US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[DaVinci]

The GOP is happy with allowing election meddling so long as it allows them to stay in power. They will stop at nothing to win even if it means breaking all kinds of ethics, laws, and standards. There is almost no circumstance under which they will remove Trump from power. When this level of political loyalty is displayed, when it is placed above the well-being of the country, that party can no longer be allowed to win. I'll be very happy to see a collapse of the Republican party in much the same way that the Whig party collapsed in the 1850s-60s. It'd be much better if both parties broke up into smaller parties.

This. Is today more true than ever. Quoted for the record, Trumpgate.

[Cope]

You referred to the defense as legal technicalities. If you’re now indicating that your musings on the latter are irrelevant, then I agree.

By which standard you should also agree that your musings about the technical legalities of the defence are also irrelevant.

On the contrary, that is precisely the key point of Trump’s defense. Again, I’m not sure why you would deny it if you agree:

Note the term "in principle". If the House had found, or does find, some federal offence(s) which covers the behaviours described in the articles then that particular defence would fall away.

You’re the one who made the comparison. I pointed out the fact that the comparison is groundless.

As per the wording of the Constitution ("sole Power"), the comparison in not groundless. You claimed that "cross-examining witnesses, calling witnesses, having access to evidence and having counsel present" were exclusively "trial rights" despite non of those things being mentioned in the Constitution and all of them being matters of contention in the House.

The insinuation that rights (particularly to introduce evidence in one's own defence and have counsel present) should only begin at the trial portion of an investigation is not supported by any legal theory I've ever heard of. That it may suit your interests is not relevant.

The GOP Senate is free to rule in favor of the defense based on the latter’s argument that the House charges are outside the range of impeachable offenses. The Senate is also free to subsequently refuse witness testimony and documents based on the belief there’s no point proving what’s already been proven, when it is outside the range of impeachable offenses. You’re free to endorse that position. “Payback’s a ” is not a valid nor applicable justification.

As per the Constitution, any justification (or indeed no justification at all) would be valid. That doesn't prohibit me from observing, and remarking upon, your double standards regarding issues of partiality.

Trump’s gag order against witness testimony is relevant because it is part of the evidence of his corrupt motives and subsequent obstruction, as corroborated by other evidence and outlined in the impeachment articles.

The defense is not that the House failed to establish the charges, including corrupt motives and obstruction, but that the latter are outside the range of impeachable offenses.

The defense doesn't need to rebuff the specifics of the charges (even though it did anyway) if it can establish to the Senate's satisfaction that said charges were procedurally incorrect in the first place.

It is a dead end to argue that because Trump’s gag order prevented certain witnesses from testifying, the House’s case is somehow faulty. Such an attempt to flip the script doesn’t indicate that the House lacked “necessary testimony.”

The House's first article is "faulty" because its claims regarding the President's motives are not supported by sufficient evidence. Its second article - which is really an attempt to justify this lack of evidence - fails because the House chose not to see the subpoenas through to their legal conclusion. The White House's refusal to give the Democrats freebies in the litigation is not a valid reason to impeach. And, as above, the Senate is likely to find that neither article met the procedural standards for a presidential removal anyway.

That determination is made by the Senate in any case. Instead, the Senate declined witness testimony and documents based on the belief there’s no point proving what’s already been proven, when they intend to rule that the charges are altogether outside the range of impeachable offenses anyway.

Arguing that procedural failures invalidate the case against the President doesn't indicate a belief that "there's no point proving what's already been proven". Some Senators may take that view, but it isn't what the defence argued. The view that Schiff sank his own appeal for further witnesses by repeatedly claiming that his case was complete is a separate issue which also does not necessitate the view that Schiff's claims had been proven.

[Lord Thesaurian]

By which standard you should also agree that your musings about the technical legalities of the defence are also irrelevant.

I have indicated the key point of Trump’s own defense case, as articulated at trial. That is not irrelevant. Your view on “the term, ‘in principle,’” and certain “technicalities of the legal profession” having or lacking merit, is irrelevant to the defense’s key point of their case that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses.

As per the wording of the Constitution ("sole Power"), the comparison in not groundless. You claimed that "cross-examining witnesses, calling witnesses, having access to evidence and having counsel present" were exclusively "trial rights" despite non of those things being mentioned in the Constitution and all of them being matters of contention in the House.

The insinuation that rights (particularly to introduce evidence in one's own defence and have counsel present) should only begin at the trial portion of an investigation is not supported by any legal theory I've ever heard of. That it may suit your interests is not relevant.

As per the Constitution, any justification (or indeed no justification at all) would be valid. That doesn't prohibit me from observing, and remarking upon, your double standards regarding issues of partiality.

You’ve yet to articulate any double standards on my part. Your attempt to do so by conflating the procedure of the House impeachment investigation to the Senate trial is indeed groundless.

If the House decides to ban the President from having legal representation during the investigative phase and prevents his team from introducing witnesses or evidence (as it has), it can. If in response, the Senate decides that the term "high crimes" refers exclusively to specific, codified federal offences it can do that too.

"You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans," Cipollone wrote.

Constitutional scholars say that complaint lacks any legal grounding.

If the rights in the letter apply at all, they come during the trial phase. The constitution says that takes place in the Senate. It is the job of the House to decide whether there’s enough evidence to show that the president committed an impeachable offense.

Former federal prosecutor and Stanford law professor David Sklansky said a due process claim right now is "not a good argument."
"It is only after charges have been filed and the case has reached the trial stage that criminal defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, have access to evidence, and have counsel present," Sklansky said. "The role of the House of Representatives in an impeachment proceeding is to investigate and charge, not to try. The trial comes later, in the Senate. So the suggestion that the president is being denied ‘basic rights guaranteed to all Americans’ at this point makes no sense."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...house-impeach/

The Senate’s decision at trial to rule in favor of the defense’s key point in their impeachment case that the charges are altogether outside the range of impeachable offenses is not a response to the irrelevant matter of whatever Trump’s defenders were or were not able to do during the course of the House impeachment investigation.

The House's first article is "faulty" because its claims regarding the President's motives are not supported by sufficient evidence. Its second article - which is really an attempt to justify this lack of evidence - fails because the House chose not to see the subpoenas through to their legal conclusion. The White House's refusal to give the Democrats freebies in the litigation is not a valid reason to impeach.

Arguing that procedural failures invalidate the case against the President doesn't indicate a belief that "there's no point proving what's already been proven". Some Senators may take that view, but it isn't what the defence argued.

I’ve already indicated what the defense argued. Given what the defense argued, the Senate declined the motion to call witness testimony and documents based on the belief there’s no point proving what’s already been proven, when they intend to rule in favor of the defense’s key point in their impeachment case that the charges are altogether outside the range of impeachable offenses anyway.

[Gaidin]

I’ve already indicated what the defense argued. Given what the defens argued, the Senate declined the motion to call witness testimony and documents based on the belief there’s no point proving what’s already been proven, when they intend to rule in favor of the defense’s key point in their impeachment case that the charges are altogether outside the range of impeachable offenses anyway.

Someone also didn’t want to besmirch the SCOTUS because god forbid they do their job. Doing your job can’t besmirch you lest you know what you’re walking into and do it anyway. And they did it.

[B. W.]

If Trump is innocent he will be acquitted...he will be acquitted.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Someone also didn’t want to besmirch the SCOTUS because god forbid they do their job. Doing your job can’t besmirch you lest you know what you’re walking into and do it anyway. And they did it.

That gem from Murkowski definitely took the prize for the worst cop-out excuse so far IMO (I did it for John Roberts!). Lil Marco runs a close second: “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office......New witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.”

[PointOfViewGun]

If Trump is innocent he will be acquitted...he will be acquitted.

If Trump is innocent the Republicans would have no problem in having a proper trial, yet, they're doing their best to neuter the process.

[B. W.]

That gem from Murkowski definitely took the prize for the worst cop-out excuse so far IMO (I did it for John Roberts!). Lil Marco runs a close second: “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office......New witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.”

Warren's action was pretty disgusting. Any lawyer knows that the last thing you want to do is insult the judge...and everybody associated with him;i.e.; the Republican senators.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...democrats.html

[Lord Thesaurian]

Warren's action was pretty disgusting. Any lawyer knows that the last thing you want to do is insult the judge...and everybody associated with him;i.e.; the Republican senators.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...democrats.html

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"

There is nothing disgusting about asking a logical question at the impeachment trial about the impeachment trial.

Voting against the motion to call for witnesses and documents at a trial completely controlled by the GOP, thereby confirming the premise of Warren’s question, does not have a causal relationship with anything Warren did or didn’t say. At least some, like Rubio, Alexander, and others, had the decency to admit they had no intention to call witnesses or remove Trump from office, regardless of whether or not he was guilty as charged.

[B. W.]

There is nothing disgusting about asking a logical question at the impeachment trial about the impeachment trial.

Voting against the motion to call for witnesses and documents at a trial completely controlled by the GOP, thereby confirming the premise of Warren’s question, does not have a causal relationship with anything Warren did or didn’t say. At least some, like Rubio, Alexander, and others, had the decency to admit they had no intention to call witnesses or remove Trump from office, regardless of whether or not he was guilty as charged.

Here's the statement Warren forced the Chief Justice to read to the Senate:

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"

Absolutely disgusting, especially when you consider that Roberts had been ruling heavily in favor of the Democrats on every issue. These are the people who claim they want unity for the country. That's not what they want. The Chief Justice is required by the Constitution to be there. The Democrats count on the stupidity of their voters.

[Cope]

I have indicated the key point of Trump’s own defense case, as articulated at trial. That is not irrelevant. Your view on “the term, ‘in principle,’” and certain “technicalities of the legal profession” having or lacking merit, is irrelevant to the defense’s key point of their case that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses.

You’ve yet to articulate any double standards on my part. Your attempt to do so by conflating the procedure of the House impeachment investigation to the Senate trial is indeed groundless.

The Senate’s decision at trial to rule in favor of the defense’s key point in their impeachment case that the charges are altogether outside the range of impeachable offenses is not a response to the irrelevant matter of whatever Trump’s defenders were or were not able to do during the course of the House impeachment investigation.

I’ve already indicated what the defense argued. Given what the defense argued, the Senate declined the motion to call witness testimony and documents based on the belief there’s no point proving what’s already been proven, when they intend to rule in favor of the defense’s key point in their impeachment case that the charges are altogether outside the range of impeachable offenses anyway.

It's amusing that you've cited contradictory scholarly opinions in order to justify your cognitive dissonance. When you were trying to rebuke the Republican "hearsay" defence, you cited an academic who rejected comparisons between the impeachment proceedings and criminal investigations so as to argue that the Democrats' hearsay evidence ought to be admissible. Now you're citing scholars who say the opposite (that the impeachment process should be structured in accordance with criminal proceedings) in order to support the view, first that the House's inquiry mirrored a criminal investigation (it didn't), and second that a Senate trial without witnesses is a "sham".

The fact is that impeachment proceedings are only "analogous to a criminal investigation by the police, prosecutor or grand jury" if the House chooses to make them analogous. The Democrats opted for a show-trial in which they acted as detectives, prosecutors and jurors in their own cause. The Republicans then ran a trial without additional witnesses (which according to Schiff's position weren't needed anyway). Now I would accept an argument that both phases were managed inadequately (as per the ethics of impartial justice), but your waving away of the flagrant partisanship shown the House proceedings (as illustrated by your contradictory citations) is clearly juxtaposed with your whining about the structure of the Senate trial and catastrophizing about the future of the US.

So once again, you aren't going to have it both ways: either you think that impeachment should have been directed in accordance with an ordinary criminal investigation or you think that the phrase "sole Power" gives both chambers carte blanche over the running of their respective portions of the proceedings.

[B. W.]

It's amusing that you've cited contradictory scholarly opinions in order to justify your cognitive dissonance. When you were trying to rebuke the Republican "hearsay" defence, you cited an academic who rejected comparisons between the impeachment proceedings and criminal investigations so as to argue that the Democrats' hearsay evidence ought to be admissible. Now you're citing scholars who say the opposite (that the impeachment process should be structured in accordance with criminal proceedings) in order to support the view, first that the House's inquiry mirrored a criminal investigation (it didn't), and second that a Senate trial without witnesses is a "sham".

The fact is that impeachment proceedings are only "analogous to a criminal investigation by the police, prosecutor or grand jury" if the House chooses to make them analogous. The Democrats opted for a show-trial in which they acted as detectives, prosecutors and jurors in their own cause. The Republicans then ran a trial without additional witnesses (which according to Schiff's position weren't needed anyway). Now I would accept an argument that both phases were managed inadequately (as per the ethics of impartial justice), but your waving away of the flagrant partisanship shown the House proceedings (as illustrated by your contradictory citations) is clearly juxtaposed with your whining about the structure of the Senate trial and catastrophizing about the future of the US.

So once again, you aren't going to have it both ways: either you think that impeachment should have been directed in accordance with an ordinary criminal investigation or you think that the phrase "sole Power" gives both chambers carte blanche over the running of their respective portions of the proceedings.

^Excellent post.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It's amusing that you've cited contradictory scholarly opinions in order to justify your cognitive dissonance. When you were trying to rebuke the Republican "hearsay" defence, you cited an academic who rejected comparisons between the impeachment proceedings and criminal investigations so as to argue that the Democrats' hearsay evidence ought to be admissible. Now you're citing scholars who say the opposite (that the impeachment process should be structured in accordance with criminal proceedings) in order to support the view, first that the House's inquiry mirrored a criminal investigation (it didn't), and second that a Senate trial without witnesses is a "sham".

The fact is that impeachment proceedings are only "analogous to a criminal investigation by the police, prosecutor or grand jury" if the House chooses to make them analogous. The Democrats opted for a show-trial in which they acted as detectives, prosecutors and jurors in their own cause. The Republicans then ran a trial without additional witnesses (which according to mangers weren't needed anyway). Now I would accept an argument that both phases were managed inadequately (as per the ethics of impartial justice), but your waving away of the flagrant partisanship shown the House proceedings (as illustrated by your contradictory citations) is juxtaposed with your whining about the structure of the Senate trial and catastrophizing about the future of the US.

So once again, you aren't going to have it both ways: either you think that impeachment should have been directed in accordance with an ordinary criminal investigation or you think that the phrase "sole Power" gives both chambers carte blanche over the running of their respective portions of the proceedings.

I have not cited contradictory scholarly opinions to support my position. The false dilemma you’ve crafted as the basis for allegations of contradictions or double standards on my part reflects on your position, not mine, nor on the House proceedings. It is true that the House has the sole power to impeach, while the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. It is also true, as cited in your link to my post, that the even if the impeachment process were analogous to criminal proceedings, the concept of hearsay would apply in the Senate trial, not the House investigation, and that if John Roberts were to decide to apply the hearsay rule at trial as presiding judge, he could have attempted to do so. It is also true, as cited, that even if Trump’s trial rights were analogous to any aspect of the impeachment process, they would apply during the Senate trial, not the House investigation.

You’re free to endorse the defense’s position that “abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses.” I endorse the House’s position as stated in the articles of impeachment. As for the quality of the trial itself, I’ve called it a “sham” and a “show” ever since McConnell openly boasted that it would be conducted “in total coordination with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can."

Here's the statement Warren forced the Chief Justice to read to the Senate:

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"

Absolutely disgusting, especially when you consider that Roberts had been ruling heavily in favor of the Democrats on every issue. These are the people who claim they want unity for the country. That's not what they want. The Chief Justice is required by the Constitution to be there. The Democrats count on the stupidity of their voters.

I’m aware of the question submitted by Warren. I quoted it verbatim in the post you replied to. There’s nothing “disgusting” about it, much less for the reasons you’ve given. Voting against the motion to call for witnesses and documents at a trial completely controlled by the GOP, thereby confirming the premise of Warren’s question, does not have a causal relationship with anything Warren did or didn’t say. lt has nothing to do with anything John Roberts did, or with Democrats and their voters. Nobody forced John Roberts to read the question, especially given that he had refused at least one other.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its kinda funny how House has been doing nothing but trying to oust the fairly elected president from power instead of, you know, representing the voters.
It seems Democrats are not concerned with election meddling as long as it will allow them to grab power. This clearly shows they care about getting into power above the well-being of the country.
I think we can all agree that collapse of Democratic party would be the most beneficial thing to happen in US history after defeat of the British in 1700s.

[Lord Thesaurian]

For months, President Donald Trump has fired off tweet missives accusing House Democrats of “getting nothing done in Congress,” and being consumed with impeachment.
Trump may want to look to the Republican-controlled Senate instead. Democrats in the House have been passing bills at a rapid clip; as of November 15, the House has passed nearly 400 bills, not including resolutions. But the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee estimates 80 percent of those bill have hit a snag in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is prioritizing confirming judges over passing bills.
Congress has passed just 70 bills into law this year. Granted, it still has one more year in its term, but the number pales in comparison to recent past sessions of Congress, which typically see 300-500 bills passed in two years (and that is even a diminished number from the 700-800 bills passed in the 1970s and 1980s).

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977...emocrats-trump

"I'm not saying we haven't done anything. We have confirmed some very important nominees to the Trump administration, long overdue," Kennedy said. "I'm saying we need to do more."
Asked how he felt about the pace of legislation in the Senate this year, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) shot back: "What legislation?"
"So it's pretty slow, isn't it?" he asked.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said the inability to get legislation through the Senate was "frustrating," but he argued that major agenda-setting bills were difficult without unified control of Congress.
"I'm not sure what we can do about it except to wait to hopefully take back the House one day," Rubio said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...tive-graveyard

The House has passed the historically typical number of bills so far, if not more. The GOP Senate has paralyzed Congress to fast track Republican control of the judiciary. GOP Senators acknowledged publicly they won’t take up House bills they don’t like, instead of voting them down. Explaining to your constituents that you voted down a 15 dollar minimum wage, expanding background checks to private gun sales, lowering prescription drug costs, preserving net neutrality, etc, isn’t politically viable for most if not all GOP Senators, given that the vast majority of the country supports those initiatives. What’s even more suicidal for the GOP would be to anger Trump by putting him in the position of potentially having to veto those bills.

[Heathen Hammer]

Media support doesn't mean that majority of the country supports the same thing. Hence why socialist and authoritarian "initiatives" get deservedly euthanized - thanks to GOP actually doing their job. Who'd ever thought that voters kinda don't like their property taken away or being taxed to shreds.
Ever since Democrats got the House, they spent pretty much all time and effort on one thing - attempting to oust the fairly and justly elected president. Its a pretty big " you" to their own voters that can and will them back later in general election this year. And again, they won't learn their lesson (just like they didn't learn the lesson of 2016) and we will hear same inane whining about how Russia and 4chan stole the election from them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The majority of Americans tend to agree with Democrats on top issues, which are included in the hundreds of House bills the GOP Senate refuses to debate or vote on. Republican Senators know this. If they were “doing their job,” they’d vote on the bills, since that’s literally their job. The assertion that the House has been “doing nothing but impeachment,” and “not representing the voters,” is the opposite of the truth. The majority of Americans continue to support impeachment as well.

[B. W.]

Schiff concludes Senate comments by saying Trump could sell Alaska to the Russians in order to get them to support him in the next election:

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war," Schiff said. "Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached for such abuses of power. Of course, this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous."

[tgoodenow]

Donald Trump just got the best polling news of his presidency

Trump's current 49% approval puts him ahead of where his predecessor -- Barack Obama -- was at this same time in his first term. (Obama was at 46% approval.) Which is absolutely remarkable, given the first 3+ years of Trump's presidency and the fact that he became just the third president in American history to be impeached by the House last month.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/04/polit...oll/index.html

Looks like the House Democrat managers did a great job convincing the people.

[Cope]

Schiff concludes Senate comments by saying Trump could sell Alaska to the Russians in order to get them to support him in the next election:

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war," Schiff said. "Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached for such abuses of power. Of course, this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous."

Hey Adam, this is a top hit on Google. Thought it might help.