The Impeachment Thread

#29,252
#29,252
A group of more than 700 historians, legal scholars and others published an open letter Monday urging the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump, denouncing his conduct as “a clear and present danger to the Constitution.”

The letter’s release comes two days before the House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment.

“President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government,” the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.

“So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law,” they add.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#29,253
#29,253
luthervol said:
You left off "covered in blood and holding the murder weapon". I would think that if innocent, that person would jump at the chance of defending himself, explaining the circumstances, and providing any witnesses that could help exonerate him.
Or he could say, I'm not cooperating and will fight to keep any witness with information from testifying.
Click to expand...
Defendants rarely testify directly and what if the court denied the defenses witnesses just like the house denied witnesses that the "defense" wanted to take the stand during the impeachment inquiry? Welp... there goes that analogy.
 
#29,255
#29,255
McDad said:
You see Sondland as a criminal?
Click to expand...
Not anymore. He was a pawn in Trumps abuse of office. He was directed by Trump to facilitate Rudy's/Trump's agenda of undermining American National security by withholding aid to our ally for personal political gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#29,256
#29,256
Mick said:
Not anymore. He was a pawn in Trumps abuse of office. He was directed by Trump to facilitate Rudy's/Trump's agenda of undermining American National security by withholding aid to our ally for personal political gain.
Click to expand...
LOL

Not withheld, delayed. You all struggle with this
 
#29,257
#29,257
luthervol said:
Again, I'll always take slight issue with "duly" elected.
He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I see a dead body and a person standing over the body covered in blood and holding a knife, I will have confidence in my assumption that the person is guilty of murder. I'll acknowledge that there is the slightest of possibilities that he happened upon the body, tried to revive it (explaining why he is covered in blood) and just happened to pick up the murder weapon right before I saw him. But it is on him to prove his innocence at that point. Once it can be reasonably assumed that a person is guilty, it becomes necessary for that person to offer a defense. Trump has blocked every single person around him with first hand knowledge from testifying.
Maybe the Senate will actually require the witnesses to testify, but the house was able to impeach without their testimony.
Click to expand...

Gee, and all this time I thought our system of justice required that the prosecution prove that a suspect was guilty. You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thingy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#29,258
#29,258
RockyTop85 said:
So youl are saying we should just wholesale take a sharpie to the constitution. No more impeachment. The presidency is like one of those carnival attractions where they put you in the tube and blow money around and you grab as much of it as you can for 4 years and you should lie to the public and try to keep it hidden so maybe you can get 4 more years.

You’re cool with that. Those posts about how John McCain got his money were just mistakes. This is your ideal?
Click to expand...

LOL

Panties twisted again this morning? No I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying impeachment and removal from office should be reserved for when an elected or appointed official actually commits a crime, not as a political tool. For anything less than criminal activity, elections are how we hold an elected official accountable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#29,260
#29,260
MontyPython said:
A group of more than 700 historians, legal scholars and others published an open letter Monday urging the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump, denouncing his conduct as “a clear and present danger to the Constitution.”

The letter’s release comes two days before the House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment.

“President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government,” the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.

“So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law,” they add.
Click to expand...

They are outnumbered, sorry.
 
#29,261
#29,261
utvols88 said:
Defendants rarely testify directly and what if the court denied the defenses witnesses just like the house denied witnesses that the "defense" wanted to take the stand during the impeachment inquiry? Welp... there goes that analogy.
Click to expand...
What witnesses were denied that had first hand knowledge of the charges against Trump? Did those witness have more knowledge than the ones Trump kept from testifying?
 
#29,262
#29,262
luthervol said:
What witnesses were denied that had first hand knowledge of the charges against Trump? Did those witness have more knowledge than the ones Trump kept from testifying?
Click to expand...
Who knows. Schiff blocked them.

Furthermore, let's not let Trumps impeachment distract us from you thinking it's ok that the mere sight of a person AFTER the crime is enough to consider "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

I think it's clear that not only do you misunderstand the MEANING of beyond reasonable doubt but you also devalue the importance of the principle in and outside of the court.
 
#29,264
#29,264
It's obvious the house will vote to impeach on Wednesday. Can we then send this decision straight to the Senate to vote for acquittal by Friday morning? It would be great if our " elected" officials could get to the part of serving the people of this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#29,268
#29,268
luthervol said:
Delayed until he knew he was busted. Imagine that.
Click to expand...
Your assumption. You have nothing but conjecture to back that up. Do you have a memo stating that? A phone call saying it? A text? Anything? Or is the timing the only thing that is not to your satisfaction?
 
#29,270
#29,270
Zues1 said:
It's obvious the house will vote to impeach on Wednesday. Can we then send this decision straight to the Senate to vote for acquittal by Friday morning? It would be great if our " elected" officials could get to the part of serving the people of this country.
Click to expand...

No, Trump deserves a full trial with witness. The trial should take months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and volfanjustin
#29,273
#29,273
McDad said:
We discussed this very theme last week, i think. My answer today is almost as it was then. Additionally, if Trump is violating the constitutional mandates regarding the impeachment process, then it should be another nail in his coffin for impeachment. However, it isn't one of the articles of impeachment listed.
Click to expand...
What do you believe the second article is, if not accountability for failing to comply with the impeachment?

I don’t recall you ever saying how you think a president can/should be held accountable, if he doesn’t have to comply with impeachment; only that you didn’t accept the lack of accountability that was status quo. I thought I gave up on trying to square what you were saying with what I thought were your principles. I’ll go back and read through it again.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top