A Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[jardiniere]

Oh, BTW you are aware that impeachment is a political process but all past impeachments have been based on criminal charges with evidence to substantiate those charges. That is why I say this is being done for political purposes.

Even the Republican's attorney recognized that what the President did was potentially impeachable.
It's not about hating the President enough to throw everything at him and see what sticks. Heck, if that were the case every President ever would be impeached by the opposing political party. What the President is being accused of is of such a serious nature that is so significantly against the Constitution that even Pelosi felt she had no recourse other than to start the impeachment process.

 

[civilwarbuff]

A law does not need to be broken to try a President for impeachment.

That's true in theory however all impeachments that have got past the talking point have had charges based on violations of the law. This may be the first time that does not happen. Doesn't look good for the dems to go simply the political route without having evidence of criminal activity....it will look simply like sour grapes (still) over a 3 year old election. Good luck there.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Even the Republican's attorney recognized that what the President did was potentially impeachable.

Yep, he did. But he said you gotta prove it and his opinion was congress was not there yet.

Heck, if that were the case every President ever would be impeached by the opposing political party.

That may change in the future after this....opposing parties may be more willing to go the impeachment route if the impeachment bar is set so low.

What the President is being accused of is of such a serious nature that is so significantly against the Constitution that even Pelosi felt she had no recourse other than to start the impeachment process.

And yet the evidence supporting such action is still not there. I doubt even a Grand Jury would indict someone based on the information presented by dems.....But things will get interesting in the Senate when the House Dems are no longer in control of the process.

 

[wing2000]

And yet the evidence supporting such action is still not there. I doubt even a Grand Jury would indict someone based on the information presented by dems.....But things will get interesting in the Senate when the House Dems are no longer in control of the process.

.....it will be interesting to see who are the witnesses that are called to defend the President...

 

[Belk]

That's true in theory however all impeachments that have got past the talking point have had charges based on violations of the law. This may be the first time that does not happen. Doesn't look good for the dems to go simply the political route without having evidence of criminal activity....it will look simply like sour grapes (still) over a 3 year old election. Good luck there.....

The charges against Trump are likely to be exactly the same as those against Nixon. Obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

 

[usexpat97]

I don't see why they can't list treason and bribery as articles of impeachment. Seeing as how Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution specifically says to do that.

 

[mark46]

Is it your position that asking a foreign government to assist in an election is NOT against the law?

That's true in theory however all impeachments that have got past the talking point have had charges based on violations of the law. This may be the first time that does not happen. Doesn't look good for the dems to go simply the political route without having evidence of criminal activity....it will look simply like sour grapes (still) over a 3 year old election. Good luck there.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

The charges against Trump are likely to be exactly the same as those against Nixon. Obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Except without the evidence....of course, that's just a minor detail, right?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't see why they can't list treason and bribery as articles of impeachment. Seeing as how Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution specifically says to do that.

Maybe cuz they didn't happen?....or should presidents be charged for crimes they did not commit?....oh, that's right.....the democrats are already doing that now.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Is it your position that asking a foreign government to assist in an election is NOT against the law?

And where is the evidence that they were asked to do that?.....I know, that pesky little question again.....

 

[Belk]

Except without the evidence....of course, that's just a minor detail, right?

Are you claiming that president Trump has not directed his underlings to ignore the congressional subpoenas? Because that looks a whole lot like evidence to me. The same with the other charges. That some wish to hand wave it away does not mean it does not exist.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Are you claiming that president Trump has not directed his underlings to ignore the congressional subpoenas? Because that looks a whole lot like evidence to me. The same with the other charges. That some wish to hand wave it away does not mean it does not exist.

Well, at least you admit that it just 'looks' like evidence instead of insisting that it is.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Are you claiming that president Trump has not directed his underlings to ignore the congressional subpoenas? Because that looks a whole lot like evidence to me. The same with the other charges. That some wish to hand wave it away does not mean it does not exist.

Then please list the evidence....you will be the 1st to do so.

 

[Belk]

Then please list the evidence....you will be the 1st to do so.

I would not be the first to do so and I find it doubtful you would do anything other then hand wave it away as you must have before now. It has been in the media constantly. It is not like this has not been talked about over and over again. So how about you address the piece I already covered? Why is telling underlings to ignore congressional subpoenas not evidence of contempt of congress and obstruction of justice?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I would not be the first to do so and I find it doubtful you would do anything other then hand wave it away as you must have before now. It has been in the media constantly. It is not like this has not been talked about over and over again.

...and that is typical of the answers I get. Can't list what doesn't exist....

So how about you address the piece I already covered? Why is telling underlings to ignore congressional subpoenas not evidence of contempt of congress and obstruction of justice?

And so they had to ignore the subpoena's or what? And if there was an implied 'what' why hasn't anything happened to the ones who were told to ignore them and yet testified anyways?...or is it just easier to ignore those because they don't support the narrative?

 

[wing2000]

Denying Sonland access to official documents and his notes was one example of obstruction. There are likely more...but frankly, I'll wait to evaluate the Articles of Impeachment.

 

[Belk]

...and that is typical of the answers I get. Can't list what doesn't exist....

We can't seem to get you to addressed what we do list

And so they had to ignore the subpoena's or what? And if there was an implied 'what' why hasn't anything happened to the ones who were told to ignore them and yet testified anyways?...or is it just easier to ignore those because they don't support the narrative?

I will ask again. Why is it not evidence of contempt of congress and obstruction of justice? Your claim of a lack of consequences for those who ignore it does not answer the question.

 

[civilwarbuff]

We can't seem to get you to addressed what we do list

List it (you will be the first) and I will address it; but it has to be evidence not what someone thinks, believes, presumes, assumes, was told by someone....real evidence.

Why is it not evidence of contempt of congress and obstruction of justice?

I believe I explained (maybe not) there is something call executive privilege (recoginzed by SCOTUS). Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it. Otherwise the executive is simply an obedient servant of congress and not a co-equal branch. If he defies a court ruling to give it to them then you have obstruction not till then.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I believe I explained (maybe not) there is something call executive privilege (recoginzed by SCOTUS). Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it.

You may want to brush up on your SCOTUS.

While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a monumental United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.

 

[Bobber]

List it (you will be the first) and I will address it; but it has to be evidence not what someone thinks, believes, presumes, assumes, was told by someone....real evidence.

I believe I explained (maybe not) there is something call executive privilege (recoginzed by SCOTUS). Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it. Otherwise the executive is simply an obedient servant of congress and not a co-equal branch. If he defies a court ruling to give it to them then you have obstruction not till then.

And it would place the Congress ahead of the Courts as well. For if pressed if the President made his appeal to the Courts and if the Courts sided with him we're to believe that Congress is above both those branches of governments combined? With that considered it'd make the Courts guilty of obstruction of justice too!