US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[Love Mountain]

Excellent vote. We all know how to vote this year.

[Cope]

Excellent vote. We all know how to vote this year.

It was all 4D chess to turn the presidency into a monarchy just in time for Bernie's coronation. Though you should be on the lookout because it appears that the Democratic establishment is up to its usual tricks again.

[Love Mountain]

It was all 4D chess to turn the presidency into a monarchy just in time for Bernie's coronation. Though you should be on the lookout because it appears that the Democratic establishment is up to its usual tricks again.

What?

[Cope]

What?

Which bit didn't you understand?

[Love Mountain]

Which bit didn't you understand?

Your statement is bizarre. I'm not even sure which part is meant as a reply to my post.

[Aexodus]

Wellllllll... wow.

You guys (Americans) really don’t seem to be able to have a conversation based around objective truth, or cannot even agree what is true or false in the first place.

Is all this really such a big issue to die on this hill for?

At the slight risk of being off topic, America’s big debate about Trump makes me feel a lot better about how we in the UK have finally managed to mostly resolve our relationship with the EU. The two being both a part of the populist politics we’ve seen this past 5 years.

[Lord Thesaurian]

l
Dershowitz is a lawyer. His job is to represent his client, not to be ideologically consistent. That's just how the game is played. Now I'm sure if I looked for it, I'd find video footage Jerry Nadler undercutting his own position on so-called partisan impeachments in the Clinton era. So let's not play purity games shall we?

Dershowitz’s defense that “even if my client is guilty as charged, so what,” is so vacuous that even the scholar he cited as a reference rejects his argument. It’s a dangerous precedent that will reverberate long after this farce of a trial that will have no witnesses or testimony has ended with the inevitable acquittal of an openly corrupt president.

He is entitled to interpret "high crimes etc." as referring to specific federal offences as outlined in the criminal code. That seems like a reasonable position to me. Citing Curtis, Dershowitz stated: “My first position is that when Congress speaks of treason, bribery, and other crimes and misdemeanors, it refers to and includes only high criminal offenses against the United States made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done. And I say,” he continued, “that this is plainly to be inferred from each and every one of the provisions of the constitution on the subject of impeachment."

Now you don't have to agree that this forms the basis of a credible defense, but whether or not you think his position was "extralegal" (as if Congress were constrained by legalism in the impeachment process anyway) is irrelevant.

And you’re entitled to endorse the GOP position that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not impeachable. It doesn’t render that position less dangerous to the health of the Republic, something that should appall and disgust anyone who would call themselves patriotic or supportive of the Constitution and rule of law. Perhaps that’s why it’s all the more ironic that the party who wraps themselves in the flag, of which I used to be a member, is the one holding the knife.

[Love Mountain]

Wellllllll... wow.

You guys (Americans) really don’t seem to be able to have a conversation based around objective truth, or cannot even agree what is true or false in the first place.

Is all this really such a big issue to die on this hill for?

At the slight risk of being off topic, America’s big debate about Trump makes me feel a lot better about how we in the UK have finally managed to mostly resolve our relationship with the EU. The two being both a part of the populist politics we’ve seen this past 5 years.

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.

[Cope]

Dershowitz’s defense that “even if my client is guilty as charged, so what,” is so vacuous that even the scholar he cited as a reference rejects his argument. It’s a dangerous precedent that will reverberate long after this farce of a trial that will have no witnesses or testimony has ended with the inevitable acquittal of an openly corrupt president.

His position was that the president couldn't be guilty of crimes which he had not specifically been accused of. And since a Congressional investigation/trial is not bound by the usual legalism and/or judicial standards, I wouldn't worry too much about precedents. The entire process is little more than an elaborate vote of no confidence.

And you’re entitled to endorse the GOP position that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not impeachable. It doesn’t render that position less dangerous to the health of the Republic, something that should appall and disgust anyone who would call themselves patriotic or supportive of the Constitution and rule of law. Perhaps that’s why it’s all the more ironic that the party who wraps themselves in the flag, of which I used to be a member, is the one holding the knife.

As I stated, my view is that the Democrats failed to established that the President had no reasonable belief that the Bidens were involved in corrupt activity in Ukraine. In any case, the rule of law was followed: Trump was impeached as per the Constitution and will (most likely) be acquitted as per the Constitution.

[Aexodus]

The GOP is happy with allowing election meddling so long as it allows them to stay in power.

For the purposes of the discussion, can you outline why Ukraine investigating Hunter and Joe Biden is election meddling.

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.

Everything here is more or less true. American politics is utterly utterly broken.

[Love Mountain]

For the purposes of the discussion, can you outline why Ukraine investigating Hunter and Joe Biden is election meddling.

There is nothing wrong with investigating Joe Biden if there is a reason to suspect wrongdoing. Quite frankly, I'd support it. However, existing and subsequent evidence has revealed that Joe Biden didn't actually do anything wrong. Moreover, from the onset, this looked like Trump looking for a smear against Joe Biden rather than a legitimate attempt to investigate potential wrong doing. Subsequent evidence and on-going, almost daily, revelations have painted a much stronger picture of that being the case. For one, why is it so important for Ukraine to announce an investigation? Surely, the White House can keep this quiet until they've actually found something. Moreover, why is the administration employing the President's lawyer instead of the FBI, the CIA, or any other organization within the Executive Branch? if the concern is about "Deep State", then why not use a a hand-picked investigator team with unquestioned loyalty? That's obviously, just the surface. The real question, is if there was truly nothing wrong, then why have so many officials come forward citing extreme concern? Including now, John Bolton, somebody right next to the President.

There are a number of reasons to suspect foul-play other than that of course. Like the entirety of the investigation being more concerned with framing the narrative rather than the actual "investigation"... If you want an example of what an investigation actually looks like, just look at the Mueller report... To date, the White House has still not produced anything substantive against Joe Biden. Yet it has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get Ukraine to publicize it and to covering the whole matter up.

[Prodromos]

A President Pence would've been phenomenal. Alas, we're stuck with this guy for one more year, I guess.

[Lord Thesaurian]

His position was that the president couldn't be guilty of crimes which he had not specifically been accused of.

That’s not an accurate restatement of his position, and I don’t know why you feel compelled to do so if you agree with it:

......This is the key point in this impeachment case, please understand what I’m arguing, is that purely non-criminal conduct including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses. That is the key argument I’m presenting today.

Mr. Dershowitz apparently thought my article supported his view that even if Mr. Trump did everything the House has accused him of doing, the president shouldn’t be convicted because he hasn’t been accused of criminal behavior.

But as a legal academic, my second reaction was confusion. Even if you think impeachment requires a crime, as I do, that belief hardly supports the president’s defense or Mr. Dershowitz’s position. President Trump has been accused of a crime. Two in fact: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.”

Dershowitz explicitly claimed that even if Trump is guilty of the specific offenses charged by the House, he cannot he impeached for them because they are not crimes. The scholar he cited as a key basis for his claim, Nicholas Bowie, rejected it outright and in detail.

As I stated, my view is that the Democrats failed to established that the President had no reasonable belief that the Bidens were involved in corrupt activity in Ukraine.

That is not an accurate restatement of what the articles set out to establish, and I don’t know why you feel compelled to do so if you think they are without merit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. In his conduct of the office of President of
the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency,
in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the
interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States
Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce
investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects
of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential
election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the
Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United
States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public
announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political
benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in
a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and
undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus
ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through
the following means:

(1) President Trump--acting both directly and through his
agents within and outside the United States Government--corruptly
solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations
into--

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph
R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging
that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 United
States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump--acting both
directly and through his agents within and outside the United States
Government--conditioned two official acts on the public announcements
that he had requested--

(A) the release of $391 million of United States
taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan
basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security
assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which
President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which
the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United
States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of
Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President
Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the
Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging
and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal
political benefit. These actions were consistent with President Trump's
previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by
ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to
obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation
by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic
elections.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he
will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to
remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with
self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment
and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. In his conduct of the office of President of
the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented,
categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House
of Representatives pursuant to its ``sole Power of Impeachment''. President
Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and
subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry
focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine
to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this
impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served
subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from
various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed
Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those
subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against
the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself
functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the ``sole Power of
Impeachment'' vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the
following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by
withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to
defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and
records from the Committees--in response to which the Department of State,
Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of
Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials
not to cooperate with the Committees--in response to which nine
Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely
John Michael ``Mick'' Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg,
Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael
Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts
to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference
in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself
the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment
inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny
any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of
its ``sole Power of Impeachment''. In the history of the Republic, no
President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry
or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House
of Representatives to investigate ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. This abuse
of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to
seize and control the power of impeachment--and thus to nullify a vital
constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his
trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great
prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the
people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he
will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and
has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule
of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from
office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/755/text

Again, Trump’s defense is not that the House failed to establish the above charges as fact, but rather, that they are not impeachable. You are free to endorse that belief.

[Cope]

That’s not an accurate restatement of his position, and I don’t know why you feel compelled to do so if you agree with it:

Dershowitz explicitly claimed that even if Trump is guilty of the specific offenses charged by the House, he cannot he impeached for them because they are not crimes. The scholar he cited as a key basis for his claim, Nicholas Bowie, rejected it outright and in detail.

That's what I've just said. Trump cannot be found guilty of crimes of which he is not accused (the "offences charged by the House" are not "high crimes" according to Dershowitz's position). That, of course, is a limited, technical argument (hardly unusual in the legal profession), but it does have some merit as has been explained.

As to whether or not Dershowitz's cited scholar agrees that his theory is being applied correctly in this case (presumably Bowie believes that common law violations can constitute high crimes), I say that is irrelevant. The standards for both impeachment and/or removal are, as the framers intended, entirely open ended. 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. The Constitution provides that impeachment is primarily a political, not a judicial process - which in practice means it is, as I stated, an elaborate no confidence vote in the executive.

That is not an accurate restatement of what the articles set out to establish, and I don’t know why you feel compelled to do so if you think they are without merit.

Again, Trump’s defense is not that the House failed to establish the above charges as fact, but rather, that they are not impeachable. You are free to endorse that belief.

The "solicitation" of assistance in an investigation is not "corrupt" if it is based on a credible belief that an investigation is warranted to uncover wrongdoing. And that must be true even if said investigation is politically beneficial for the investigating party. Now as I explicitly stated, that is my view, not the argument put forward by the President's lawyers.

Neverthless, Bondi did make a similar point when she said:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

April, 2019 to November, 2019, despite his resignation from the board, the media has continued to raise the issue relating to a potential conflict of interest. On July 22nd, 2019, The Washington Post wrote, the fired prosecutor general Shokin quote, believes his ouster was because of his interest in the company, end quote, referring to Burisma. The Post further wrote that, quote, had he remained in his post, he would have questioned Hunter Biden. On July 25th, 2019, three days later, President Trump speaks with President Zelensky. He says, “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with this attorney general would be great.” Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution said, “If you can look into it. It looks horrible to me, end quote. The House managers talked about the Bidens or Burisma 400 times, but they never gave you the full picture.

But here are those who did. The United Kingdom serious fraud unit, Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State, George Kent. Chris Heinz, the ABC White House reporter, ABC, Good Morning America, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Ukrainian law enforcement and the Obama State Department itself. They all thought there was cause to raise the issue about the Bidens and Burisma. Now the House managers might say without evidence that everything we just have said has been debunked. That the evidence points entirely and unequivocally in the other direction. That is a distraction. You’ve heard from the House managers, they do not believe that there was any concern to raise here, that all of this was baseless and all we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and that is enough. I yield my time.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That's what I've just said. Trump cannot be found guilty of crimes of which he is not accused (the "offences charged by the House" are not "high crimes" according to Dershowitz's position). That, of course, is a limited, technical argument (hardly unusual in the legal profession), but it does have some merit as has been explained.

Impeachment is a political process. The argument that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses isn’t a legal technicality. It’s a strategic decision not to debate, contest or defend the president’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as charged by the House.

As to whether or not Dershowitz's cited scholar agrees that his theory is being applied correctly in this case (presumably Bowie believes that common law violations can constitute high crimes), I say that is irrelevant. The standards for both impeachment and/or removal are, as the framers intended, entirely open ended. 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. The Constitution provides that impeachment is primarily a political, not a judicial process - which in practice means it is, as I stated, an elaborate no confidence vote in the executive.

The process is indeed political, which is why your musings regarding the hypothetical merits of legal technicalities are irrelevant. Cross-examination of witnesses, calling witnesses, having access to evidence, and having counsel present are trial rights and have nothing to do with the House’s role to investigate and charge. Your conflating of the two separate processes in order to equate House investigative procedure with the Senate’s decision not to include witnesses and documentary evidence at trial is groundless.

The GOP Senate, based on the case made by the defense, will have decided that a president cannot be impeached for:
1 Using the powers of his high office to solicit interference of a foreign government in a presidential election to his personal advantage in manner which compromised national security and interests.
2 Instructing the Executive Branch not to comply with the lawful subpoenas issued by the House, and thus assuming to himself the functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power ofImpeachment'' vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

The "solicitation" of assistance in an investigation is not "corrupt" if it is based on a credible belief that an investigation is warranted to uncover wrongdoing. And that must be true even if said investigation is politically beneficial for the investigating party. Now as I explicitly stated, that is my view, not the argument put forward by the President's lawyers.

Trump’s corrupt motives are established, detailed, and explicitly described as such within the articles of impeachment, contrary to your view. Again, the defense is not that the House failed to establish these corrupt motives. The Senate will have determined that said corrupt motives are not impeachable, as per “the key point” of Trump’s defense.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

A President Pence would've been phenomenal. Alas, we're stuck with this guy for one more year, I guess.

Five*

[Cope]

Impeachment is a political process. The argument that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses isn’t a legal technicality. It’s a strategic decision not to debate, contest or defend the president’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as charged by the House.

The claim that the articles are legally improper is a technical argument. Though it wasn't the only part of the defence. Some parts were procedural, others were substantive.

The process is indeed political, which is why your musings regarding the hypothetical merits of legal technicalities are irrelevant.

You're the one who's been getting upset about the supposed inadequacies of Dershowitz's argument. That's why this is even being discussed at all. By parroting my point that the legal specifics are largely irrelevant in a political process, you're merely rebuking your own complaints.

Cross-examination of witnesses, calling witnesses, having access to evidence, and having counsel present are trial rights and have nothing to do with the House’s role to investigate and charge.

The House's role impeachment role can be whatever the House chooses it be. The trial "rights" are whatever the Senate decides them to be.

Your conflating of the two separate processes in order to equate House investigative procedure with the Senate’s decision not to include witnesses and documentary evidence at trial is groundless.

You aren't going to have it both ways: if you're going to excuse a partisan investigation, then I have no interest in your whining about an alleged partisan trial. The Constitution affords both chambers carte blanche in their respective roles. By definition, whatever is decided in either place is constitutional (and therefore legal).

The GOP Senate, based on the case made by the defense, will have decided that a president cannot be impeached for:

1 Using the powers of his high office to solicit interference of a foreign government in a presidential election to his personal advantage in manner which compromised national security and interests.

2 Instructing the Executive Branch not to comply with the lawful subpoenas issued by the House, and thus assuming to himself the functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power ofImpeachment'' vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

That's not correct. The technical rebuttal of the articles formed only part of a broader defence. It also did not seek to establish what the president "cannot be impeached for" in principle, but what was (or ought to be) procedurally proper.

Trump’s corrupt motives are established, detailed, and explicitly described as such within the articles of impeachment, contrary to your view.

The House is free to claim what it wants. As has been stated ad nauseam since the start of this thread, not a single first-hand witness has been presented to attest to the President's motives.

Again, the defense is not that the House failed to establish these corrupt motives. The Senate will have determined that said corrupt motives are not impeachable, as per “the key point” of Trump’s defense.

Dershowitz's constitutional argument was not the entirety of the defence (as shown).

[Lord Thesaurian]

The claim that the articles are legally improper is a technical argument. Though it wasn't the only part of the defence. Some parts were procedural, others were substantive.

You're the one who's been getting upset about the supposed inadequacies of Dershowitz's argument. That's why this is even being discussed at all. By parroting my point that the legal specifics are largely irrelevant in a political process, you're merely rebuking your own complaints.

I am not parroting your point just because you acknowledged the fact that impeachment is political. I pointed out the fact that Trump’s defenders chose to make the “key point in their impeachment case” the claim that even if Trump is guilty as charged, he can’t be impeached for it. The fact that “the key point” of Dershowitz’s defense was rejected by one of his own main references is an indication of its argumentative perfidy, not a legal technicality.

You aren't going to have it both ways: if you're going to excuse a partisan investigation, then I have no interest in your whining about an alleged partisan trial. The Constitution affords both chambers carte blanche in their respective roles. By definition, whatever is decided in either place is constitutional (and therefore legal).

The House is free to claim what it wants. As has been stated ad nauseam since the start of this thread, not a single first-hand witness has been presented to attest to the President's motives.

I’m not having anything both ways. As I said, the attempt to claim otherwise by conflating two separate processes is groundless. No one is claiming the Senate or Trump’s defenders did something illegal, and there is nothing to “excuse” about the House investigation. The claim that no firsthand witnesses were called by the House is false, no matter how many times anyone has repeated that vacuous talking point in this thread. Firsthand witnesses were called and did appear, including Jennifer Williams, Alexander Vindman, and others. Suggesting the House investigation was somehow flawed because they were unable or unwilling to overcome Trump’s gag order on other key witnesses is ridiculous on its face.

The fact remains that corrupt motive was established by the House, as stated in the impeachment articles, and “the key point of the defense’s case” was not that the charges are false, but rather that they are outside the range of impeachable offenses.

That's not correct. The technical rebuttal of the articles formed only part of a broader defence. It also did not seek to establish what the president "cannot be impeached for" in principle, but what was (or ought to be) procedurally proper.

It is correct. The “key point in the impeachment case” for the defense is that the charges in the articles are outside the range of impeachable offenses, which is itself a procedural defense. The GOP defense was always procedural from the beginning, aided by Trump’s explicit obstruction, as opposed to trying to refute the charges. If you agree with the defense, I don’t see why you feel compelled to restate it, bring up the Bidens, or intersperse it with your own views on the merits of technicalities in the legal profession.

[Cope]

I am not parroting your point just because you acknowledged the fact that impeachment is political.

I claimed that the legal technicalities were ultimately irrelevant because impeachment is a political process, to which you laughably retorted that you cared not about my "musings" because impeachment is ultimately a political process.

I pointed out the fact that Trump’s defenders chose to make the “key point in their impeachment case” the claim that even if Trump is guilty as charged, he can’t be impeached for it.

No one has claimed that a president cannot be impeached in principle for the actions which Trump is alleged to have committed. The argument was that the articles - as presented - were constitutionally faulty.

The fact that “the key point” of Dershowitz’s defense was rejected by one of his own main references is merely an indication of its argumentative perfidy, not a legal technicality.

Whether you agree that his argument is technically correct doesn't mean that it isn't a technical argument. It hinges on the specific wording of the Constitution.

I’m aware of “your view.”

And I yours.

I’m not having anything both ways. As I said, the attempt to claim otherwise by conflating two separate processes is groundless. No one is claiming the Senate or Trump’s defenders did something illegal, and there is nothing to “excuse” about the House investigation.

In which case there is nothing to "excuse" about the Senate trial either. If you're happy with the House acting with impunity in the impeachment phase (as per the Constitution) then I don't want to hear you whining that the Senate isn't adhering to some constitutionally nonexistent standard in the trial phase (which includes how Senators choose to interpret the arguments of the defense).

The claim that no firsthand witnesses were called by the House is false, no matter how many times anyone has repeated that vacuous talking point in this thread. Firsthand witnesses were called and did appear, including Jennifer Williams, Alexander Vindman, and others. Suggesting the House investigation was somehow partisan or flawed because they were unable or unwilling to overcome Trump’s gag order on other key witnesses is ridiculous on its face.

No firsthand witnesses testified to Trump's motives (beyond extrapolations from the Zelensky call). Whether or not the House "called" firsthand witnesses irrelevant to that point.

The fact remains that corrupt motive was established by the House, as stated in the impeachment articles, and “the key point of the defense’s case” was not that the charges are false, but rather that they are outside the range of impeachable offenses.

For the reasons explained, the alleged "corrupt motive" was not established by the House. The fact that Schiff, Pelosi et al. were unwilling to see through the legal appeals process to force Trump, Bolton, McGahn (or whoever else they thought would prove their case) to testify is, as stated, irrelevant. It is a dead end to argue that because the House couldn't get the necessary testimony it needed, it shouldn't have to need it.

It is correct. The “key point in the impeachment case” for the defense is that the charges in the articles are outside the range of impeachable offenses, which is itself a procedural defense. The GOP defense was always procedural from the beginning, aided by Trump’s explicit obstruction, as opposed to trying to refute the charges. If you agree with the defense, I don’t see why you feel compelled to restate it, bring up the Bidens, or intersperse it with your own views on the merits of technicalities in the legal profession.

I agree with various aspects of the defence which have been raised over the past few months, as do many Senate Republicans (and perhaps some Democrats too).

[Lord Thesaurian]

I claimed that the legal technicalities were ultimately irrelevant because impeachment is a political process, to which you laughably retorted that you cared not about my "musings" because impeachment is ultimately a political process.

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

No one has claimed that a president cannot be impeached in principle for the actions which Trump is alleged to have committed.

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:

This is the key point in this impeachment case, please understand what I’m arguing, is that purely non-criminal conduct including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses. That is the key argument I’m presenting today.

In which case there is nothing to "excuse" about the Senate trial either. If you're happy with the House acting with impunity in the impeachment phase (as per the Constitution) then I don't want to hear you whining that the Senate isn't adhering to some constitutionally nonexistent standard in the trial phase (which includes how Senators choose to interpret the arguments of the defense).

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

No firsthand witnesses testified to Trump's motives (beyond extrapolations from the Zelensky call). Whether or not the House "called" firsthand witnesses irrelevant to that point.

For the reasons explained, the alleged "corrupt motive" was not established by the House. The fact that Schiff, Pelosi et al. were unwilling to see through the legal appeals process to force Trump, Bolton, McGahn (or whoever else they thought would prove their case) to testify is, as stated, irrelevant

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.

It is a dead end to argue that because the House couldn't get the necessary testimony it needed, it shouldn't have to need it.

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.” 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.