Trump openly admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry

[Larniavc]

I'd say 100% of mankind (not 85% or 99%, etc.), needs the only true Anchor, and not to rely on just their own experience and knowledge and understanding, no matter what that experience or knowledge is. No matter how correct they feel by their real experiences, they will always go wrong if they don't look to Christ to teach them the only ultimate truth that goes past every individual amount of experience (every various situation of limited information).

Dunno about that. I’m doing really well without Jesus.

 

[A_Thinker]

The senate must decided whether Trump should be the first president ever removed by the Congress. Since this is at its heart, a political event, it is quite possible to decide that the voters can choose whether to accept Trump's conduct.

In some sense ... isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to shield the American public from the dangers of getting everything they think they want (i.e. corrupt leadership) ?

Is not our real dilemma that elected official are, currently, more committed to ensuring their own re-elections ... than to the best interests of the country ???

 

[wing2000]

In some sense ... isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to shield the American public from the dangers of getting everything they think they want (i.e. corrupt leadership) ?

Is not our real dilemma that elected official are, currently, more committed to ensuring their own re-elections ... than to the best interests of the country ???

That's exactly the argument our founders made when they inserted the impeachment clause in the Constitution.

 

[mark46]

This is not a debate at college, being judged by professors on points.

There was one week of open hearings. There are TWO relevant target audiences for this POLITICAL decision.
======
No Republican senator has come out for conviction. Personally, I think it delusional to believe that the necessary number will vote for conviction. Even if EVERY Democrat voted yes (not likely), it would take 20 Republican votes to convict.
======
Some believe politicians might be influenced by polls of the voters. After seeing all the evidence that Democrats have put forth so far, there was a massive ZERO change in the positions of the voters.

I.
If I may point out, even the withholding of documents and preventing of witnesses testifying is considered obstruction of justice from an objective point of view in regards to intent and motive, even because it surmises that someone who is not afraid of what they will reveal would release them. It therefore hinders an investigation from getting to the Truth of a matter because they essentially are hiding something that would further that cause.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There were five days of hearings over two weeks.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

This is not a debate at college, being judged by professors on points.

There was one week of open hearings. There are TWO relevant target audiences for this POLITICAL decision.
======
No Republican senator has come out for conviction. Personally, I think it delusional to believe that the necessary number will vote for conviction. Even if EVERY Democrat voted yes (not likely), it would take 20 Republican votes to convict.
======
Some believe politicians might be influenced by polls of the voters. After seeing all the evidence that Democrats have put forth so far, there was a massive ZERO change in the positions of the voters.

Has it occurred to you that maybe impeachment is the correct, Constitutional thing to do even if it isn’t the best thing to do for individual members re-election chances? Maybe there are members of Congress who might this time do what is right rather than politically expedient.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Has it occurred to you that maybe impeachment is the correct, Constitutional thing to do even if it isn’t the best thing to do for individual members re-election chances? Maybe there are members of Congress who might this time do what is right rather than politically expedient.

I am sure many Republicans know what the right thing to do would be, but don't care about that because their jobs are a higher priority to them. If they had a factual basis for voting nay, they would reveal proof Donald Trump never did anything that could possibly hint at impeachable crimes. They can't do it.

 

[mark46]

Sure, there may be some Senate Republicans who believe as you do. There just won't be 20. In the end, the definition of an impeachable offense is up to the senators.

There is no question that the president did a lot things wrong, and that several were illegal (well illegal for anyone but the president. It doesn't follow that the Republican senators will vote to convict, instead of simply put the issue to the vote of the American people.

Has it occurred to you that maybe impeachment is the correct, Constitutional thing to do even if it isn’t the best thing to do for individual members re-election chances? Maybe there are members of Congress who might this time do what is right rather than politically expedient.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, the definition of impeachable offenses is in the Constitution. Again, it states "bribery, treason, or high crimes or misdemeanors" are causes for impeachment and removal from office.

 

[mark46]

No, the definition of impeachable offenses is in the Constitution. Again, it states "bribery, treason, or high crimes or misdemeanors" are causes for impeachment and removal from office.

 

[mark46]

It is "high crimes AND misdemeanors"

The definition has never been tested; there is no definition. It is whatever the House and Senate say it is.

Treason is defined. The chances of the president being convicted of treason is exactly zero. However, it is indeed a defined term.

Bribery has a legislative history, most which is not relevant. If the Senate INTERPRETS the actions of the president as bribery, then it is bribery. Most likely, barring the putting of money in Trump's account, the Senate is unlikely to convict on this, although they could since the founders had a more extensive understanding of bribery. It is interesting to see Democrats as strict construe tionists regarding the constitution; it is inconsistent with pervious stands.

No, the definition of impeachable offenses is in the Constitution. Again, it states "bribery, treason, or high crimes or misdemeanors" are causes for impeachment and removal from office.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So what is the specific definition of treason? How do you know if nothing Trump did fits that definition?

Bribery is not subject to interpretation. The issue representatives are tackling is an obvious quid pro quo, aka bribery.

 

[mark46]

I offer a quid pro quo every time I shop at Amazon. Amazon gives me something, I give them something, a quid pro quo.

Trump has violated the law. He has requested to pay a foreign country for campaign help. That is NOT bribery. It is illegal, but it is not bribery. Of course, the House can decide that this is bribery, under the intentions of those who wrote the term into the constitution, where it is NOT directly defined.
====
Just BTW, there is no one to overrule the House in its definitions.

Personally, I believe that Trump's action are closer to extortion that bribery. In any case, I believe that his actions constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

So what is the specific definition of treason? How do you know if nothing Trump did fits that definition?

Bribery is not subject to interpretation. The issue representatives are tackling is an obvious quid pro quo, aka bribery.

 

[mark46]

You have to be acting to serve the enemy of the US. This is almost never prosecuted, except in time of war. Trump apparently consider Russia a friend and listen't to Putin's advice. That is many things. In a loose conversion, it could be called treason. However, Trump's actions are far from the the high bar for treason. Trump is a corrupt criminal. I find no reason to try to stretch definitions to try to find him guilty of other things. Trump, his family, and his company will be punished in New York State. However, many will go to jail before Trump himself.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-treason-clause-seldom-invoked-despite-threats

So what is the specific definition of treason? How do you know if nothing Trump did fits that definition?

Bribery is not subject to interpretation. The issue representatives are tackling is an obvious quid pro quo, aka bribery.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So just because Trump has done other crimes, treason should not be listed on the AOI? That is nonsense.

My prediction: Rudy Giuliani will be the first guy locked up for this after Donald Trump is impeached. And, of course, he should not be the only one. I agree with the Washington Nationals fans.

 

[mark46]

1) I never said that.

2) I, along with many Democrats, do NOT want to list every possible impeachment office, and send 30 articles or sub articles of impeachment to the Senate. That would simply make the process confusing, for the Seante, and for the public.

3) I have seen NOTHING convincing enough for a jury to convict trump of treason. I do not believe that Trump should be prosecuted for treason. And yes, you're right. I wouldn't prosecute someone for a crime where guilt is problematical. I much prefer to prosecute for something more likely to have a possibility ofd conviction.

BOTTOM LINE
Many Democrats want to include many, many of Trump's actions in the articles of impeachment. Some want him impeached because he is a racist, others because he is a friend of Putin. Others want to include the payment of women for their silence. There could be literally hundreds of such items. The strategy of having a vast list of article of impeachment is not a good idea, at least not in my opinion.

My #1 political goal is NOT to have Trump tried in the Senate. My #1 political goal is for a moderate Democrat to be elected in 2020.

So just because Trump has done other crimes, treason should not be listed on the AOI? That is nonsense.

.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't want every single incident to be an article of impeachment, but there should be more than one for obstruction of justice because he did that in several different ways.

 

[mark46]

The separate instances and ways would be sub articles.

In any case, I believe obstruction of Congress has been a separate impeachable event in the past.

Much of what we call "obstruction of justice" would be included under "Abuse Of Power". There could be a separate Obstruction Of Justice article, but I suspect that it is easier to include many of these under Abuse Of Power.

I don't want every single incident to be an article of impeachment, but there should be more than one for obstruction of justice because he did that in several different ways.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Obstruction of justice is a form of abusing power. So is extortion. Does that mean all of the AOI should be nothing more than subarticles of abuse of power? I don't think so.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I know you're real busy but if you find time to share more insight from your professor, that'd be great!

I'll be spending much of tomorrow traveling for Thanksgiving plans so I might pop on then! I attended this last night: http://getinvolved.acslaw.org/component/events/event/472

For now I think I need a little break. I've been so immersed in writing a paper pertaining to Erdoğan that when someone asked me about my plans for Turkey Day I was confuzzed for a second until I remembered that turkey is more than just the name of a country, hahahaha. I just finished a 52 page paper!!! That's just for one class. My fingers feel like they just ran a marathon from typing all day. I'm on break but since the quarter is coming to a close, I have to use half of it to get everything finished.