How does the Trump era end?

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If there is rule of law in America, Trump's Presidency will end with his impeachment.

Perhaps unfortunately, but impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps unfortunately, but impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Calling impeachment a "political process" is inaccurate.  Impeachment is a kind of legal proceeding designed to investigate and judge whether or not an elected official has violated their oath of office, and hence has violated the Constitution:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official from office; it is the equivalent to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the statement of charges against the official. Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment would entail the official’s removal from office.

And:

The term impeachment refers to the legal process that takes place when charges are brought against a public official, to determine whether he or she can and should be removed from office. Contrary to popular belief, impeachment is not the actual removal from office, but the procedure that must be followed in order to achieve such a removal. If the trial that occurs following impeachment results in a conviction, the official is removed from office. To explore this concept, consider the following impeachment definition.

Source:  https://legaldictionary.net/impeachment/

 

And Trump already broke the law, by the way, by asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Biden:

Federal law states it is illegal to "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation." Trump's request to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was not for campaign cash, but what's referred to as an "in kind" contribution that would arguably be of more value — damaging information that could be weaponized against Biden, a potential 2020 rival.

No quid quo pro is needed (even though there was one).  Trump is already guilty by his own admission.  Case closed.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Impeachment is a kind of legal proceeding designed to investigate and judge whether or not an elected official has violated their oath of office, and hence has violated the Constitution

On what basis are those judgement made? Is there some precedent we can review?

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Quote

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

 

Maybe I should have said "criminal" instead of "legal," agreed?

https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/grounds-for-impeachment-political-not-legal-question/

Quote

There is no magic moment at which an action becomes impeachable, nor a bright line to be crossed when the House must act. Federal criminal statutes do not govern this process. Impeachment is a political question. When members of Congress conclude, based on precedent, the specific facts, and their own consciences, that a public official’s action is impeachable or warrants an impeachment investigation, then – and only then – may proceedings begin.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

On what basis are those judgement made? Is there some precedent we can review?

This article provides an explanation: https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

But the ultimate standard is if the President is suspected to have broken the law.  In this case by Trump's own admission he did - he called President Zelensky and specifically asked that a political opponent be investigated.  That's 100% illegal. 

Interesting exchange from the Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who is testifying on Capitol Hill right now.  Maguire is the one who initial tried to withhold the whistle-blower's complaint against Trump. 

Schiff: And if that conversation involved the President requesting help in the form of intervention in our election, is that not an issue of interference in our election? 

Maguire: Chairman, once again, this was sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into– 

Schiff: I understand that, but you're not suggesting, are you, that the President is somehow immune from the laws that preclude a US person from seeking foreign help in a US election, are you? 

Maguire: What I am saying, Chairman Schiff, is that no one, none of us, is above the law in this country.

Quote

There is no magic moment at which an action becomes impeachable, nor a bright line to be crossed when the House must act. Federal criminal statutes do not govern this process. Impeachment is a political question. When members of Congress conclude, based on precedent, the specific facts, and their own consciences, that a public official’s action is impeachable or warrants an impeachment investigation, then – and only then – may proceedings begin.

I see your point, but in that sense many decisions to indict are largely political.  For example a District Attorney choosing not to pursue charges against a rich teenager because his father is a pillar of the community is a political act.  There may be a larger grey area about when to impeach the President, but ultimately Congress must rely on some kind of legal foundation to give impeachment proceedings genuine merit.  Impeachment can't just be political - there must be some legal framework to found it on.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Impeachment can't just be political - there must be some legal framework to found it on.

Even that legal framework is a political question, though. If congress determines that wearing the wrong colored shoes is a high crime or misdemeanor, so long as they have the votes they can oust the president, even though wrong colored shoes is not an actual crime.

Regardless, we're deep in the weeds on a nonsense point. If impeachment were only a legal issue, he'd already be out of office given the number of laws he's broken. However, since he runs the justice department, and he'd never direct his own cabinet members to act in a way that would harm him, we must instead defer to the political legislative bodies to act.

[iNow]

Just saw this on a post and it really gives perspective:

”A president who got 2.9 million fewer votes is being protected by a senate majority where republicans got 12 million fewer votes than democrats in 2018.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

Federal law states it is illegal to "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation." Trump's request to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was not for campaign cash, but what's referred to as an "in kind" contribution that would arguably be of more value — damaging information that could be weaponized against Biden, a potential 2020 rival.

No quid quo pro is needed (even though there was one).  Trump is already guilty by his own admission.  Case closed.

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

It's a grey area. The line drawing is totally partisan for impeachment.

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

It's a grey area. The line drawing is totally partisan for impeachment.

I don't see how it is. Based on 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) it is unlawful for a foreign national to make contribution in a Federal, State or local election. Accepting, soliciting or receive contributions or donations of such nature are also illegal. 

Basically, if offered such contributions, folks are required not to accept it and report such interference in elections. Your phrasing is a bit misleading, since it is not about receiving damaging information, but how these are offered. If a campaign hires someone, including a foreign official to dig up dirt on someone and pays it through accepted ways, that is not considered a contribution or donation, for example.

If, on the other hand such donations are offered or solicited, it runs afoul of those laws. The only grey area is whether information is considered to be a "thing of value". 

Quote

(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

[geordief]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just saw this on a post and it really gives perspective:

”A president who got 2.9 million fewer votes is being protected by a senate majority where republicans got 12 million fewer votes than democrats in 2018.”

Well they need a 2/3 majority in the Senate which would be difficult even if the Republican representation faithfully reflected their poor showing in 2018.

It is a good thing imo that more than a simple majority in the Senate is required to convict an impeached President.

On the face of it though, the reluctance of the GOP representatives to put country ahead of party (or individual as I have heard it explained) is more than disappointing.

 

To hear Trump making those latest not so veiled threats of summary "justice" (a tip from Vlad?) against those who would  work against his interests was quite shocking.

Surely  his madness must be apparent to his inner circle...

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by geordief

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I don't see how it is. Based on 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) it is unlawful for a foreign national to make contribution in a Federal, State or local election. Accepting, soliciting or receive contributions or donations of such nature are also illegal. 

Basically, if offered such contributions, folks are required not to accept it and report such interference in elections. Your phrasing is a bit misleading, since it is not about receiving damaging information, but how these are offered. If a campaign hires someone, including a foreign official to dig up dirt on someone and pays it through accepted ways, that is not considered a contribution or donation, for example.

If, on the other hand such donations are offered or solicited, it runs afoul of those laws. The only grey area is whether information is considered to be a "thing of value". 

 

Well...it is certainly one example...and a very arbitrary and partisan one.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

It's a grey area. The line drawing is totally partisan for impeachment.

No, there's no grey area here.  Trump asked President Zelensky to investigate Biden, his political rival, in an attempt to influence a US election.  That is blatantly illegal and undermines the Constitution, which he is sworn to protect. 

If impeachment were "totally partisan" as you put it, the Republicans would have impeached Obama during his first term.  However, there was no legal basis to do so they resorted to petulant stonewalling instead. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Another example:

Do you think there are no foreign nationals holding signs at US political rallies?

It's a grey area.

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

No, there's no grey area here.  Trump asked President Zelensky to investigate Biden, his political rival, in an attempt to influence a US election.  That is blatantly illegal and undermines the Constitution, which he is sworn to protect. 

If impeachment were "totally partisan" as you put it, the Republicans would have impeached Obama during his first term.  However, there was no legal basis to do so they resorted to petulant stonewalling instead. 

Trump would no doubt claim other motives. I'm not defending him. I'm making the fairly obvious claim that impeachment is primarily partisan. I did not say impeachment was totally partisan as you claim. I said the line drawing for it was...

Edited September 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Another example:

Do you think there are no foreign nationals holding signs at US political rallies?

It's a grey area.

 

Oh come on.  Please don't trivialize the conversation.  Someone holding a sign and the President actively pressuring another foreign leader to investigate and potentially discredit a political rival are two completely different things. 

7 hours ago, geordief said:

Surely  his madness must be apparent to his inner circle...

It must be harder and harder for them to mask it from the public.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Oh come on.  Please don't trivialize the conversation.  Someone holding a sign and the President actively pressuring another foreign leader to investigate and potentially discredit a political rival are two completely different things. 

They are. You could draw a line somewhere between these types of misconduct...just be careful to keep Biden on the safe side of your line

 if you wish to do so in a partisan manner.

 

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Oh come on.  Please don't trivialize the conversation.  Someone holding a sign and the President actively pressuring another foreign leader to investigate and potentially discredit a political rival are two completely different things. 

I think I have proved my point. "Trivializing" it for you to make it clear.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

It's a grey area. The line drawing is totally partisan for impeachment.

 

Note there are other lines for criminal indictment...also in grey areas.

[iNow]

44 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If impeachment were "totally partisan" as you put it, the Republicans would have impeached Obama during his first term.  However, there was no legal basis to do so they resorted to petulant stonewalling instead. 

This is a good point, but a stronger argument IMO is how several members of the GOP also support this impeachment in various forms, including now the first (of what I suspect will become more) GOP governor.

It’s disingenuous (or at least badly misinformed) for folks like JCM to call a process “totally partisan” when there are clearly lots of people on both sides who support it. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/phil-scott-impeachment-trump

Quote

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott on Thursday became the first Republican governor to back House Democrats' call for an impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/which-democrats-republicans-in-congress-support-impeaching-trump/

Quote

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who is a former Republican but now an Independent, has said that he supports impeachment proceedings, CNN reported.

Bill Weld, [a Republican] who is running against Trump, has said that Trump’s actions amount to treason.

https://www.newsweek.com/30-republicans-vote-impeach-trump-secret-1461389

Quote

Prominent GOP consultant Mike Murphy claimed on Wednesday that he was told by a Republican senator that the majority of Republican senators "would vote to impeach" President Donald Trump if they could do so anonymously.

<...>

“One Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump,"

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm making the fairly obvious claim that impeachment is primarily partisan.

I only read this after posting the above. I see you didn’t say totally partisan. Sorry about that.

It would be cleaner IMO, however, to suggest that support for impeachment is primarily partisan, not the process itself. The process is political, which is similar, but different. 

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I have proved my point. "Trivializing" it for you to make it clear.

You didn't, actually, as it was an illogical statement. 

But anyway, let's move on.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s disingenuous (or at least badly misinformed) for folks like JCM to call a process “totally partisan” when there are clearly lots of people on both sides who support it.

A Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, stated the other day that up to 30 Republican Senators have quietly voiced support for impeachment.  Despite the common perception, Republicans are not a monolith when it comes to Trump (despite Moscow Mitch's cowtowing).  Many Republican Senators harbor deep antipathy towards him because of his belligerent attacks on them and his disdain for the rule of law.  We'll see how it plays out.  The Dems have to do their part and at least give it to the Senate. 

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, stated the other day that up to 30 Republican Senators have quietly voiced support for impeachment. 

Quite right, as noted in my 3rd/final source/quote above. In fairness, I’m sure you’re not the only one who’d stopped reading by then.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You didn't, actually, as it was an illogical statement. 

But anyway, let's move on.

A Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, stated the other day that up to 30 Republican Senators have quietly voiced support for impeachment.  Despite the common perception, Republicans are not a monolith when it comes to Trump (despite Moscow Mitch's cowtowing).  Many Republican Senators harbor deep antipathy towards him because of his belligerent attacks on them and his disdain for the rule of law.  We'll see how it plays out.  The Dems have to do their part and at least give it to the Senate. 

You don't like my assumptions. (Not only that but you construe them as a defence of Trump)

Try to understand the difference. 

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You don't like my assumptions. (Not only that but you construe them as a defence of Trump)

Try to understand the difference. 

I don't assume anything about your political affiliations (even though you just assumed that I do). 

The fact remains that your point about someone holding a sign being equivalent to the President actively using his power to sway a foreign leader into smearing a political opponent is simply absurd.  Pure sophistry.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Knowingly accept or receive damaging information from a foreign national? Taken literally, this would include pretty much everyone who ever ran for President.

The key here is the solicit, and the reference is to "any contribution or donation" not "damaging information" so absent any actual evidence to back this up, the claim is BS.

 

 

[MigL]

I guess when you've gotten away with so much sh*t during the last three years, you think you can get away with anything.
The buffoon was finally done in by the 'perfect' phone call.

Is it too early to have an impeachment party ?

[Airbrush]

If Dems in the House impeach too soon, the Senate will not confirm impeachment with at least 67 votes.  But each Senator will have to say if they impeach him or not.  GOP senators that WON'T impeach him will have that on their record.  If there are several more months of hearings about Ukraine-gate, some GOP senators may turn against Trump because their voters will want them to.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess when you've gotten away with so much sh*t during the last three years, you think you can get away with anything.
The buffoon was finally done in by the 'perfect' phone call.

He's gotten away with it basically all of his life.

His big mistake, as others on social media have noted, was not doing this blatantly, in public. Both congress and the media only really got interested because this was done in private, and then they tried to cover it up. That means sniffing out clues and following a trail. Catnip to a journalist.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The key here is the solicit, and the reference is to "any contribution or donation" not "damaging information" so absent any actual evidence to back this up, the claim is BS.

 

 

knowingly solicit, accept, or receive

 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

knowingly solicit, accept, or receive

And the key here (i.e. in terms of the topic under discussion) is solicit. Trump does not have to have received or accepted anything in order to be guilty.