US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24

[ukcanuck]

Whelp, no matter what happens next, the stench of dishonesty will never come out of Trumps legacy.

The republicans are such cunts the dems should do this:
The House should withhold sending any articles to the Senate unless a majority of senators commit to holding an open and fair trial. Pelosi can highlight Trump’s continued cover-up and obstruction while noting his abuse of power is a crime in progress. https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit ... ng-senate/

[Topper]

The 6th Amendment

[Per]

^ Lol, yeahno, there were no "criminal acts" committed by Lord Trump.

Some 700 historians disagree with you in the joint statement they have issued:

We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” as George Mason described impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.

President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.

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. 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.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with “the misconduct of public men” which involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Collectively, the President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, “the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.”

It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.

Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue, “unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents…despotic in his ordinary demeanour.” That demagogue, Hamilton said, could easily enough manage “to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day.” Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would “throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

https://medium.com/@historiansonimpeach ... 4ed2277b16

[Per]

The 6th Amendment

Thinking of the whistle blower?

Everything the whistle blower told has been confirmed by documents and other witnesses. He/she just alerted the authorities to what was going on but is no longer relevant or part of the impeachment process.

That’s just a red herring.

Unfortunately, another part of the 6th amendment, that about impartial jurors, will be violated as the constitution states that the members of the senate shall serve as jurors, and several of the republicans, in violation of the constitution, have stated that they have no intention of being impartial. A sad day for democracy.

I mean, they could at least pretend.....

Anyway, I would also urge that vice president Pence considers the 25th amendment.

[5thhorseman]

I sure hope Pence is a Canucks fan and is here right now feeling Per's urges.

[ukcanuck]

The 6th Amendment

That’s the point speedy public and impartial the only thing the senate guarantees is the speedy acquittal bit.

[Per]

It's hilarious that many republicans are claiming this impeachment is frivolous and uncalled for, yet they are the ones who impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife...

To me it seems pretty clear that the impeachment clause in the constitution is meant precisely to be used against corruption and abuse of power.
The only thing odd is that they left out the part of how Trump is using the office to enrich himself through his hotels.

The most blatant thing, that he actually was forced to back out of, was when he wanted to hold the G7 meeting at one of his own resorts!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ext-summit

[Topper]

It's hilarious that many republicans are claiming this impeachment is frivolous and uncalled for, yet they are the ones who impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife...

To me it seems pretty clear that the impeachment clause in the constitution is meant precisely to be used against corruption and abuse of power.
The only thing odd is that they left out the part of how Trump is using the office to enrich himself through his hotels.

The most blatant thing, that he actually was forced to back out of, was when he wanted to hold the G7 meeting at one of his own resorts!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ext-summit

Per, you are wrong!

Clinton was impeached for a crime identified during a Special Council investigation. An actual crime on the statutes. - perjury. He lied in his testimony while under oath. He said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky yet she admitted they did have sex and his sperm was found staining her clothes. They had evidence of his crime . The Senate did not pursue the matter because they felt lying about his fidelity to his wife did not meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanours.

The Nixon impeachment was investigated by an independent council.

The investigation into Trump was conducted in the a secretive basement room by partisan politicians and then in public hearings where the ability to call and question witnesses was curtailed and controlled by the same partisan politicians. No statute listed crime or misdemeanour was found in this horribly one sided investigation. There is no evidence and no crime. There is a request for investigations into corruption. Is that wrong or do you wish to support corrupt foreign states? There was a delay in granting foreign aid. There is no evidence of a connection between the two events. There is only conjecture and presumption. This investigation and evidence procedures of the Democrat controlled process mirrors those of despots not democracies.

They held focus groups to try to identify a crime. The focus group came up with a crime based on publicity that even the corrupt process couldn't support.

This is mob justice, not jurisprudence.

When The Mueller independent council investigation failed to identify any crimes, it appears the foes of the President decided fair impartial investigations were not going to produce their desired outcome so partisan controlled, 3rd world, closed door, methods were the only way. After all, look at the success the upper levels of the FBI and DOJ had had with FISA. When you can't find evidence, make it up and then use it in a circular fashion to support itself.

Three Democrats voted against one article of impeachment, a fourth Democrat, who is a presidential candidate, voted present. Two Democrats voted against the other article of impeachment, a third Democrat, who is a presidential candidate, voted present. No Republicans voted for impeachment

If the investigation process had a modicum of non partisan fairness would the outcome be any different? If the investigation were conducted by an independent council, would the outcome be any different?

[Topper]

The 6th Amendment

Thinking of the whistle blower?

Everything the whistle blower told has been confirmed by documents and other witnesses. He/she just alerted the authorities to what was going on but is no longer relevant or part of the impeachment process.

That’s just a red herring.

The whistle blower's conjecture was confirmed as conjecture, you are correct. The transcript, and those who were in the room at the time of the call testified the transcript is correct, proves that conjecture. Several Democrat called witnesses testified during the Intelligence Committee hearing that it was all conjecture.

It is confirmed, the whistle blower lied on his statement. Any testimony as to the extent of those lies was blocked in the partisan proceedings.

As for 6th Amendment, where was Schiff in the Justice Committee hearings and why was he not called to explain his report and it's findings. After all, at the Democrats insistence, Mueller testified to back up his report, Barr testified to back up his summary of the Mueller report. Horowitz testified to explain his report. Instead they sent the Democrats lawyer to the Judiciary committee hearings to answer questions about the report. The same lawyer who the Democrats on the Judiciary committee delegated to question witnesses.

Here was a witness also having the role of interrogator.

What of the context of anti-corruption in the Ukraine was ever looked at? Isn't the investigation of corruption at Burissma involving the son of the then Vice President a core issue in the case. Being a political rival is not a get out of jail free card. The Obama administration was investigating Trump for Russian collusion during the last campaign. Was he not a political rival? In fact the kept up the secret investigation of Trump and lied to obtain FISA authorizations in that investigation even after he became President.

[Topper]

In a terrifyingly display of Orwellian irony, the Democrats created secretive basement, politically biased investigation and when the President invoked executive privilege to avoid lending credence to the sham process, the Democrats used that as a basis for one of their articles of impeachment.

[Strangelove]

[Strangelove]

[Per]

It's hilarious that many republicans are claiming this impeachment is frivolous and uncalled for, yet they are the ones who impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife...

To me it seems pretty clear that the impeachment clause in the constitution is meant precisely to be used against corruption and abuse of power.
The only thing odd is that they left out the part of how Trump is using the office to enrich himself through his hotels.

The most blatant thing, that he actually was forced to back out of, was when he wanted to hold the G7 meeting at one of his own resorts!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ext-summit

Per, you are wrong!

Clinton was impeached for a crime identified during a Special Council investigation. An actual crime on the statutes. - perjury. He lied in his testimony while under oath. He said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky yet she admitted they did have sex and his sperm was found staining her clothes. They had evidence of his crime .

Uhm... they had evidence of the sex. The alledged perjury? Not so much.

There were basically two things he said under oath that were questionable.

1) something like ”there is nothing going on between me and Miss Lewinsky”
Clinton pointed out that he said ”is”, not that there had never been anything going on, but at the time he was questioned Lewinsky was no longer at the White House and their affair had ended long ago.

2) ”I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Now, the conversation leading up to that is crucial. Bill was asked if he had had sexual relations with her. He then asks ”define sexual relations” and is told ”well, you know, intercourse.” He then makes the above statement. Now, this exchange means that the question he is asked is really if he has had intercourse with Monica, which he supposedly didn’t. Allegedly, they only had oral.

Even some of the republicans in the senate voted against finding him guilty on this count.

The Senate did not pursue the matter because they felt lying about his fidelity to his wife did not meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanours.

Agreed. Impeachment should be about the integrity of the office and protecting democracy and the constitution.

The investigation into Trump was conducted in the a secretive basement room by partisan politicians and then in public hearings where the ability to call and question witnesses was curtailed and controlled by the same partisan politicians.

Well, here’s what BBC said:

The Republicans argued that Democrats were conducting the impeachment inquiry in secret, with Representative Steve Scalise describing it as "a Soviet-style process".
"Every member of Congress ought to be allowed in that room. The press ought to be allowed in that room," he added.
The inquiry is led by a Democrat - Adam Schiff - and being run by the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.

However, more than 40 Republicans are members of those committees, and permitted to take part in the hearings.

Democrats have argued that it is common for the initial stages of a congressional investigation to be conducted behind closed doors, and say private hearings are needed at the start, to stop witnesses from coordinating their testimony.
"The special counsels in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments conducted their investigations in private and we must initially do the same," Mr Schiff wrote in a letter to colleagues.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50166577

No statute listed crime or misdemeanour was found in this horribly one sided investigation. There is no evidence and no crime.

Well, apart from like a dozen witnesses, some life long republicans, that have testified that there was outspoken intent to withhold military aid from an allied country unless they provided dirt on a political opponent. Which would definitely constitute a crime. Abuse of power. Using the office in order to gain benefits for one self. Etc.

Will have to get back to the rest in a while.

[Topper]

"outspoken intent"

[ukcanuck]

Okay even if that whole “power point” for toothless republican dummies is even half right and there is enough evidence for an investigation, how many law enforcement agencies are there in the US to deal with it? 4-5 ?

Enough that the executive does not have to get involved personally and miss his tee times, but wait, one of the alleged coconspirators is Joe Biden’s son??

Well gimme that phone! (Hey Rudy! Get over to Ukraine and see what you can dig up on joe Biden and his son, I’ll be running against him 2020 don’t you know)

Ring ring ....Hey mr Ukraine President about that money for missile program we have, well I need a favor... talk to my personal lawyer Rudy.

Oops there it is...extortion from a sitting president.

As for the argument the quid pro quo is not spelled out directly in the transcript of the call

Exhibit A. The transcript comes with a disclaimer that it is not verbatim but pieced together by White House staff blah blah (trump refuses to release the actual transcript and any other evidence claiming executive privilege)

Exhibit B quid pro quo does not have to be explicit but can be inferred and would be inferred by the victim of the extortion by the FACT that the two subjects are in the same conversation (money for missiles) and (do me a favor on dat dere dirt on Biden Jr)

As for topper and I assume your own dare I say “delusional” twisting of the story,

The secret basement trial was actually a routine media sealed inquiry to avoid republicans making a circus of the proceedings similar to the one they had started to do by refusing to remove themselves from the room they were to hold the inquiry in!

Additionally, during the actual hearing trump was invited to present his side of the story but refused and ordered everyone under his direct control to not cooperate with the proceedings.

That is not the outraged action of an innocent man, that is the strategy of a guilty man who knows that he holds the trump card, the senate (pun intended.)

It’s actually quite brilliant. As he did with the Mueller report, also a republican bye the way, who had enough evidence to recommend further charges but managed to find a loop hole (cant charge a sitting present) to avoid losing his membership at all the cool republican golf clubs


Donald cunt extraordinaire Trump will claim the guaranteed senate acquittal as another victory and the Cheeto Christ will peel himself off the cross and rise from the dead on Election Day 2020.

The next day his lawyers will uncover the forgotten about relic law from the Nixon administration impeachment that would allow the Supreme Court (all so in republican hands) and hand trumpna three year extension to his presidency...

Oh so brilliant this orange darth Vader.

Except for one thing, the guy is the most unpopular fat fuck in America and there will be a massive turn out on Election Day and the people will become the judge and jury and on that day there will be nothing more the trumplicans and democrats can do but watch...