The House Has Impeached Donald Trump
Good for them. This is true:
Pres. Trump’s conduct—using the office of the presidency to seek the aid of a foreign power for personal and political gain—more precisely reflects the type of conduct the Framers of the Constitution sought to remedy through impeachment than that of any president impeached prior.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 16, 2019
Now onto the “trial” in the Senate, where the dialogue will go something like this:
SENATE REPUBLICANS AND JOE MANCHIN: The House Democrats were so irresponsible rushing this process. How can we possibly know what happened without hearing from people like Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton??
CHUCK SCHUMER: Well, Trump’s the one who prevented them from testifying, but I know what. Let’s call them to testify now.
SENATE REPUBLICANS AND JOE MANCHIN: No.
I’d like to hear from them, and someday we will know what they would have had to say. If it exonerates Donald Trump (lol), one will wonder why Trump didn’t want those folks subject to questioning. If it damns him, as I expect it will, the Senators who voted to squelch their testimony will go down in history as having been complicit in a partisan cover-up.
Ah well. As Bill Barr said when asked about the possible damage to his reputation resulting from his partisan actions on behalf of Trump: “Everyone dies.” In the meantime, grab as much power as you can and hold onto it for dear life. If doing so requires you to be a toady and a puppet to a maniac, and to surrender everything you hold dear in the process … well, hey. It’s better than being thrown out of office and being a nobody.
Right?
Wait pat… I thought this impeachment article is a slam dunk? It passed the House…
Why does the Senate need to conduct more witness investigation? They should conduct the trial on the Article’s merits.
Isn’t that how this supposed to work?
Or, put it another way, isn’t democrats asking for more testimony/documentation an indication that they don’t have a strong case?
whembly (51f28e) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:12 am”If it exonerates Donald Trump (lol), one will wonder why Trump didn’t want those folks subject to questioning.“
Whether it exonerates or damns him, one will wonder why Trump critics don’t want the electorate to decide.
Actually, no need to wonder. We’ve seen this act played out repeatedly.
When an outsider gets elected on an anti-elitist platform, the Pavlovian response is for the elites to quadruple down on elitism.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:12 amYou have allowed you hatred to consume you.
Edoc118 (617dc0) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:15 amDemurrer — that is the common law procedure whereby a criminal indictment or civil complaint can be dismissed on its face for being inadequate, even assuming, without deciding, that all that is alleged therein is factually true.
In my opinion, the Senate should simply dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on their face as a demurrer. Even assuming they are true, they fail to state a basis for removal of the President. They nowhere allege a High Crime or Misdemeanor. No need to hear any testimony or other evidence.
Whether they have the votes for that is another story.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:28 amWhether it exonerates or damns him, one will wonder why Trump critics don’t want the electorate to decide.
Is that the same “one” who wonders where the sun goes at night?
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:31 am5
I think the more this drags out like this, the more likely Cocaine Mitch would do just that.
whembly (51f28e) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:31 amIt is a demurrer when done by a judge.
When done by a jury, it is called “jury nullification”. In Chicago, it’s called “the fix is in”. And “Cocaine Mitch” has already said that the fix is in.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:36 amIt is a demurrer when done by a judge.
When done by a jury, it is called “jury nullification”.
The Senators are like a judge, not a jury. They decide both questions of law and questions of fact.
That exact issue came up in the Clinton impeachment, and that is what Rehnquist then said.
Now, more to the point, assuming that the Senate agrees with me, why should they conduct a trial when the charging document is insufficient on its face?
Suppose the House of Representatives impeached the President because he at times unzips his pants and shows how long his penis is in public. (Lyndon Johnson is supposed to have done this very thing when President. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.) The House takes extensive testimony on the subject, even reviews a couple of videos proving the deed, and then impeaches the president for Felonious Flashing Bring the Office of the Presidency into Disrepute.
Does the Senate really have to conduct a trial and hear all the evidence? Or can they just say, spare us, that is not a reason to remove the President?
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:44 am.
One wonders why Trump apologists seem to think it was illegitimate for the electorate to choose the representatives who voted to impeach.
One wonders why Trump apologists can’t acknowledge that the Framers gave impeachment powers to the legislator for a reason.
One wonders why the same people who were speaking about impeaching Hillary Clinton before she even took office keep complaining that the Dems were “trying to impeach Trump from Day One” — which they actually weren’t.
One wonders what Trump is hiding by preventing key players from testifying — and why Trump apologists pretend that he is doing so in the name of truth and justice.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:44 amOne wonders when we’ll take this clown show to Kavanaughville.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:54 amI’m wondering if you said the same thing about those who were criticizing Obama throughout his presidency. Or if you thought it was ridiculous when Dems kept fretting about “Clinton-haters” as though it should have been forbidden to criticize their president.
Or if you’ve ever seen “hatred” in the many nasty remarks that Trump makes about other people.
For Trumpsters, anything nasty that Trump says is always justified and is never really his fault — he’s merely “counterpunching” etc. At the same time, they maintain that criticism of Trump has no basis whatsoever in anything that Trump has done, but reflects only the “hatred” of the critic.
And the more horribly Trump behaves, the more chance the Trumpsters have to complain about the “hatred” against that poor innocent man.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:57 amThe easy question is: What is McConnell so afraid of, refusing to put the stonewalled witnesses under oath as well as refusing to get access to the stonewalled documents?
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:57 amAt some point, Bolton is going to spill all the beans, probably in a book that will come out in October. Better to get it all out next month than on election eve.
It’s always amusing to see someone speak of a “clown show” on the other side while they’re defending Donald Trump.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:01 amMerry Impeachmas!
Interesting that the IG Report barely qualified as a stocking stuffer.
harkin (15bd84) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:09 amThe first article is what it is, but the 2nd article is ludicrous as it claims that withholding material from Congress — something EVERY president has done — is now impeachable if the request is couched as necessary for an impeachment inquiry.
Congress has access to courts that could decide these issues, and either has not done so or is impatient for results, but instead it resorts to this meta charge, that withholding evidence it wants for an impeachment inquiry is itself impeachable, absent a final court ruling.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:17 amI suppose that if the Senate does not allow testimony from some of the people the House subpoenaed, then House will then impeach the Senate.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:18 amThey nowhere allege a High Crime or Misdemeanor. No need to hear any testimony or other evidence.
IN fact, if they believe that — that even if true, there is no impeachable action charged — they are duty-bound to dismiss for stating no claim.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:24 amWhat are you and Trump and the rest of his supporters so afraid of? Pull off the band-aid with one big tug. It will out, sooner or later.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:24 amIN fact, if they believe that — that even if true, there is no impeachable action charged — they are duty-bound to dismiss for stating no claim.
That is precisely what I am arguing for. At common law, it was called a demurrer. Today, this is governed by Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:32 amIs it fine for the president to have his personal attorney running a shadow foreign policy, claiming it isn’t really foreign policy but only for his client — while his client, the president, insists that it’s all in the national interest, since corruption in Ukraine (but nowhere else, and only involving a Biden, and only after a Biden declared himself a political rival) is such a deep concern of his?
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:41 amWTF is the moral or ethical basis for this passion against the truth coming out? seriously, I hate to be the guy who says ‘if you’re innocent you’ll tell us what you know’ but in this case, Trump is an employee of our society. Fighting this hard to shut down testimony is indeed very bad.
But we know Trump is a criminal. We’re all pretending we didn’t know this when he was ‘elected’ in the first place (with considerable help from Russia).
Why are the other Republicans helping him with these arguments against government employees and slimeballs like Giuliani testifying? Why are they fighting against things like his tax returns being opened up?
Do they just hate America? That’s my interpretation. Republican partisans are forced into positions, in defense of the Putin+Trump collusion, that amount to hostility to the USA. They are killing us from within, which is definitely the plan. Fighting on the GOP’s terms plays right into Putin’s hands. Americans need to unite against our common foe, against Trump and Russia.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:43 amWhen Trump, at a political rally, implies that a deceased legislator from the other party might be in hell — and part of his audience laughs and cheers (while some seemed to have the basic human decency to find it inappropriate) — who is being hateful? The people who criticize Trump for it?
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:46 amTrumpsters are saying that the House GOP showed “backbone” in sticking together to circle the wagons around Trump, in defiance of “the media.” And they’re crowing that some Dems voted against impeachment — failing to mention that those Dems are from Trump-favoring districts.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:52 amAt the same time, they insist that it’s only the Dems who are being “partisan.” (And Trump-critical Republicans are, of course, merely “scum” and “haters.”)
22
But claiming he’s a criminal, traitor, Russian asset or whatever anti-Trump flavor of the day is totes cool?
Sorry, you can continually be outraged by his behaviors, but my Care-o-Meter is broken on this. He’s not doing this in a vacuum. Trump nor his critics are interested in taking the high road… so, this is what we get.
Trump being an a**hole is already baked in at this point and he’s not going to lose support over that sort of thing. (I’d argue his handling of McCain’s death was more despicible, and if he didn’t lose support then, he’s not going to lose it in this case).
whembly (51f28e) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:52 am@20
That is the wrong question. There are lots of things that are not “fine” but are not a basis to remove the President. That is what you are confusing here.
The Editors of the National Review put it well:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/impeachment-cometh/
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:53 am23
Both parties are being partisan about this.
What does that tell you?
It should say that the Articles of Impeachment do not meet the old high standard that Trump’s conduct was so bad that there were bipartisan outrage.
It should also tell you that Democrats, trivializing this processes to such a degree that we shouldn’t be surprised when a GOP House impeaches a Democrat POTUS over the same normal political acts that previously didn’t meet that old-standard high bar.
whembly (51f28e) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:57 am“What are you and Trump and the rest of his supporters so afraid of?”
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:24 am
Not elections, at least.
Munroe (4ae3dd) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:57 amMemo to Nancy:
She who hesitates has lost.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:59 amIf the yellow pansy wan’t afraid of elections, he wouldn’t have been asking Ukraine to help him fix the one next November.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:03 amThe democrats are happy. Patterico is happy. The never trumpers are happy. Amash – now an independent is happy. What has been accomplished? nothing. So, the American public Yawns.
Will Pelosi give the impeachment articles to the Senate? Who knows. Its Nancy’s little secret.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:05 amShorter Pelosi: we’re afraid our completely partisan, rushed through without any real hearings, fake articles of impeachment will be treated in a partisan, rushed through without any real hearings. fake trial by the Senate.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:09 amThis just in: Pelosi threatens to hold her breath until the Senate does what she wants. Or her teeth fall out. Which ever comes first.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:10 amWell then, the Trump defenders should stop whining about Dem partisanship and just admit that their only principle is to defend Trump no matter what.
But they can’t rationalize away the lifelong Republicans who keep finding reason to criticize Trump and to support impeachment — so they resort to facile complaints about “hatred” or “derangement” or allege that people are just angry about having power taken away (as though we all had power to begin with).
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:25 amIt tells me that all the GOP pols and conservative pundits who in the past claimed to stand on principle must have been lying if they’re now taking the position that defending Trump is the one non-negotiable principle.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:28 am24. whembly (51f28e) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:52 am
That didn’t get too much attention, and the main thing about that was that he wasn’t invited to the funeral. This is because, in 2016, he said why is he a hero – he likes people who weren’t captured.
This morning, on WOR radio, AM 710 in New York, Mark Simone said that was an old joke – it was part of Chris Rock’s routine in 2008 and he stole it from Al Franken. Don’t know if this is so.
Mark Simone says the only (?) time Donald Trump gets in trouble is when he tells old jokes. He brought this up now because Debbie Dingell complained about something Donald Trump said at the rally in Michigan last night. He was telling how Debbie Dingell had called him when when her husband, former Congressman John Dingell Jr., died early this year in February, and asked him to put flags at half staff and he had agreed and she had said “he’s looking down at us” and then added sotto voce “or looking up.” That was an old borscht belt joke, Mark Simone said.
And Mark Simone had another example of Trump repeating what was an old joke.
Note: A Dingell has represented that Congressional district since 1932. First John Dingell Sr., (1894-1955) then his son, (1926-2019) in 1955, and now his second wife, Debbie (formerly Deborah Insley, born 1953) since her husband retired with the 2014 election. John Dingell Jr. was an old time Democrat or hada reputation as one – he used to re-introduce his father’s 1943 bill for national health insurance in every Congress.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:31 am34
Why couldn’t I have the viewpoint that I believe it is the Democrats who’s exercise bad faith here? I don’t see how anyone could say the Democrat’s impeachment efforts was exemplary.
Wait a minute, are you complaining that Trump supporters are loudly complaining in low brow manner AND at the same time demanding Republicans supporting Trump to “just admit that their only principle is to defend Trump no matter what.”
O.o
whembly (51f28e) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:33 amThe fact that some voters decided to throw away all kinds of principles for the sake of Trump doesn’t take away my right to say it’s appalling to have a president who is so bereft of human decency.
Trump apologists can keep intoning “We knew we were voting for a flawed man,” but it doesn’t mean that everyone else should just shut up about his flaws.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:39 amI have to wonder why some Trump defenders will say “we know he’s a jerk, so what?” — but then they’re sorely offended when other people speak of what Trump has done wrong, and they complain about all the “hatred” for the poor victim in the Oval Office.
Radegunda (671151) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:45 am33. rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:10 am
No, that was yesterday. And she’s going to ensure that nothing goes forward by not appointing any House managers for the impeachment.
She’s betting that at least four Republican Senators won’t want to keep this thing hanging over the Senate for an entire year – or even into 2021 < if Trump gets re-elected. It’s like the Equal Rights Amendment. It doesn’t expire. (the Clinton impeachment established the precedent that, unlike the way it is with legislation, a president can be impeached by a House of Representatives elected in one year, and tried by a Senate that’s not considered the identical Congress.)
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:50 amWTF is the moral or ethical basis for this passion against the truth coming out?
WTF is the moral, ethical or legal basis for refusing to take the matter to the courts? Congress did just that wrt the Watergate Tapes, and having won 9-0 at the SC, received their subpoenaed tapes forthwith.
Charge number 2 is the moral equivalent of “We want what we want, and we want it NOWWWWW!”
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:56 amSeriously, Dustin, do you argue that any time that Congress wants something from the Executive they can threaten impeachment if it is withheld? Name a president in your lifetime that did not assert privilege on some matter.
The privilege of a president to have confidential advice is well-established, and the veil should only be pierced with a ruling from a court, after all appeals. If the matter is urgent, the courts will respond quickly.
Impeachment article 2 is no more than a Congressional power-grab to preempt all future claims of executive privilege.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:03 am“Trump being an a**hole is already baked in at this point and he’s not going to lose support over that sort of thing.”
It’s baked in for his base. But he can’t win the election with just his base. 2018 showed that there was at least some buyers remorse, but it’s still an open question whether that’ll carry through to 2020.
Everyone who posts here is very invested in their choices. But the election won’t be decided by folks like us.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:05 amThe basic complaint of Trump’s hard-core opponents is that he won the election despite being the malodorous ogre that he is. They also complain that he is attacking the very structure and institutions of modern American government.
But they ignore that the people who voted for him knew the former and DEMANDED the latter.
Now maybe Trump’s actions in the Ukraine are so far beyond the pale that any President would be impeached for them, but I strongly doubt it. It is more a crime of convenience than a crime in fact.
If he’s such a terrible person, vote for someone else. The Founder’s settled on a short term for the Executive (many wanted 6 or 8 years, or even for life) when they realized that impeachment or assassination were the only alternatives with a criminal president, and they realized that neither of them were all that credible a cure.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:12 am*Founders
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:13 am2018 showed that there was at least some buyers remorse, but it’s still an open question whether that’ll carry through to 2020.
Particularly when the Democrats, winning the House on the basis of domestic policy promises, subordinated all of that to wild schemes and impeachment. Those Orange County freshmen are going to have a tough time running on impeachment and the New Green Deal.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:19 amTrump is despicable in many ways.
David Longfellow (44fae2) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:24 amThe problem is that the Democrats are worse.
I wonder if the same Senate Rules that were adopted unanimously in 1999 for Clinton’s impeachment would serve now. After all, they let all the players testify at the trial then, right? (Hint: they did not).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Testimony
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:29 amIf there had been a search for the “truth” in 1999, and executive privilege was expected to be waived, then some Secret Service agents would have had plenty to say.
Don’t mistake impeachment ofr a “search for truth” — it’s a political sausage factory and there’s just no telling what might go into the product.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:32 am“winning the House on the basis of domestic policy promises,”
No, they won because Trump was unpopular.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:40 amWait a minute. Again?
Last week, we learned about a couple of “Chinese Embassy officials” (read, spies) trespassing a Spec Ops base in VA.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:45 amOne of the perks living on Cape Cod in the winter is the low probability of being hit by a drunk Kennedy.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/19/2019 @ 12:45 pmFlorida the odds go up.
Spinning Executive Privilege as an illegal obstruction is a non starter. Executive privilege is obstructive in design and precedent.
Its been argued that the Democrats obstructed the proceedings by not allowing exculpatory testimony and witnesses to speak publically. The People were obstructed by Congress.
The “investigate the Bidens” part of the call has been spun as simply the President doing due diligence before releasing money to a corrupt foreign government. That would be a stretch too far for me if the Biden’s didn’t seem to be lying about it. So its a wash. Bidens are lying and to Trumps people its a convenient excuse.
Oh. Amash is still a douche. He reminds me of that Evan McMullin deadbeat, or maybe Amash hits me as a cheap Chinese Mitt clone. I know… Amash’s tweets remind me of Comey.
steveg (354706) — 12/19/2019 @ 1:29 pmTulsi had it right sensor it did not reach the level of impeachment. Now what democrats? AOC will now be after nancy. Merry impeachmus!
asset (36ad70) — 12/19/2019 @ 1:38 pmI doubt she’s playing 3-D chess. In any case, McConnell can hold a trial and dismiss the impeachment charges WITHOUT the House doing anything. The Senate has SOLE POWER over impeachment trials. Tomorrow, McConnell could hold a vote and say, any articles of impeachment not provided to the Senate by Friday, will be considered null and void.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:13 pmAs for the four R’s helping the Democrats. I don’t doubt that Lisa Murky from Alaska and MIttens would stab trump and every Republican in the back for two cents. BUT, Mittens is a freshman Senator, and he needs the R leadership support or he’s going to have a long 5 years. AND Collins wants the R’s help to get re-elected in 2020. That’s also by the way, that pompous fraud Sasse has shut his yap. He’s up for re-election and has melted into the background.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:16 pm#56
Actually, it seems more nuanced than that…the House portion of the impeachment effort is finished. Right? Trump is impeached.
The constitution does not outline rules, managers, and delivery methods. Once the House votes to impeach, they are finished.
Then the Senate has full control now. The Senate, and only the Senate, has sole prerogative as to how they conduct the trial.
The Senate can begin their trial phase at any time and call for presentation of articles by the House. If no-one shows up, well then case is dismissed.
Right?
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:19 pmTrump is the first president being impeached because he was elected.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:21 pm59. He won’t be the last.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:24 pm60
House Democrats has ensured that precedent sadly.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:25 pmLets say Pence is impeached and Trump has already been convicted and celled in Guantanamo, then Pence is convicted and Pelosi is president. How can President Pelosi be impeached if the elections are delayed?
mg (8cbc69) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:29 pmand Trump has already been convicted and celled in Guantanamo
mg, you big tease, you!
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:06 pm> Why couldn’t I have the viewpoint that I believe it is the Democrats who’s exercise bad faith here?
You can, but if you do, you’ve been taken in by a hoax. The Democrats used the same procedural rules for the impeachment inquiry that were set out in the House rules when the Republicans ran the House — they didn’t change the rules.
The Republicans have literally been attacking the Democrats for unfair bad faith behavior *because the Democrats followed the rules the Republicans set up when they were in control*. It’s shockingly cynical, but it’s been effective rhetorical persuasion.
aphrael (971fba) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:11 pm58. whembly (fd57f6) — 12/19/2019 @ 2:19 pm
I’m not sure.
Maybe not if Nancy Pelosi doesn’t appoint any impeachment managers.
She could hold this like a Sword of Damocles over the Senate for a whole year – and even into 2021 if Trump is re-elected (and there might be a Democratic majority in the Senate.
The Clinton impeachment of 1998/9 established the precedent that, unlike what is the case with legislation the House that impeaches and the Senate that tries an impeachment don’t have to be part of the same Congress. It does not expire with the terms of the members of the House that impeached.
(The Senate considers itself a continuing body when it suits itself)
It would be sort of like the Equal Rights Amendment.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:13 pmLady Lindsey’s newest phrase: ‘Constitutional Outrage.’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:15 pmHere’s another reason Trump should be removed: He took the word of Putin, a hostile foreign dictator of a hostile foreign government, over the word of Americans in the American intelligence community. Quote:
“Putin told me.” Trump is not only a sh*tstain on American politics, he has repeatedly showed us that he is unpatriotic and un-American, taking the word of human bile like Putin over Americans serving their country. Trump is unfit if he can’t figure out that he’s been chumped by Kremlin disinformation and propaganda, and sycophants like Giuliani and John Solomon and Hannity have only made it worse, and then we have idiots in the Senate like John Kennedy and Ted Cruz parroting this Russian propaganda that Ukraine had something to do with the 2016 election. Good grief.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:18 pmThis only raises further questions, such as: (1) Are there transcripts of Trump-Putin conversations that are also squirreled away in an NSA code-level server, (2) Were there any other Americans, such as translators, who were involved in face-to-face conversations between Trump and Putin. I think Pelosi should declare that, even though Trump is impeached, the House inquiry is not over, and this Russian business is of a piece.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
Article 1, Section 9 Clause 2:
The people in Guaantanamo are enemy combatants captured in war.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:20 pmEvery day that Ms. Pelosi, the San Fran Nan, sits on the impeachment, without putting up or shutting up by sending it to the Senate for trial, the impeachment becomes more and more worthless, and less and less effective, as a political and public relations tool. If I have this gut feeling, so will a lot of other people, especially the ones in the middle.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:26 pm67. Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:18 pm
Probably, and certainly telephone conversations. One-on-one may be less verbatim. After Trump released the transcript with Zelensky, Putin wanted assurance from Trump that transcripts of cpnverstations with him not be released.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/30/trump-putin-conversations-transcripts-russian-permission
Question 2:
Yes, of course.
Well, I think Adam Schiff has indicated as much.
I think they’re scheduled to be ma available if someone submits a FOIA request in 2044 or later, if no one objects.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:30 pmSuppose Barr arrested Nancy Pelosi on the grounds that she used her office for political gain when she led the impeachment of Trump? Or, on the grounds that she refused to cooperate with the President. Patterico is a lawyer; he would be the first to point out that these are not even crimes. They’re certainly not “high crimes”.
David in Cal (f8ea8c) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:35 pmHere is the first major evangelical break from Trump. Christianity Today, which is part of the Billy Graham ministry:
Kudos for their intellectual consistency, for applying the same standards to Trump as they did Clinton.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:47 pm69. nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:26 pm
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
Or as the chess saying, goes:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/quota-threat-is-stronger-than-the-execution
I brought this up yesterday. Turns out the House leadership wasn’t dumb. They were just lying. Or misleading. They are keeping the leverage, except that the leverage is not in the hands of the members of the House of Representatives at large but i the leadership surrounding the Speaker.
Meanwhile there is also the possibility of passing a superceding impeachment in the spring or later.
Or maybe she wants to go ahead, and is hoping she can break away half a doze Republicans who will not want this hanging over them all year.
She got Trump to back down over the government shutdown by cancelling the State of the Union message until it was over.
Why not with this?
Extortion says Senator Lindsay Graham.
That’s not an argument it won’t work.
(He also told reporters (this was after leaving the White House) that what Trump said about the late Congressman Dingell was a bad joke.)
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:49 pmnk:
Well, the Democrats are going to look very cynical. As a PR tool, the differeence between letting the Senate kill it and leaving it in suspended animation is probably minimal.
I think Nancy Pelosi may also trying to prevent Donald Trump from attacking Joe Biden (although some people think she’s not for him)
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:52 pmNot right. Unless McConnell changes the rules, which I think can be done with a majority vote, the Senate can’t begin a trial unless initiated by the House. Rule I:
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:54 pmIn 1998, the Articles of Impeachment were delivered to the Senate within 2 hours. Of course the House was finishing its term then, but even if it has be gotten out of the House during the same Congress that passed it, she’s got all year to do it.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:56 pmOk, Sammy, but I’ll tell you, if the Articles are not in the Senate by Monday, I am going to start calling it the #FakeImpeachment.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:58 pmWhether Trump can be impeached is a different issue than whether he should be impeached. Any President can be impeached but that doesn’t mean he should be.
Thus, ultimate issue is whether a President’s conduct or judgment rises to the level of misconduct so that it should result in impeachment. IMO that is a matter of opinion which can be based on principles, reason, emotion, religion, politics, personal beliefs, or even self-dealing/financial issues. In other words, the same factors that lead voters to vote for and elect a President can also lead them to support or oppose his impeachment. Elections tell us what voters think at a specific point in time, but they have nothing to do with whether impeachment should happen later.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:59 pm75. So that’s where appointing managers comes in.
Look, in New York State a Governor has the usual ten days to sign a bill – but the klegislature can wait and gove him more time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/nyregion/ny-state-senate-assembly.html
New York State is the leader in getting around state constitutional provisions.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:59 pm77 nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 3:58 pm
That’s fine.
I don’t think there any reasonable possibility it’ll be resolved by then.
The Senate hadn;’t planned to take it up anyway until January 6.
McConnell said before all of this that he wouldn’t bring up the USMCA for a vote bfre the impeachment trial is over
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:03 pmAmash is so insignificant he doesn’t even qualify as bipartisan for Pelosi.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:04 pmHuh? Trump is impeached. Its the Senate’s show now. They can finish it tomorrow if they want. They don’t have to even hold a trial. They have SOLE POWER. Nobody has ever “played games” with the Impeachment and if Nancy wants to start playing them, Mitch can end the game tomorrow.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:06 pmIf nothing else, I’ll make mg happy. Right, mg? If I start calling it the #FakeImpeachment?
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:08 pmBTW, I wonder where Bush-II is. Isn’t he concerned about the future of the Presidency? Remember when Blockhead Jerry Ford tried to stop the impeachment in 1998, because he was SO CONCERNED about the effect on the Government and the “stain on the Presidency”?
But i forgot. George bush only criticizes Republicans and Trump. Never mind.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:08 pmPelosi gives me a clown Impeachment and Mitch will give it a clown trial.
Sounds fair to me.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:09 pmThe so-called “Impeachment Rules” only exist when 51 Senators decide to abide by them. The Senate has sole power to try impeachment, and can issue “new rules” anytime it wishes. The House has taken a vote and impeached Trump. It is now up to the Senate to try him or dismiss out of hand.
Its a clown impeachment, and should be dismissed out of hand. That Pelosi is playing games with the “Sending it to the Senate” just shows that its a croc of crap.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:13 pmI’ll never forget the murder case where the defendant got convicted because he was granted bail. The prosecution’s case was very thin, with weak eyewitness identification. Well, the moron is out on bail, and forgets that there’s a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, so he brags about the killing, describing it in detail, to not one but two girlfriends. Welcome to Stateville!
That’s maybe what Ms. Pelosi, the San Fran Nan, is hoping for, and the Trump gerbils should fear whether she hopes it or not. That the orange will do something that will sway Trumpablicans to vote for his conviction while he’s “out on bail”.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:17 pmYes, I think the Senate can take judicial notice of House proceedings. Nobody needs to tell it there’s an impeachment, and it can proceed on its own motion or the Trump defense team’s motion.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:22 pm#65
Well… Noah Feldman, who was one of the Democrat’s House witness in support of impeachment said this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
He makes a compelling argument…
whembly (c30c83) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:42 pmNow I think it is actually pretty clear what didn’t happen: Trump trying to get Ukraine to announce sham investigations and using official acts as leverage for that
The problem is it isn’t at all clear what did i.e. why was the aid withheld, and my guess it had something to do with personnel in the Ukrainian government.
Trump actually mentioned this in the July 25, 2019 call.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:44 pm@ Paul Montague:
I appreciate you posting this from CT. I’m going to push back on it a bit. Why is it that it took impeachment hearings for CT to see what has been glaringly obvious since Trump took office? His immorality and gross lack of character are nothing new. His willingness to use people and exploit them, lie and cheat to further the Trump Brand and film his pockets is nothing new either. I think Christians were too busy rationalizing his corrupt behavior to make themselves feel good about their vote. I think there has been a lot of self-deception and a willingness to surrender common sense and integrity. I knew about three years ago what he was made of, as did any number of other voters. His moral deficiencies have been a glaring constant during his tenure, IOW, none of this is new. CT dropped the ball.
Dana (643cd6) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:47 pmErm, the House is out of session until Jan 7th (or 6th) now. Might want to recalibrate that. 😉 (say Jan 13th).
whembly (c30c83) — 12/19/2019 @ 4:48 pmJust a reminder; The Democratic debate begins right now. It’s on NOR and Bloomberg radio but I don’t know what television channels this will be on.
It will be interesting to see what if anything they have to say about it.
The first question is why they think more Americans are not in favor of this.
The question (and the answers) still assumes there will be a trial.
Joe Biden is asked first, then it goes to Bernie Sanders and then Elizabeth Warren.
And then Amy Klobuchar.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:07 pmOr you can watch :Yond Sheldon” on CBS.
I guess some of our former compatriots are watching the Democrat debate to see who they’ll vote for.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:08 pmSo here is what I, person who doesn’t care about your partisan nonsense because yes of course it’s partisan, care about. There are indisputable facts.
1. Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian company.
2. Joe Biden is running for President.
3. Congress voted to give the Urkaine funds.
4. Trump chose to with-hold those funds for unstate reasons.
5. Trump requested that the President of Ukraine have Hunter Biden investigated as a favor after Joe Biden was running for President.
6. At no time earlier in his administration did Trump request to have Hunter Biden or any other American sitting on the board of a Ukrainian company investigated.
7. At no time did Trump go through the proper channels to request the investigation.
8. A whistleblower complaint was issued in August.
9. The funds were released directly before congress subpeona’d the whistleblower complaint.
Everything else is just obfuscation.
I can pattern those facts. Everyone can pattern those facts and if they say they can’t it’s just more partisan nonsense or they have a learning disability (being unable to infer something from a fact pattern is a sign of a learning disability). What I would say is the most significant fact pattern says that Trump used presidential power to withhold funds from Ukraine to get Ukraine to aid him against his political rival and then released them when he was discovered. Maybe you’d twist yourself into another fact-pattern. Whatever. The facts themselves are indisputable.
Now maybe you have an opinion on that. Really everyone should have an opinion on that. And maybe you think it’s OK for your guy to do what Trump did. Is it OK for the others guy to do that? Whatever. But the facts are indisputable.
And you don’t need to listen to any of the partisan bickering to make a decision for yourself. All you need to do is look at the facts and decide. Of course, you too may make a partisan decision, but if you do, shut up about anyone else’ partisan decision. You are just as bad as they are.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:09 pm@91. They’re just another bunch of users; a political action group hiding behind a Bible. If Dingle is lookin up from Hell, he’s stand on the shoulders of disingenuous evangelicals.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:10 pmOh, and if we are looking at what might advantage the Dems? Obviously removal from office would be best for them. But second best? Republicans refusing to treat the matter with any solemnity. And the Rs are handing them that on a silver platter.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:11 pmThe House is out of session, but the Speaker can act, and I read that McConnell had planned to start the week of Jan 5.
Amy Klobuchar – Donald Trump asked a foreign leadere to look for that. Why doesn’t Trump want witnesses. Nixon did.
Yang gives a good answer: People are getting their news from different sources.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:13 pmTrump wins the day with bad joke bigfooting impeachment chatter wake; Pelosi balks.
Again, Nancy: she who hesitates has lost.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:14 pmNic–
Two questions:
Is that, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to remove a President from office — an clumsy attempt to
colludeconspire with a foreign leader to affect domestic politics?Is the clumsiness the worst part?
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:16 pm97. Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:11 pm
Then Republicans would have a different candidates. Yes, Trump voters would be angry, and maybe fewer show up to vote, but not if public opinion is such so that a 2/3 majority of the Senate votes to remove.
Ut will depend on how each side argues its case.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:17 pmBTW: 4 more judges confirmed today.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:22 pmThe house has voted in the affirmative on articles of impeachment. I wouldn’t consider this a true impeachment until (unless?) those articles are sent for consideration by the senate. And the house does not need to be in session, to my understanding, to send the articles along to the senate. They only need to be in session to hold parliamentary votes, and that ship sailed.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:25 pmBut second best? Republicans refusing to treat the matter with any solemnity.
The Democrats tried to dismiss the Clinton impeachment (motion by Robert Byrd) as the first order of business in the Clinton’s trial. It failed 43 – 57. It would have taken a 2/3rds vote to pass.
I think the Democrats would be well advised to accept the 1999 rules.
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/25/transcripts/dismiss.html
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:28 pmVery very true. Partisans will treat this truth like toxic poison because they know this is why the democrats impeached Trump.
In a few years, the GOP was going to lie to the American people and say Trump was an anomaly. But he’s the entire, uniform GOP. They are all the same unless they show us, with votes, that they want the USA to be a free and fair lawful society. They have all the power to decide both this matter and their own legacy.
Do this right or do this wrong. Either way, conservatives get the information we need when we vote.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:32 pmThe “Speech or Debate” clause of the Constitution explicitly grants members of Congress immunity for anything they say or do on the floor of the chamber, so if Barr arrests Pelosi as you describe, Barr can and should be impeached too.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:35 pmMemo to Debatin’ Amy: The reason the Constitution refers to ‘making a more perfect union’ has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Surprise, dear, the Founding Fathers didn’t quite get it right the first go around– they were human– not gods.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:55 pmDustin,
Trump himself (his personality and his behavior) are indeed an anomaly that I hope will not be repeated. But the voters knew about them when they went to the polls. It took me some time to get my head around that, but it can’t be denied.
Why would they do that? Do the voters hate the country? Did they all get together and say, suppose we had a baboon in the WH, wouldn’t that be funny? I don’t think so.
What they were was utterly fed up with both parties, the status quo, and a system that only seemed to serve the upper middle class.
Stocks up! Yay! Jobs down, but that means stocks up some more! Yay! Savings rates down! Yay! US job creation down, boo, but my China-based stocks up! Yay!
One party brought in cheap labor to compete with the American tradesman, the other one shipped union jobs off to China. Their answer to jobless Americans? Government programs and benefits.
I would hope that after Trump has gone, the system does not recover. I would hope that a new system, that actually treated American citizens as worthy of notice would take its place. You might call that “Trumpism” but I hope it rises above that.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:03 pmFair question, Dana. I don’t know your age (and it’s probably not appropriate to ask), but I well remember Clinton’s rampant sleaziness his first five years in office (it seemed like there a new slick or slimy revelation every week from Bill or Hillary or one of his scuzzy operatives), yet CT didn’t pull the trigger on Clinton until two months before he was impeached; however, they didn’t call for his impeachment, let alone his removal. I think their subhead partly explains it:
Their tipping point was Clinton’s August 17th statement, which showed him unrepentant and unapologetic. Yeah, they called it, but they didn’t go far enough with Clinton, and look where we are.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:06 pmMaybe now that they’ve seen three years of Trump’s even worse character, they felt they had to make a more serious declaration. The regretful part is the silence of the other major evangelical organizations. It’s time for them to step up, and I hope they do.
@100 My personal opinion is that the way in which this went down is extortion for personal gain using the power of the office and an attempt to use extortion against a foreign government to harm another US citizen for personal political purposes and so is sufficient for removal from office. And, no, it isn’t the clumsiness that is the worst thing. The clumsiness just makes it easier for us to see.
@101 It will indeed depend on how they argue, but at the moment it looks like the Rs are not taking things seriously.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:07 pmPersonal gain? Were they sending Trump a check? Or are you just trying to spin my “affect domestic elections” into “personal gain” as if when Obama made promises but asked the Russians to keep it quiet until after the election, it was just for noble reasons.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:18 pmI know that Feldman is Harvard Law, but he doesn’t make sense to me. Impeachment is akin to indictment, and an indicted criminal doesn’t lose his indicted status between the date of indictment and date of trial. I think the “sole power” language has relevance. The House has the “sole power of impeachment” and the Senate has “the sole power to try all impeachments”. I think it can be inferred that the Senate has the power to try or not try the cases that come to them, hence McConnell’s threat to dismiss. If the Senate refuses to take it to trial, doesn’t mean that the fella was not or never impeached. It’s right there in the record.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:18 pmBTW, I’m more upset about the clumsiness, since it was that if Trump were to do something useful, he’d screw that pooch, too. Then again I am not so naive to expect that Trump is unusually sleazy for a President. Just so clumsy it’s more obvious. Clinton was MUCH more subtle when he threatened witnesses.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:21 pm112
Andrew McCarthy sorta makes the same arguments, see how he breaks it down:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-if-impeachment-articles-are-not-delivered-did-impeachment-happen/
Its looney, yeah…Imma going with that he’s impeached. Makes my head hurt less… lol.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:27 pmGlory is not what you get covered with when dealing with Trump. Neither side will come out smelling good. It’s fine with me. In fact, I think it’s great. Let the poison leech out! The poison! Let it leech out!
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:31 pmBest Impeachment Headline, from the Queens Daily Eagle: Queens Man Impeached.
The title and first paragraph just struck me as funny, and I’m not exactly sure why. The final two paragraphs, too.
Even at his parents’ final resting places, there is the smell of scandal and corruption. God love local “small town” papers.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:33 pm@96 I didn’t get a chance to read through the Christian leaders post from a few days past but surely someone pointed out the obvious oxymoron. I can’t think of a single one of these guys holding themselves out as leaders or spokesmen for Christians who I would follow into a McDonald’s bathroom.
The true beauty of the era of Trump is that now this is so obvious. The pattern is basically the same every time. CT is two or three months away from an article about how the price of [some bedrock principle] just isn’t worth it because Trump is now for it.
I am surprised though and am still enjoying a good laugh. I was expecting the obligatory “real Christians know this would be what Jesus would do” subtext with a Biblical reference since this is supposed to be targeted to evangelicals. Instead, we get “Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith” as the introductory paragraph. Which in this case really translates to Mark Galli is going to tell you what Billy Graham would do.
Oh, this made my day so much better.
I keep hoping the communists didn’t fully kill the Orthodox and we see more life there. The western branch is looking pretty rotten.
frosty (f27e97) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:35 pmI kind of remember “Aberdeenshire Businessman Elected President Of The United States”. Aberdeenshire is some place in Scotland where he has a golf course or something, I guess.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:36 pm@21
If “because Trump” you’re going to take a position you wouldn’t normally take this might be a sign that you should pause and reflect. Or don’t. Feel free to be outraged at how Trumpsters have abandoned their principles or something.
frosty (f27e97) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:48 pmThe US Code refers to cash or “other thing of value”. It doesn’t seem arguable that undermining a chief political rival had value to Trump’s campaign, else why try it?
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:52 pm@111 Yes, help with the election is personal gain. However, by itself it wouldn’t be a problem. Trump could have hired Fusion to investigate Hunter Biden and it would be fine.
And being offended at the Obama thing is nonsense. We all know it’s nonsense. Presidents are always able to be more flexible outside of election years. I really disliked Obama’s policies re Russia, but it’s still nonsense.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 6:56 pm“4. Trump chose to with-hold those funds for unstate reasons.”
As is his right, and as is the general practice of all Presidents in conducting foreign policy with difficult nations prior to him.
“5. Trump requested that the President of Ukraine have Hunter Biden investigated as a favor after Joe Biden was running for President.”
Joe Biden was always considered a prime candidate, but as it turns out, confirming your desire to run tends to focus opposition research. As does having a new Ukrainian President publicly interested in cleaning house. Zelensky’s cooperation was, in fact, a favor to the U.S. public in a general sense.
“6. At no time earlier in his administration did Trump request to have Hunter Biden or any other American sitting on the board of a Ukrainian company investigated.”
Irrelevant. At no time earlier in his Administration did Ukraine have a new President interested in re-negotiating relations with the US in general and the Trump admin in particular. The State Department of the prior administration in particular was run by a notoriously amoral money-grubbing cheat who thankfully lost the election, so the reckoning was long overdue.
“7. At no time did Trump go through the proper channels to request the investigation.”
See above. State Department personnel are hardly paragons of above-board dealings, being generally the most squirrelly and most secretive of public employees next to the ‘intelligence community’, ever invoking confidentiality and diplomatic immunity when the accounts come due. It’s gotten particularly bad since the whole ‘war on terrorism’ when they started subsuming functions normally performed by actual soldiers and spies. (SEE ALSO: Benghazi)
“8. A whistleblower complaint was issued in August.”
Yes, Ciaramella was the intel cutout for it, Vindman was the Totally Not Conflicted of Interest actual source. He hilariously crashed and burned in his public testimony and his fellow soldiers spoke derisively of his history whenever given the chance. His motivations are highly suspect and his conduct hardly becomes a US military officer.
“9. The funds were released directly before congress subpeona’d the whistleblower complaint.”
Congress’s thirst for Obstruction of the Executive does tend to ruin any chance of more sensitive, delicate, or otherwise useful disbursement of the funds you get, yes.
“Everything else is just obfuscation.”
ALL OF THE CONVENIENT COUNTERVAILING FACTS I OMMITTED ARE JUST OBFUSCATION AND YOU’RE A MEANIE FOR BRINGING IT UP!!!
Rudolph Jewell (3e1b28) — 12/19/2019 @ 7:10 pm@122. In school we teach small children the difference between fact and opinion. It is a difficulty for them because they often do not understand that their opinion is not a fact. Were you absent the weeks they were supposed to teach you the difference between fact and opinion?
Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 7:26 pmhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/19/donald-trump-impeached-thanks-house-democrats-2018-voters-column/2685814001/
Okay,
which one of you submitted this?
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:21 pm116, way to go, Frank and Estelle Costanza- now someone’s gonna go egg the crypts or tombstones.
urbanleftbehind (2cad7d) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:39 pm123: Well, you did seem to deliberately miss the most pertinent fact of ‘when was the Ukrainian Prime Minister elected and thus motivated to re-negotiate US/Ukraine relations’ in your mad quest to paint the events as a PRE-PLANNED CORRUPT TREASONOUS ELECTION OP rather than simply taking out the trash once a new garbage man gets appointed.
As it turns out when you support corrupt anti-Trump forces you end up supporting corrupt people like Hunter Biden who commit crimes on a daily basis! If Joe didn’t want his son getting investigated, his son shouldn’t have done all those crimes!
Rudolph Jewell (a7aaa7) — 12/19/2019 @ 9:49 pmI’m still waiting on the evidence that (1) Hunter Biden committed crimes and (2) that his dad had a prosecutor fired to stop an investigation of Hunter Biden. Go ahead, prove it. Remember, opinions ≠ facts.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:19 pmOpinions are what this impeachment farce is based on. So what do you say Bird dog?
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:38 pmWell, that is your opinion. Care to prove that (1) Hunter Biden committed crimes and (2) that his dad had a prosecutor fired to stop an investigation of Hunter Biden. Go ahead, douchebag, prove it. This is me, not holding my breath.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:47 pm@126 Again, lots of questions and opinions, no facts. Let me help.
1. Zelensky was elected in April.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:50 pm2. Trump congratulated him on April 21.
3. The next time they spoke, it was July 25th, 4 months later.
4. Trump asked for no US citizens to be investigated other than Hunter Biden.
5. Trump did not go through regular channels to request the investigation.
6. Regular channels were run by people appointed by Trump.
“Obama made promises but asked the Russians to keep it quiet until after the election”
I think you’re exaggerating what happened, but assume this is true, should Obama have been impeached for it?
If so, then the Republican House failing to act doesn’t give Trump a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/19/2019 @ 11:17 pmThe view from Mar-a-Lackwit:
Read? Did you say “read”? Ha, ha, ha ….
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2019 @ 5:37 amSee, that’s why there won’t be a demurrer. A demurrer assumes all properly pleaded facts as true, and asserts that they fail to state a cause of action as a matter of law. The orange dindu’s defense is that he dindunuffin wrong. “It’s a perfect transcript of a routine phone call.”
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2019 @ 5:41 am@129 The last guy that tried that got into a lot of trouble. Maybe we should go with the argument that if Biden didn’t have something to hide why isn’t he calling for an investigation and testifying under oath, etc? Why wasn’t he called to testify during the impeachment investigation?
It’s going to be tough finding evidence if partisan players keep shutting down any attempts to find evidence.
frosty (f27e97) — 12/20/2019 @ 6:24 amAnd today’s stupid question, brought to us by Wile E. Pelosi, super genius, is “Is Trump really impeached?” Now, on its face, of course he’s impeached. But, because Madame Speaker believes that she can delay the trial in the Senate through legislative hocus pocus, that’s a real question. The logic is this — if Trump is impeached, the Senate must take up the impeachment. So, if she has acted in a way that prevents the trial, does that mean Trump is not really impeached?
I guess it is all semantics — but it is semantics with a real meaning to a lot of people. I guess the Speaker thinks she can use the President’s impatience to compel something out of McConnell. It seems stupid to me to concoct a scheme that relies on the stupidity and recklessness of your opponent. A guy like Trump who can get to be President while carting around baggage that could fill up all the empty rooms at the Doral resort isn’t an idiot.
And really, in what reality does Schumer gets a trial with Bolton and the other witnesses? If he gets it, is he willing to have the whistleblower, old man Biden and Hunter Biden testifying? Because that’s the only way Schumer gets his wish.
Much of the time in this world, doing what’s right is just EASIER. Just send the impeachment along, and get on with it. The Senate GOP will do what its going to do. It’s reasonable to assume that they will pay the price for being in Trump’s hip pocket, either through a diminished reputation or a lost reelection. It’s not reasonable to assume anything associated with this Ukraine business is going to change their mind. Not now.
Appalled (1a17de) — 12/20/2019 @ 7:42 amNic (896fdf) — 12/19/2019 @ 10:50 pm
Trump mentioned both Joe and Hunter Biden and asked for a particular allegation against Joe Biden to be looked into (not a request for dirt, not witch hunt, not a fishing expedition)
To wit: That Joe Biden had caused a Ukraianian prosecutor to be dismissed, with the goal of stopping some sort of prosecution. (acting alone? In a speech Joe Biden made it sound somewhat like that and Viktor Shokin also claimed that Petro Poresehnko had told him Biden was the reason.)
And Trump further added that Biden had boasted about doing this in a recorded speech.
And some of them didn’t want him too do or ask for, stupid or bizarre things. So they kept him away from close contact with foreign leaders. Bolton had not wanted Trump to place that July 25, call.
Sammy Finkelman (329d95) — 12/20/2019 @ 8:38 amShe’s not someone I agree with on politics, but how was her action stupid? It’s infuriated all the Ace of Spades, Stormfront, David Duke, Gateway Pundit trolls on the internet, but that doesn’t mean it was stupid. Not only is Trump a disgrace, one of only three impeached presidents in history, but he’s clearly the worst one. He’s freaking out on twitter. His critics are laughing throughout the Christmas break, finally getting a win against such a corrupt and rigged system that has obstructed justice at every turn.
The cartoonish villain here is the GOP Senate, with Lindsey Graham flip flopping on everything related to impeachment process and McConnell actually bragging about how corrupt and rigged he’ll make things. They all wanted to roll their eyes and dismiss this thing before the holidays so Trump’s fans could laugh and laugh that Trump was ‘exonerated’. But they can’t. They gave Pelosi ample basis to say ‘hold up, let’s negotiate a fair process after you guys said it wouldn’t be fair’.
To GOP partisans, yes, of course Pelosi is automatically wrong. But to most Americans she is right. You guys are failing so hard that you made Pelosi the good guy. Levin’s 3 octave high whine can fantasize on corrupt impeachments forever (while somehow also saying that impeachments are wrong when the other side does it). You guys can post some lies on facebook. Putin can buy some bots. But for the next month or so, Trump languishes as we talk and talk and talk about what, exactly a fair process would be.
And those 20 GOP Senators needed to restore the GOP… I guess y’all will very likely win with them, but you don’t know for sure…
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/20/2019 @ 9:34 amSome more from Mar a Lackwit:
The comments are priceless.
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2019 @ 10:30 amGryph,
I don’t see the politics playing out the way you do. Mitch will have as minimalist a trial as possible and all the gop senators have signed on for that. Trump may want some weird exoneration ceremony, but I think he can be talked into never having a trial in the Senate. It makes for great twitter fodder. And the later this goes, the more political all this maneuvering looks.
The hard politics of this is that the House can’t dictate how the Senate handles a matter. Pretending otherwise will end up with either no senate trial, or Pelosi losing. And the side show will not be about unfair GOP process, but what is Pelosi playing at? Bad optics.
Appalled (1a17de) — 12/20/2019 @ 11:13 am138. Yes indeed, my Trumpy relatives are now calling CT a “leftist” magazine, even though this is objectively not true. The only way it is leftist is if words don’t mean anything, which is exactly the world Trump would have us live in.
JRH (52aed3) — 12/20/2019 @ 1:16 pm139. The House shouldn’t be able to. And yet, that is exactly what we are witnessing before our very eyes; the house attempting exactly what you claim they can’t do. And here we are.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/20/2019 @ 1:55 pm