President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

notobtuse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is not good for The Donald. From the article:

As the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial on whether to remove Donald Trump from office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog on Thursday dealt the Republican president a blow by concluding that the White House violated the law by withholding security aid approved for Ukraine by U.S. lawmakers.

How about sticking to the two ACTUAL articles of impeachment against TUMP, not trumped up other ones… abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats contend that a president does not have to commit a crime to be impeached. It goes to show that Democrats are pursuing a political impeachment because they couldn’t uncover enough evidence to show a crime was committed to removed him from office. Former Harvard Law School professor, and celebrated scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law, Alan Dershowitz said that the two articles Democrats settled on are “so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors.

Let’s take the obstruction of Congress charge. So Trump claimed executive privilege in not allowing someone to appear in front of Congress for questioning. Every president has and will do this. So therefore every president going forward can be impeached by the prescient Democrats have now set.

Also, every president has withheld monies to other countries to gain leverage. Again, every president going forward will do so. Impeachable?

Impeachable offenses????... Remember when Barack Obama and Eric Holder stonewalled Congress over Fast and Furious? Remember when Obama threatened to withhold funds to Pakistan if they didn’t do enough to disrupt the Haqqani network. Remember when Joe Biden, on behalf of Barack Obama, threatened to withhold $1 Billion in aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor looking into corruption of the company his son sat on the board of, by the end of the day? Ooops… I guess that means Biden should be impeached on day one if he wins.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

How about sticking to the two ACTUAL articles of impeachment against TUMP, not trumped up other ones… abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats contend that a president does not have to commit a crime to be impeached. It goes to show that Democrats are pursuing a political impeachment because they couldn’t uncover enough evidence to show a crime was committed to removed him from office. Former Harvard Law School professor, and celebrated scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law, Alan Dershowitz said that the two articles Democrats settled on are “so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors.

Let’s take the obstruction of Congress charge. So Trump claimed executive privilege in not allowing someone to appear in front of Congress for questioning. Every president has and will do this. So therefore every president going forward can be impeached by the prescient Democrats have now set.

Also, every president has withheld moneys to other countries to gain leverage. Again every president going forward.

Impeachable offenses????... Remember when Barack Obama and Eric Holder stonewalled Congress over Fast and Furious? Remember when Obama threatened to withhold funds to Pakistan if they didn’t do enough to disrupt the Haqqani network. Remember when Joe Biden, on behalf of Barack Obama, threatened to withhold $1 Billion in aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor looking into corruption of the company his son sat on the board of, by the end of the day? Ooops… I guess that means Biden should be impeached on day one if he wins.

Except that's not even close to true.

The Prosecutor that they were trying to remove was REFUSING to investigate corruption and everybody wanted him gone.

What Biden did was Government policy and done in Public with the approval of Congress - What Trump did was for Personal gain , contrary to Government and Congressional policy and done using unofficial un-elected operatives , that's the issue , but I think you know that.

Also - This comment

So Trump claimed executive privilege in not allowing someone to appear in front of Congress for questioning.

That not how executive privilege works though - He cannot just issue a blanket block and say "I'm not allowing them to attend" - As the recent court judgements related to Don McGahn have confirmed.

They of course are allowed to refuse to answer specific questions during testimony if they believe that it might be covered by Executive privilege.

But not turning up at all , that's simply not how it works at all.

Billy Mays

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is not good for The Donald. From the article:

As the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial on whether to remove Donald Trump from office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog on Thursday dealt the Republican president a blow by concluding that the White House violated the law by withholding security aid approved for Ukraine by U.S. lawmakers.

Deep state at it again :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

How about sticking to the two ACTUAL articles of impeachment against TUMP, not trumped up other ones… abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats contend that a president does not have to commit a crime to be impeached. It goes to show that Democrats are pursuing a political impeachment because they couldn’t uncover enough evidence to show a crime was committed to removed him from office. Former Harvard Law School professor, and celebrated scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law, Alan Dershowitz said that the two articles Democrats settled on are “so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors.

Let’s take the obstruction of Congress charge. So Trump claimed executive privilege in not allowing someone to appear in front of Congress for questioning. Every president has and will do this. So therefore every president going forward can be impeached by the prescient Democrats have now set.

Also, every president has withheld monies to other countries to gain leverage. Again, every president going forward will do so. Impeachable?

Impeachable offenses????... Remember when Barack Obama and Eric Holder stonewalled Congress over Fast and Furious? Remember when Obama threatened to withhold funds to Pakistan if they didn’t do enough to disrupt the Haqqani network. Remember when Joe Biden, on behalf of Barack Obama, threatened to withhold $1 Billion in aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor looking into corruption of the company his son sat on the board of, by the end of the day? Ooops… I guess that means Biden should be impeached on day one if he wins.

Sure. The Government Accountability Office is the supreme audit institution of federal government and is led by the Comptroller General. This institution has categorically stated that the White House broke the law. Plain and simple.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Except that's not even close to true.

The Prosecutor that they were trying to remove was REFUSING to investigate corruption and everybody wanted him gone.

What Biden did was Government policy and done in Public with the approval of Congress - What Trump did was for Personal gain , contrary to Government and Congressional policy and done using unofficial un-elected operatives , that's the issue , but I think you know that.

Also - This comment



That not how executive privilege works though - He cannot just issue a blanket block and say "I'm not allowing them to attend" - As the recent court judgements related to Don McGahn have confirmed.

They of course are allowed to refuse to answer specific questions during testimony if they believe that it might be covered by Executive privilege.

But not turning up at all , that's simply not how it works at all.

I bet this is news to the prosecutor.

“Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-biden-burisma-back-off-state-department-files

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions.

The Supreme Court was reviewing the claims of Executive Privilege and the manner it was being used by Trump in the matter. Why didn’t democrats wait for the court ruling before rushing to impeachment? Were they afraid the SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump?

osarusan

Billy Mays wrote: »

Deep state at it again :rolleyes:

nonpartisan congressional watchdog

nOnpartiSan cOngResSional


O S O R S

SOROS

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

It's tradition in the US for politicians to use several pens when signing important documents (a silly tradition, granted). Even Donnie himself has done it.

Thought you would've known that Pete

Also lol at any Trump fan calling someone else childish

Pelosi reaches for pen... 'N'
grabs another pen... 'a'
takes another pen... 'n'
yet another pen... 'c'
and another pen... 'y'

Tradition? Give me a break!

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The Prosecutor that they were trying to remove was REFUSING to investigate corruption and everybody wanted him gone.

Explain this then:

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

What Biden did was Government policy and done in Public with the approval of Congress

Must be nice to have the approval of congress but Trump hasn't got that, in fact they (well, half them) have been accusing him of conspiring with the Kremlin. He has people all around him leaking to the media, calling themselves "the resistance" and so maybe it wasn't an option for him to go to congress regarding certain Ukraine officials who clearly interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to get Hillary elected and also to see if the allegations about the Bidens and Burisma had any truth to them.

What Trump did was for Personal gain

No, exposing corruption in US Government is helpful for the US as also is exposing instances of other countries interfering in US elections. Isn't that what you all have spent the last three years crowing about? Election interference? So why such outrage, pearl clutching and hand wringing about Russians hacking into the DNC and leaking emails but yet seemingly no concern whatsoever that Government officials in Ukraine leaked information on a Trump campaign member with the specific intention to negatively affect his chances of winning, and by extension, enhance Hillary's. Why no outrage about that? Same Ukrainian was a source on the salacious Steele Dossier by the way.

Course when you all look the other way when the director of the FBI is exposed for leaking information to the media for political reasons, and FBI officials are caught having doctored emails so they could continue to spy on Trump, nothing should really be surprising. If Trump/GOP funded a Russian sourced dossier which said Obama wanted Russian prostitutes to urinate on one another in a bed in Moscow, just because Reagan and Nancy had once slept in it, you can only imagine the reaction, and rightfully so ... radio silence when that money came from Hillary Clinton though.

Since Trump took office there has been one thing after another put forward as grounds for impeaching him. None of it is sincere.

Billy Mays

notobtuse wrote: »

Pelosi reaches for pen... 'N'
grabs another pen... 'a'
takes another pen... 'n'
yet another pen... 'c'
and another pen... 'y'

Tradition? Give me a break!

Dude it's your country's tradition not mine. Goes back as far as FDR apparenrly.

It's a sh!t tradition but a tradition nonetheless.

It's f*cking funny though watching Boards' own Diamond and Silk getting pissy about a few pens when they cheerlead the biggest manchild to ever hold a major political office.

Like I've said before no one does lacking in self awareness quite like Trump fans

Boggles

Billy Mays wrote: »

Like I've said before no one does lacking in self awareness quite like Trump fans

It is extremely bizarre to watch. But also quite funny.

The only thing I can think of is they are so far embedded in their narrative they can't climb out.

Anyway a gif says a million words, this guy just sums it up for me.

Hector Savage

Pelosi saying it was a sad day for America, yet the old witch couldn't keep the massive grin from her face.

MonkeyTennis

I impeached Donald Trump and all I got was this lousy pen

ohnonotgmail

Hector Savage wrote: »

Pelosi saying it was a sad day for America, yet the old witch couldn't keep the massive grin from her face.

It was a sad day for america that they had to impeach a president but she was happy that they had done so. Not so difficult to understand if you really try.

Hector Savage

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It was a sad day for america that they had to impeach a president but she was happy that they had done so. Not so difficult to understand if you really try.

Yeah impeached because they know they have no chance of beating him in November - maybe they should concentrate of getting a decent candidate ?

TheRepentent

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yeah impeached because they know they have no chance of beating him in November

He was impeached for breaking the law....but you know that

notobtuse

TheRepentent wrote: »

He was impeached for breaking the law....but you know that

Trump did not break the law.

KiKi III

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump did not break the law.

Do you know something the Government Accountability Office doesn’t? Because they say he did. And it’s non-partisan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.amp.html

notobtuse

So the Senate show trial begins with farcical fanfare and made for TV drama… all over two articles of impeachment of which neither rise to high crimes nor even misdemeanors in the criminal code. It started off in a ludicrous manner with Chief Justice Roberts administering the oath for senators to “do impartial justice.” All 100 Senators lied as they signed their names. The only good thing about this $hit show will be the happy ending. Unfortunately, I think we all know this is just act one of two, three, or maybe even seven that the Democrats will rewrite again in their impeachment act of revenge for Trump winning the 2016 election.

‘Now is the winter of our discontent’

Hande hoche!

See that Dershowitz and Ken Starr are getting involved. Should be a bit of a spectacle.

notobtuse

KiKi III wrote: »

Do you know something the Government Accountability Office doesn’t? Because they say he did. And it’s non-partisan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.amp.html

Yes.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pushed back against the GAO opinion and argued the White House used the apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law.

Of note... The GAO has flipped its positions twice in the last few months. They’ll probably do so again in this matter.

KiKi III

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pushed back against the GAO opinion and argued the White House used the apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law.

Of note... The GAO has flipped its positions twice in the last few months. They’ll probably do so again in this matter.

None of us has a crystal ball to predict the future, but we know that their position as of right now is that Trump broke the law.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten my response to the last time you tried that 'not a crime not a crime' ploy, so here's the breaches of office that Trump has made to cause the impeachment

18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.”

2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,”

18 U.S. Code § 610, “Coercion of political activity.”

52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.”

Again! He did break his oath of office thus causing his impeachment notobtuse

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

So the Senate show trial begins with farcical fanfare and made for TV drama… all over two articles of impeachment of which neither rise to high crimes nor even misdemeanors in the criminal code. It started off in a ludicrous manner with Chief Justice Roberts administering the oath for senators to “do impartial justice.” All 100 Senators lied as they signed their names. The only good thing about this $hit show will be the happy ending. Unfortunately, I think we all know this is just act one of two, three, or maybe even seven that the Democrats will rewrite again in their impeachment act of revenge for Trump winning the 2016 election.

‘Now is the winter of our discontent’

for once you are absolutely correct. this will be a show trial. what else can you call a trial where the defendant is openly blocking any witnesses against him from testifying.

ebbsy

Nancy is as innocent as a nun doing pushups in a field of cucumbers.

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pushed back against the GAO opinion and argued the White House used the apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law.

Of note... The GAO has flipped its positions twice in the last few months. They’ll probably do so again in this matter.

OMB? Would that be the same OMB run by Trump's glove puppet Mick Mulvaney? The same Mick Mulvaney who gave that press conference in October? The same press conference where Mulvaney confirmed that Trump withheld money to pressure Ukraine? Must try harder.

Boggles

Trump has hired Epstein's lawyer, also has done work for OJ and Weinstein, makes sense.

duploelabs

Boggles wrote: »

Trump has hired Epstein's lawyer, also has done work for OJ and Weinstein, makes sense.

Soon Rudi will just be a covfefe boy

notobtuse

KiKi III wrote: »

None of us has a crystal ball to predict the future, but we know that their position as of right now is that Trump broke the law.

Yes, the GAO has an opinion on the matter as does the OMB. As of now they are both merely opinions and nothing more.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes, the GAO has an opinion on the matter as does the OMB. As of now they are both merely opinions and nothing more.

I don't think the letter of the law, and the ability of the GAO to enforce that, is that pourus as to say it's 'an opinion'

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

I don't think the letter of the law, and the ability of the GAO to enforce that, is that pourus as to say it's 'an opinion'

Democrats will key on the GAO opinion and Republicans will key on the OMB opinion.

I guess the trial will determine which opinion carries more weight.

Of note: Senator Rand Paul (R) argued that GAO got it wrong when the agency concluded the White House violated the Impoundment Control Act by declining to notify Congress of the delay in appropriated funds. “I think they misunderstand the law. I think presidents withhold money all the time, move money around,” Paul said. “I think there’s a great deal of latitude to what presidents do. So I think they’ve misinterpreted the law.”