick that were not testifying, but it was all White House officials on all conversations and all records.

Not records or testimony that might be privileged, because the executive can assert the privilege properly...and the people and records can *still* be provided.
Redacted for EP, and questions not answered if they cite the specific EP claim...a legitimate one, by POTUS.

No, Congress doesn't have to beg the Executive and Courts to use its Constitutional powers, any more than the Executive does.

 

[GDViking]

Presidents already can be impeached for not giving up documents and blanketly ordering no testimony. That's the definition of obstruction.

Exactly this has already been decided by the courts.

Nixon had to turn over his tapes.

Clinton had to give a blood sample...

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

I don't think the issue is that the POTUS has to "do what Congress demands" as much as it's about the POTUS impeding Congress' investigative powers as a check on the presidency from the standpoint of them being a co-equal branch of government. In forbidding anyone from his Cabinet from testifying under oath before congressional committee(s) while publicly declaring his innocence while simultaneously declaring the impeachment process currently underway as a farce, a hoax, trumped up charges made by angry Democrats, Pres. Trump has effectively placed himself outside the law. That cannot be allowed to stand. Our Founding Fathers knew it. You know it. You simply refuse to acknowledge the inherent danger Pres. Trump's actions. This is more than him exerting Executive Privilege for information that he and he alone may possess. This is a sitting POTUS telling anyone under his direct control NOT to participate in a legal inquiry into his wrong-doing knowing full well that denying Congress access to eyewitnesses to his actions could very well provide Congress and the public greater insight into what he was doing and why concerning Ukraine.

From Federalist Paper 65:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

So, what did Pres. Trump do?

1) He used his position of power as POTUS to coerce the leader of another country (Ukraine) to re-open and investigation he readily knew involved an American citizen.
2) He knew that in publicly announcing that the investigation into Burima was re-opening said investigation it would have a negative impact on a political rival (former VP Joe Biden) in the "court of public opinion".

So, what does this have to do with violating the public trust? EVERYTHING!!

From the very beginning, Trump has stated publicly that our election process is rigged. Now, Republican politicians and voters are so very willing to stand idly by and allow him to effectively "rig" the upcoming 2020 presidential election by throwing up a false PR roadblock against a political rival. Look at what has already happened to Joe Biden in Iowa just recently? You can't tell me that people aren't already buying into the false allegation. How long before this falsehood begins to permeate into the public sphere before it becomes the only thing voters will be talking about and Joe Biden has to defend on a frequent basis?

I know that Joe Biden isn't the only candidate on the Democrat ticket and that there's plenty of time before the public (and delegates) determines who the Democratic nominee will be, but right now according to polling data, Joe Biden is the front-runner and continues to be. How long before a false narrative brings him down - a narrative the current sitting POTUS helped spearhead by seeking aid from a foreign government? That's the issue so many of those on the Right completely ignore. And yet "legally voting" is suppose to be so precious to the GOP with all your redistricting, redlining, allegations of voter fraud, etc., etc., etc. You're so willing to overlook an issue that as a constitutional right and value YOU claim to be so sacred that you'd overlook your party leaders' misdeed just to save face.