McConnell holds the cards and the more the Democrats cry about unfairness the more GOP tears run dry and moderates yawn as the Democrats bang their spoons on their high chairs. Not sure what Republicans have to complain about viewed through that prism. So let the "fake impeachment" drag on.That all said, even now it is not clear what Pelosi thinks she will accomplish. It is MOST likely she hopes to drive a wedge between the McConnell and the President. Indeed, in this she has already succeeded.The President, as ever preoccupied with his own vanity, wants a prolonged trial so that he may feel himself vindicated. Thus he has, by another of his dreary "tweets," has already aligned himself with the Speaker and demanded an immediate trial.Not that it matters. McConnell is apt to do what McConnell wants to do. The President will "tweet" to the cows come home and viewed through this prism it is likely that all Pelosi is doing is trying to leverage the minimal leverage she has.
"I will uncharacteristically answer a question with a question."Hah!What else?Belittling of the people who disagree with you? Check."bang their spoons on their high chairs"Argument from authority? Check.Your previous authority, Professor Jonathan Turley, disagrees with Professor Noah Feldman jonathanturley.org/.../ so you're cherry-picking.Mis-characterisations? Check.The "more the Democrats cry about unfairness" - what is it that Republicans were doing when they were talking about the House investigation and lying about being excluded from depositions, when they weren't? On the other hand, what kind of trial doesn't have witnesses?
@goaded Speaking of which, Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"
Thank you for proving you have no reasonable argument and that it's far from uncharateristic of you to answer a question with a question.
@goaded Yes, the guy who has chased me over 5 questions and yet cannot answer the most basic questions of his own case is the one to cast aspersions. I have made my case - over 5 questions. You cannot make yours having introduced the novel concept of the "He is guilty by virtue of the fact that I don't have evidence" argument.To prove my point, I ask again:Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"
Clearly, we are interested in the same topics (I think my opinion here was posted before yours).It doesn't seem unreasonable to respond to someone who regularly lies about what's going on and doesn't defend their statements, just posting the same thing, over and over, although it's been answered many times (and it hardly proves your case; testimony from White House insiders might, but they're not talking, I wonder why).How are the Democrats in their high chairs, compared to Republicans storming a meeting many of them were already invited to?Why is Noah Feldman right this time and Jonathan Turley wrong, when you've argued the opposite previously? Are you only looking at the things you agree with, by any chance?All the experts, including Turley said that "Abuse of power" was a valid impeachable offence.What kind of trial doesn't have witnesses?"You cannot make yours having introduced the novel concept of the "He is guilty by virtue of the fact that I don't have evidence" argument."No, in my opinion he is guilty because I have seen no evidence that he's not, and the defence of his actions change almost daily, as the previous ones turn out to be lies. Like your latest defence:You: "The point was to pressure the new President since there was and is ample basis for assuming that he might not follow through."Me: "The point of what? Withholding the aid? That was 2 months later, and I thought Trump said the Ukrainians weren't told about it, so how would they feel pressured?"
@goaded Sorry, after 5 questions - to which I have responded at great length - and which your preferred response to me is vitriol, it stops here. I answer no more of your questions until you respond to these:Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"You are so bright? You are so sure of your righteous purity? Make your case. I have worked in politics for 30 years, including working for a Member of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment. I have made my case - here and elsewhere, based on both my experience and my academic credentials - fairly secure in the knowledge, after 5 questions, that debating with you will neither be a civil exercise not a fruitful one.You want to be taken seriously? Then answer the above questions that are the most basic and foundational related to your own - and I use the term loosely - argument. Until you are able to do so I submit that you hardly have a leg to stand on in terms of credibility.
I'm bright enough to see when someone's dodging valid questions. And what you call vitriol is simply pointing out that you've lied many times over those five questions, while ignoring all the times you've insulted my intelligence.I've responded to all those points before, but one more time, just for you..."Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case."I'd argue that it's proved beyond reasonable doubt already. To prove the case beyond any doubt requires the testimony of the people named as organising the quid pro quo, Mulvaney, Bolton, and the rest. The difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments is that Trump's actions were directly associated with the duties of his office, not just some sordid little affair."What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too."Why? Google it, or use your immense knowledge to tell me what I've said that's wrong (but I will look it up, because your claims are often incorrect)."Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment?"At a guess, because those were the ones that all the experts agreed would be valid impeachable offences. In other words, they took Turley's advice. What's wrong with that?"What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?""I don't think there is one. But we know it when we see it (if it helps, imagine it had been Obama making that phone call).
@goaded Yes, all the sins in others. None in yourself. Try again:Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"
See, now you're pretending that I didn't respond to you, just because you didn't like the response, and you don't want to answer my questions, but according to you it's my fault that debating with you will neither be a civil exercise not a fruitful one.
@goaded When - other than to say that you did not have the evidence and did not know the rules of the House and Senate - did you respond? For that matter, how do those non-answers qualify your judgments that you have made loudly and often?Try again - ALL the questions. Point by point -Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"Sorry, saying you cannot answer the questions while you retain your thesis manifestly does NOT answer the questions.
"When - other than to say that you did not have the evidence and did not know the rules of the House and Senate - did you respond?"Well, like I said, that was a response, and you just didn't like it.Why should I have to know the rules of the House and Senate, exactly? They can surely be corrupted to ensure Trump won't be removed from office, but they have no bearing on the facts that he withheld aid from Ukraine, requested a purely political investigation by a foreign government be announced to benefit him, alone, and that there were several incompatible excuses offered for that behaviour, none of which have stood up to scrutiny.Add to that, that you're not even going to remove the ones I clearly answered from your list of questions, and it's clear who's acting in bad faith, here.Trump has been impeached, and all he had to do to avoid it was to produce some exculpatory evidence. That he didn't suggests that he couldn't.
@goaded Sorry, the logical extrapolation from your inability to substantiate your position is either that you did not answer the questions or that your position is in error. As you have not admitted to error, you appear to have chosen to evade answering the question. Suffice to say an evasion is not an answer.So, either admit to error - I am not holding my breath - or answer the questions:Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"Oh, by the way, on your last point. Innocence is presumed, the burden is upon you to prove guilt using evidence admissible in a court of law.. This you have not done, ergo...
Yes, you've done the whole presumed innocent thing throughout, and ignored the fact that I'm not a juror, nor has a trial started. What error is it, exactly, you think I should be admitting?By the way, there is more evidence that the administration was breaking the law, by not notifying Congress of the block on the aid.publicintegrity.org/.../"... the Impoundment Control Act, says that once Congress appropriates funds – like the Ukraine assistance – and the president signs the relevant spending bill, the executive branch must spend those funds. A president cannot simply ignore Congress’s direction, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing that instruction might be. If funds are withheld or shifted elsewhere, this cannot be done in secret, and Congress must approve. ... bars a deliberate holdup of spending until the end of a fiscal year... no funding could be delayed for more than 45 days without Congress’s approval... the 55-day long aid holdup appeared to be in “contravention” of the Impoundment Act, which limits any deferral to 45 days and otherwise requires congressional approval."www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid"OMB might have had the ability to withhold this aid if the White House had provided Congress with a message meeting the ICA’s requirements. But no message appears to have been sent. Furthermore, the aid from both Defense and State was held long past the mandated 45-day period and in apparent contravention of his powers defined by 31 U. S. C § 1512. The president and OMB did ultimately release the $250 million in aid from the Defense Department (on Sept. 11) and the $141 million from the State Department (around the same date). Whether there is some good legal or other explanation for the long delay in releasing the money is a question that lacks a clear answer, and that might remain unanswered indefinitely if Congress cannot get its hands on the requested documents."
@goaded Yes, but you are making an argument that has to be sustained by some factual analysis. The gravaman of your argument seems to be, "You have to agree with me because I think I am right." Hardly a rock solid argument.As to the rest, I am not going to bother. It is simply becoming - see the point above - too absurd to take you seriously. Either answer the questions, specifically and point by point, or admit you are not capable of making your case to any reasonable standard.Really, you are profoundly absurd and silly man. As I mentioned before, you would be eaten alive on Capitol Hill.So try again - Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"
So you're not going to state what error is it, exactly, you think I should be admitting?My argument is not "You have to agree with me because I think I am right.", it's "there's no evidence to even suggest I'm not".Keep pretending otherwise, if you like, but I'm sure you know you're building a house of cards.
@goaded So lay out your case. Point by point, specifically to each question. It is not THAT complicated:Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?
By this point, you must realise how stupid this makes you sound. Every time there's a new conversation between us, there's a new audience, and you have to pretend to be reasonable for a few interchanges. Then you start demanding the same thing, over and over, without answering any questions. All you have to do to stop it, is to stop it.Anyway:"Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case."I'd argue that it's proved beyond reasonable doubt already. To prove the case beyond any doubt requires the testimony of the people named as organising the quid pro quo, Mulvaney, Bolton, and the rest. The difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments is that Trump's actions were directly associated with the duties of his office, not just some sordid little affair."What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too."Why? Google it, or use your immense knowledge to tell me what I've said that's wrong (but I will look it up, because your claims are often incorrect)."Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment?"At a guess, because those were the ones that all the experts agreed would be valid impeachable offences. In other words, they took Turley's advice. What's wrong with that?"What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?""I don't think there is one. But we know it when we see it (if it helps, imagine it had been Obama making that phone call).
@goaded Sincerely, I doubt that there is any audience - that is your vanity. If anyone has followed this over the five questions you have pursued it I can only pity them.Be that as it may, I care not a whit for what others think. They are free to draw what conclusions they will. What remains undone is your response to the questions I posed. Questions that must be answered to sustain your presumption of Mr. Trump's guilt of a crime and the follow-on assertion that such violations are impeachable.To date, the gravaman of your argument has been "Because I said so." That hardly bear scrutiny. So - Make your case against President Trump using admissible evidence and and then apply the standard you applied in the Clinton impeachment to the Trump case. As to what you have written - hearsay and inference are not admissible unless corroborated by a fact witness or other admissible evidence. You have no fact witness that would testify to Mr. Trump's having committed a criminal act and the transcript does not surmount the reasonable doubt standard. So try harder.What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why should you? So that we can get some sense of your qualifications to speak on such matters with authority. So far, you have show, at best, superficial familiarity and as these are central to the validity of the process to be less that aware of the relevant rules and precedents would undermine your credibility.So try again.Why did the House go for two such general articles of impeachment? What experts and pace the point above, what is the precedent for articles of impeachment unattached to violations of statute in an impeachment.Try again.What is the statutory definition of "abuse of power?"If there is no statutory definition, then how has there been a "high crime or misdemeanor"?
P. S. You are up awfully late on a school night over there in Germany, aren't you? Just sayin' s'all.
You don't read very carefully, do you. Nothing I've said been just "because I said so"."You have no fact witness that would testify to Mr. Trump's having committed a criminal act and the transcript does not surmount the reasonable doubt standard."There are a number of people who have been blocked from testifying, why shouldn't we hear from them before a final judgement?The newly released emails of multiple people worrying about delaying the aid too long without informing congress indicate yet another criminal act; are 8 week-long delays legally different to an 8-week-long delay?"What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.Why should you? So that we can get some sense of your qualifications to speak on such matters with authority. So far, you have show, at best, superficial familiarity and as these are central to the validity of the process to be less that aware of the relevant rules and precedents would undermine your credibility."That's rubbish. Jurors don't have to know the details of police procedure or how a grand jury works. Next thing, you'll be telling me I have to believe OJ didn't kill his wife, because he was acquitted at trial.Do you know what really underminds credibility? Being caught lying."What experts"?The four called before the House Judiciary Committee, including Turley, who was the expert for the Republicans."If there is no statutory definition [of "abuse of power"], then how has there been a "high crime or misdemeanor"?"What is the statutory definition of "high crimes or misdemeanors"?There's centuries of precedent for the term, and it has always included non-criminal wrongdoing by an official, dating back to the 12th century.Neglect of duty, sheer ineptitude, military mismanagement, giving the sovereign bad advice, especially about foreign affairs... None of those are crimes, but they were grounds for impeachment as "high crimes or misdemeanors".
@goaded 1) The essence of your remarks is "because I said so." What else does it mean when you assert guilt absent admissible evidence?2) You cannot base your case on those who have NOT testified. You have ZERO way of knowing what they will say. You are making a presumption absent evidence. As I say, not admissible in court. In an impeachment context, the President is right to assert executive privilege for the precedent. The House chose to withdraw its subpoenas. (As to OJ, he was freed. The rule of law and what your opinion is then what matters.)3) Wrong! Turley explicitly OPPOSED the generality of the charges being leveled. You may recall that he said that this was the thinnest impeachment in history. Even the other three were speaking of charges of bribery and quid pro quo. At the point they all testified, the two general articles of impeachment had not yet been written.4) By precedent, the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has been tied to specific violations of statute. See also the Johnson and Clinton impeachments.On that last point, the Constitutional convention EXPLICITLY rejected "maladministration" as too vague and general. They wanted rare and exceptional, not so vague that anything would apply. Try againIndeed, you have yet to answer the questions sufficient to law and precedent - and pretty obviously you cannot.
Yours is a circular argument: if you can't prove it now, you should stop looking. No crimes would ever be solved with that attitude.1) It means I've looked at a lot of evidence and it all points in one direction, so far. You're very careful to sneak in that word "admissible" at every opportunity, and I suspect that you want me to believe some things are inadmissable, even when they're not. Independent of that, people with nothing to hide tend not to hide things.2) I have reached a reasonable conclusion from the evidence so far, including the transcript, sworn depositions, and testimony, and taken into account Trump's prior attempt to have individuals (Clinton and Comey) investigated, and the litany of lies that have been told to try to defend him.You're right, I don't know what the witnesses will say, all the more reason for them to be allowed to testify. Don't you think they will clear Trump?3) Maybe. Turley opposed all the proposed articles.4) "By precedent, the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has been tied to specific violations of statute." Where does it say that? I've seen dozens of places where they say specifically that's not the case (and why would Turley have said abuse of power is an impeachable offence?)."the Constitutional convention EXPLICITLY rejected "maladministration""And I didn't mention maladministration. They went with the phrase with centuries of precedent, including the things I mentioned.
3, revisited) Turley: "the strongest claim is for a *non-criminal* abuse of power if a quid pro quo can be established on the record"So, no need for a specific violation of statute.
@goaded 1) By all means. Continue investigating in the House. By the time you get to the Senate/trial, you had better have your ducks in a row. In any case, not the point. You asserted guilt - now prove it by the standards admissible in court. Note the process, suspicion, investigation, trial.2) Why is it reasonable if you say, in your own words, that you do not have sufficient admissible evidence to prove it? You have made an assertion for which you lack of evidence. Hardly decisive. As to Clinton and Comey, have you noticed what has happened to THAT case recently? If I were you I would not base my case on that trainwreck! Even I could not believe how badly the FBI botched it.3) Yes, and ALL were addressing the charges at the time.4) Precdent. That which has been done before. The Johnson and Clinton impeachments made statutorily specific charges. (Though the former statute in the Johnson case was later ruled unconstitutional.) There is no precedent of an impeachment where impeachment was divorced from statutory specifics.Open THAT Pandora's Box and you will be able to impeach anyone for any reason at any time. MY mention of "maladministration" was to show that the Founders SPECIFICALLY rejected such glittering generalities.By precedent there is a statutory linkage required. Take that away and YOU CAN BE SURE that Mr. Biden, should he win, will be impeached assuming a House R majority. Ditto that Mr. Obama would have been impeached for whispering in Mr. Medvedev's ear, or Mrs. Clinton, had she won, for the dossier.It is why, at lower court levels, we do not allow such vague generalities. You would have us go down the road of Mr. Beria - "Show me the man and I will give you the crime." Sorry. In any event you still have not answered the questions to prove your case.
1) How about we just hear what the people involved have to say for themselves, at trial. I'm convinced they won't be exonerating the president.2) Why is it reasonable? Because I have sufficient evidence to prove it to my satisfaction, why else? What's the evidence to the contrary?"As to Clinton and Comey, have you noticed what has happened to THAT case recently? If I were you I would not base my case on that trainwreck! Even I could not believe how badly the FBI botched it."So, McGahn was lying, and he didn't warn the president that investigating Clinton and Comey was asking to be impeached for abuse of power?3 & 4) Like I said, the impeachment expert for the Republicans said "the strongest claim is for a *non-criminal* abuse of power if a quid pro quo can be established on the record". As to precedent, if there's a law against murder, it doesn't mean that the first person to commit murder with a herring shouldn't be charged, just because it's unprecedented.The founders SPECIFICALLY chose a term with centuries of precedent, why do you want to ignore that precedent, but insist on a precedent based on two cases? And that's only if you insist on presidential impeachment, judges have been impeached for non-criminal actions (including just a couple of years before they chose the wording, in 1774: “certain High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”).
@goaded 1) Well, the President chose to exercise - wisely given the precedent that would have been set - Executive privilege. The House chose not to challenge that in the courts. Instead, weirdly, making an appeal to the courts impeachable.So, if you want to hear from the witnesses... 2) Well, an unbiased juror you are not. It is not reasonable just because you say it is. Get out of your house of mirrors. At this point you have no fact witnesses to back your case and only the hope that the witnesses the majority chose NOT to call will provide that verification. Pretty thin gruel. Suffice to say, it would not pass the laugh test in a court and is hardly a solid foundation for an impeachment. "I think, therefore I impeach." Novel, to say no more.3) Cannot make heads nor tails of what you wrote. Suffice to say that at this point the FICA court is screaming at the FBI and is demanding accountability. Mueller and Horowitz have pretty much put paid to all that. Criminal investigation is ongoing.3-4) How can you have a non-criminal basis for "HIGH CRIMES and misdemeanors?" Please show precedent in prior impeachments. Also show what limiting principle you would apply to the "non-criminal" standard to prevent it meaning whatever a partisan wants it to mean.Please show what term the Founders applied absent precedent and cite a case where a statute was not applied to the impeachment of a judge. (Note in the case of presidential impeachments that we only have two precedents. In the case of judges, again, please show a case where a judge was removed absent a statutory violation.)That is, I mean you being an expert in constitutional law and House and Senate rules and everything. So while you are at it: What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too.
P. S. Please note on impeachment that I said statutory - NOT criminal. Though in this case it is criminal violations that were alleged - until they were not.
I don't think I've claimed to be a juror, let alone an unbiased one. On the other hand, claiming exoneration while there is clear evidence and there are people with questions to answer, is more than equally biased.Again, what evidence is there to contradict the evidence that Trump withheld military aid (a fact) to get the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into a rival? What non-corrupt motive could there be for that, and what corroborating evidence that that was what was really happening?3) "Cannot make heads nor tails of what you wrote."It was quite simple, although from a news article, not the Mueller inquiry: "President Trump told [McGahn] that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: ... Hillary Clinton, and... James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.... Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment."www.nytimes.com/.../...ump-justice-department.html3-4) "... non-criminal basis for "HIGH CRIMES and misdemeanors?""Massachusetts colonial assembly impeached Chief Justice Peter Oliver... for agreeing to accept a royal salary rather than the stipend appropriated by the Massachusetts legislature"The founders were clearly aware of and accepting of that 1774 precedent in 1776."That is, I mean you being an expert in constitutional law and House and Senate rules and everything. So while you are at it: What are the rules of evidence in a criminal trial? Summarize the rules of the House and Senate, too."No, you're the one whose been claiming to be such an expert, but you're also the one who has lied several times during our discussions. Like I said before, that undermines credibility far more than not being an expert.
@goaded 1) No. However, you proffered an argument that you have since failed to substantiate. The "Whadda ya mean, me, paleface?" stance is a wee bit hard to swallow. Suffice to add that the evidence produced to date would not pass the laugh test in a real court.2) Yes, and? Here is the problem: "... according to two people familiar with the conversation." Again, operating on hearsay and third hand references does not a credible case make. Did he bother to inquire with the President? Was he directed by WH senior staff... or did he operate on his own subjective impressions? See the problem?4) You write: "The founders were clearly aware of and accepting of that 1774 precedent in 1776." Please substantiate that claim. Even if they were aware of it, did they act as if they were bound by it? In any case, that would constitute a violation of MA statutes. Sort of my point.Lastly, I have worked on the Hill since the late 1980s and was staffer for a House Member on the Judiciary Committee at the time of the Clinton impeachment. Moreover I have served as an Legislative Director for three House Members - and thus it is kind of important to know the House rules. Also worked for two Senators on the Helsinki Commission - and thus my familiarity with Senate rules.If you can match that, Sparky... and I could go on... let me know. In the meantime, you are the functional equivalent in terms of knowledge of Congressional procedure and precedent, of an earthworm addressing an Earl.So either make your case substantively or stop braying.
1) "... the evidence produced to date would not pass the laugh test in a real court."Which parts, exactly? Perhaps you should have another go at finding any indication that he didn't hold up aid for longer than legally allowed in order to get a personal political favour? Your argument is never "he didn't do it", or "he's an honourable man", it's just "prove it, copper!".2) "operating on hearsay and third hand references does not a credible case make."No, but, like the whistle blower complaint, it says where the body's buried. There's a memo."Did he bother to inquire with the President?"It sounds like Trump talked to him directly: "President Trump told the White House counsel... two people familiar with the conversation...". Shall we ask Mr. McGahn?"Was he directed by WH senior staff... or did he operate on his own subjective impressions?"Why would the WH counsel write a memo saying he couldn't do something he hadn't been asked to do?"See the problem?"Yes, your defences don't pass the smell test."4) You write: "The founders were clearly aware of and accepting of that 1774 precedent in 1776." Please substantiate that claim."John Adams wrote the 1774 articles of impeachment. 11 of the Founding Fathers were from Massachusetts, five of them were lawyers. Get real.Go back to your argument from authority (yourself), if you like, but remember that you're the one insisting that this discussion board has to be at the level of a court of law, and that's only because you have no better argument than "you can't prove it (yet)".
@goaded Sorry, I have got three little ones and it is Christmas eve. There is a time for politics - today ain't it.Go get a life.
And a Merry Christmas, to you, too.
"probably the only time in history when a politician jumped ship to join the minority"Off the top of my head: Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm. Also Wayne Morse and Jim Jeffords, although both of those switches flipped the minority to majority.The reason she is delaying is because she is allowed to under Senate rules. McConnell and the majority could change the rule to require impeachment scheduling within 48 hours after the House passes the Articles and there is nothing the House could do. Heck, the Senate can add a provision that requires the naming of House prosecutors with 48 hours after the impeachment or the charges will be dismissed with prejudice.
@Liam_Hayden Didn't someone leave the Republican party, saying Trump's behaviour was impeachable, back in May?twitter.com/justinamash/status/1129831622868635649Van Drew pretty obviously delayed changing parties until after the vote, to support a "Dems in Disarray" narrative.This is what he said when he went on Fox News:"It is a pleasure to be with you and as I was saying before, I am so proud to be associated with you. You truly represent what news media should be about and just how to conduct a show like this. I’m very, very proud of you and the work that you do and the objectivity that you have. So thank you."
@Liam_Hayden Just happened to catch this and had to say. By jove you're right! Had not remembered them - especially egregious on my part when you consider the circumstances under which Thurmond switched. Tip of the hat!!
I hope you had a nice Christmas. I'd have waited a few days for a response, but I suppose being righteously angry gave you a good excuse to ignore the content of my message. I'd be particularly interested in a response to the part where you suggested that the 35 FF's who were legally trained wouldn't have been aware of a centuries-long precedent, considering one of them impeached a state supreme court judge on that basis in 1774.1) "... the evidence produced to date would not pass the laugh test in a real court."Which parts, exactly? Perhaps you should have another go at finding any indication that he didn't hold up aid for longer than legally allowed in order to get a personal political favour? Your argument is never "he didn't do it", or "he's an honourable man", it's just "prove it, copper!".2) "operating on hearsay and third hand references does not a credible case make."No, but, like the whistle blower complaint, it says where the body's buried. There's a memo."Did he bother to inquire with the President?"It sounds like Trump talked to him directly: "President Trump told the White House counsel... two people familiar with the conversation...". Shall we ask Mr. McGahn?"Was he directed by WH senior staff... or did he operate on his own subjective impressions?"Why would the WH counsel write a memo saying he couldn't do something he hadn't been asked to do?"See the problem?"Yes, your defences don't pass the smell test."4) You write: "The founders were clearly aware of and accepting of that 1774 precedent in 1776." Please substantiate that claim."John Adams wrote the 1774 articles of impeachment. 11 of the Founding Fathers were from Massachusetts, five of those were lawyers. Get real.Go back to your argument from authority (yourself), if you like, but remember that you're the one insisting that this discussion board has to be at the level of a court of law, and that's only because you have no better argument than "you can't prove it (yet)".
@goaded Hope you had a good Christmas. You are going to have to wait a while longer for a reply. Righteous anger or no, I have time off to spend with my children.That gets priority. You'll have to wait till after New Year's. Have a good one.
Funny, I thought someone who said: "I have worked on the Hill since the late 1980s and was staffer for a House Member on the Judiciary Committee at the time of the Clinton impeachment. Moreover I have served as an Legislative Director for three House Members - and thus it is kind of important to know the House rules. Also worked for two Senators on the Helsinki Commission - and thus my familiarity with Senate rules."Would be able to come up with an answer off the top of their head, when defending their suggestion that the Founding Fathers, including dozens of lawyers, didn't know or understand the then recent use of the centuries long precedent of "high crimes and misdemeanours" by one of their own in the first American impeachment. I mean, it's not like they were paying attention to politics, or drawing up a constitution, or anything.But it's OK, I'll wait until the New Year. Probably.
@goaded The difference is that I have a life with children I want to spend time with. You are just sad and bitter.Have a good New Year.
You had enough time to make up some crap about the Nazis not being right-wing. When your children grow up, you can tell them about how you did your best to bring about the end of American democracy by lying on discussion boards.
@goaded Oh good grief. Seriously? I submit that if the republic's demise is to be brought about by exchanges on a discussion board - this after 200 plus years - that it probably was not long for this world in any case. Get a grip.As to the relationship of National Socialism to the left, try taking a course in political philosophy. Leaven your biases with at least a modicum of an education. As to your questions - 1) Hearsay evidence is not admissible without corroborating fact witnesses or evidence. There are no fact witnesses and the only evidence is the transcript - which is too ambiguous and does not meet the "reasonable doubt" standard.So pretty much the whole of the case to date would not surmount the "reasonable doubt" standard and the testimony of the witnesses to date would be, in a regular court of law, dismissed.2) The whistleblower is NOT a fact witness. He relayed what others told him.On McGahn, others told him and he surmised. He is not a fact witness. If the House majority thought he was key, why did they not challenge the Executive Privilege claim. Indeed, if he was so essential, how did they impeach absent that key evidence?Still not following you on this point - what do Clinton and Comey have to do with this case? That was about investigating Biden and so far as I can tell it was a legitimate to inquire about the limits of an investigation about Clinton and Comey. (Particularly as we can see in the light of the Mueller report, the Horowitz report and the ongoing criminal investigation of FBI activities and the now discredited dossier. My point being that there is indeed a legitimate national interest in investigating corrupt activities by Americans in foreign governments.)You say it does not pass the smell test - and yet you still have not answered ANY of my questions. So ---- you go first.CONT.
3) Get real yourself. Please illustrate where, in the Federalist Papers or elsewhere, that precedent was cited in the formulation of the Constitution. Indeed, you are obliged to show not only that they were aware of the precedent but they chose to abide by it.Please do so. At this point you are making a presumption.Not sure I follow your last point. You are the prosecution, the burden falls upon you to provide fact witnesses, evidence, and surmount the reasonable doubt standard. You have not even begun that process.
It's not just one person on one discussion board, it's an entire major political party and a "news" network lying about almost everything everywhere, all the time. You're just a footsoldier.1) There are fact witnesses, it's clear who they are, and not calling them at trial would be an obvious attempt to pervert justice. And you're still not saying Trump didn't do it.2) Ignoring your attempted distraction about the whistle-blower, why do you claim McGahn is not a fact witness, if he had an in-person conversation with the president that led him to write a memo warning that what the president was asking was impeachable?They did challenge the "total immunity from investigation" nonsense, and that took six months. Why would challenging the Executive Privilege claim be expected to take any less time? The White House is just interested in running out the clock before the election, in which the president is accused of trying to cheat.3) "Indeed, you are obliged to show not only that they were aware of the precedent but they chose to abide by it."No, I'm not. Nearly a quarter of the founding fathers were trained in British law, John Adams himself wrote articles of impeachment in 1774 using the term. They used a specific phrase with half a millennium of precedent behind it. If they hadn't wanted it to mean what it always had, they would have said so, not the other way around.
@goaded 1) Okay, call them. Bolton has even said that he would testify. However, the Executive should not, before the fact waive Executive privilege as that would set a VERY bad precedent. For that, why did the House Judiciary Committee not call them? Even if called before the Senate the President can still invoke Executive privilege and then the only difference would be that they would have to raise their right hand and invoke the 5th in person. You want to compel the testimony, you have to get a court ruling,In any case, the trade-off will be that Schiff, the whistleblower and the Bidens will be called as witnesses. Do you think the Democrats will agree to that?2) Did not claim that McGahn is not a fact witness, just that there is no evidence that he is one and that his testimony may not yield what the Democrats want. At this point, you have no corroboration that he is fact witness. In any case, he too would be subject to Executive privilege and the only way you get around that is to work your way through the courts. That takes time - as you noted - and given that the Speaker is holding the articles "at the desk" there is no way any of that can begin in the Senate. So there you are, you want McGahn you have to hand over the articles to the Senate. McConnell has said that he will not agree to any procedure that was not followed in the Clinton impeachment. Meaning you hear the case for the prosecution. Then you hear the defense and then vote on whether there ought be testimony. If yes, you can bet that Schiff, the Whistleblowers and the Bidens will also be called and my bet is that the Democrats will not want that. Especially the later into the election season the trial goes.3) So what did that term mean and how has it been modified by precedent since?
1) "You want to compel the testimony, you have to get a court ruling,"No, you don't, you can offer them immunity, at which point the 5th Amendment no longer applies."... Schiff, the whistleblower and the Bidens will be called as witnesses."Witnesses to what?2) "Did not claim that McGahn is not a fact witness, just that there is no evidence that he is one..." except for the people who said he was, and that there was a memo.3) Just admit defeat. They knew what they meant, then, and it means the same now.www.libertylawsite.org/.../www.lawliberty.org/.../www.aei.org/.../
@goaded 1) My use of the 5th was rhetorical. In fact they would be bound by Executive privilege and that would have to be tested in the courts.2) Were any of them fact witnesses to that - or are they repeating what others told them or what they assumed?3) Still does not show me how that was definitively applicable in this case. If the President had reason to suspect corruption, how would inquiring into that equate to a high crime or misdemeanor? What law was violated and - in terms of impeachment - when have articles of impeachment ever been divorced from specific statutory violations?
1) Considering executive privilege is not absolute, denying it in a trial of the president and where the facts are already public shouldn't take much argument.You forgot to mention what "Schiff, the whistleblower and the Bidens" would be witnesses to, exactly.2) "two people familiar with the conversation" www.nytimes.com/.../...ump-justice-department.html3) You're ignoring the fact that a crime does not have to be committed in order to be impeached. Because that's inconvenient to your side. Did the founding fathers know what they were talking about, or not? Did they choose wording with precedent (in the legal system they were living under) going back to the 12th century, or not?
@goaded 1) True, it is not absolute. That is why you go to the courts to resolve it. By the by, if the facts are already public, then there is no need to have the person testify. The prosecution merely presents the facts in its opening arguments. So, I am not sure of what your point is there. In any event, an assertion of Executive privilege is accepted prima facie until overturned by a court and all subsequent appeals.The case for the Whistleblower and Schiff would be to determine the validity of their evidence and testimony. The Bidens to determine if the President had reasonable cause to be seeking an inquiry with Ukraine.2) Sorry, was unable for some reason to connect to your link. Perhaps you can "copy and paste" the relevant information you wish to convey.3) Not ignoring it. It does not have to, but by precedent it always has. You have to show why this case is so different and therefore justifies the breaking of such precedent. What makes it so different in kind that the precedent of every other impeachment is waived away?
1) The facts are known, they need confirmation. Of course, the potential witnesses could testify under oath that there was no abuse of power, and it'd all be over. It would have been over before the impeachment, in fact.Neither the whistle-blower nor Schiff testified or gave evidence. The whistle-blower made a complaint, they never claimed to have direct evidence, the whole investigation was following up on it (and found nothing incorrect about the complaint).Asking the Bidens to determine if the President had reasonable cause to be seeking an inquiry with Ukraine is the wrong way around. Surely the President should be the one who should be asked, or the head of the agency that gave him the intelligence, or at least checked it out. It was checked out, wasn't it?2) "Perhaps you can "copy and paste" the relevant information you wish to convey." I did. The report refers to two people who were familiar with the conversation between McGahn and Trump. Maybe McGahn should be asked about it.3) "Not ignoring it. It does not have to, but by precedent it always has."So, everyone ever impeached has been tried for some crime afterwards?
@goaded 1) Well, if you don't know how the witnesses will answer, then how can you say the facts are known? As to Schiff and the whistleblower, they are witnesses by virtue of the latter started all this and thus his veracity must be corroborated. To Schiff, first he said that he said the whsitleblower was a key witness, then not. In any case, he has compromised his own position by not being fully truthful and thus his connection to the whistleblower is necessary to assessing motive and verifying - again - the whistleblower's veracity and motives.On the Bidens you miss the point. If there is reason to question their conduct, then the President has legitimate grounds to investigate.In any case - academic. The political reality is that the Democrats will get none of their witnesses if the GOP does not get the one's it wants. Suffice to add, that the instant the Speaker releases the articles of impeachment, the GOP will be in charge.2) How were the witnesses familiar? Did they get it through hearsay or were they actually present? It makes a difference.3) At the presidential level, Mr. Clinton was fined and stripped of his law license. This even though he was not convicted in the Senate. Nixon was pardoned - though never impeached. Johnson was not convicted and the law that inspired his impeachment was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.Anyhow, not the point. An impeachment is a charge. By precedent, no impeachment has been divorced from a criminal violation.
1) "Well, if you don't know how the witnesses will answer, then how can you say the facts are known?"Because every indication is that they will have to answer in a way that doesn't support Trump. But why not ask and find out!The whistleblower's veracity has been corroborated, it's all in the depositions, testimony and articles of impeachment. When did Schiff say the whistleblower was a key witness? Effectively, they're just the one who heard people discussing probable crimes and called 911. They're also supposed to be protected from retribution, by law."On the Bidens you miss the point. If there is reason to question their conduct, then the President has legitimate grounds to investigate."So, show that there was a reason to question their conduct. You can start with the crime that was committed.And, yes, we know the Republicans will try to confuse things as much as possible, but even in the US, there must be limits to what the voters will put up with.2) How big a difference? What if McGahn told them about it?3) "At the presidential level..."And at other levels - federal judges, for example?Did any of the presidential impeachments get thrown out because there wasn't an underlying crime? *That* would be a precedent, but not a binding one, because the vote is political, not a judicial ruling."By precedent, no impeachment has been divorced from a criminal violation."And yet all the experts say a president can be impeached for actions that aren't criminal (in large part thanks to those centuries of precedent in British, then American law).Did the founding fathers know what they were talking about, or not? Did they choose wording with precedent (in the legal system they were living under) going back to the 12th century, or not?
@goaded 1) Every indication? What prosecutor is going to call a witness if he is not pretty sure that he knows what the witness will say? Odds are he does not get called because, A) every indication will not be good enough, and B) the Democrats will not be willing to make the trade-off of allowing the Bidens and Schiff et. al. to testify. Indications do not certainty make. 2) In one case, he is a fact witness. In another case it is just more a case of accurately reporting rumors. To repeat, no prosecutor worth his salt would risk it - and that before throwing in the price of having the Bidens et. al testify. 3) Well, only that which applies to Presidents, strictly speaking, would be applicable. However, 66 Federal judges have been impeached - 8 others resigned before impeachment. All were fined or imprisoned depending on the nature of their offense.4) Your last point eludes me. The Founders set the standard and practice has followed. They did not stipulate in the Constitution, but practice since then has tied impeachment to specific statutory crimes - this going back to the early republic. At the least, to separate the two you must show why this impeachment is not only different in degree but in kind from previous impeachments. If precedent is to be broken, you need at least show why it ought to be broken.
PS. Clarification on Point 3. All were fine, imprisoned or exonerated after a trial. Impeachment merely removes the official from office so that legal proceedings may commence.In the case of former Federal judge and now Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) he was impeached and removed and went to trial where a jury found him not guilty. (His co-defendant refused to testify and went to jail.) So he obviously suffered no penalty.In Nixon's case, he would have gone to trial had not President Ford not pardoned him.
1) Yes, every indication. A) not with jurors who are willing to close their eyes to evidence, B) Democrats were willing to risk putting their candidates incommunicado for days or weeks during the campaign, maybe they're willing to do even more to stand up for the constitution.2) What do you expect from the Biden's testimony? Hunter's done nothing the Trump family hasn't done a dozen times over, and Joe was fighting genuine corruption in Ukraine.3) I picked four at random from en.wikipedia.org/.../Category:Impeached_United_States_officials_removed_from_office and found:First: "impeached... and convicted and removed from office by the United States Senate for supporting the Confederate States", a traitor. "... Humphreys resumed private practice in Nashville from 1866 to 1882."Second: "impeached in 1804 by the Ohio House of Representatives and subsequently removed from office by the decision of the Ohio Senate.Irvin served as member of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1806 and 1807"Third: "removed from office in 1783 by the Supreme Executive Council for bigamy.... In 1786, he was elected to the Georgia Assembly"Fourth: Was removed from office for "Bringing the judiciary into disrepute (accepting free meals and lodging at Whitehall during receivership proceedings)" "Ritter challenged the conviction... on the grounds that the Senate could not convict him on a general charge... if it was not able to convict him of a specific offense. The Court of Claims dismissed the case and held it did not have jurisdiction because the Senate was given the "sole power" to try impeachments..."Oooh! Removed from office by the US Senate without conviction for a specific offence? Who'd have thought it!Did you just make up your "statistics", or do you have a source?My last point was simply that you are trying to pretend that trained lawyers wouldn't have known the law as it had been understood for centuries and used by at least one of them.
@goaded 1) Maybe they are. In any case, it is sort of pushing on an open door. McConnell says that he is will abide by the precedent set in the Clinton impeachment. That is about the most the Democrats can hope for and if they do get their witnesses the price will apt split their party. (Seriously, you think Biden wants to have all his son's dirty laundry aired on television in the kind of spectacle that Schummer is pushing for? Not likely as the mud would spatter on his own campaign.)Just a hunch, but their ain't gonna be no witnesses. Partly because of the risks it would pose to both sides, partly because it would be legal malpractice to bring in witnesses that you have no idea what they might say.2) Hunter right now, it was discovered us as a result of the paternity suit lodged against him, under criminal investigation. Trust me, give the political nature of an impeachment, that will get a thorough investigation if he is brought in to testify.3) Go back and read very carefully what I wrote. Impeachment came before criminal trial and the verdict in those trials varied. (See also my Alcee Hastings example.) In any case, the precedent that matters for Presidents is the previous impeachment of other Presidents. It being, after all, a constitutionally unique office.
1) How many Republican senators do the Democrats need to convince that there should be witnesses in order to have a fair trial? Three? My bet is the Susan Collins won't be one of them.What Biden dirty laundry? Taking drugs, like GW? Getting an undeserved well paid job in exchange for a surname and contacts, like the whole Trump family? Infidelity, like Trump? As to Joe, we've got a sworn description of Shokin as a corrupt prosecutor, and a long list of countries and agencies that wanted to get rid of him.As to your claim of legal malpractice, everybody has a pretty good idea of what the real witnesses would have to say if they were under oath, which is why McConnell is fighting tooth and nail to avoid it. If their testimony would exonerate the president, they'd have done it already.2) How could that be remotely relevant to the case? Do you really think the American public won't see that it's not?3) I did read very carefully what you wrote, and it seems to be wrong, at least in the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsted_L._Ritter who, I remind you, was removed from office for "Bringing the judiciary into disrepute (accepting free meals and lodging at Whitehall during receivership proceedings)". What trial followed that impeachment and conviction? What was the crime he committed?Like I said, what's the source for your claim that "All [66 impeached Federal Judges] were fined or imprisoned depending on the nature of their offense."?
@goaded 1) Both Murkowski and Collins have announced that they are in agreement with McConnell's proposed approach. The only Senator who has deviated is Mitt Romney. Indeed, McConnell announced yesterday that he has the votes he needs to proceed. Trust me, if McConnell is saying that, you can bank on it. He is, by far, the most wily operator in the Senate.2) The relevance is that if Biden's dirty laundry starts being laid out, it may cost him the nomination and that he does not want. (In fairness, it also depends on what the criminal charges are. They may be even more relevant than prima facie seems the case.)There is an old story in politics. A politician who had not faced a challenger in decades draws one. So he calls his Press Secretary into his office and says, "I want you to put this story out there." He then proceeds to say that his opponent is guilty of some grotesque sexual libel.The press secretary asks, "Yes, but is it true?" To which the politician responds, "It does not matter if it is true, just get him to deny it." The point is, the more explaining the Democrats have to do, the less time they get to put out their positions and make their case. This then giving the advantage to the incumbent - which in this case, I need not remind you, is President Trump. How with the American public respond? The GOP will rally to its side, the moderates that Democrats need to win over will say, "A pox on both your houses," and stay home. Democrats will fret over whether or not they have a viable candidate and be divided and perhaps, at the margins, be demoralized.The Democrats need intensity and to win over moderates. If their candidate appears tainted or corrupt, they will likely forfeit that. (See also the fate of Hillary Clinton for recent precedents - and throw in the effect of Mr. Comey's last minute re-opening of his investigation of her.)3) One case does not a precedent make. The precedent is pretty clear - certainly at the Presidential level.
1) Yeah, I read about Murkowski and Collins. I suppose McConnell does have the powerful argument that if they hear the witnesses, the whole party is screwed.2) "I am not a witch"?"The Democrats need intensity and to win over moderates."I'm not convinced Biden is the person to do that, I can think of a couple of other candidates that could.3) So you don't have a source (not surprising, the 66 number is the number of federal judges that have been investigated, not impeached). And you're wrong, one case does indeed make a precedent, along with all the others. In that case, the precedent was that a federal officer can be impeached and removed from office without having committed a criminal offence, which is also what all the experts, including Turley, say about the president.en.wikipedia.org/.../Impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges
@goaded 1) Not following your argument here. The Democrats are far more divided on this than you think. Please note the relative silence from the Democratic presidential candidates - they give a pro forma case for hearing witnesses, but only the witnesses they want, and then drop the subject on the campaign trail. See also Biden's freudian slip flip-flop on whether he would testify.2) You might be right about Biden, but the longer this goes on, the less time any and all Democrats get to make their case. By the time you get to a general election the moderates will have tuned out completely. Thus, perversely, Trump win. It also does not help that after going on about the urgency of impeachment for national security reasons, Pelosi then holding the articles of impeachment "at the desk" made the whole thing seem tinny, brittle and shrill. You can almost feel the declining interest - which is why Schummer wants a full trial and would not accept depositions. He thinks a "show trial" - and here I use that in the literal sense - would reawaken interest. This sending his presidential candidates and moderates like Manchin into fits.3) Yup, on the 66. You are right. My mistake. Still, aside the point. The precedent is impeachment of Presidents - which is peculiar to them as a constitutionally distinct office. So how is this impeachment so different that it should be treated differently from all previous presidential impeachments. What is the difference in degree that makes it a difference in kind?
1) It's a simple argument. If there are relevant witnesses and documentation that proves Trump was abusing his power for personal political gain, and everybody hears it, Republicans will lose votes from reasonable people if they carry on to vote against removal from office.2) It's still moving faster than Turley's and your preferred option which was to spend another six months in the courts. (Which is still going on following the Mueller investigation.) When did Schumer say he wouldn't accept depositions in place of testimony, rather than just express a preference for testimony? Was he offered the option at all?3) I think your insistance that the president is a particularly special case when it comes to impeachment is akin to your idea that bribery has to be successful to be a crime. The only thing that is special about the president's impeachment is that: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"."The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment."www.cop.senate.gov/.../Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
@goaded 1) That's nice. The problem is that they have no way - because they did not enforce the subpoenas and take testimony before the trial - they have no way of knowing what the witnesses will say. You take it on faith, but they are not going to risk their campaigns and their offices without knowing. If the witnesses exonerate the President or their evidence proves to be hearsay, in the bargain they will be bearing their own dirty laundry. The difference being that the President is a known quantity and the candidates are relatively unknown. As they all sit in the Senate silently - or in Biden's case as his problems with his son, at least, are laid bare - they will have no way to make their case nor combat any bad impressions. It nets a loss to the Democrats and they won't risk it.2) Actually, it is not moving at all - and won't until Pelosi sends over the articles. Nothing is happening and the news is moving on. 3) The President IS constitutionally different. Head of State, Executive Head of Government, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. There is no other position in the Constitution. No Member of Congress - either chamber - nor member of the Judiciary (not even the Chief Justice.) Like it or not, by custom, precedent, tradition and law, the Presidency is unlike any other office and has been so treated. So again, why should there be a lower standard for this presidential impeachment as against the two others and Nixon's near impeachment.You must address the question. Indeed, it is the fact that they did not address it in the House that the Democrats are now - effectively - asking for a do-over in the Senate.
1) I really admire the way you go from (paraphrased) "the Democrats are silent, I know they're divided, I know they're going to do this" to "the witnesses are silent, you can't possibly know what they are going to say".2) If you say so, but what happened during the six months before the ruling on McGahn? It's been, what, three weeks since the impeachment?When did Schumer say he wouldn't accept depositions in place of testimony, rather than just express a preference for testimony? Was he offered that option by the Republicans at all? I think the Democrats would accept sworn depositions related to the impeachment.3) You didn't finish your sentence, but anyway, the framers clearly wanted the president to be as impeachable as the rest of the government and not like a King. Does this ring a bell?"... the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware""... the Democrats are now - effectively - asking for a do-over in the Senate."No, they're asking for a fair trial to take place.
@goaded 1) Sorry, I have Hill connections. I am passing along what I hear and correlate that with what they do say in public and what I know of the extant political dynamics. If that offends you, sorry. Cannot be helped. Though if you really knew anything about politics you would not be so surprised. In any case, it is the fact that the Democrats cannot be sure what the witnesses would say that you are getting sotto voce dissension. Suffice to say, Democrats in districts that Trump carried or nearly so are much more nervous. (That being generally known - if not sufficiently obvious from logical extrapolation.)2) The run-up to the impeachment it was headline news. Since then the holidays and Iran have taken impeachment out of the news and the thing has pretty much sat in the House. Where it remains. It will regain some life when the Senate turns to it, but at this point it is a foregone conclusion and is not apt to win over moderates who even before impeachment, the polls show, wanted Congress to focus more on other issues.3) Impeachable the President is, but the standard is high - and practice has made it higher still. (See Federalist 65.) If you plan to overturn the election of the only individual in the entire government at any level who is elected by the whole population - other then by default the Vice-President - you better bet the standard will be high.CONT.
Hence the attachment of prior article of impeachment to specific criminal charges. If you believe, as you seem to, that the standard ought be lowered for this impeachment, thereby breaking the precedent of the previous two (plus Nixon), then you need to explain why this impeachment is so different from the others.After all, you will be overturning a national election and impacting a unique constitutional office. You hardly want to do that on what amounts to a "because I said so" rationale. So what makes this impeachment demonstrably qualitatively different from the Presidential impeachments that came before it such that Articles of Impeachment need not be attached to specific violations of the criminal code? If you believe that such specificity is necessary, then why did House Democrats break with precedent?
1) Hearsay evidence. It shouldn't be allowed or trusted on discussion boards. According to you.2) The problem that it's a "foregone conclusion" is for the Republicans; if they're so sure he would be exonerated, why not have genuine, relevant, witnesses testify? Look at the obviously partisan Benghazi investigations; why doesn't Trump sit down for hours of sworn testimony? Clinton did, and he's better than her, right?3) "Impeachable the President is, but the standard is high - and practice has made it higher still. (See Federalist 65.)"Why would Federalist 65, written before the constitution, have anything to do with the practice of impeachment of presidents which only started a century later? Which bit do you mean, anyway? "[the Senate's] 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"? Like the integrity of the election process, for example?"If you plan to overturn the election of the only individual in the entire government at any level who is elected by the whole population"First, you mentioned the other "only individual", secondly, he got fewer votes, how is that "the whole population"? But that's not the point. The point is:You have to explain exactly how the president should be held to a lower standard than federal judges and other officials subject to impeachment. Why shouldn't the standard be higher for the president?
@goaded 1) No. According to me, it is not enough, by itself, to convict a citizen, let alone impeach a President. My point to you is that your case would not stand up in any legitimate court of law. On social media where the standards are considerably lower, anything goes. Thought that does not make it more logically valid.2) Why won't the Democrats agree to calling the Bidens, Schiff or the whistleblower? The Democrats were certainly free to call any witnesses they choose in the House. They chose not to, saying that the situation was too urgent. Then they sat on the Articles of impeachment that otherwise, had they released them, would have allowed the impeachment today.Bottom line, the President is free to - and ought on principle - assert Executive Privilege lest the precedent be set that Congress can intrude on such privilege at will. That would be an exceedingly bad precedent to set. As I say, the traditional course would have been to challenge that assertion in the courts. They did not. I wonder why?3) Federalist 65 is where Hamilton explains the basic rationale for the structuring of impeachment in the Constitution. (It was written before the Constitution was ratified and to persuade the public that it ought be ratified.) In any case, it explains why the standard was set where it was. Precedent since then building off that initial rationale that linked impeachment to specific charged in criminal law.4) No, you have to explain - and have yet to explain - how this impeachment is different from the last two and therefore should not link, as the other presidential impeachments were, the Articles of Impeachment to specific violations of law.Still waiting.
1) If that were the case, you wouldn't have spent the last months insisting I provide an airtight case without testimony from the witnesses. Or, now, pretending that witness testimony may not confirm all we've heard before.Like I've always said, it's not unreasonable to accept that high level government employees understand what's going on (and going wrong) in their jobs.2) Why didn't they wait for the courts? Like I've repeatedly said: time. It took six months to get a ruling on the McGahn case, despite the argument that all presidential aides having total immunity from investigation is transparently rubbish. And that's before we get to the potentially valid issue of executive privilege.The president can choose to exercise executive privilege or not; was it exercised during the endless Benghazi inquiries? If everything was above-board, they could simply have testified to that effect without endangering privilege.3) An assertion that has no basis in fact; all the experts say you can impeach a president for acts that are not in themselves criminal.4) No, you have to explain - and have yet to explain - how a presidential impeachment is different from all the other impeachments of federal officials, other than having the chief justice presiding over the senate trial, and why precedent from those other impeachments doesn't apply, and why the experts all agree with me and not you.
@goaded 1) Seriously? You are not only going to tell me what you think, now you are going to tell me what I think, too? No, trust me. I meant what I said, however you choose to interpret it.2) So what? It takes time. Always does. If the issues are so critical and so important and of such a grave nature, you put in the effort. Besides, had they followed precedent, they would have gotten expedited consideration. That still would have taken some time, but less than the way they chose to go. In the bargain, had they followed precedent, they would have won.Instead, they have run to the Republican controlled Senate and expected to get what they did not get out of the Democrat controlled House. Moreover, because they are going to the Senate, if they get it they will be throwing the dice as they will be taking testimony without a deposition beforehand. A thing that Judge Napolitano - a favorite of yours, I know - has said would be, if a regular prosecutor did it, would be legal malpractice.Oh, and yes, it was exercised by Obama numerous times - most famously in the "Fast and Furious" scandal. 3) All the experts can say what they like. The fact is that the precedent has been set and will be the guiding principle. Yes, in theory you can. In fact, it will not - and has not historically - worked that way.4) Sorry, no. For once answer my question. The base issue being on what basis the precedent set by two - three if you count Nixon - impeachments should be overturned. The precedent being the most apt given that the impeachments were of Presidents and Mr. Trump, for good or ill, is President.
1) Yes, seriously.2) I seem to recall you also claimed that you claimed Napolitano said you had to prove that a bribed person would not have acted the way they did absent a bribe in order to prove bribery (thus making it logically impossible to bribe a politician). Colour me skeptical of both claims. (Oh, and Pelosi's not a "regular prosecutor", and as you're fond of saying, a sentence beginning with an "if" is not a fact.)And, with Fast & Furious, was the administration in the wrong? What did they do during the never ending Benghazi investigations, where they knew they clearly weren't? (Hint: they obeyed subpeonas, testified for hours on end, and were found blameless, what, a dozen times?)What was it Trump said about people who take the fifth?3) Unsurprisingly, I'm going to believe the experts over your claims.4) Your question is based on your unjustified assertion that presidential impeachments are legally and/or significantly different to every other kind of impeachment Congress has the power to bring. You're supposely an expert on the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution, so, other than the chief justice presiding over the senate trial, where does it (or anything else) say a president's impeachment doesn't follow the same precedents as all other impeachments?Show me something concrete that you didn't just make up on the spot to justify ignoring every other impeachment in history.
@goaded 1) Well, thanks. However, I think I know what I think better than you know what I think. Though you are superb exemplar of the presumption of your ethic.2) You seem to be confusing things. I reference Naplitano here only on the question of what it would be for an attorney to put someone on the stand of whom they had no idea in advance what that witness would say. He called that malpractice at a professional legal standard.As to the Obama Administration... They were perfectly within the law and precedent to assert Executive privilege unless and until a court overruled them. I have no objection to that. The problem at the moment seems to be that - somehow suddenly when Trump does it, it is obstruction.Nope. In fact just today when asked if Bolton could be permitted to testify the President said that he had no problem but that he would have to consult WH lawyers before he could permit it. This because he cannot forfeit for himself - and thus for all Presidents after him - executive privilege.3) Please re-read what I wrote. It is more nuanced than you appear to understand. That said, believe who you choose. The precedent is there to see in the historical record and it ain't goin' away.4) Why do you believe the impeachment of the only member of the government - at any level - to be elected by the population - to be no different from any other impeachment? What precedent suggests to you that they are the same?
P. S. Hint on the last one: Who is the ONLY member of the government for whom, if impeached, the Chief Justice presides at the trial. This notwithstanding that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the senior member of the Federal judiciary and therefore you would think ought preside over the impeachment of judges at least?
You still haven't responded to my request for some documentation that says presidential impeachments are immune to precedent from all other impeachments, dating back to the 14th century (or even just to the founding of the USA). That's probably because it's impossible.I wonder if you know where this quote comes from:"To determine whether or not an act or a course of conduct is sufficient in law to support an impeachment, resort must be had to the eternal principles of right, applied to public propriety and civil morality. The offense must be prejudicial to the public interest and it must flow from a willful intent, or a reckless disregard of duty... It may constitute an intentional violation of positive law, or it may be an official dereliction of commission or omission, a serious breach of moral obligation, or other gross impropriety of personal conduct that, in its natural consequences, tends to bring an office into contempt and disrepute."Hint: It comes from a document with headings:2. Who May Be Impeached3. Grounds for Impeachment4. — Impeachable Misconduct Note that section 2 is completely independent of sections 3 & 4. There's no connection between grounds for impeachment and the position of the person being impeached.Why is that, do you think? Could it be... Precedent?
@goaded We are guided BOTH by statute and precedent. Show me the precedent where the impeachment of a President was distinct from a criminal charge. Then explain why this one should be treated differently.Then extrapolate what the practical implications will be for future impeachments once you are no longer obliged to link articles of impeachment to specific criminal charges.
"The argument is frequently made that offenses leading to impeachment when committed by federal judges do not necessarily rise to this level when committed by a president—the argument’s basis is said to be that the Constitution provides that Article III judges ‘‘shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,’’ U. S. Const. art. III, § 1, and thus that judges are impeachable for ‘‘misbehavior’’ while other federal officials are only impeachable for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The staff of the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s and the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal in the 1990s have both rejected this argument."The House Judiciary Committee, in 1998.Precedent. Maybe you should show me something that says all these four official sources are wrong, this time out?By the way, did you recognise where the previous quote came from? I asked, remember?House Rules, chapter 27.
My mistake, it was from: "House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House", Friday, March 31, 2017. Chapter 27, Impeachment. (Both the House and Senate majorities were Republicans in the 115th congress, although the text is largely unchanged since the 1996 version.)www.govinfo.gov/.../GPO-HPRACTICE-115-28.pdfThe problem is not that you know more about congress than I do, it's that you're willing to lie about what you know. Hence, it's reasonable to insist that you back up your claims with something concrete. Which you don't.
@goaded Yes, you keep accusing me of lying. Typical ad hominem. So - 1) When have we previously had an impeachment of a President in which the Articles were divorced from specific criminal charges?2) Why do you think that was and what are the implications going forward if that precedent stands?3) Case specific: On October 14, 2011, President Obama ordered the drone killing of an American citizen - Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki - without due process or other legal rights afforded US citizens. Was that an "abuse of power" and therefore impeachable? If not, why not?
Well, since I addressed the substance of your argument and produced evidence against your claim that only presidential impeachments can be used as precedent, pointing out that you lie wasn't ad hominem, it was simply a statement of fact (since you did, for example, lie about the Republicans being excluded from the depositions which had multiple Republican members present, and I feel that you're not being totally honest now).1) As before, your premise is wrong, and since I've shown clearly that the argument that only presidential impeachments count as precedent has been rejected multiple times since the 1970s, bordering on a lie itself. ALL prior impeachments add to precedent, and at least in one case a judge was impeached for accepting free food which is not, in itself, illegal.Show me something that seriously claims otherwise, and I'll consider it.2) See 1.3) Quite possibly. As was the ordering of torture by GW Bush.Why didn't the Republican controlled House impeach Obama for the killing at the time? They held nearly 56% of the seats, after all. They'd probably have got some Democratic votes for it, too.
@goaded 1) Why should THIS impeachment be treated by a standard different from the prior two - three if you count Nixon. I do NOT dispute that you can. Rather I dispute on what basis that you would.2) Answer the question regarding abuse of power.
1) It's not being treated differently. All of them have been based on hundreds of years of precedent of previous impeachments and "high crimes and misdemeanours". Why do you insist that we should only consider two or three recent cases, when nobody else is? The only thing that's special about POTUS is that they are an impeachable head of state, which wasn't the case with the King of Britain. The point is that POTUS is impeachable, the same as judges, and civil federal officers, etc.3) I did answer the question about abuse of power. Do you need me to explain something in particular? Here it is again:"3) Quite possibly [Obama's killing of American citizens abroad was abuse of power]. As was the ordering of torture by GW Bush.Why didn't the Republican controlled House impeach Obama for the killing at the time? They held nearly 56% of the seats, after all. They'd probably have got some Democratic votes for it, too."
@goaded 1) Actually, no, precedents have been broken all over the place. Done in record time. Conducted out of the Intel Committee. Conducted without a vote on a motion to instruct. I could go down the list.In fact, the process was so convoluted that the courts would not consider subpoenas under expedited procedures. Remember when the Speaker was saying that it was NOT an impeachment?2) What you need to explain is that if it was an abuse of power, why is this President being treated differently from the way Bush and Obama were. What is the objective standard, absent statutory parameters, that one was impeached and the other not?Indeed, just as a practical matter, what was the MORE impeachable offense? One was, by your lights, an explicit violation of a citizen's constitutional rights and indeed was the state sponsored murder of a citizen. The other, by your lights, was a quid pro quo that was never executed.So what is the standard in that statutory vacuum?
Pursuant to that last question - put another way - how many more Presidents do you want to impeach?Are you beginning to at least get a glimmer of the problem that flows from severance of an article of impeachment from any statutory parameters?
1) Are any of the things on your list things the House, with its sole power of impeachment, not allowed to do? We've already been through the fact that they were working within the rules (as written by the Republicans).2) You do keep insisting that I need to dance for you, for some reason. Does it matter why Trump is the one being impeached, and not the others? Republicans had control of the House when Obama had that boy killed, ask them why they didn't do anything about it. Perhaps it's because both sides think anything goes when it comes to (Islamist) terrorists. Perhaps Trump's greatest sin was to attack free and fair elections in the United States by demanding domestic political help from foreign governments in exchange for taxpayer funds he was legally obliged to pass on.Your question sounds like someone getting a speeding ticket complaining that the guy they were racing was speeding, too. Tough luck, you're the one that got caught."Pursuant to that last question - put another way - how many more Presidents do you want to impeach?"All of them, until they start to realise that they're not above the law, and have to work for the good of the country, not just their own supporters or party."Are you beginning to at least get a glimmer of the problem that flows from severance of an article of impeachment from any statutory parameters?"Exactly what difference would it make?The previous two presidents arguably committed major crimes: torture and murder (people died under torture, iirc), and murder. Republicans in control of the House chose not to do anything about either.Are you saying that because the Republicans ignored those crimes, Democrats should ignore anything short of mass murder?
@goaded 1) Not a question of "can" but a question of "oughts." They have the power to declare war on Russia. Do you think that they ought to?2) You keep saying I have to dance to your tune. All I am trying to do is determine if there is for you any guiding principle, or if this is merely about doing what you want to do because you want to do it. There does not appear to be.There appears to be no consideration of the implications of the action. There appears to be no sense of consequence or purpose, save "Vaulting ambition o're leaps itself."You preach the rule of law, but it is selective. Law is not only the written law, it is precedent and custom and manner. You approach the question simplistically, not to say childishly.The problem being that your principles are abstractly perfect and practically defective. Lincoln abolished habeas corpus. FDR did an end run around the neutrality laws. You would have impeached them both.Think about that.
1) Do you think they would declare war on Russia? They ought to investigate as best they can whistle-blower complaints about the president illegally trying to influence the next election. Don't you agree?Do you think the president "ought to" withhold legally allocated funds from an ally for personal political gain? Do you think the DoJ ought to have looked into the Ukraine phone call at least as much as the House committees did? Do you think the president ought to delay proceedings by asserting never-before assertions of immunity from investigation? Do you think the rules for the senate trial ought to be unanimously agreed upon by the Senate, like in the Clinton trial? 2) I just ask you to justify yourself, preferably with another "authority".My guiding principle is that people who lie about things are usually guilty of something or covering up for someone else who is."Law is not only the written law, it is precedent and custom and manner."OK, but you're treating precedent as something you can pick and choose from."You approach the question simplistically, not to say childishly."Now THAT's ad hominem."Lincoln abolished habeas corpus."Article I, Section 9, clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."What the hell was the Civil war other than Rebellion?"FDR did an end run around the neutrality laws."When he noted that China and Japan weren't officially at war? They hadn't declared war, and finding a loophole isn't the same as ignoring a law. Hell, had Japan, the aggressor, even officially declared war? They could have protected themselves by doing so!"You would have impeached them both."Nope, the first was justified by the Constitution, and the second was not against the letter of the law (and FDR was also why, I suspect, term limits were brought in, because it's easier to beat someone new than a popular president).Think about that.
@goaded 1) The answer of course depends on circumstance. If the President has reason to believe that such aid will be misused or abused, then absolutely he should withhold it. To date, there is no direct evidence or fact witness testimony to suggest that the case is otherwise. As Burke said, "Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind."As to the "asserting never-before assertions of immunity from investigation..." It is called Executive Privilege and the House Democrats could have challenged it. They chose not to. Why?As to unanimity, ought that trump the precedent of two other impeachments in terms of procedure? Besides, having smashed precedents right and left in the House, on what basis so they now stand on precedent? Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. The House Democrats rang the bell - they cannot un-ring it now.CONT.
2) As to these:A) "My guiding principle is that people who lie about things are usually guilty of something or covering up for someone else who is." Really? Always? This leaving aside the presumption of innocent.B) "OK, but you're treating precedent as something you can pick and choose from." ... and you are not? I would have been bound by precedent in the House. Once that was broken, there was no way to sustain it in the Senate. Precedent is a delicate thing and once broken, the devil take the hindmost.The Democrats - and you - are saying that it was fine when we broke precedent, but the GOP cannot. Kinda don't think that will work. In any case, at least to date, by following the same procedure that was adopted during the Clinton trial, at least McConnell is making some effort to stick to precedent, which is far more than the House Democrats managed.C) Now THAT's ad hominem. Actually no, it was an analysis of the depth - or lack of same - of your analysis. However, take it as you will. Certainly you are not shy about dishing it out.D) Did not say that the Federal Government lacks the power, but the case that the President may do it absent Congressional authority is anything but clear cut. No matter. I am sure you would take it calmly and defend Trump were he to do the same. Can you say, "situational ethics."Please note that the power is Article I - Congress. NOT the President.Lastly, no. Finding a loophole is evading the intention of the law. Not unlike what you could argue Trump did by recurring to the President's authority to withhold aid on suspicion of corruption. (I do not argue that - I merely point out that semantic differences are in the eye of the beholder. There is no doubt what Congress intended in the Neutrality Acts.)
1) So, what was the reason? If they could have given a reasonable explanation, the impeachment wouldn't have happened.Nice quote, but it doesn't trump quotes from the House Practices document.""... immunity from investigation..." It is called Executive Privilege and the House Democrats could have challenged it."Wrong on both counts. But you're an expert, so lying on both counts. They did challenge it, and it's not the same as Executive Privilege which "comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions."Denying inaccurate accusations would be the opposite of impairing governmental functions.A) "My guiding principle is that people who lie about things are usually guilty of something or covering up for someone else who is." Really? Always? This leaving aside the presumption of innocent.Firstly, look up the meaning of "usually". Secondly, yes, that presumption is harmed by obvious lies, like yours.B) "OK, but you're treating precedent as something you can pick and choose from." ... and you are not?No. You're insisting that only the part of precedent you want matters, I'm saying it all does.C) At least you can't show that I've lied.D) You're right, it's a limit on Congress. And it's also the clause that says: "And no Person... shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."Who's (paying but not) staying at Trump Hotels? That part looks pretty clear-cut, to me."Lastly, no. Finding a loophole is evading the intention of the law."So, even if it's not illegal, it should be impeachable?"Not unlike what you could argue Trump did by recurring to the President's authority to withhold aid on suspicion of corruption."There's a law that limits how long it can be withheld, and that states Congress shall be informed. Trump didn't, and that's the letter of the law.
@goaded 1) They did give a reason and the Democrats chose not to believe it. The notion that this was a pristine judgment made absent other motives does not bear scrutiny. Indeed, you may recall that Speaker Pelosi was at first dead set against it. It was only because her base was in outright revolt that she backed down. Prima facie, she at first looked more than ready to accept the Administration's explanation.2) Why is it wrong? Show me. The Democrats could not challenge it? They were until they withdrew the subpoenas. 3) No, I won't call you a liar. Dogmatic, crude, vituperative - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on lying.4) "Lastly, no. Finding a loophole is evading the intention of the law."So, even if it's not illegal, it should be impeachable? You lost me. Whose argument are you making. MY point was that you relate an article of impeachment to a specific law. You then conduct an investigation to determine if there has been a violation of that law and - if you can meet the "reasonable doubt" standard of a lower court - you move to trial and conviction.The funds were released before the deadline - a. k. a the end of the fiscal year. Soooooooo?Cannot follow the rest of what you wrote. Please clarify.As to precedent. Sorry, but majority rule is the obvious first precedent of both Houses of Congress. Second, YOU are the one picking and choosing. It bothered you not at all when the House broke precedent. MY point was that once the toothpaste was out of the tube, you were not going to be able to put it back. You have become a born-again worshiper of precedent. Too late.2)
Two parts, at least.1) Considering all the evidence that's come out since, the Democrats were right not to believe the DoJ refusal to investigate. (What, exactly, was the reason given, by the way? Wasn't it just "we looked at the released text and decided there was nothing wrong? They didn't look any deeper at all.)2) The first thing that's wrong is that "absolute immunity from investigation" is anything like "executive privilege". The second is that it isn't being challenged.The former, ridiculous, claim (made last May or June, iirc) still has to finish making its way through the courts before they could even start on privilege (I'm not even sure that executive privilege has been claimed yet, they're just refusing to cooperate at all).3) You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt, just find somewhere where I've said something genuinely incorrect and refused to back down in the face of evidence to the contrary.Here are some possibilites for you:* Republicans were present and asking questions during the House depositions.* Attempted bribery is also bribery (otherwise one could never turn someone else in for trying to bribe you).* The House was working within their (Republican-written) rules when performing the impeachment inquiries.* Every time the Democrats in Congress have broken precedent, it has been in response to a Republican breaking of precedent. (You have yet to come up with a single counter-example.)* Trump did something impeachable (requesting foreign help in domestic politics, extorting said help, or requesting it as a bribe, enriching himself using his position as POTUS, etc.)* All previous impeachments provide precedent for presidential impeachments.Any evidence to the contrary?
cont."4) "Lastly, no. Finding a loophole is evading the intention of the law."So, even if it's not illegal, it should be impeachable?"Wait, what? You're quoting yourself as if it came from me? Strange.What *I* said was: "finding a loophole isn't the same as ignoring a law".And your "even if it's not illegal, it should be impeachable?" is illogical. Not everything that's illegal is impeachable, and not everything that's impeachable is a crime."MY point was that you relate an article of impeachment to a specific law. You then conduct an investigation to determine if there has been a violation of that law and - if you can meet the "reasonable doubt" standard of a lower court - you move to trial and conviction."OK, I understand that, and it's wrong.Having foreign governments pay to stay at your hotels or country club is... a bad example, it's actually illegal and unconstitutional.Asking for political help from foreign governments... also illegal.Withholding aid from foreign governments without informing Congress... also illegal.Exactly what abuse of power is he accused of isn't a crime?Anyway, the other way you're wrong is with the proof of a crime part; people have been impeached for accepting free meals and board. It's about betraying the public trust."The funds were released before the deadline - a. k. a the end of the fiscal year."Not all of them ($35m unreleased, iirc). And Congress should have been informed (at the start)."... majority rule is the obvious first precedent of both Houses of Congress."Minority rights used to be in there too, until one side started abusing them."Second, YOU are the one picking and choosing. It bothered you not at all when the House broke precedent."Firstly, why was the House investigating the whistle-blower complaint in the first place? It was because the DoJ essentially refused to do so. Secondly, the rules trump precedent."born-again worshiper of precedent."Bull. I'm just arguing on your terms.
@goaded 1) What evidence has been proffered by fact witnesses? In any case, you investigate in the investigative stage, not in the trial stage. It is odd, to say no more, to argue that the prosecution prosecutes and then expects the defense to prosecute. This is just getting too arcane for words.2) Your sentence is unclear. If the prosecution is asking for an employee of the Executive branch to testify that is, BY DEFINITION, an infringement on Executive Privilege. When speaking of WH staff, the President will automatically enforce it as he does not wish to set the precedent that the Congress may violate it at will - thence to the courts to sort out whether the Executive Privilege claim is legitimate or an infringement of the legislature's oversight authority. (If there are other extant issues, they too must be sorted out. MY only point is that the Executive Privilege claim is automatic.)3) In response, I'll just pick one. Of the witnesses that the GOP wanted to call - how many were they permitted? Oh, and no, there were so many irregularities in this impeachment that you may recall that at one point Speaker Pelosi said that it was not even an impeachment. That also why the courts would not give expedited consideration to House Democrat subpoenas such that they now, in effect, want Senate Republicans to do that which the House Dems muffed for themselves.CONT.
4) Not sure I follow your point here. Impeachment is one part constitutional, one part legal and one part political. Lower the bar on the standard of impeachment too much and you will impeach Abraham Lincoln. We are operating in a gray area here. My only point to you was to point out that a "loophole" is merely a euphemism for an evasion of either the letter or spirit of the law.Your last point is bewildering. Not two - or was it ten? - postings ago you were telling me that you wanted every President impeached who went beyond the law. Now you are telling me that not everything that is illegal is impeachable. No argument from me. It is just that I no longer have any idea of what your guiding - and more importantly - your limiting principles are. (In any case, we are dealing with impeachment at the presidential level. Try to focus.)CONT.
5) Nope. The office of Legislative Counsel - the defining authority for DoD - had already ruled the whistleblower complaint not substantial. (DoJ was NOT going to overrule that.) The House was exercising its oversight authority - but then exceeded that by moving to an impeachment/non-impeachment done out of the Intel Committee. All very weird.Lastly, you are right, the rules trump precedent. However, the rules are not expansive enough to cover every contingency - hence the reliance on precedence - and in this case, the rules were violated, the first time, when the whistleblower went to Congress BEFORE going to the Office of Leg Counsel.That was the first of many. On the other side, the charge is that the President broke the rules - which is the whole point. No procedural rules were broken and so far there are no fact witnesses or admissible evidence that the President did indeed break the rules. Only rumor and interpretation which, by themselves, are not admissible.IN SUM: It is academic in any case. The pot has gone off the boil and as you can see from Speaker Pelosi's cave on the Articles of Impeachment, even Senate Democrats just want this over with.My guess: No witnesses - or if there are witnesses there will be none of the big ones that Schummer had been demanding. McConnell will drag this out long enough to screw around with the Democrat's primary election campaign and then wrap it up - and the Democrats will heave a sigh of relief.
P. S. Correction, the report was to the IG not Leg Counsel.
1) The Senate is not "the defence".2) Executive privilege has never been a factor in impeachment investigations or trials. It's not "automatic", the president has to assert it.3) I asked you to give a single example of where I lied, and even supplied a list of potential possibilities, and you say: "In response, I'll just pick one."Sweet. Pretend you've got more than one to choose from while making up an example that I never said. In other words, none of the things I listed were lies.Where did I say the Republicans could call anyone they wanted as witnesses (they had to be relevant)?"at one point Speaker Pelosi said that it was not even an impeachment."I suspect that's a zombie lie, but I can't be bothered right now. Try again later.4) "a "loophole" is merely a euphemism for an evasion of either the letter or spirit of the law."The letter of the law:"Whenever the President shall find that there exists a state of war between, or among, two or more foreign states..."The president had to declare countries at war for the Act to come into effect. He had a reasonable reason for not to do so; it wasn't even a loophole.Try this: it would be insane to impeach a president for speeding, it would be equally insane not to impeach a president for firing missiles at a allied country for no reason.Exactly what abuse of power Trump is accused of isn't a crime?5) (5?) "Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson... deemed [the complaint] – "credible" and "of urgent concern" after working to validate some of the official’s allegations."The acting DNI then sat on the complaint longer than he was legally allowed to. Clarify for me who "ruled the whistleblower complaint not substantial", exactly?"... the whistleblower went to Congress BEFORE going to [the IG]"They asked what they should do, and were told.Keep hiding that "so far" part (like you do with your walls of text). Let the witnesses testify under oath, and we'll know for sure.
@goaded 1) It was a joke. Though for all practical purposes, the Speaker is asking the Senate Republican majority - the party of the WH at the moment - to do her work. So there is more than a grain of truth ti my snark. 2) Really? Please cite examples.3) Not sure why you are asking me this. I never accused you of lying. Errors of fact, bad manners, vitriol, and a tendency to substitute epithets for analysis, but not lying. Indeed, even if I thought you were I would NOT, as a matter of courtesy, openly accuse you of it. That is your specialty. To me such accusations do not advance the discussion or its tone and so I do not make them.As to your last point - when in an impeachment prior to this one was the minority denied the right to call witnesses in the impeachment stage? Indeed, for that matter, when was the WH denied the opportunity to have representation and cross examine during the inquiry (House committee) stage of an investigation?In any case, it is, as I say, academic. The Senate majority will set the terms of the Senate trial - and while it cannot be ruled out that witnesses will be called, it will not take place unless the Democrats are willing to have witnesses called that they clearly do not want called.The end of this is already pretty obvious and the national interest in it continues to decline. They just don't make constitutional crises the way that they used to.
2) "Really? Please cite examples." Examples of someone not doing something?I was wrong about Clinton, he tried to use executive privilege to stop Kenneth Starr from questioning aides, but lost in court. He didn't use it during the rest of the impeachment process, though.3) When you replied to my suggestion of things you might have had counter-evidence for one of my assertions, it implied that you did (even though you didn't), which would have meant that I'd lied.I've never accused someone of lying without proof. As to tone, I think insinuations of false things are far worse than saying true things outright.The minority wasn't denied the right to call witnesses, they had to justify why they were doing it, and could demand a vote of the committee if the chair rejected their request. Who did they want to call?The deposition stage of the impeachment was always carried out by the DoJ before, and the president had no right to representation and cross examination at that stage.By the way, exactly what abuse of power Trump is accused of isn't a crime?Who "ruled the whistleblower complaint not substantial", exactly? It wasn't the Intelligence Community Inspector General, and it obviously wasn't the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U. S. House of Representatives.
@goaded 2) Well, you have 45 Presidents and three impeachments. Executive Privilege was invoked, the very first time by George Washington. So, all you have to do is look to see which President never invoked the privilege. It would be in the records. Think of it this way - list all the Presidents who never dropped an atomic bomb. See the ideas?2) As to your second point, the difference between us is that, for the sake of civility if nothing else, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt. A charge of lying - rather than assuming, for example, that you simply made a mistake or misunderstood - is needlessly inflammatory and contributes nothing to the discussion. Though it does make the accuser feel good about their moral superiority. I ignore it from you. I have not knowingly lied and I make the same presumption about you.3) As to your comical point about witnesses. Think about that, the prosecution decides which witnesses the defense gets to call. How well would that work in a regular trial?Good grief.4) No, the DoJ does NOT carry out depositions in an impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee does. The DoJ may be present, but they don't carry it out. It is called the separation of powers.5) As to abuse of power, you tell me. Why did the House make the general charge rather than cite specific charges as was the historic norm? 6) The IG ruled it insubstantial. By law, the whistleblower could not go to the House Judiciary Committee - not the Legislative Counsel, by the way (you don't appear to know what Leg Counsel does) - until the the IG ruled. Indeed, there is part of the problem. It looks like the Whistleblower went to the Judiciary Committee before going to the IG. That, as you might imagine, presenting all sorts of problems.
2) I think we're talking past each other, on this one. I was under the impression we were talking about use of executive privilege in impeachments. I know they've probably all used executive privilege at some point, but as far as I can tell, never to hide from impeachment hearings in the House or at a Senate trial.
@goaded Well, it was used in Clinton and Nixon. Indeed, both lost.Sort of my point. Had the House majority taken the time to pursue the investigation, it would have taken a while but customarily the courts expedite consideration and as impeachment is both a constitutional power of the House and inherent in its oversight authority, they typically win.They chose not to and said that such witnesses were not necessary as they had all the information they needed and the matter was urgent. Now they say they need the testimony and the matter was not so urgent that they could not sit on it for just shy of a month.Of course, the President - for reasons of precedent at the very least - is going to invoke Executive Privilege. Moreover, given the track record I just cited above, I am not sure that the Democrats would win. Indeed, if the witnesses are to be called de novo at the Senate trial itself - an inherently highly risky move by the Democrats - it is not clear to me that the Chief Justice will allow it given precedent. Keeping in mind that the House conducts the investigation and makes the charge, the Senate conducts the trial.Then still, even if the Chief Justice allows the calling of witnesses, he can be overridden by a one vote majority in the Senate. Again, given the slipshod and byzantine way the House handled impeachment, I don't think the Democrats should count on that.
I gave you plenty of benefit of the doubt, you kept insisting that the Republicans were excluded from the depositions and couldn't ask questions. What it adds to the discussion? Context."I have not knowingly lied..."So you really didn't know that Republicans were in the depositions, asking questions?I find that very hard to believe from someone with your vaunted inside knowlege.For that matter, "The IG ruled it insubstantial" looks very much like a lie, as well. Feel free to correct yourself.As a resource, you can use this quote from earlier:"Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson... deemed [the complaint] – "credible" and "of urgent concern" after working to validate some of the official’s allegations."www.factcheck.org/.../3) "As to your comical point about witnesses."By comical, I guess you must mean accurate. It wasn't then, and still is not, a trial, and it's not unreasonable to only depose witnesses who would likely add knowledge about what happened. Who did the Republicans want to call as witnesses? Would they have been witnesses to the events surrounding the phone call?4) The DoJ carries out the investigation, unless the AG decides not to.5) Too many to list? :) They could be wanting to show a pattern of abuse.Which of the abuses of power he's charged with weren't crimes?6) "The IG ruled it insubstantial." Not according to, well, reality. The IG even went to Congress when the complaint was illegally blocked. See above.I was giving you yet another chance to correct yourself, which you totally failed to do.You're the one who mentioned the Legislative Counsel, by the way, I think you meant Office of Legal Counsel (which works for the president, and would be expected to defend him). You don't dismiss a case on the advice of a defence attorney!
@goaded 1) Honestly, we probably talked past each other. That said, given the format and the fact that the longer the conversation goes, the more you have to bounce back and forth between the top and bottom of the page. At this point - after this many iterations - I have no way of knowing.Bottom line, I never - even if I thought you were - called you a liar. (Also, I cut you some slack. It would you be nice - if uncharacteristic - of you to do the same. Aside from this clunky format I also work from home and have three children. So I am bouncing between you, work and home duties.)Not sure what you mean on the IG. To the best of my memory, the IG took a pass and at that point the "Whistleblower" went to the House. (This leaving aside that he went to the House, then to the IG, then back to the House as now appears to have been the case.) Hit your link and got an error message. I will accept what you say nonetheless. However, I seem to recall that was not the response to the first iteration. It also begs the question then of why the IG did not conduct an investigation and why this went to House Judiciary.2) My point on your comical point is that typically, in a trial, ya don't get to have the prosecution pick the defense's witnesses. Sorry. Not done that way. The prosecution gets to decide what defense witnesses are "worthty." Think about that.3) List them.4) So? Yup. DoJ is under the AG, although the DoJ is given wide latitude and it is not as clear cut as you pretend.As to your summation. There is just no way I will ever be as profoundly wise, moral and generous as you are.Still, I fail to correct myself and you never answered some of the most basic questions. Call it a trade-off. In any case, bang your spoon your high chair as you will, this is not apt to have a surprise ending.
P. S. By the way, while acknowledging that you are in every way the morally superior being, I would point out also that you often - even in your last posting - do not consistently itemize your points nor write with clear antecedents.So then not only am I left to chase up and down the postings to recall what you are referring to, I have to make sure that I am linking each response I write to each appropriate point you made. Suffice to say, making it far more difficult to recall and respond consistently and correctly.So again, and as ever acknowledging that you stand at the pinnacle of the moral hierarchy and must not be affronted with a challenge. I might ever so gently suggest - if you plan to continue our exchanges - that you take greater care in drafting your replies. (Truth be told, I was not even clear on some of what you wrote above. I just guessed at what you meant to convey and hoped for the best.) Just a suggestion from an ever unworthy servant to the land of the master race.
"To the best of my memory, the IG took a pass and at that point the "Whistleblower" went to the House."Well, then your memory is wrong. Like I said, more than once, the IG found the complaint worthy of being sent to congress, passed it to the (Acting, of course) DNI, who (illegally) sat on it. The IG later went to congress to report that the complaint had been made, but not delivered (does that make the IG a whistleblower?).Strange about the link, it's quite a simple one. Maybe this one will work: intelligence.house.gov/.../documentsingle.aspx“... a whistleblower within the intelligence community lawfully filed a complaint regarding a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law, or deficiency within the responsibility or authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community found that complaint not only credible, but urgent. More than ten days since the Director was obligated to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committees, the Committee has still not received the disclosure from the Director, in violation of the law.""It also begs the question then of why the IG did not conduct an investigation and why this went to House Judiciary."They investigated enough to determine that it was credible, and passed it on.2) Not a trial yet.3) List what?"Still, I fail to correct myself and you never answered some of the most basic questions."If you mean your questions that are based on flawed premises, pointing out the flaws *is* answering the question.While we're giving out advice on tone, and clarity, perhaps you could try backing up your statements with sources (or at least phrasing them differently than divine revelations) and leaving out the insults. Maybe even acknowledge being wrong, once in a while.
@goaded Okay, on the point regarding the Whistleblower, you need not have re-sent it, I took you at your word. My memory failed me on that one. In fact, after I got off with you I recalled the whole controversy of the change that was made in Whistleblower procedures allowing hearsay just 5 days before he filed. Fair enough.Does not change the fact that it is based on hearsay and that is not admissible in a lower court and would be dismissed.As to the rest - since you ARE the expert in these matters:1) Why did the House not link the Articles of Impeachment to specific criminal charges.2) Why did the House charge obstruction of Congress when it is precedent and normal procedure to challenge Executive Privilege claims in the courts?3) To date, how many fact witnesses has the House Majority produced?4) Why did the House majority opt not to call the witnesses it now wants called?5) Please cite the specific statute of which the President is alleged to be in violation.6) Why did the Speaker begin by saying that there was no impeachment?7) Why was this issue referred to the Intelligence Committee? Is there ANY precedent for referring impeachments to House Intel?So, you are the expert - so explain it to me. Point by point, specifically.CONT.
Oh, and just for the record, I have no love of Mr. Trump and did not vote for him. However, I do not see on what basis this would be impeachable. If indeed, it becomes impeachable, there being no way to draw the statutory line in this case between the President's interests and the national interest generally, you will end up with impeachments every time one party holds the House and the other the WH.Bonus Question: What is the statutory difference between the national and Presidential interest in this case?Lastly, frankly, the House Democrats may have had a shot at this but have bobbled it so badly that there is no chance of retrieving it. You don't muff precedent that badly and then stand your ground on precedent.So, YOU are the expert - answer the questions SPECIFICALLY AND POINT-BY-POINT.
Firstly, you don't have to take me at my word, I provide sources. Secondly, like the reports of the McGahn conversation about Trump wanting investigations into Clinton and Comey, the point is to signal something is wrong, and point the direction to look. It doesn't have to be admissible in court, that's what the investigations look for.I've never once claimed to be an expert, just that you, who often does, are equally often factually wrong.1) I don't know, but rules.house.gov/.../CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf lists Criminal Bribery, 18 U. S. C. § 201 and Honest Services Fraud, 18 U. S. C § 1346.2) Trump didn't just claim executive privilege, but immunity from investigation, which was obviously ridiculous. And that's still going through the courts seven months later.3) It depends on the facts you're talking about, I guess, many witnesses knew relevant facts, but not the whole picture. I know they subpoenaed many more, who could have filled in the blanks.4) See 2 and 3.5) See 1.6) I don't know, and I doubt that happened. I suspect there was at least one extra word in there.7) I guess because it was because it originated with the Intelligence IG.No, you claim to be the expert - so explain it to me. Point by point, specifically. Especially how any of your questions indicate Trump didn't do what he's accused of (not just how you think he'll get away with it).I know you claim not to love Trump, but you clearly want to keep the Republican party in power at any cost."What is the statutory difference between the national and Presidential interest in this case?"Gosh, IANAL, but the obvious (if not statutory) difference is there would have been no national interest in announcements of investigations into political rivals with absolutely no evidence of any crime taking place. You asked for "the specific statute of which the President is alleged to be in violation", what crimes are Hunter and Joe Biden accused of? Fair's fair.
@goaded You sure are up late on a school night for living in Germany.As to the preface, I took you at your word because you had attempted to provide a link. I did not blame you because the link you sent did not work. I have no idea why it did not, but I trusted that you made the effort. " something is wrong" is not impeachable.1) Not good enough. Be specific.2) His blocking of the testimony was based on BOTH actually. Agree that the total immunity won't stand. Now answer the question.3) You guess? Try again. Why should guesses be sufficient.4) Try again. Be specific5) Try again, be specific.6) You don't know and you suspect... okaaaaaaayyyyy///7) You guess? This I will give you - expert you are not. Yet you presume that you have a case, rooted in your inability to answer some very basic questions, to have a case for impeachment.Oh, as to keeping the GOP in power, they are my preference, but we have lived with them not in power before. I presume we would survive them not being in power again. Trust me, it means less to me that you have assumed.As to that statutory difference - answer the question. Non-answers make for a lousy basis of impeachment.
P. S. One last thing - just because the topic interests me. I am no fan of Mr. Trump's brand of populism and it has horrified me the degree to which it has become the dominant ethos in the GOP - marking the end of the Reagan era. Stunningly, although Mr. Reagan's conservatism - actually classical liberalism - was more consequential and was the dominant national ethos until the advent of Trump populism, it took Reagan 6 years after his first election to dominate the GOP. By contrast, Mr. Trump's populism became the dominant ethos in the GOP after one election cycle. It is a stunning accomplishment. The flaw in your thesis - attributing to me that I make an equivalence between Trump and GOP prospects - is that it is too simple. If Trump is defeated in an election - by no means assured - his grip on the GOP will be released. If, on the other hand, he is seen as having been martyred in an impeachment - and that IS how his supporters will view it (thanks to the Democrat's grotesque mishandling of the impeachment process) - his grip on the GOP will last well beyond his presidency. It may seem counterintuitive, but the assumption that an impeachment will reduce Trump's influence in the GOP - and that the GOP will remain in perpetual electoral limbo - is at best shortsighted. At worst profoundly mistaken and self-defeating.
If you're using a browser, try copy-pasting the message you're answering into the reply box before you start, and delete parts as you're going along. The message length is only checked at submission time.Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Lest we forget, I asked how any of your questions or statements indicate Trump didn't do what he's accused of (not just how you think he'll get away with it), and what crimes Hunter and Joe Biden are accused of."..."something is wrong" is not impeachable."But "I heard gunshots" can lead to someone going to prison.1) Seriously? Citing a Judiciary Committee report and two laws isn't specific enough for you?2) I did answer the question. An unprecedented claim of total immunity and withholding everything, not just specific documents and testimony covered by executive privilege is (unless you can show otherwise) unprecedented during House impeachment hearings. It's up to senate Republicans to decide if they want future Democratic presidents to have that power.3) What did I say that was wrong? Be specific.4) Why? Be specific5) See 1.6) Yeah, I looked it up, as far as I can tell, she said: "this is not an impeachment RESOLUTION", amplified by a who's who of right wing sites. So I was right, unless you know better and can show differently, which I doubt you can.7) You know better? Tell me, but back it up.Then you go on to put words in my mouth. The only thing I "presume" is that the Democrats have a case, backed up by numerous experts on the subject."If Trump is defeated in an election - by no means assured - his grip on the GOP will be released."I don't think that's the case at all. Trump used decades of GOP stoking of resentment to take over. The Tea Party and so-called "Freedom Caucus" didn't appear out of nowhere, and nor did Trump. Remember the Rep. who shouted "You lie!" at Obama?It remains to be seen if the largest voting block in the country (non-voters) will be moved to actually vote for a change. The important thing is to try to hold presidents responsible for their actions; the Republican House ignoring torture and murder over the last two presidencies has not made for a better republic.Nor does a massive misinformation campaign.
@goaded Not answering your questions. You answer mine. I want to see YOUR reasoning and analysis. You are the font of all wisdom and purity, remember?1) Seriously. The majority wrote the report and the minority disagrees. What I am looking for is not what you can parrot, but the depth of your analysis.2) Trump used both. I agree on total immunity. How would you dispense with Executive Privilege?3) You didn't say anything specific. I want complete sentences and your rationale.4) You didn't say anything specific. I want complete sentences and your rationale.5) The majority wrote the report and the minority disagrees. What I am looking for is not what you can parrot, but the depth of your analysis. Why should the majority - whose investigation was so, er, unusual, not be dismissed. In a lower court, it would go nowhere.6) Don't disagree that she was right - its why the courts gave it no deference. Question is, what is it and why was the breaking of precedent justified in this case? I want YOUR analysis.7) Nope. You are making the case. You are the all knowing oracle, after all.To the last, you are confusing cause and effect. The culture is going through a period of deep envy and resentment and upheaval. Trump capitalized on that grafted it on to the GOP. It is VERY similar to what Warren and Sanders are doing on the Democrat side. (For all their superficial differences, Trump, Sanders and Warren have essentially the same message.)CONT.
Politics is downstream of culture. You want to feed that culture of resentment? Kick Trump out by means of an impeachment that followed quirky and dubious procedures. The details won't matter. The effect, I promise you, will NOT be to your liking nor good for the country.The Democrat Ahab is chasing its whale - and as seems to be mode of the hour on BOTH sides - no one is asking what tomorrow may bring. (As to ignoring torture and murder, how many Democrats condemned Obama? Sorry guy, not that I buy the 1960s vintage trope, but there is not likely to be much looking into that. Besides, discredit government and then elect the party of government? Kinda think that won't work too well.)
"Not answering your questions. You answer mine. I want to see YOUR reasoning and analysis. You are the font of all wisdom and purity, remember?"What you want doesn't bother me that much, if you're not going to answer simple questions honestly.Unlike you, I'm not asking what statute, or for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or for you to only use evidence applicable in a court of law. Just name a crime Hunter or Joe Biden is accused of.Secondly, how do any of your questions, or statements, or bluster, indicate Trump didn't do what he's accused of (rather than how you think he'll get away with it)?I'll consider your little list of demands, if you answer those.You shouldn't have to search online or anything, just tell me. Then, perhaps, we can go into your reasoning and analysis.
@goaded Don't care what bothers you or not. I am the liar, remember? My answers to you are prima facie not to be accepted. You set yourself up as the moral paragon and font of rationality. So answer the questions - precisely, point-by-point and specifically.2) Yes, unlike me, you have no objective standard. Just suspicion and bias that confirms your predispositons. That won't work too well in a lower court, let alone justify overturning an election and the constitutuonal order. (Not going to answer your question as my answer is, as you have asserted, all lies.)3) Your last question makes no sense at all. By the normal standards of law and reason, a man is innocent until proven guilty. You have said Mr. Trump is guilty of crimes - so make the case. The burden is on you. What that has to do with my opinions is beyond me. Unless you are making the argument that Mr. Trump is guilty because I think he is not.
You: "... unlike me, you have no objective standard" was your very next sentence after accusing me of setting myself up "as the moral paragon and font of rationality." :)Which of us is setting themselves up as a "font of rationality"?You're just avoiding and distract from questions you have no answer for, like:Is there any indication Trump didn't do the things the Democrats are accusing him of? *What crime is (either) Biden supposed to have committed?Remember all the fuss about investigating Hillary? Republicans weren't shy about making accusations of all sorts of crimes against her, what are they saying about Biden? Are those accusations any more likely to be true (considering Huber's reportedly giving up trying to find something on Clinton after two years or so)?www.washingtonpost.com/.../...d944ba776_story.html*You say, regarding Trump: "By the normal standards of law and reason, a man is innocent until proven guilty.". Not so. That comes at trial, as you must know.
@goaded You misunderstand. I am accepting your premise. I am a liar. Nothing I say can be trusted nor has any merit.So make your case - my only stipulation being that it is based on admissible standards of evidence and meets the tests of logic and analysis. Parroting the Democrat's lines does not work since that case - aside from the procedural problems which would get it dismissed in pretty short order - can be contested and has been.You are the truth, the way and the light so make the case. I just want to see THE TRUTH, so unworthy am I oh great and mighty Oracle.
This is all very well, but it's as obvious as the fact that Republicans are terrified of hearing from the remaining witnesses under oath that you're avoiding answering two extremely simple questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?They don't need special understanding of obscure rules or precedent, there's no need to analyse anything, all they need are simple answers that you, fascinated by this impeachment and paying such good attention, as you are, should be able to answer without a second's thought.Why don't you?
@goaded Any answer I gave you would be a lie. I am a liar. Remember?So answer my questions. Because I know that you are the font of all wisdom and goodness, oh great Oracle.
What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?There's a reason I laughed at the beginning of this thread, when you said "I will uncharacteristically answer a question with a question.".I'll have a go at the Riemann Hypothesis*, when you've told me what 2+2 equals.* "The prime number theorem determines the average distribution of the primes. The Riemann hypothesis tells us about the deviation from the average. Formulated in Riemann's 1859 paper, it asserts that all the 'non-obvious' zeros of the zeta function are complex numbers with real part 1/2."
@goaded Well, any answer I give you is a lie - therefore I will bother you. On the other hand, I would very much like to hear your thesis and the evidence for it. However, given that it is very late in Germany for you to be up on a school night, feel free to reply tomorrow. As I say, I would answer your questions, but seeing as I am a liar, why bother you with un-truths? Remember, I am a liar. You said so yourself. Everything I say is a lie.
Oh no! A paradox!What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Well, I would reply but as it would be a lie what's the point, so you can just go ahead and reply to the questions that I have asked you repeatedly but you just never seem to get around to answering. I await your profound enlightened wisdom. By the way, you sure are up late in Germany.
I'm proud of you for owning being a liar, but nobody's ever said everything you say is a lie.The part where you say I've not answered your complicated questions is, though. My two quick, simple, questions that you seem unable to answer (but endlessly willing to distract from) were:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded No, that's okay, I would not want to bother you with more of my lies. I appreciate that you stayed up so late in Germany to ask me but really, I need you to enlighten me as to truth and wisdom, so go ahead, answer the questions I asked you. Only then will I see the light.As it is, I do not wish to deceive you with more of my lies. Remember, everything I say is a lie.
Not everything, but a lot. Including that I've said everything you say is a lie. It's amazing how far you're willing to go to avoid answering two simple questions, honestly or not.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded It's amazing how far you will go to avoid answering any questions at all. Before, I was a liar. Now you want the liar to answer your questions, this begging the question of how you could trust any answer I proffered.C'mon out little kitty. Point by point, specifically, answer my questions - for once.
Why don't you go back up and see how many of your questions I've answered. It's certainly not none! (Oh, gosh, that means you did it again!)Why don't you refresh my memory of what questions I supposedly haven't answered, just to see how simple they are to answer compared to:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Why do you want answers from a liar. I am only going to lie to you. In fact, it has rendered the whole discussion null and void. So just answer the questions I put to you. Ciao.
I can cope just fine with your lies, I'm interested in your limits. It seems those questions, which would take a couple of words to answer are past that limit:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of? (I'll give you a hint, the two words are both "none".)Remember when you asked: "Why did the House not link the Articles of Impeachment to specific criminal charges."?My response: "... rules.house.gov/.../CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf lists Criminal Bribery, 18 U. S. C. § 201 and Honest Services Fraud, 18 U. S. C § 1346." (Literally the US criminal codes for the crimes he's accused of.)You: "Not good enough. Be specific."
@goaded Oh, I'm sorry. As I am a liar any answer I have given or gave you must be a lie and therefore quite useless - as indeed the whole exchange from Day 1 must have been.Besides, you forgot to answer the questions I asked of you. Please tend to that.
It's fascinating to see you use your proven status as a liar to deflect from two simple questions. Your claims that my answers to your questions were not good enough to be counted as answers pales in comparison to your assertion that, as a proven liar, you don't have to answer these two genuinely basic questions of mine:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Oh, I am sorry, you forgot to answer the questions I put to you. (Why my lies in response to your question being something of an intellectual paradox.)Please answer the questions put to you above - and not with links, but with thesis sentences and rationale to follow.
You demand "... thesis sentences and rationale to follow" from me, but refuse to say one word about:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?btw:
@goaded Oh, I'm sorry. You forgot to answer my questions. I would answer yours, but my answers would be lies, so what's the point?
What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?What question do you think I didn't answer?If you lie in your answers, I'll just point it out; I'm used to it, now. Plenty of practice.
@goaded Oh, so sorry, but as I am a liar, my answers would make no difference. Still waiting for your answers.
You shouldn't feel inconsequential, just because you have a history of lying. Redemption could be at hand, simply by answering these most basic questions about this impeachment:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?It's pretty clear the answers you would have to give are none and none, but according to you, I can't possibly assume that without hearing from the person who knows for sure. Objective standards, and all that. That's why it's important to hear from witnesses at trial.You can stop any time, simply by not responding, but I think you can't stand not having the last word.Before I forget, what question of yours do you think I didn't answer?
@goaded Ya know, it's kind of sweet and kinky, in a "reeperbahn" sort of way, how you want to be lied to. Still, no, I am a liar, and therefore answering would make no difference.Still waiting for your answers
"I am a liar", see - you can tell the truth! Keep it up, and tell me: what crime is either Biden accused of?One of Trump's last remaining defences is that he was trying to root out corruption (never mind the fact that this was the only supposed corruption he was interested in having investigated, and that he didn't care if it was actually investigated, just the announcement was important to him), he must have had at least some vague suspicion of an actual crime being committed, surely? What was it?By the way: "The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, found the Trump administration violated a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress."www.washingtonpost.com/.../...4772db96b_story.html
@goaded Sorta kinky that you want me to tell you sweet little lies... but no. You are just gonna have to get your cheap thrills elsewhere. As I am a liar, I can offer you no more and it is not good for you.So, as I say, as I am a liar by your lights my answering would make no difference.Still waiting for your answers though oh great kinky oracle of enlightenment and ancient wisdom.
Funny how you're squirming and attacking over not being able to answer two simple little questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?Trump is also a liar, but I'd love to see him testify because it's so easy to pull apart everything he says.Are you now saying that you're only a liar "by my lights"? In other words, I really have never answered any of your questions, for example? Name one.
@goaded Whose squirming? If you have not figured it out, I really stopped paying attention to you.Seriously. What's the point. You say I am a liar so the dialogue is over. Really nothing else to say. Besides, it is not like you answered my questions.
The questions you asked after I'd asked you what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of, and what crime either Biden is accused of? Colour me surprised.
@goaded Yes, well, whatever...
So, we're agreed, you first. What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of, and what crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded No. That would be impolite, you go ahead.
Aren't you up past your bedtime?Just quickly tell me what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of, and what crime either Biden is accused of, then you can go off to bed.
@goaded No, that's okay. My little one woke up in the middle of the night and so I tucked him back in and just decided to look in on the computer. Surprise!! There you were.Hope it's okay, but even liars love their children.Now you go ahead and answer the questions put to you above. As for me, no intention of answering as - since you have decided that I am a liar - any answers I proffer will be null and void upon receipt. I just don't see the point - but feel free to keep asking. I'll just keep ignoring you.
Just wait a decade or so, and you'll be staying up late to collect them from parties, instead!Which of the dozens of your questions is it you think I haven't answered?What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of, and what crime is either Biden accused of? I mean, if Trump's only remaining defence is that he was investigating corruption, shouldn't he have some inkling of what the corruption was?You're really no good at all at ignoring someone, are you.
@goaded Gosh. Wasn't expecting to hear from you.Check back several iterations. I long ago lost count. You'll find the questions.
There are too many questions you've asked and claimed I haven't answered when I have, although I suppose I may have missed one. Not one of them was as simple to answer as either "what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?", or "what crime is either Biden accused of?". At least, they look to me to be simple to answer, but then I'm not trying to cover anything up.Keep trying to work out what ignoring someone looks like. (Hint: it's like what I do until you respond.)
@goaded Well, keep on typin' then.Why you want answers from a person you believe is a liar is beyond be - but knock yourself out.
Why do you find it hard to answer "what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?", or "what crime is either Biden accused of?"It intrigues me. What goes on in the mind of a Good Republican when they're defending the indefensible against the interests of their country?
@goaded Why do you care what a liar says?Anyhow, don't you have anything better to do on a Friday night?
I thought I'd just explained that. It intrigues me. What goes on in the mind of a Good Republican when they're defending the indefensible against the interests of their country?On a related note, I'd like to know why you find it hard so to answer "what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?", or "what crime is either Biden accused of?", and wonder what your answers would be, if you could ever be bothered to take two seconds to type them in.And, no, not really, I'm on taxi duty.
@goaded Told ya. I see no point in debating someone who presumes at the outset that I will lie. (Not to mention a few other presumptions in there.)If I be a liar... if my credentials count for naught... if I am not given the benefit of the doubt... then at a minimum, what's in it for me?
I covered that two days ago.*Why don't you just stop avoiding the questions, which is what you're really trying to do by pretending I'm being totally unreasonable and saying everything you say is a lie.You have lied. You use your credentials to keep people from questioning your statements, and you've lost the benefit of the doubt, in my eyes, at least, by your actions.What you could do is try to honestly explain why you think Trump didn't abuse his power, and maybe answer the two simple, key, questions.I've not double-posted (I don't mean long, split, messages) to keep this conversation going, I've simply responded to something you've said, every time.*"I'm proud of you for owning being a liar, but **nobody's ever said everything you say is a lie.**The part where you say I've not answered your complicated questions is, though. My two quick, simple, questions that you seem unable to answer (but endlessly willing to distract from) were:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?" (Emphasis added.)
@goaded That's all well and good. You have my pro forma response. Now, it's Friday night. Go do something.
Yeah, it's the knee-jerk response that interests me. You don't make any effort to respond to the questions posed, but seem unable not to respond in general. You might like to see someone about that.The questions were, by the way:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
Goof luck, and when you get back, you'll be able to either answer or really ignore the questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Quod non est causa.
It didn't work, then. You probably need more time.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Это не в счет.
Seriously? You can't answer two simple questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?"
@goaded Mtaalam wa kisomi aliye na uzoefu mkubwa, aliye na nguvu ya uchoyo wake mwenyewe, na ana vipawa vya mawazo ya kihistoria ambayo wakati wote anaweza kuamuru msururu wa hoja zisizo na mwisho na zisizo sawa za kudhalilisha mpinzani na kujisifu.
LOL, so you can't make an argument in English? Or was that an answer to:"what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?", or "what crime is either Biden accused of?"?Either way, it's just an attempt to distract from those very simple questions.
@goaded Nu-l înțelegi, nu-i așa? Nu văd niciun rost să purtăm discuții cu o persoană a cărei premisă de început este că sunt mincinos. Este un exercițiu fără rost și nu obțin nimic din el. Nu este nici interesant, nici informativ. Înțeleg, nu ești de acord și nimic din ceea ce spun este potrivit pentru a muta discuția. Astfel se termină.
LOL, so you can't make an argument in English? Or was that an answer to:"what indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?", or "what crime is either Biden accused of?"?Either way, it's just an attempt to distract from those very simple questions.
@goaded Iskolába menni. Menj tanulni valamit.
Yeah, I get it, you don't want to answer two simple questions. You probably don't know those languages, and even if you do, that doesn't make Trump innocent.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?I know enough to see bullshit when I see it. Arschloch.
@goaded Þeir segja að með því að rífast við hálfvita geri tveir þeirra það, ég læt þig bara vera í friði vegna þessa.
Are there any lengths you won't go to to avoid two very simple questions?What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Hey, dh ’ionnsaich mi mo leasan. Chan eil dad ri bhuannachadh le bhith ag argamaid le amadan. Chan urrainnear dad a chosnadh le bhith a ’reusanachadh le daoine aineolach.
You're right, there's no point in arguing with a fool, but I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out that you'll go to any length to avoid two very simple questions.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded vaise, aap sunishchit hain ki jarmanee mein ek aadamee ke lie der ho rahee hai. nishchit roop se khushee hai ki mere paas aapakee tulana mein adhik dilachasp jeevan hai.
What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
Home, realment no recull que estic avorrit amb tu, oi? Les teves rodes molen lentes però mudes.
I can't fault your persistence and inventiveness at trying to avoid answering.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?The third question is, why? I suspect it is because you don't have any answer other than "none", and that would be embarrassing.
@goaded For en kjedelig skapning du er. Ikke verdt tiden min. Beklager.
You know all you have to do is stop talking, right? It's not very bright to keep responding without answering the very simple questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?Unlike when you did something similar to me, you've never even tried to answer these questions, and they're eminently answerable.
@goaded Int tirrealizza li lanqas biss qed naqra l-assenjazzjonijiet tiegħek f'dan il-punt, hux? Ma tistax tkun dik ta 'l-għajn, int? Iż-żmien biex timxi. La huwa interessanti intellettwalment u lanqas frankament gost, li tiddiskuti ma 'persuna li tippresupponi li tkun giddieb u lilu nnifsu paragon tal-virtù. Hija sempliċement tedjanti.
All you have to do is stop talking. It's not very bright to keep responding without answering the very simple questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?Unlike when you did something similar to me, you've never even tried to answer these questions, and they're eminently answerable, by anyone not interested in defending the Republican party at all costs.
@goaded Sag mir, kannst du diesen wenigstens lesen? Ich fühle mich besser jetzt?
I can read all of them in about 2 seconds; it's amazing how well Google translates it's own translations back.If you're bored, all you have to do is stop talking. How bright is it to keep responding without answering the very simple questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded Het kan me echt niet schelen what je vraagt. Het gesprek zal nooit ergens komen. Ik ga op deze site om mijn schrijven en mijn argumenten aan te scherpen. Jij om je mannelijkheid en je deugd te bewijzen. Ik vind je gewoon saai en er is echt niets te winnen bij het beantwoorden van je vragen. Dit zou voor de lol moeten zijn. Voor jou gaat het om je veronderstelde deugd. Dat vind ik saai.
My apologies, I appear to have missed a notification.If you're bored, all you have to do is stop talking. How you sharpen your arguments by simply refusing to answer simple questions is beyond me.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?
@goaded De volta para você, Sparky. Sinto-me obrigado a responder, pois foi meu ensaio que o iniciou. No entanto, como eu disse antes, há pouco sentido em um diálogo com uma pessoa que presume minhas más intenções. Escreva o tempo que quiser, sua afirmação tornou a discussão inútil. Eu respondo por cortesia e não por interesse.
There's nothing courteous about ignoring simple to answer questions in a conversation. You just can't help yourself from responding. I suspect you don't want the last message to be a reminder that you wouldn't answer the simple questions that are a result of your well-honed so-called argument.Your argument, as far as I can make out is:* We don't have proof in the form of testimony from anyone involved in the alleged abuses of power (because they've been blocked by testifying).Hence my question: What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of? (And the related one: Why shouldn't the people who do know be called as witnesses at the trial?)* If there was any reason for Trump to suspect corruption in Ukraine by Biden, his actions were justified (except that seems to be the only time he ever cared, which indicates corruption wasn't the reason, and the GAO has ruled some of them illegal, and Parnas' evidence shows it was for political reasons)Hence my question: What crime is either Biden accused of?The other aspects of your argument are simply ways in which you think Trump will be able to get away with what he's been accused of, including:* If the Democrats call relevant witnesses, Republicans will call witnesses who have no knowledge of the impeachable offence, nor have they been accused accused of any crime themselves, which will damage the Democrats politically.* Trump committed no crime (GAO begs to differ), so he shouldn't be removed from office (1998's Dershowitz and Graham beg to differ).* What else?You've been debating, where anything goes as long as you can avoid the awkward questions and run out the clock, not arguing in good faith.
@goaded Энэ сайтад үнэн мөнийг хайж буй хүн худалч гэж нэрлэдэг хүний шинжилгээг яагаад хүсдэг вэ гэдэг нь эргэлзээтэй асуулт болно. Насны тухай таавар.Дашрамд хэлэхэд, өөр өөр хэлээр хариу өгөх нь ямар давуу талтай болохыг та мэдэх үү? Үүнийг одоо хүртэл тодорхойлоод байна уу?
So you're stuck between not being able to answer the questions and not being able to stop talking. Why you're doing it using google translate, I really don't know, other than to be an ass, I suppose.What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of?By the way, Starr described Clinton's limited use of executive privilege as abuse of power, Trump's turned it up to 11 and refused all cooperation, and now Starr's fine with it.
@goaded Bất cứ điều gì. Như tôi nói, sự quan tâm của bạn trong việc nói dối - đó là những gì bạn dường như đang hỏi - sẽ là một câu hỏi hóc búa về triết học cho mọi thời đại.
Nothing to do with that, I'm just interested in your answers to two simple, answerable questions, or, failing that, how long you are willing to keep trying to distract from the fact you have no answers (or a reasonable argument).What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of? Oh, and why are you playing with translate?
@goaded Nos, oké, bármit is akar mondani. Mint már korábban említettem, nem olvastam a hozzászólásait. Csak nem értem a lényeg.
Of course you don't read my comments, there's no reason you would, because you can't answer the questions:What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of? And reading my comments (I bet you do, really), would encourage you to actually answer a question. (Still no idea why you're playing with translate.)
@goaded Welê, baş, tiştê ku hûn dixwazin bibêjin. Wekî ku min berê behs kir, ez neşên we nayên xwendin. Ez tenê xala nabînim.
You say you don't see the point in reading or answering my questions? OK. Just to remind you, they were: What indication is there that Trump did NOT do what he's accused of?What crime is either Biden accused of? Without any crime, why would they be witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wakpkKBoX4
@goaded Baiklah, apa pun yang ingin Anda katakan. Seperti yang saya sebutkan sebelumnya, saya tidak membaca posting Anda. Saya hanya tidak mengerti intinya.
Pardon? I don't speak whatever language that was.Are you proud that Trump's defence is using the same lies as you did?
@goaded فرق اهو آهي ته آء مختلف ٻولين ۾ آهيان. مسٽر ٽراپ صرف هڪ ٻولي استعمال ڪري ٿو. توهان کي تسليم ڪيو ويو آهي ته توهان ان کي پنهنجي طريقي سان گهڻو ڪجهه ڪيش موجود آهي.
@goaded Echegbula ya. Anaghị m agụ ihe ị dere, n'ụzọ ọ bụla.
@goaded Net terug, sonskyn!
@goaded Ya dizanin, ew çend bandorker e ku merivek bi vî rengî çend gotinê ewqasî dirêj dixwest ku ew çend hindik bibêje.
@goaded Bi awayê, axaftina derewker, ez bawer nakim ku hûn li Elmanyayê dijîn. Tu nekaribû ku peyama min ya Almanî bixwîne. Hingê dîsa, ew dikare rave bike ku hûn çima hûn mîna kutikek nexweş a hezkirinê li min digerin. Hûn nikarin kesek li dora we fêm nekin.
@goaded Oh, bê guman, ew e, Des Miné Li Lear û A Bore Bifikire. Navnîş ji bo notên OEM pir xerab e.
@goaded Jî, nice bibînin, ku tu di çend qonaxan peyva têkiliyê. IT piştrast gelek tişt li ser te.
@goaded તેથી ખૂબ તેજસ્વી. ફક્ત પ્રભાવિત થવું જોઈએ - અને તેમ છતાં તમે લોકોને તેમની પ્રામાણિકતા પર વ્યાખ્યાન આપવાનું અનુમાન કરો છો. સ્વ-જાગૃતિ માટે મજબૂત નથી, તમે છો?
@goaded Nace eh ga mai zuwa: Ni mai ruwa ne game da ruwa.
Except she has zero authority over the trial because the Constitution gives that power solely to the Senate.
@Liam_Hayden and if the senate took the constitution seriously, she wouldn’t need to input her House authority.
No, if SHE took the Constitution seriously she would send over the Articles and let the Senate have their constitutional sole authority to dismiss this joke as soon as possible.
@Liam_Hayden if we’re really talking about constitutionality, it starts with the presidents complete disregard for it.
Fair? Nonthing about this is fair
What wasn’t fair? A whistleblower made an allegation, many witnesses supported the allegation and there was enough evidence to request a trial, or is it unfair that the folks in charge of the trial have stated they will not be unbiased and they will coordinate the trial with the defendant himself.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
She has no power to demand anything about the trial. The Constitution give the Senate pole power over the trail, end of discussion.And despite Feldman's contention, the impeachment is done and is a matter of Congressional Record. She is permitted to delay on a technicality. Senate Rules do not trigger the scheduling of a trial until the list of House prosecutors is transmitted. By delaying that list Speaker Pelosi is using the Senate rule to delay the trial. Senate Majority Leader McConnell can call a vote to change that rule as soon as the Senate goes back into session and call her bluff by requiring transmission of the list with XX hours of the vote to impeach. The Senate can even add a provision to dismiss with prejudice if the House does not do so in time.
sole power. I hate autocorrect.
@Liam_Hayden Yes, they could, but the more the Republicans game the system to avoid testimony from White House insiders, the more people will smell a rat. There has to be witnesses like Bolton, Mulvaney, and so on, for the trial to be remotely fair.It's not unreasonable for Pelosi to wait for the framework of the trial before she nominates people to work under it.Whoever she nominates should definitely quote Graham's 1998 speech!
Which brings up an interesting thought. As the Constitution in Article 2, Section 4 states, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." and no actual criminal offense is alleged in the Articles, could Trump argue that even a conviction on the non-crimes would not constitutional result in his removal?