President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Professor Moriarty

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you tried to jump in front of a bus you'd miss.

Point remains, though.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I don't understand your meaning.

Trump cannot seek re-election once removed from the office. Once convicted the officer can hold no other government position of trust.

I can only say you're going to be disappointed.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I can only say you're going to be disappointed.

Based on what? If he's acquitted by the Senate and seeks a 2nd term that's perfectly aligned with everything I have said about how this works. If the Senate convicts him there is no appeal and there is no 2nd term or indeed finishing of the 1st term, the Vice President is sworn in and he nominates a new Vice President under the 25th Amendment. Private citizen Trump is then likely to be subject being indicted for already-pending criminal charges.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Based on what?

Based on what I think is going to happen as this process will be proven to be what it is.
Which is...

Spencerfreeman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Point remains, though.

No it doesn't, the question was not aimed in the way you had thought.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Based on what I think is going to happen as this process will be proven to be what it is.
Which is...

As I said, conspiracies probably don't belong here.

I fail to understand, under your meme-thesis, how an Impeachment protects anyone else from criminal prosecution?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

As I said, conspiracies probably don't belong here.

I fail to understand, under your meme-thesis, how an Impeachment protects anyone else from criminal prosecution?

Because like the other failed attempts it can be used to suggest obstruction.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because like the other failed attempts it can be used to suggest obstruction.

You're not making any sense. How does Impeachment obstruct justice? Can you cite anyone with a law degree that establishes that argument?

Professor Moriarty

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No it doesn't, the question was not aimed in the way you had thought.

Well, if you had asked me, I wouldn't have answered.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

You're not making any sense. How does Impeachment obstruct justice? Can you cite anyone with a law degree that establishes that argument?

The process of impeachment is being used to delay justice. Not actual Impeachment.
I expect that the claim of obstruction of justice will also be used in the next few days by Schitt.

Spencerfreeman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, if you had asked me, I wouldn't have answered.

Correct! I didn't.

Professor Moriarty

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Correct! I didn't.

Indeed. But I've nothing better to do other than to butt in with the bleeding obvious of which I have a tremendous grasp.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The process of impeachment is being used to delay justice. Not actual Impeachment.
I expect that the claim of obstruction of justice will also be used in the next few days by Schitt.

I don't see how the process of impeachment is a delay to impeachment. That's utterly laughable. You may as well argue that a pre-trial hearing or jury selection is obstruction of justice.

I do however note the process would be expedited by cooperation from the White House. Even when previous WH administrations fully cooperated with proceedings, they still took months to produce and pass the articles of impeachment.

Clinton's impeachment inquiry began with a vote on October 8, 1998 to commence proceedings. The House didn't vote on Articles of Impeachment until December 19, 1998. The Senate trial opened on January 7, 1999 and ended on On February 12, 1999.

JRant

Overheal wrote: »

It's been clarified though?

Additionally, the whistleblower's tip-off resulted in the release of a corroborating Memorandum of the Telephone call and corroboration by other US officials of efforts to get Ukraine to agree to a quid pro quo to investigate Burisma, Biden, and 2016. It's like trying to unmask Deep Throat while pretending Watergate isn't a real scandal until that's done.

We are being shown one side so far. You say everything has been corroborated but until the actual witness testimony is released then we are feeding off scraps.
Let's see what comes out during the coming months before jumping to conclusions.

Outlaw Pete

...

Overheal

JRant wrote: »

We are being shown one side so far.

That's the prerogative of the other 'side' of this, whom refuse to sit down to invited testimony or to even comply with subpoena.

I don't expect the reports due out of the Congress at the wrap-up of the inquiry stage to conflict whats already been reported and the testimony that's already been released - or the information to be released.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I don't see how the process of impeachment is a delay to impeachment. That's utterly laughable. You may as well argue that a pre-trial hearing or jury selection is obstruction of justice.

I do however note the process would be expedited by cooperation from the White House. Even when previous WH administrations fully cooperated with proceedings, they still took months to produce and pass the articles of impeachment.

Clinton's impeachment inquiry began with a vote on October 8, 1998 to commence proceedings. The House didn't vote on Articles of Impeachment until December 19, 1998. The Senate trial opened on January 7, 1999 and ended on On February 12, 1999.

Thanks, didn't know you could it string it out for that long.
I suppose Trump will have to direct Barr to issue proceedings before that and fight the obstruction charges.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Thanks, didn't know you could it string it out for that long.
I suppose Trump will have to direct Barr to issue proceedings before that and fight the obstruction charges.

Have Barr issue what proceedings? Barr has no authority over the Impeachment. Trump hasn't been charged with anything yet - neither federal criminal indictments nor articles of impeachment.

As for 'stringing out' I'm not sure what you mean, it's just the length of process this typically seems to take, the order of months is not unprecedented. Andrew Johnson: first article passed on February 24, 1868. His trial began March 30, 1868. It ended May 26, 1868.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Have Barr issue what proceedings? Barr has no authority over the Impeachment. Trump hasn't been charged with anything yet - neither federal criminal indictments nor articles of impeachment.

Proceedings against Brennan et al.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Proceedings against Brennan et al.

Has nothing to do with the Impeachment Inquiry.

Outlaw Pete

More testimony snippets from Volker re the oft repeated accusation that Trump asked Zelensky to "dig up dirt":

"I’ve seen that phrase thrown around a lot. And I think there’s a difference between the manufacture or dig up dirt versus finding out did anything happen in the 2016 campaign or did anything happen with Burisma. I think – or even if he's asking them to investigate the Bidens, it is to find out what facts there may be rather than to manufacture something.”

Hear hear.

Overheal

Sen. Graham's position on all this appears to be... shaky.

Here's graham on 9/25 when the inquiry got underway

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1177053930339127297?s=20

Here's Mr Graham's attitude today...

https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1191828201233899523?s=20

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Sen. Graham's position on all this appears to be... shaky.

Here's graham on 9/25 when the inquiry got underway

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1177053930339127297?s=20

Here's Mr Graham's attitude today...

https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1191828201233899523?s=20

About as shaky as Shakin' Stevens is now.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Based on what I think is going to happen as this process will be proven to be what it is.
Which is...

Is this a QAnon thing?

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The process of impeachment is being used to delay justice. Not actual Impeachment.
I expect that the claim of obstruction of justice will also be used in the next few days by Schitt.

How does that even work? How does a an inquiry prevent Trump's justice department from indicting whoever the hell it is that QAnon thinks is to be indicted?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...

page number?

Outlaw Pete

Well, Lindsey's right ..

The fact that anti-Thrumpers in the main are fine with the Obama administration withholding aid before something they desired was carried out, but yet are pearl clutching over this, is absurd, and the narrative that it was different then as there was International support is baloney, as the US administration doesn't, nor shouldn't, need such a thing in order to make that determination. Nice to have it and all, but the notion the US administration, or the POTUS, are doing something wrong otherwise is ridiculous.

So all that leaves is the whole "but Biden is his political opponent" nonsense, so it can be then said that Trump was "asking a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election" but that is equally as absurd of course, as that would therefore mean that anyone running for President had immunity from criminal investigations.

So, yeah, Lindsey is spot on - it is a bunch of BS.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, Lindsey's right, it is a load of bollocks.

The fact that anti-Thrumpers in the main are fine with the Obama administration withholding aid before something they desired was carried out but yet are pearl clutching over this is absurd, and the narrative that that was different as there was International support is baloney ... as the US administration doesn't, and shouldn't, need such a thing in order to make such a determination. Nice to have it and all, but the notion the US administration, or the POTUS, are doing somethinh wrong otherwise is ridiculous.

So all then leaves is the whole "but Biden is his political opponent" nonsense, so it can then be said that Trump was "asking a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election" but is equally as absurd, as that would therefore mean that if you're running for President you have immunity from criminal investigations.

So, yeah, Lindsey is spot on.

That's absurd. Of course a candidate can be investigated. One would hope, however, that the investigator is not another political candidate. Asking a foreign government to help you do that is a clear and unambiguous violation of US law. Hillary Clinton, famously, ran for the presidency while under a multitude of investigations.

Biden was just the torchbearer for GOP, IMF, EU, and US State Department policy. If Trump really just wanted Biden investigated, he should have recused himself entirely. I don't recall Obama asking any foreign governments to spy on his election rivals, much less withholding aid over them for the pleasure.

It was recall investigating his political rivals that got Nixon in trouble. He wasn't just looking for corruption in the middle of the night at Watergate Hotel. Nobody argued Nixon's rivals were immune from investigation?

edit: that volker testimony screengrab do you know the page number thanks its over 300 pages long and unsearchable in its raw format.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

How does that even work? How does a an inquiry prevent Trump's justice department from indicting whoever the hell it is that QAnon thinks is to be indicted?

Since that you have invented Q and then quoted yourself, that is all.

Overheal

Becoming clearer now why Republicans don’t just want Jim Jordan in - they want Nunes out. The released transcripts show Nunes passing conspiracy theory off as fact and trying to derail proceedings behind closed doors.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/impeachment-inquiry-transcript-shows-devin-nunes-desperately-trying-to-tie-steele-dossier-to-ukraine/