Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[BlueK]

Thanks.

It would have been one thing if he had said, "hey, I used to think differently, but this is why I changed my opinion about it." That to me would have made him sound even more credible. Instead he came away sounding a little smug and "know it all" about the way he expressed himself when he had to have known what he'd written in the past that directly contradicted himself today. His claim his views aren't partisan just isn't very believable given how he's changed based on the subject of who was under impeachment inquiry.

But the article does point out one thing Turley said that shows he still doesn't really agree with the Republicans about:

Turley “cut to the heart of the matter: ‘The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.’” As Geltzer notes, the fact that Professor Turley thinks the case hasn’t yet been made is neither here nor there: when even the GOP’s expert legal witness concedes that the central charge, if proven, meets the constitutional standard, the constitutional debate is over.

[creekster]

It would have been one thing if he had said, "hey, I used to think differently, but this is why I changed my opinion about it." That to me would have made him sound even more credible. Instead he came away sounding a little smug and "know it all" about the way he expressed himself when he had to have known what he'd written in the past that directly contradicted himself today. His claim his views aren't partisan just isn't very believable given how he's changed based on the subject of who was under impeachment inquiry.

But the article does point out one thing Turley said that shows he still doesn't really agree with the Republicans about:

Turley “cut to the heart of the matter: ‘The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.’” As Geltzer notes, the fact that Professor Turley thinks the case hasn’t yet been made is neither here nor there: when even the GOP’s expert legal witness concedes that the central charge, if proven, meets the constitutional standard, the constitutional debate is over.

I don't think it directly or contradicted what he had said earlier. Even if you buy into the indictment/trial dichotomy the article presents (and it is a persuasive but not a perfect analogy), there is still a good faith requirement that you have some basis for the indictment. You are not required to meet the same BoP as at trial but you still need some reasonable basis for the charge. I think his point, as I heard his testimony a few days ago, was that the potential articles of impeachment (his testimony was given before he saw what exactly was being proposed) lacked any obvious evidence of a quid pro quo apart from indirect inference and that there was simply no reason to hurry the process. It is true that Trump has refused to let his people testify but this is far from the first time a president has said FU to congressional subpoenas. Turley's point was that congress should pursue judicial relief, as congress has often done in the past. It seems to me that if it did so those witnesses would be ordered to testify. Now if Trump continued to refuse, then it is an obvious and easy call for impeachment. And if the WH witnesses do testify, it should be easier to gather substantial first hand evidence of the alleged QpQ, if it exists. And why do the democrats need to hurry? That was exactly what Nadler addressed and we discussed yesterday, when he said it was to avoid future election interference because he doesn't trust the electorate to get it right.

Speaking of intellectual sleight of hand, the article moves back and forth pretty quickly between talking about impeachment of federal judges and presidents. I think it is a bit tricky to claim those should be treated identically. Further, the article claims that litigation over witness testimony would drag out past the 2020 election. That is very speculative and, I think, very unlikely as a host of political and legal factors would come to bear on Trump long before then should he try to keep litigating this issue that long. Either way, it is not a good excuse for congress to claim that its power has primacy and so must be obeyed unquestioningly as failing to do so is an impeachable choice. Not how it is supposed to work.

Finally, I find it amusing that you condemn Turley for being a smug know-it-all (he was) when you have the other three law professors on the same day who were at least his equal in that department (especially the one from Stanford). One might argue they were even worse (although the uproar over the 'baron' joke was pretty dumb, IMO).

I also am not surprised by Turley's conclusion; If there is obvious evidence that Trump insisted on the QpQ he should be impeached. The irony, of course, is that this comment assumes the conclusion of a senate trial and is exactly the sort of conflation the article was criticizing (which it sort of acknowledges).

Trump is hugely disappointing and at times embarrassing as a president. If the first article of impeachment is proven as drafted he should be removed from office, IMO. I think the second article is silly until Congress at least seeks a judicial order to enforce the subpoenas it issued.

[Commando]

[PaloAltoCougar]

The City of San Francisco makes known its views on the subject.


CB55429A-E399-410A-8E25-5774A553826A.jpg

[creekster]

The City of San Francisco makes known its views on the subject.


[ATTACH]9879[/ATTACH]

LOL. Were you down at the ferry building today? My wife and I went by there this morning and laughed at that same sign.

[PaloAltoCougar]

LOL. Were you down at the ferry building today? My wife and I went by there this morning and laughed at that same sign.

Yup, on our way to an afternoon soiree near the Wharf.

[Uncle Ted]

Yes Dems... never give up!

Embedded Tweet

You have him right were you want him!

[Uncle Ted]

Yes, these polls have to be wrong... because he said so!

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

Drumpf sends Nancy a letter...

Dear Madam Speaker:

I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.

The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!

By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
[...]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...presentatives/

When I hear Pelosi say that she always prays for the President this image comes to mind:

IMG_2668.JPG

[Moliere]

If Trump is re-elected and the Dems keep a majority in the house, is it possible that Trump becomes the first president to be impeached twice? That would be funny.

[All-American]

If Trump is re-elected and the Dems keep a majority in the house, is it possible that Trump becomes the first president to be impeached twice? That would be funny.

Probably not. Which is a compelling reason NOT to impeach him now. Keep the powder dry.

[LVAllen]

OK, what is the over/under on when this happens? I say 12 months into his term. Max.

Should have taken the over.

[UVACoug]

It's official. Trump has been impeached. I would be lying if I said I didn't say I found the process the Democrats implemented to go through with this a bit disturbing. I think it set a horrific precedent that will haunt our country for decades to come. I can't help but think that this will cause our already broken political system to devolve into further rank partisanship, obstructionism, and utter incompetence. It will take the American people holding their elected officials responsible at the ballot box, and especially in primaries/caucuses, to dig us out of this mess and I, frankly, don't have much hope that it will happen.

Setting aside the Ukraine stuff, which has been debated to death here and everywhere, I found the "Obstruction of Congress" article to be the most troubling. I strongly believe that the executive branch has way more power than the founders ever intended and that Congress should take back a lot of that power, much of which it voluntarily gave away, for itself. Impeaching a President for refusing to give in to every partisan congressional demand, however, is not an effective way to do that. The Democrats know this. It's likely that every President in our history has refused at least some Congressional demands for information or other executive action. Did Trump likely overstep by making a blanket order that all executive branch members refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas in connection with the impeachment? Likely yes. The remedy is for Congress to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is how things have been done for centuries. Yet the Democrats didn't do that. Why? Because it would hurt them in the next election. Instead of asking for a court order compelling executive branch witnesses to appear before Congress, which they likely would have gotten (at least in part), they decided to skip the constitutionally ordained process for enforcing their subpoena power and impeach the President over refusing to give in to their partisan demands, submitting him to the Senate for removal from office. That is unprecedented and, in my opinion, quite disturbing. And I find their rationale--to get this over before the primaries--almost as insidious as Trump's paltry attempt to influence the election through the announcement of a bogus Ukrainian investigation into Biden.

Had they got their court orders and the President directed his executive branch officials to defy the courts, I would wholeheartedly embrace impeachment and would hope for the Senate to remove Trump from office. Instead, they decided to short-circuit the courts and came up with some unprecedented "obstruction of congress" charge simply because the President refused to do what they demanded that he do. If Congress and the Executive are supposed to be co-equal branches, how could that ever be an impeachable offense? Congress should not be beholden to the President, as they have allowed themselves to become in many circumstances, but it is also true that the President should not be beholden to Congress ... especially when Congressional demands are supported only by partisans.

Trump is a horrible human being and an awful President that never should have been elected. I think he has likely committed impeachable acts that, if fully exposed, would support his removal from office. But the process the Democrats engaged in was a clown show. It was driven by a desire to influence the election against Trump, without causing the type of disruption to their own primary that a full and thorough investigation would have required. The influence this bogus impeachment will have on the election will be far more invasive than Ukraine announcing a bogus investigation into Biden ever would have had been.

I support impeaching Trump, but not in this way. I'm surprised at how many people, on both sides, are just accepting this as the new way of doing politics. Don't even get me started on the sycophantic media, who are almost universally praising the Democrats who instigated this as noble heroes committed to upholding the Constitution to their own political detriment while condemning anyone who dared to question its validity as dishonest hacks. The media is as much to blame, if not more, for the current dismal state of our political system as anyone.

P.S. Sorry for the diatribe. Just venting.

[falafel]

Good vent.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Should have taken the over.

Yeah, I was off on the timing, but I am still going to claim a SWISH!