Donald: Impeachment Watch

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9976
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#726

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... an/600343/
The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.


There are two strong arguments against the idea that the phrase requires criminal behavior: a historical one and a practical one. The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Constitution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct. The practical reasoning is in some ways more important: A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.

Let’s start with the history. The British Parliament invented impeachment in 1376, primarily as a legislative counterweight against royal abuses of power. Parliament couldn’t impeach kings and queens, and couldn’t get rid of them at all without an inconvenient and probably bloody revolution. So on occasions when the nobility wasn’t willing to strap on the old chain mail and gather its trusty men-at-arms to have a go at the king’s head, Parliament—acting on the maxim “Personnel is policy”—struck at the Crown by removing the monarch’s most powerful ministers through impeachment or, sometimes, bills of attainder.
:snippity:
I could provide examples in eye-glazing antiquarian detail. Suffice it to say that Parliament has impeached high officials for military mismanagement (Lord Latimer, 1376; the Earl of Suffolk, 1386; the Duke of Buckingham, 1626; and the Earl of Strafford, 1640), neglect of duty or sheer ineptitude (Attorney General Henry Yelverton; Lord Treasurer Middlesex, 1624; the Earl of Clarendon, 1667; Lord Danby, 1678; and Edward Seymour, treasurer of the Navy, 1680), and giving the sovereign bad advice, especially about foreign affairs (William de la Pole, 1450; Lords Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Strafford, 1715).

The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” entered the American Constitution because George Mason of Virginia was unhappy that, as the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close, the class of impeachable offenses had been limited to “treason or bribery.” Mason wanted a much broader definition. He illustrated his point by arguing that Hastings’s offenses would not be covered by the proposed skimpy language. Mason’s first suggested addition—“maladministration”—was thought too expansive, whereupon he offered, and the convention accepted, that sturdy old English term of art “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28864
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#727

Post by Volkonski »

CBS News
@CBSNews
·
2m
.
@nancook
tells CBSN that President Trump is “worried about firing Mulvaney at this point because Mulvaney knows so much about the Ukraine scandal” https://cbsn.ws/2iuAAgA
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#728

Post by TexasFilly »

So Mick Yes-We-Do-It-All-The-Time-Get-Over-It Mulvaney is blackmailing Trump now? First a lynching victim, now blackmail? :violin:
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 5305
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#729

Post by MsDaisy »

TexasFilly wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:04 pm
So Mick Yes-We-Do-It-All-The-Time-Get-Over-It Mulvaney is blackmailing Trump now? First a lynching victim, now blackmail? :violin:
Dog eat dog .png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Birfers are toast

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#730

Post by Slim Cognito »

Volkonski wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:36 pm
CBS News
@CBSNews
·
2m
.
@nancook
tells CBSN that President Trump is “worried about firing Mulvaney at this point because Mulvaney knows so much about the Ukraine scandal” https://cbsn.ws/2iuAAgA
Mr. Mulvaney should stay away from open windows and balconies.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9976
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#731

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Slim Cognito wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:24 pm
Volkonski wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:36 pm
CBS News
@CBSNews
·
2m
.
@nancook
tells CBSN that President Trump is “worried about firing Mulvaney at this point because Mulvaney knows so much about the Ukraine scandal” https://cbsn.ws/2iuAAgA
Mr. Mulvaney should stay away from open windows and balconies.
...and drinking tea.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 5305
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#732

Post by MsDaisy »

Ukraine Envoy Testifies Trump Linked Military Aid to Investigations
In closed-door testimony, a Democratic lawmaker said, William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, drew a “direct line” between President Trump’s withholding of security aid and his demand for investigations.
William B. Taylor Jr., the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, told impeachment investigators privately on Tuesday that President Trump held up vital security aid for the country and refused a White House meeting with Ukraine’s leader until he agreed to make a public pronouncement pledging to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

In testimony that Democrats in attendance called the most damaging account yet for the president, Mr. Taylor provided an “excruciatingly detailed” opening statement that described in blunt and unsparing terms the quid-pro-quo pressure campaign that Mr. Trump and his allies have long denied.

When he objected to that effort, Mr. Taylor said in his opening statement obtained by The New York Times, Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union and a Trump campaign donor, sought to explain Mr. Trump’s actions by noting that he was a businessman. Mr. Taylor recounted Mr. Sondland saying that, “when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”

Mr. Taylor’s testimony directly contradicted repeated assertions by Mr. Trump and his Republican allies that there was never a quid pro quo involving investigations into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and other Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/t ... e=Homepage
Birfers are toast

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8658
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#733

Post by RoadScholar »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:40 pm
Slim Cognito wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:24 pm
Volkonski wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:36 pm
Mr. Mulvaney should stay away from open windows and balconies.
...and drinking tea.
...and men holding umbrellas.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12028
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#734

Post by Orlylicious »

Robert Costa and our old anti-birfer pal Phil Rucker, posted an hour ago. Welcome to the real world, GOP.
‘It feels like a horror movie’: Republicans feel anxious and adrift defending Trump
By Robert Costa and Philip Rucker Oct. 28, 2019 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

Republican senators are lost and adrift as the impeachment inquiry enters its second month, navigating the grave threat to President Trump largely in the dark, frustrated by the absence of a credible case to defend his conduct and anxious about the historic reckoning that likely awaits them. Recent days have delivered the most damaging testimony yet about Trump and his advisers commandeering Ukraine policy for the president’s personal political goals, which his allies on Capitol Hill sought to undermine by storming the deposition room and condemning the inquiry as secretive and corrupt.

Those theatrics belie the deepening unease many Republicans now say they feel — particularly those in the Senate who are dreading having to weigh their conscience against their political calculations in deciding whether to convict or acquit Trump should the Democratic-controlled House impeach the president.

In hushed conversations over the past week, GOP senators lamented that the fast-expanding probe is fraying their party, which remains completely in Trump’s grip. They voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted, with neither convincing arguments from the White House nor confidence that something worse won’t soon be discovered.

“It feels like a horror movie,” said one veteran Republican senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe the consensus.

The Republican Party’s strategy is being directed almost entirely by the frenzied impulses of Trump, who has exhibited fits of rage over the Democrats’ drive to remove him from office for abuse of power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
The titular Mama June enjoys a Corn Dog on 4th of July! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: Family Crisis!" TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#735

Post by pipistrelle »

GOP senators lamented that the fast-expanding probe is fraying their party, which remains completely in Trump’s grip.
Who could have predicted this?
:mememe:

User avatar
voxpopuluxe
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:18 pm

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#736

Post by voxpopuluxe »

They voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted, with neither convincing arguments from the White House nor confidence that something worse won’t soon be discovered.
The Ben Sasse/Susan Collins/Mitt Romney wing of the party—endlessly exasperated by everything that happens, but too timid, cowardly, and complicit to ever do anything but wring their hands and—except in the case of Mitt, too timid even to put their exasperation on the record. Except for the pundits—and a few centrist Dems—everyone hates them and they deserve it.

(In addition, the very framing of that piece is pretty weak sauce, choosing, as it does, to describe a predatory gang as shell-shocked victims.)
“It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times.”
—Ali Smith, Autumn

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46707
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#737

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

:like:

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9976
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#738

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

The FBI profiler, John Douglas, whose third book I am reading, reveals victimization is part and parcel of predatory behavior. Good call, voxpopuluxe!
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 3779
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#739

Post by p0rtia »

Robert Costa is marketed as Mr. Smart and Serious Journalist. He doesn't do the laugh thing, he does not editorialize or make partisan comments. Strong, silent, considered, smart, well connected...

And always milquetoast.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
voxpopuluxe
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:18 pm

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#740

Post by voxpopuluxe »

Yeah, and I don't have any particular disdain for Costa. And I imagine that he needs to write stories and Republicans want to vent and each side wants to keep the avenues open, so we get pieces like that one (which is not nearly the first of its kind). But it's a stellar example of how the slightest twist of perspective turns the story from "Republicans will bitch and moan but won't actually put anything on the line" to "Republicans feel victimized by circumstance."
“It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times.”
—Ali Smith, Autumn

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10978
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#741

Post by Chilidog »

Apparently, this is supposed to be a joke, but Poe's law applies, even though the author admits it's a joke.
The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.

Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.”

Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.”
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2480302001

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16729
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#742

Post by Kendra »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ZsVHYT561v
House Democrats said Monday that the House will vote Thursday to formalize procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Democrats said the move would “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward” as the inquiry continues.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said that a former deputy national security adviser had “no basis in law” to skip a deposition Monday and that his failure to appear was further evidence of Trump’s efforts to obstruct Congress.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8415
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#743

Post by Slim Cognito »

Kendra wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:39 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ZsVHYT561v
House Democrats said Monday that the House will vote Thursday to formalize procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Democrats said the move would “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward” as the inquiry continues.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said that a former deputy national security adviser had “no basis in law” to skip a deposition Monday and that his failure to appear was further evidence of Trump’s efforts to obstruct Congress.
I believe, in republican circles, this may become known as the Be Careful What You Wish For Disconcertion.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16729
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#744

Post by Kendra »


It’s been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.

Today’s backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start.

We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#745

Post by pipistrelle »

Kendra wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:06 pm

It’s been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.

Today’s backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start.

We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment.
Someone should suggest he consult a lawyer and find out how the House works. Yes, I know a judge recently did that for him.

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 3763
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#746

Post by Turtle »

McCarthy isn't built for this kind of politics. He just wanted to get the Speaker gavel owed to him after Boehner got pushed out. Unfortunately, the ones who took Boehner down were a hell no, and now that he's jumped over all the trumphumps, they've lost the majority and he's just twisting in the wind.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16369
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#747

Post by kate520 »

voxpopuluxe wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:08 am
They voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted, with neither convincing arguments from the White House nor confidence that something worse won’t soon be discovered.
The Ben Sasse/Susan Collins/Mitt Romney wing of the party—endlessly exasperated by everything that happens, but too timid, cowardly, and complicit to ever do anything but wring their hands and—except in the case of Mitt, too timid even to put their exasperation on the record. Except for the pundits—and a few centrist Dems—everyone hates them and they deserve it.

(In addition, the very framing of that piece is pretty weak sauce, choosing, as it does, to describe a predatory gang as shell-shocked victims.)
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

Yeah, if this were Twitter I’d retweet this helluva perfect frame. I’m mommibrain on the birdie...do you Twitter?

(Edited to change fame to frame.)
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 3763
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#748

Post by Turtle »

Tomorrow a first hand witnesses who was "on the call" will give a deposition. He is a US Army officer and the top US expert on Ukraine. He is supposedly gonna say he heard the president ask a foreign govt for election help.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16729
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#749

Post by Kendra »

Turtle wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:11 pm
Tomorrow a first hand witnesses who was "on the call" will give a deposition. He is a US Army officer and the top US expert on Ukraine. He is supposedly gonna say he heard the president ask a foreign govt for election help.
This?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/p ... nu3jmYEigO

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 3763
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Donald: Impeachment Watch

#750

Post by Turtle »

Kendra wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:15 pm
Turtle wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:11 pm
Tomorrow a first hand witnesses who was "on the call" will give a deposition. He is a US Army officer and the top US expert on Ukraine. He is supposedly gonna say he heard the president ask a foreign govt for election help.
This?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/p ... nu3jmYEigO
Yes, it just broke

Post Reply

Return to “Impeachment”