The Impeachment Thread

[Girth Brooks]

I'm plenty big where it counts.

 

[Orangeburst]

That's a pretty generous recounting of what happened.

No live witnesses were called. The testimony from depositions was excerpted and presented to the Senate.

OK thanks. Not sure I am surprised.

 

[NEO]

After a search, it appears you are correct. You have my sincerest apologies.

Although, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way in the Senate. They make the rules as to whether or not to call witnesses. They definitely can.

Nobody is perfect including me.

This whole thing only shows how totally messed up our system is now and how it needs to be fixed.

I heard that roughly 1/3 of our current Congress was in Congress during the Clinton impeachment.

That is messed up!!!

We are taking 31 years ago.

No one should be there longer than 8 years.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's a pretty generous recounting of what happened.

No live witnesses were called. The testimony from depositions was excerpted and presented to the Senate.

I was wrong about Ruff being a witness but witnesses can be called during the Senate trial... The majority party sets the rules.

Now, one important difference between the Clinton impeachment and this situation with Trump and the Ukraine, is that with Clinton, the facts had been established. Clinton had admitted to getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky, shooting his wad all over her blue dress and then sticking a cigar up her vagina. Therefore, there had obviously been perjury committed by Clinton during the Paula Jones deposition. This situation with Trump merits witnesses who we have not yet heard from. The facts have not been fully established and won't be until we hear from Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton... That is what the White House wants - ambiguity and uncertainty. I don't think that is what the American people want from this.

 

[Velo Vol]

I'm plenty big where it counts.

Big boned?

 

[volinbham]

I was wrong about Ruff being a witness but witnesses can be called during the Senate trial... The majority party sets the rules.

Now, one important difference between the Clinton impeachment and this situation with Trump and the Ukraine, is that with Clinton, the facts had been established. Clinton had admitted to getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky, blowing his wad all over her blue dress and then sticking a cigar up her vagina. Therefore, there had obviously been perjury committed by Clinton during the Paula Jones deposition. This situation with Trump merits witnesses who we have not yet heard from. The facts have not been fully established and won't be until we hear from Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton... That is what the White House wants - ambiguity and uncertainty. I don't think that is what the American people want from this.

The House had the responsibility to establish the facts. See my edit - there were no new witnesses introduced in the Clinton situation - just a revisit to some.

Sucks that the law has to be followed but the House could have done this correctly but instead punted and is now complaining about it.

The American people are not interested.

 

[Orangeburst]

The House had the responsibility to establish the facts. See my edit - there were no new witnesses introduced in the Clinton situation - just a revisit to some.

Sucks that the law has to be followed but the House could have done this correctly but instead punted and is now complaining about it.

Let me ask a hypothetical if you do not mind. Could the House hold on indefinitely until the Dems regain the Seante? There are 33 and 34 up for election in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This could hang over Trump's entire tenure.

 

[RockyTop85]

Maybe you already posted this (my attention here waxes and wanes), but had you been a committee chairperson, what would you have done about the problem of non-cooperating witnesses?

Based on the Cippolone letter, once the proceedings were concluded and it was clear they had been obstructed, I’d recommend impeachment of the President.

For other people, like maybe Bolton, I’d need to study the origins and boundaries of congressional subpoena power, know what their response was, and know more about whether the president’s instructions were binding on them.

Spitballing what I think those outcomes are: I would probably hold a vote and send a notice to show cause to anybody who failed to appear. Basically, this would give them a certain number of days to comply or obtain a temporary injunction from a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise, I’d hold a vote to institute measures to compel their compliance.

I suppose politics would be a consideration in this hypothetical, but the only way I know of to compel them is contempt and incarceration. I’d do everything I could to lock them up during any court challenges so they have a compelling reason to expedite the case rather than stall.

 

[DC_Vol]

Nobody is perfect including me.

This whole thing only shows how totally messed up our system is now and how it needs to be fixed.

I heard that roughly 1/3 of our current Congress was in Congress during the Clinton impeachment.

That is messed up!!!

We are taking 31 years ago.

No one should be there longer than 8 years.

 

[NEO]

Let me ask a hypothetical if you do not mind. Could the House hold on indefinitely until the Dems regain the Seante? There are 33 and 34 up for election in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This could hang over Trump's entire tenure.

Not Bill but I think the right to a speedy trial applies to all and he could force the issue.

But this is way outside my knowledge and I am guessing.

 

[volinbham]

Let me ask a hypothetical if you do not mind. Could the House hold on indefinitely until the Dems regain the Seante? There are 33 and 34 up for election in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This could hang over Trump's entire tenure.

I guess - not sure if there's a time limit but if Trump wins in 2020 I'm betting the Senate isn't flipping. I think 2022 is the best flip chance given which seats are up then.

The other kicker is that the House may flip in 2020 and then there's no way it goes forward.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The House had the responsibility to establish the facts. See my edit - there were no new witnesses introduced in the Clinton situation - just a revisit to some.

Sucks that the law has to be followed but the House could have done this correctly but instead punted and is now complaining about it.

The American people are not interested.

I'm not so sure that is true. We will see. I do expect a backlash against the Republicans if they try to acquit Trump without calling any witnesses.

 

[volinbham]

Nobody is perfect including me.

This whole thing only shows how totally messed up our system is now and how it needs to be fixed.

I heard that roughly 1/3 of our current Congress was in Congress during the Clinton impeachment.

That is messed up!!!

We are taking 31 years ago.

No one should be there longer than 8 years.

It is crazy - when I read that article about Susan Collins that was the same thought going through my mind.

 

[NEO]

I guess - not sure if there's a time limit but if Trump wins in 2020 I'm betting the Senate isn't flipping. I think 2022 is the best flip chance given which seats are up then.

The other kicker is that the House may flip in 2020 and then there's no way it goes forward.

If the house flipped and it never went forward Nancy goes down as a laughing stock in history.

If she holds onto it and waits for the senate to flip and it actually does she opens up a flood gate in this country I am not sure we recover from.

 

[volinbham]

I'm not so sure that is true. We will see. I do expect a backlash against the Republicans if they try to acquit Trump without calling any witnesses.

Good luck with that

 

[Orangeburst]

If the house flipped and it never went forward Nancy goes down as a laughing stock in history.

If she holds onto it and waits for the senate to flip and it actually does she opens up a flood gate in this country I am not sure we recover from.

Unchartered Constitutional waters for sure.

 

[C-south]

You can't be serious.
Impeachment isn't a trial. It's the process taken to begin a trial. If you had to be proven guilty in order to impeach, then what's the point of even having the Senate involved? It would have already been proven. Do you see the lunacy of your position?

It's like saying the grand jury can only advance a case if it is proven that the crime was committed. That's what the damn trial is for.

It's two different standards meant to achieve two different goals.

When the grand jury determines that enough evidence is present to go to trial do they have the authority to just dismiss, move forward at their discretion, and/or approve of the judicial process?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Not Bill but I think the right to a speedy trial applies to all and he could force the issue.

But this is way outside my knowledge and I am guessing.

I have always thought that applied to once the trial began? I don't know either though... but there are many examples (such as Tennessee football player AJ Johnson) of a more than a year delay between an indictment (which is essentially what an impeachment is) and the beginning of a trial.

 

[NEO]

Unchartered Constitutional waters for sure.

Just read and the sixth says speedy to all criminal charges. No underlying requirements.

If she holds onto it she could also be voiding his fifth amendment right of due process.

She will definitely be going into unknown waters here and I am sure Trump would push it to the Supreme Court.

 

[AirVol]

repubes.

Can I borrow that?

Just once.

 

[RockyTop85]

Let me ask a hypothetical if you do not mind. Could the House hold on indefinitely until the Dems regain the Seante? There are 33 and 34 up for election in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This could hang over Trump's entire tenure.

Fox News has an oppo up saying it’s just the Senate rules that keep them from taking it up. They can change the rules and take it up without it being transmitted.

 

[NEO]

I have always thought that applied to once the trial began? I don't know either though... but there are many examples (such as Tennessee football player AJ Johnson) of a more than a year delay between an indictment (which is essentially what an impeachment is) and the beginning of a trial.

The minute he was voted on in the house and it passed the indictment was sent to the judge for review. The senate is the judge.

 

[Orangeburst]

Just read and the sixth says speedy to all criminal charges. No underlying requirements.

If she holds onto it she could also be voiding his fifth amendment right of due process.

She will definitely be going into unknown waters here and I am sure Trump would push it to the Supreme Court.

Speedy trials seems so laughable to me these days. I would suspect it would not apply as this is not a criminal trial but who knows.
I would certainly push the due process it if I could. Put some timeline on it and go thru the courts.

What a effing mess.

 

[Orangeburst]

Fox News has an oppo up saying it’s just the Senate rules that keep them from taking it up. They can change the rules and take it up without it being transmitted.

So you are saying the Senate can start at their own discretion now and no further official procedure is necessary?

 

[Septic]

The minute he was voted on in the house and it passed the indictment was sent to the judge for review. The senate is the judge.

The Senate is the jury, the Chief Justice (Roberts) will preside over the trail of an impeached president.