Impeachment Hearings

[MigL]

Is anyone watching/following the Impeachment Hearings ?

Seems the 'quid pro quo', or bribery as the rest of us call it, was pretty blatant.
But I've been watching sporadically.

I'm not familiar with the 'path' from hearings to actual Impeachment.
What needs to happen to finally get rid of clown Donald ?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

What needs to happen to finally get rid of clown Donald ?

People need to effing show up and vote in droves.

Yes. I’m watching and following. The path is this:

Investigations > Hearings > Speaker of the House decides whether or not to formally vote > If yes, House votes on articles of impeachment > If passed, goes to Senate to approve or reject. They’re the jury, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oversees the proceedings > If approves, Vice President Pence becomes president, unless he’s included in the impeachment articles.

Even if impeached, the president can be re-elected if he decides to run / the party decides to nominate him, but Pence would be the more likely GOP choice as incumbent. 

[MonDie]

It probably won't get through the Senate.  The important conditional seems to be whether the hearings will help or hurt Trump's popularity.

Edited November 14, 2019 by MonDie

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Is anyone watching/following the Impeachment Hearings ?

Seems the 'quid pro quo', or bribery as the rest of us call it, was pretty blatant.
But I've been watching sporadically.

I'm not familiar with the 'path' from hearings to actual Impeachment.
What needs to happen to finally get rid of clown Donald ?

Viable Democrat candidates need to focus policy on at least the moderates in America as well as the radical left instead of focusing on the clown.

Otherwise the clown gets back in...by default...again...as the lesser of two evils.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

What needs to happen to finally get rid of clown Donald ?

Another answer to this: Elected officials need to start putting country over party and stop worrying about losing their next election. They need to grow a spine, show some integrity, and abide by their oath of office. 

[MigL]

Seems kind of strange that a sitting President cannot be removed from office after committing an obvious crime.
That effectively puts him above the law.

One step closer to dictatorship.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems kind of strange that a sitting President cannot be removed from office after committing an obvious crime.
That effectively puts him above the law.

One step closer to dictatorship.

It is not without precedent. The UK queen is above prosecution since everything in that area is done in her name. The not small point though is that she does not govern. Trump could be hammered with a nice orange one-piece and and Hi Max accommodation  if the Senate was composed differently.

Edited November 14, 2019 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems kind of strange that a sitting President cannot be removed from office after committing an obvious crime.
That effectively puts him above the law.

One step closer to dictatorship.

It might seem obvious but depends on if it has been proven legally speaking.

As horrible as it sounds, Trump is in charge of the execution of the laws. Our checks and balances system isn't exactly well balanced right now, but it's all we have to work with.

Nobody's actually above the law but presidency definitely comes closest.

 

[swansont]

It doesn't have to be a crime to be impeachable. A sentiment I heard/read recently was that it's not reasonable to take the time and effort to come up with a code of laws that specifically apply to the president*; the president is (potentially) able to do things that nobody else can do — such as try to extort another head of state in the way the Trump has apparently done.

There are lots of rules the president has to follow, but they aren't necessarily criminal laws that could be broken, and may have no punishment attached to them — because impeachment exists. 

 

*and the danger of trying is that you forget something or leave a loophole, and that's probably not a road you want to go down.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

It might seem obvious but depends on if it has been proven legally speaking.

I disagree. This isn't about laws. It's clear he's broken laws, but as rightly mentioned above, he's in charge of enforcing them. For this reason, the founders gave us a political solution, namely impeachment.

If congress wants to vote him out for liking brussel sprouts more than broccoli or for having too high of a handicap on his golf game, they surely can and that's entirely within their power. It's not about proving anything legally, but is instead about getting both the House and the Senate to agree removal is in order... it's about politics. Senate won't do that, however, because they're a bunch of lilly-livered $*#*s afraid of losing their powerful seat and getting voted out in the next election.

x-posted with swansont

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems the 'quid pro quo', or bribery as the rest of us call it, was pretty blatant.

If the military aid hadn't already been promised and approved by Congress, and Trump had offered it in exchange for political favors, I would call that bribery. Since the aid was supposed to go to the Ukraine but was withheld by Trump, it seems more like extortion than bribery. But I agree that using the Latin phrase is just dumb, and to me it seems like a tactic meant to confuse Joe Sixpack. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

If the military aid hadn't already been promised and approved by Congress, and Trump had offered it in exchange for political favors, I would call that bribery. Since the aid was supposed to go to the Ukraine but was withheld by Trump, it seems more like extortion than bribery. But I agree that using the Latin phrase is just dumb, and to me it seems like a tactic meant to confuse Joe Sixpack. 

It's not like one is OK and the other not.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that the president inform congress if they are going to defer payment of appropriated funds. AFAIK, nobody has produced a copy of this message

The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.

https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter

 

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I disagree. This isn't about laws. It's clear he's broken laws, but as rightly mentioned above, he's in charge of enforcing them. For this reason, the founders gave us a political solution, namely impeachment.

If congress wants to vote him out for liking brussel sprouts more than broccoli or for having too high of a handicap on his golf game, they surely can and that's entirely within their power. It's not about proving anything legally, but is instead about getting both the House and the Senate to agree removal is in order... it's about politics. Senate won't do that, however, because they're a bunch of lilly-livered $*#*s afraid of losing their powerful seat and getting voted out in the next election.

x-posted with swansont

I mean he's not guilty until he's been convicted. High crimes and misdemeanors would definitely cover this however. As soon as it passes the House he will have been impeached, so at least that much goes down in the history books.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

I mean he's not guilty until he's been convicted. High crimes and misdemeanors would definitely cover this however. As soon as it passes the House he will have been impeached, so at least that much goes down in the history books.

Justice is...

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

so at least that much goes down in the history books.

depends.

Edited November 14, 2019 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

I think impeachment will eventually become the norm. 

I don't think this would ever be happening, but for the attempt on Bill Clinton. If I was a Democrat, that would be all the motivation I would need to impeach Trump. And Trump didn't help himself with his "jail Hillary" slogan in the election. Although maybe it helped him get elected in the first place. 

I thought the action to impeach Bill Clinton was a disgrace to America, and this is the same. But in this case, the revenge element makes it understandable. 

That element of revenge will always be there now, between the parties, and I think the slightest thing will lead to impeachment in the future, which can only be bad for the country. 

If I was in power in the US, I would make a law that a move to impeach would have to go first to the supreme court, who would have to rule on whether it can go ahead in the first place. A bit like the District Attorneys Office does for everyday crimes. 

[dimreepr]

That paints your colours to the mast...

[rangerx]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Viable Democrat candidates need to focus policy on at least the moderates in America as well as the radical left instead of focusing on the clown.

Otherwise the clown gets back in...by default...again...as the lesser of two evils.

Nonsense, spoken as though high crimes and misdemeanors are more pervasive on the left.

It's more like all the radical right has are talking points, moving goal posts and finger wagging, when in reality it's the conservative house that needs cleaning.

Edited November 14, 2019 by rangerx
spelling, grammar

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If the military aid hadn't already been promised and approved by Congress, and Trump had offered it in exchange for political favors, I would call that bribery. Since the aid was supposed to go to the Ukraine but was withheld by Trump, it seems more like extortion than bribery

I tend to agree with swansont that they’re both wrong... six to one, half a dozen to the other... but I’ve had this exact same thought. Extortion is the better fit here instead of bribery, but we seem to live in a country where we need to distill these messages down to a kindergarten level like “him bad. him do evil thing” in order for it to break out and hope to resonate.
 

Trump grasps this and it’s why he’s so good at messaging. “Lock him up!’” Needs to be that simple, as much as I despise the vulgar nature of it. 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think impeachment will eventually become the norm. 

Attempts of impeachment have been conducted for all modern-day US presidents,starting with Ronald Reagan (over the contra-affair), though they proceeded to different levels before they died. As such impeachment is nothing new per se (though polarization of politics could affect outcome), nor is it really tied to Clinton in any way. It does not make a lot of sense to refer to SCOTUS to allow these proceedings to happen, as the stages are political in nature and are as such resolved by congress and senate (and respective committees).

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Extortion is the better fit here instead of bribery, but we seem to live in a country where we need to distill these messages down to a kindergarten level like “him bad. him do evil thing” in order for it to break out and hope to resonate.

Even then it doesn't matter. The status quo is tribalism.

The evangelicals were never about about upholding morality or family values, the tea party were never about curbing deficits and spending and the conservatives were never about personal responsibility. The so-called federalists don't give a ratsass about the constitution, other than the parts they can use to prop up their selfish bad behavior.

It's all about character assassination and owning the libs, at any cost.

[MigL]

Again I display my ignorance of your processes...

If an Impeachment hearing is like a court case, is the 'prosecution' only allowed witness testimony, or can they actually subpoena evidence ?
I'm thinking here, of the transcripts/tapes of the 'perfect' phone conversation.

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again I display my ignorance of your processes...

If an Impeachment hearing is like a court case, is the 'prosecution' only allowed witness testimony, or can they actually subpoena evidence ?
I'm thinking here, of the transcripts/tapes of the 'perfect' phone conversation.

Evidence gathering is happening now. Many things are being subpoenaed, but the WH is refusing to comply. They’re not letting their people give documents or testify despite the subpoenas. The WH is daring the congress to do something about it since it then goes to court and gets appealed and takes months to reach any sort of conclusion from a panel of judges. 

On the bribery point above, Trump is in many ways engaged in felony level bribery right now since he’s been doubling down on fund raisers for GOP Senators. This rakes in cash for them at the exact same time they’d be his jurors. 

Are you aware of any other court cases where the defendant can give money to or host fund raisers for tho jury? I’m not. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by iNow

[rangerx]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again I display my ignorance of your processes...

If an Impeachment hearing is like a court case, is the 'prosecution' only allowed witness testimony, or can they actually subpoena evidence ?
I'm thinking here, of the transcripts/tapes of the 'perfect' phone conversation.

It's not a court case. The House can run impeachment hearings any way it chooses.

Yes, they can subpoena, but what's the point if they go unheeded?

The real time recording should be released and Trump compelled to testify. Not by law, but by being forthright, but nooooooo.

That says more about a failure in democracy than it does about the rule of law, sadly.

Just to reiterate, it was the Republicans who nixed Nixon, for the better of the party and country. Modern day Republicans have no such introspect.

Edited November 14, 2019 by rangerx

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

tapes of the 'perfect' phone conversation.

 

43 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The real time recording should be

Based on what we know today, there is no real time recording of his conversation available nor an actual transcript. We have the call summary that was released and testimony from those who listened to the call live. 

[CharonY]

Maybe I just lost track, but wasn't a transcript moved to a secret server at some point?