Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

NightHawkeye · Dec 24, 2019

From the "More popcorn needed", files: House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again | Politico

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
...
However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.

“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote.
...
“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.
...
Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels.

BobRyan · Dec 24, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
From the "More popcorn needed", files: House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again | Politico

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

Because having first proven that the entire process is worthless to the point that even the house agrees that it is not worth sending on to the Senate -- you have little more than a "postage stamp" with the word "impeachment" on it that you can't even get a letter mailed using such "value" .. why not have a dozen more impeachment stamps ... one for every month of the year, why not do it for the next four years? Why try to avoid the label "do nothing congress" ? why not embrace it and see how that works at election time?

Paulos23 · Dec 24, 2019

Given that several court cases are going to go through the Supreme Court, I wouldn't rule it out either.

So the question is, do you want one trial in the Senate or More?

Fantine · Dec 24, 2019

Well let's face it. The number and scope of Trump's offenses, as evidenced by very credible, well researched investigative articles by Pulitzer Prize winning publications, are many times the two articles of impeachment.

Through gargantuan efforts to defy subpoenas and put the lid on exposure, we've been unable to completely flesh them out.

There are cases against Trump pending in New York, Maryland, Virginia, and other places. Some of them are criminal.

He settled for $25 million on a fraudulent university case (with non-disclosure agreements preventing victims from testifying to his fraud in any criminal proceeding, for example.) He just paid $2 million for fraud in his foundation.

United Kingdom is after him to be legal and court fees on a frivolous lawsuit he filed saying wind farms constructed near his Scottish golf resort were ruining their views. Although ordered to pay these fees by the London court, Trump has refused to come through with the money.

He is lucky there are only two impeachment charges, out of potentially dozens.

So yes, if more evidence comes up, after he is acquitted in a Senate whitewash coverup trial, it should be pursued.

He has now officially defied international as well as federal and state laws.

GoldenBoy89 · Dec 24, 2019

Good! It was at least entertaining to watch.

Allandavid · Dec 24, 2019

BobRyan said:
Because having first proven that the entire process is worthless to the point that even the house agrees that it is not worth sending on to the Senate -- you have little more than a "postage stamp" with the word "impeachment" on it that you can't even get a letter mailed using such "value" .. why not have a dozen more impeachment stamps ... one for every month of the year, why not do it for the next four years? Why try to avoid the label "do nothing congress" ? why not embrace it and see how that works at election time?

The correct course of action is just to ignore any further evidence of wrongdoing...? Is that how your sense of justice operates...?

Gigimo · Dec 24, 2019

NightHawkeye said:
From the "More popcorn needed", files: House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again | Politico

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
...
However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.

“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote.
...
“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.
...
Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels.

You know I'm wondering as to when they will figure out nobody really cares about their impeachment proceedings?

The first day or two of hearings quite a few folks tuned in to see what was going on, after that they went back to their favorite soaps and Trump ratings have been steadily climbing ever since.

TLK Valentine · Dec 24, 2019

Anyone else in the country: commit a crime; get indicted. Commit another crime; get indicted again.

Any reason Donald shouldn't be subject to the same rules?

BobRyan · Dec 24, 2019

Allandavid said:
The correct course of action is just to ignore any further evidence of wrongdoing...? Is that how your sense of justice operates...?

On the contrary once they cheapen the value of the impeachment process by not even considering it worthy to pass on to the Senate - then by all means we should sit up and take notice of that wrong doing.

BobRyan · Dec 24, 2019

TLK Valentine said:
Anyone else in the country: commit a crime; get indicted. Commit another crime; get indicted again.

Any reason Donald shouldn't be subject to the same rules?

hmm seeking an indictment from a grand jury but then NOT filing a charging document directly with the court??,, instead just keep getting indictments that you don't pass on to the court? Do that over and over until you have sufficiently cheapened the indictment process and then they pat themselves on the back because for them it was not about the court, not about the conviction .. it was all about "the stain" ... the smear.

That only flies in politics. I am not even sure the constitution supports it.

BobRyan · Dec 24, 2019

Gigimo said:
You know I'm wondering as to when they will figure out nobody really cares about their impeachment proceedings?

The first day or two of hearings quite a few folks tuned in to see what was going on, after that they went back to their favorite soaps and Trump ratings have been steadily climbing ever since.

especially if they themselves keep arguing they do not yet have enough evidence and need more investigating to make their case a good one.

TLK Valentine · Dec 24, 2019

BobRyan said:
On the contrary once they cheapen the value of the impeachment process by not even considering it worthy to pass on to the Senate - then by all means we should sit up and take notice of that wrong doing.

Prior to Donald, the last impeachment process was over a presidential lying over his extramarital shenanigans... I don't see how it can be cheapened any further.

TLK Valentine · Dec 24, 2019

BobRyan said:
hmm seeking an indictment from a grand jury but then NOT filing a charging document directly with the court??,, instead just keep getting indictments that you don't pass on to the court? Do that over and over until you have sufficiently cheapened the indictment process and then they pat themselves on the back because for them it was not about the court, not about the conviction .. it was all about "the stain" ... the smear.

That only flies in politics. I am not even sure the constitution supports it.

When the impeachment is sent to the Senate (to be summarily dismissed on Donald's behalf... if not his orders) what will you say then?

Gigimo · Dec 24, 2019

BobRyan said:
especially if they themselves keep arguing they do not yet have enough evidence and need more investigating to make their case a good one.

They know have they nothing, it's just theatre to appease certain people who don't know any better.

TLK Valentine · Dec 25, 2019

Gigimo said:
They know have they nothing, it's just theatre to appease certain people who don't know any better.

Even if they had everything, it wouldn't matter -- the fix is in as for as the Senate's concerned. They're pro-Donald all the way.

Fantine · Dec 25, 2019

It is Trump who cheapens the process by refusing to allow staff to testify and by not providing subpoenaed documents. It is the Department of Justice who cheapens the process by serving as Trump's accomplice. It is Mitch McConnell who is cheap and in the process by refusing to allow witnesses to testify and by announcing his own decision as a juror before even hearing the evidence.
The house is correct to wait until the Senate respects the impeachment process before sending over the charges. Despite being hampered by Trump's obstruction of Congress, they have acquired an impressive amount of evidence. The truth will eventually set us free, no matter how many roadblocks Trump sets up. The house is correct to wait until the Senate respects the impeachment process before sending over the articles.

rambot · Dec 25, 2019

Gigimo said:
You know I'm wondering as to when they will figure out nobody really cares about their impeachment proceedings?

The first day or two of hearings quite a few folks tuned in to see what was going on, after that they went back to their favorite soaps and Trump ratings have been steadily climbing ever since.

More precisely, I'm not sure Republicans care about Trump doing wrong. By that I mean, whether Trump ACTUALLY does wrong or not appears to be completely superfluous to the argument. I have, sadly, not seen enough of his supporters show a reasonable rebuttal for any of his side show antics. Perhaps they grow tired of a grown president acting that way but they'll put up with it for now.

It has been demonstrated that for some, a disturbing number to me, so long as the economy is humming Trump could literally do no wrong. For some, I think even if the economy tanked, he STILL could do no wrong because you can guarantee that he's convince them it would be the democrats fault.

KCfromNC · Dec 26, 2019

Gigimo said:
You know I'm wondering as to when they will figure out nobody really cares about their impeachment proceedings?

Perhaps when (if) the polling numbers change from their current state where more voters want Donald removed from office than voted for him in the first place?

Ed Parenteau · Dec 26, 2019

TLK Valentine said:
Prior to Donald, the last impeachment process was over a presidential lying over his extramarital shenanigans... I don't see how it can be cheapened any further.

Really?
From Wikipedia:
"As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment.

These seven sanctions, Ray reasoned, were "sufficient", and therefore he did not pursue further sanctions in a criminal proceeding."
I wonder if they would be sufficient if it were Trump?

TLK Valentine · Dec 26, 2019

Ed Parenteau said:
Really?
From Wikipedia:
"As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment.

These seven sanctions, Ray reasoned, were "sufficient", and therefore he did not pursue further sanctions in a criminal proceeding."
I wonder if they would be sufficient if it were Trump?

Sufficient?

1. Donald never admits to wrongdoing or error, so there's nothing in the record for that.

2. See above

3. Donald has no license to practice law, so there's nothing to take away from him.

4. Donald might deign to pay such a fine... not from his own pocket, of course -- I'm sure his family still has a charity somewhere whose coffers they can raid... That's what they're for, after all...

5. See above... Although with Cohen still in prison, Giuliani will have to take over his duties as Donald's bagman... assuming he hasn't already.

6. Donald will never accept any finding from any court his didn't pack... Not will his followers.

7. The public condemns Donald 2-3 times a month; it just makes his followers love him more.

You've managed to establish that the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton were excessive, since the seven sanctions were indeed quite sufficient.

Alas, none of them will have any effect on curbing Donald's bad behavior... Or even getting either him or his followers to even acknowledge its existence.

Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

Work-in-progress

Junior Member

Never tell me the odds!

Dona Quixote

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Dona Quixote

Senior Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Similar threads