Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[nonobaddog]

Keep in mind, the politicians appointed by politicians isn’t just one person deciding. It’s the state’s legislative body. If it takes a 2/3 majority, the person really isn’t going to be a partisan hack. It has to be someone both sides really agree on. And there will be times they cannot agree on anyone, like when there is a really divisive issue of the day, for example slavery.

I think the result would be, fewer bat**** crazy senators, except in the most fringe states with legislative super majorities. It would also guard against mob rule. And help get money out of the senate. They wouldn’t need to constantly fundraise if they were appointed.

As the others have said, the reasons given at the time were selfish. Much like reasons given for stupid **** like the PATRIOT Act, they convinced people that the problems that existed were all going to be fixed if they just do this one thing.

Yes, I see that it is more than one person deciding - but just to play devil's advocate, what if it was the current House picking a politician for some imaginary reason? They are more than one person. The majority are bat**** crazy and just as stubborn. The only candidates with a chance would have to be bat**** crazy. It is very conceivable that no candidate could ever be approved by 2/3 majority. The position would remain vacant.

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, I see that it is more than one person deciding - but just to play devil's advocate, what if it was the current House picking a politician for some imaginary reason? They are more than one person. The majority are bat**** crazy and just as stubborn. The only candidates with a chance would have to be bat**** crazy. It is very conceivable that no candidate could ever be approved by 2/3 majority. The position would remain vacant.

The weakness in your devils advocate is that it presupposes that the people of the state would be onboard with their state being at a disadvantage by having one senator vs the two the are entitled. And the fact it is at the state level...

 

[jamil]

Yes, I see that it is more than one person deciding - but just to play devil's advocate, what if it was the current House picking a politician for some imaginary reason? They are more than one person. The majority are bat**** crazy and just as stubborn. The only candidates with a chance would have to be bat**** crazy. It is very conceivable that no candidate could ever be approved by 2/3 majority. The position would remain vacant.

In Indiana Republicans have a supermajority in both houses. What we would likely get is two Senators who are just like the leadership. Basically milquetoast chamber-o-commerce Republicans. Not radicals by any stretch.

Most states should be able to agree on candidates. Currently, 13 states have divided legislatures. You’d think they would be most likely to have problems picking senators. But being in a divided state doesn’t mean they’re mostly composed of hard line partisans on either side. The most fringe state legislatures should tend to be in the most fringe states. California, for example, is where the bat**** crazies are. And they’ll have no trouble seating bat**** crazy senators.

The rest of the states are firmly Republican or Democrat. Those shouldn’t have any problem seating senators.

 

[Vigilant]

No....
ALL Dems are Statists. Not just the ones here on INGO. It's just a fact.
Same as all Dems are gun grabbers. Not just the ones here on INGO. It's just a fact.

I just spoke with an x-friend that is going to vote for a democrat in the next election and they told me not to take it personally.
A vote for "D" is a vote against my guns. How do I NOT take that personally.

Absolutely, nothing less than a sworn enemy.

 

[2A_Tom]

The 17th Amendment will never be repealed, so the discussion is moot.

I once had a mute friend.

Back on track, I believe the original way was superior.

 

[nonobaddog]

In Indiana Republicans have a supermajority in both houses. What we would likely get is two Senators who are just like the leadership. Basically milquetoast chamber-o-commerce Republicans. Not radicals by any stretch.

Most states should be able to agree on candidates. Currently, 13 states have divided legislatures. You’d think they would be most likely to have problems picking senators. But being in a divided state doesn’t mean they’re mostly composed of hard line partisans on either side. The most fringe state legislatures should tend to be in the most fringe states. California, for example, is where the bat**** crazies are. And they’ll have no trouble seating bat**** crazy senators.

The rest of the states are firmly Republican or Democrat. Those shouldn’t have any problem seating senators.

Fine with me, I can ignore it. However according to Senate.gov the problem was real.

 

[KG1]

Realclearinvestigations is reporting that the whistleblower was discussing the need to "take out" President Trump, just days after his inauguration.

I do not think they will have witnesses but he would be a doozy to see...

If we're going the witness route then the whistleblower and Schiff need to be called along with Schiffs entire staff. I think it's material because it could prove a predetermined motive in a coordinated effort to get Trump.

I think the Bidens need to be called as well. Schiff said the Bidens were inconsequential but how can that be when this whole stinking mess was predicated because Trump just happened to mention them in the phone call.

 

[Ingomike]

The 17th Amendment will never be repealed, so the discussion is moot.

I once had a mute friend.

Back on track, I believe the original way was superior.

But it if good to show those unaware of it how it was intended to be

 

[nonobaddog]

But it if good to show those unaware of it how it was intended to be

Yes, it was informative to me and I appreciate the time given by all to explain it.

 

[2A_Tom]

The founders were brilliant, they even wrote in an exit strategy for *******, even though the subject could not be broached at the time.

Or even today.

 

[chipbennett]

and you guys call the Dems on this site "Statists".....

States-rightist != Statist, though

 

[chipbennett]

21 State Attorneys General (including Indiana's) submit legal brief, urging Senate to reject sham articles of impeachment:

As Attorneys General of 21 States whose citizens and Electoral College delegates voted in the 2016 presidential election, we have a special duty to defend the integrity of the votes cast by those citizens and electors during that election. However, our interests go well beyond that particular election. This impeachment proceeding threatens all future elections and establishes a dangerous historical precedent. That new precedent will erode the separation of powers shared by the executive and legislative branches by subjugating future Presidents to the whims of the majority opposition party in the House of Representatives. Thus, our duty to current and future generations commands us to urge the Senate to not only reject the two articles of impeachment contained in H. Res. 755—“abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”—as lacking in any plausible or reasonable evidentiary basis, but also as being fundamentally flawed as a matter of constitutional law.


If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers. As the House Judiciary Committee Democrats put it during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton,“Impeachment is like a wall around the fort of the separation of powers. The crack we put in the wall today becomes the fissure tomorrow, which ultimately destroys the wall entirely.” We agree.

Full brief (PDF):

https://www.scribd.com/document/443...-in-Support-of-Rejecting-Impeachment-Articles

 

[chipbennett]

White House lawyer explains how the House of Representatives attempted to circumvent the constitutional process necessary to provide House committees (and their chairmen) with judicially enforceable subpoena power, which is the fatal deficiency in the House's "abuse of congress" charge (video queued to 3:20):

[video=youtube_share;QQU_VH0l0ys]https://youtu.be/QQU_VH0l0ys?t=200[/video]

Also, a nice explanation of the difference between, and significance of, assertion of Executive Privilege vs inherent immunity.

 

[KG1]

White House lawyer explains how the House of Representatives attempted to circumvent the constitutional process necessary to provide House committees (and their chairmen) with judicially enforceable subpoena power, which is the fatal deficiency in the House's "abuse of congress" charge (video queued to 3:20):

[video=youtube_share;QQU_VH0l0ys]https://youtu.be/QQU_VH0l0ys?t=200[/video]

Also, a nice explanation of the difference between, and significance of, assertion of Executive Privilege vs inherent immunity.

It will be interesting when the defense team finally gets to do their presentation.

 

[jamil]

21 State Attorneys General (including Indiana's) submit legal brief, urging Senate to reject sham articles of impeachment:



Full brief (PDF):

https://www.scribd.com/document/443...-in-Support-of-Rejecting-Impeachment-Articles

I think the Senate should be obligated to consider dismissing any articles of impeachment that 1) were completely partisan and 2) are not accusations of a law clearly broken.

1) Not one Republican voted for any of the articles. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting against. An impeachment must be bipartisan or it will not be seen as credible and fair. A majority of people are against impeachment. The reason for this impeachment: Democrats don't like Trump's policies or who he is appointing to the bench.

2) It's not clear at all that any actual laws were broken. Certainly not in the 2nd article. The remedy for a president claiming executive privilege to block testimony before congress is to take it to court, not draft articles of impeachment. If the president refuses to comply with a court's order, after exhausting the legal appeals process, then fine. Impeach him for that.

 

[MCgrease08]

This whole thing is such a ****ing clown show.

Schiff warns of Russian attack on US mainland, as Day 2 of Trump's Senate impeachment trial concludes

Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to keep the stakes high. He suggested at one point that military aid to Ukraine was essential so the U.S. would not have to fight Russians at home, as soldiers did in the videogame "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2."

"As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here," Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the political spectrum.

"Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq," wrote journalist Max Blumenthal. "Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power."

Schiff attracted the most criticism, however, for later making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate -- rather than by voters in the 2020 election -- because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won't be compromised.

"The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won," Schiff remarked. He did not elaborate.

Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz, who will speak against impeachment, is expected to argue before the Senate that removing a president is a fundamentally undemocratic remedy that requires "criminal-like" conduct -- a standard he will argue is not met by Democrats' two articles of impeachment, which do not allege federal crimes.

But, both Republicans and left-of-center commentators didn't wait long to deride Schiff's incendiary arguments in more direct terms.

"And right here is proof of the Democrats’ plan all along," Trump campaign director of communications Tim Murtaugh said in response. "Every moment of the impeachment sham has been geared toward interfering with the 2020 election. Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away."

 

[KG1]

I think the Senate should be obligated to consider dismissing any articles of impeachment that 1) were completely partisan and 2) are not accusations of a law clearly broken.

1) Not one Republican voted for any of the articles. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting against. An impeachment must be bipartisan or it will not be seen as credible and fair. A majority of people are against impeachment. The reason for this impeachment: Democrats don't like Trump's policies or who he is appointing to the bench.

2) It's not clear at all that any actual laws were broken. Certainly not in the 2nd article. The remedy for a president claiming executive privilege to block testimony before congress is to take it to court, not draft articles of impeachment. If the president refuses to comply with a court's order, after exhausting the legal appeals process, then fine. Impeach him for that.

The Democrats want the Senate to take a swing at compelling executive privileged testimony. Something that they gave up on without seeking a judicial remedy. Then they just went ahead and proclaimed it to be a made up "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment instead.

That's just so effed up. It's time for the Senate to put this to bed.

 

[nonobaddog]

I think the Senate is in the process of officially discovering 'this impeachment is crap'. 'WTF do we do with crap?'

No Senate has ever had to deal with such a crap impeachment before so they will be setting a precedent for how to deal with crap impeachments in the future. This may become important if there are more of these crap impeachments or if they even become common.

 

[jamil]

I think the Senate is in the process of officially discovering 'this impeachment is crap'. 'WTF do we do with crap?'

No Senate has ever had to deal with such a crap impeachment before so they will be setting a precedent for how to deal with crap impeachments in the future. This may become important if there are more of these crap impeachments or if they even become common.

I would argue the Johnson impeachment was crap. Congress enacted an unconstitutional law for the purpose of accusing the president of breaking it, so that they could impeach him. They wanted him removed from office because they didn’t like his policies concerning concerning the reintegration of the south back into the Union. Johnson, like Lincoln, wanted a slower reintegration in a way to mend the wounds. The progressive Republican majority wanted a quick and punitive reintegration of the south. The new law prevented presidents from firing cabinet members without the consent of congress. They overrode Johnson’s veto to pass it.

It was widely believed the law was unconstitutional, so before the law could be challenged in court, the House voted to impeach Johnson for breaking it, even though technically, the former SofW was not fired.

The law never made it through the courts. Sometime after the Senate failed to convict, the law was repealed before the courts could rule on it. This was another example of congress using impeachment to get rid of a president because they don’t like his policies. The lengths that they went to were astonishing. At least they passed a law for the president to break. For this impeachment there wasn’t even a law broken. Just accusations.

 

[HoughMade]

Bold prediction.

At the end of the "trial", people who hated Trump are going to hate Trump.

People who support Trump are going to support Trump.

People in the middle will be disgusted by the whole thing, but remain in the middle.