Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 331 to 336 of 336

Thread: Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

  1. #331
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    I think Pelosi's strategy makes a lot of sense.

    And it doesn't change the fact that Trump is garbage.
    Are you looking for the Scumbag Trump thread?

    The fact of the matter is that Pelosi is abdicating her duty. For shame! I wonder what Putin has on her.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. --President Donald J. Trump

    Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump

    You furnish the pictures, and Iíll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

  2. #332
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    15,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    An impeachment hearing would require proof of collusion (e.g. treason)
    Or at minimum lying about a bj. Gee, you think we can get something that dastardly on Donald Dump?
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  3. #333
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    This New Yorker opinion piece on history of presidential obstruction is a good read:

    Obstruction of justice has been a basis for articles of impeachment against two Presidents in the past fifty years: Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The House voted to impeach Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury, in 1998, in connection with his efforts to cover up his affair with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Four years earlier, the independent counsel Kenneth Starr had been appointed to lead the Whitewater investigation, which involved the Clintons’ alleged misconduct in real-estate investments. As that investigation was petering out, without establishing their criminal conduct, Starr shifted course and produced a report on the President’s lies regarding his relationship with Lewinsky and his efforts to obstruct Starr’s investigation. The Starr report ultimately concluded that there was “substantial and credible information that President Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.” The House followed suit, voting for impeachment, though the Senate failed to convict and remove him.

    Mueller could have been as prescriptive as Starr in his conclusions. The evidence in his report certainly rises to substantial and credible information that Trump obstructed justice. So why didn’t Mueller state that there may be a basis for impeachment? He may share the widespread belief that Starr overstepped his authority. He also had to be mindful of the special-counsel regulations, which were written as a rejection of the broad (and now expired) independent-counsel law that allowed Starr to be so “independent” as to run amok. Though Starr explicitly recommended and outlined grounds for impeachment, the special-counsel regulations now in effect indicate that Mueller’s job is solely to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions”—not to make any recommendations to Congress based on his findings.

    Furthermore, recall that Democrats overwhelmingly considered the impeachment of Clinton to be unjustified, even outrageous. That was not because they were unconvinced by the evidence showing that Clinton repeatedly lied under oath and obstructed justice, including allegedly encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony. Rather, it was because, as Chuck Schumer, then a House Representative, said, Clinton’s actions “were wrong and possibly illegal but did not warrant impeachment.” Senator Joe Biden said that “it is our constitutional duty to give the President the benefit of the doubt on the facts,” and that “the President’s actions do not rise to the level required by the Constitution for the removal of a sitting President.” Biden warned against the argument that “the President is a disgrace to the office, I honor and revere the office of the Presidency, so there must be some way to get this man out of that office. Therefore, his actions must rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.” He asked his fellow-senators to ask themselves, “Can you legitimately conclude that you would vote to remove a sitting President if he were a person towards whom you felt oppositely than you do toward Bill Clinton?”

    The presumed answer, of course, was no. But why? Obstruction of justice, like perjury and contempt, is known as a “process crime”—an offense against the integrity of the administration of justice. People may obstruct justice by hiding evidence, intimidating witnesses, or misleading law enforcement, in order to impede investigation of a crime as serious as murder, as minor as marijuana possession, or even no crime at all. Prosecutions of process crimes are commonplace and important for maintaining general confidence in our justice system. But whether we think a particular punishment is fair tends to track with our views of the underlying crime. Often, we may feel discomfort about the legitimacy of charging obstruction where it seems “pretextual”—that is, when someone is targeted for a process crime because prosecutors found insufficient evidence of the substantive crime that they originally suspected. This was part of the reason why many liberals expressed outrage about the conclusion of the Starr investigation. After all, the Whitewater investigation had turned out to be a bust, and Clinton’s affair with an intern, though embarrassing to him and scandalous to the public, was not a crime.

    The conversation about impeaching Trump similarly centers on obstruction of justice. The special counsel’s investigation, of course, began as an investigation into whether Russia conspired with the Trump campaign in its election-interference efforts. But, on that question, Mueller clearly stated that “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.” Were Mueller convinced that the President committed the underlying substantive crime, he might not have been so reticent in his judgment of the process one, obstruction.

    [...]

    This leaves us with the genuinely difficult question of whether Trump’s obstruction of justice is good grounds for his impeachment. We might recall that the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, in 1974, were also for process offenses—obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress—arising from his coverup of the Watergate burglary and his resistance to Congress’s investigation of it. He resigned in the midst of the impeachment process, rather than wait for what seemed like certain removal from office. In Nixon’s case, there was no doubt that a primary crime, the Watergate burglary, had occurred, though it was uncertain whether he had actually ordered it. But the corruption inherent in Nixon’s obstructive acts—such as having his associates pay hush money to co-conspirators—helped make obstruction of justice feel urgently primary, not secondary, and morally dwarfed the burglary that started the scandal.

    Could something similar be said of Trump? Compared with Nixon, Trump’s corruption looks like that of a bumbling amateur. The Mueller report includes accounts of his multiple, unsuccessful attempts to obstruct justice. [...] Trump’s incompetence and incoherence may have made actual coŲrdination with Russia hopeless. As his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, said two years ago, “They thought we colluded, but we couldn’t even collude with our local offices.” The same incompetence also raises some doubts about whether a criminal prosecutor could establish the “corrupt intent” required to prove obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. An impeachment, however, is not bound by criminal standards. But because Trump does not appear to have been competent enough to carry out a conspiracy with a foreign power determined to help him, and because his obstruction efforts were so sloppy and ineffective, it is uncertain whether Congress could be convinced, for impeachment purposes, that he committed obstruction of justice.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. --President Donald J. Trump

    Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump

    You furnish the pictures, and Iíll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

  4. #334
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,440

    Default

    Wait... the Dems may actually have something here:

    n2p3938tvrw21.jpg
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  5. #335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    This New Yorker opinion piece on history of presidential obstruction is a good read:
    The last paragraph is a perfect encapsulation of this whole situation. Also, LOL at Hillary for finding a way to lose to this guy.

  6. #336
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    The last paragraph is a perfect encapsulation of this whole situation. Also, LOL at Hillary for finding a way to lose to this guy.
    The election was 'stolen' from Hillary! Maybe she wasn't wearing her 'big boy pants' and let this happen.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •