Topic: US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 9. (Read 5783 times)

Yes.

Here's an example:

The president decides to just stop doing his job, fires his staff, hires a bunch of his buddies to collect the salary and they fly around the world playing golf and partying.  He refuses to appoint any judges or sign any bills or answer his phone.

Nothing criminal there, but I think he should be impeached and removed.

It's easy to find a quick quote that someone's prepared for you to churn up, because the prepared a response for you to churn up. Duh... But is that the whole story, or is it just fabricated mis information you've been given.

Looks like it's just mis information. A off the cuff remark on the David Letterman show. Not any part of the court proceedings related to Clinton. And to be specific, the assertion is directly "lying by omission."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-trial-live-coverage-president-s-defense-begins-day-n1123371/ncrd1124401#liveBlogHeader

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
"During the Clinton impeachment, I stated in an interview that I did not think that a technical crime was required, but that I did think that abusing trust could be considered — I said that," he said. "At that time, I had not done the extensive research on that issue because it was irrelevant to the Clinton case, and I was not fully aware of the compelling counterarguments. So I simply accepted the academic consensus on an issue that was not on the front burner at the time."

Dershowitz, who has been a frequent defender of the president on cable news, claimed that the framers of the Constitution would not have considered the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress impeachable because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as treason and bribery are.

"For Congress to ignore the specific words of the Constitution itself and substitute its own judgment would be for Congress to do what it is accusing the president of doing," he said.

He said that he argued in favor of the rights of presidents in past impeachments, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and said he would have argued in favor of the rights of Hillary Clinton if she were president and impeached by a Republican Congress.

"I stand against the application and misapplication of the constitutional criteria in every case and against any president without regard to whether I support his or her policies," he said.


However you seemed to have missed the essence of what I said, by following a rabbit trail laid down for you by fools that led in a direction of smear X, argue "the consensus", blah blah blah.

And this isn't just "Dershowitz's argument." It's a hard reality that can't be ignored.

This is a very different situation than requiring criminal activity as grounds to impeachment, and changes the balance of power entirely. Were it to be allowed.

I can't agree with that. The house is answerable to the people. The people are the check on them. That's how the system was setup and how it's meant to be. So if they go rogue and impeach a president when they shouldn't, it's the peoples responsibility to make them pay for it. It's how it should be given they are the people representatives. Laws written by them to impeach someone just makes it far more messy and drags things out when it shouldn't be. If someone is abusing their power, they need to be removed "quickly" IMO.

The Clinton impeachment took too long and this one was too short. The courts should have as their mandate that anything to do with impeachment proceedings be given the top priority and fast tracked in order to not let things drag out forever. This stuff if far too important to let drag out. Initially the people felt Clinton should be impeached (which IMO he should have been since he broke the law). As it dragged out things changed. In this case the public wasn't given an adequate chance to really get a clear picture IMO so that they could make their will known. Note that I'm talking about impeachment itself, not the trial. The trial itself should just naturally happen relatively quickly based on the amount of evidence and witnesses required to do their job responsibly.

Going by what you wrote, what do you personally think about the legal situation regarding impeachment? In your opinion is it a good thing the fact that Congress can align various allegations and loosely coin them as "abuse of power" and put them all under one umbrella rather than have a so-called smoking gun evidence of "criminality"?

Personally I think we need legal mechanisms which make easier for officials to be held to account. Having those legal protections in democracies are essential and nothing more than a dream when it comes to dictatorships. Without doubt those mechanisms are open to abuse themselves which could allow impeachments to take place on a regular basis over what many might deem as trivial matters but because party politics such as the opposition trying to get rid of a sitting elected official.

If as you allude to the Senate, the Congress and the US President should be left to the electorate at the ballot boxes every 4 or 5 years to not vote back and incumbent it defeats the object of accountability if a criminal (or potential criminal) can stay in power without recourse until they are not re-elected. For that reason I think some form of mechanism such as impeachment is essential but it should be applied properly.

He's been going on about this for years now and I just don't get it. Every time I think he might have a point I go and look into it and I'm just left scratching my head. I would love to know what "research" he's done since then because I just don't see it in what he communicates. So much of what the founders said and what their clear intent was, not to mention the meaning of words back then seems to just clearly refute any argument he can come up with. It's like he has some ideological agenda he's trying to promote but I just don't see it.


From day one the only defense I felt that they could potentially make stick was that he really was concerned about corruption. But as each day passed and more and more evidence came out that pointed to it not being the case, along with their own bungling of the messaging IMO, they just don't seem to have anything solid they can work with and are now left with confuse and muddle.

I almost feel sorry for Trump. There was one press conference or recording or something about him saying he did nothing wrong and the tone of his voice made me think he really believes it. His entire life has been spent doing those sorts of things and so he sees it as normal and just the way it's done that he doesn't understand it's not right for the office he holds. It will be interesting to see who all turns on him once he's out off office.

Except the system was original designed such that the President is not the representative of the people but it's been bastardized over the years. The congress is actually the representative of the people which is why they have the power to impeach. Even the Senate as it stands today is not how it was intended to be. Anyone who truly believes in the constitution and looks at how it used to be and how things have changed ever so slowly decade by decade should be concerned that both houses are slowly being subjugated by the expanding powers of the presidency. The country is ever so slowly marching towards having a "king".

"As conceived by the framers of the Constitution, the House was to represent the popular will, and its members were to be directly elected by the people."

The president was intended to be voted in by electors, not the public. He was to basically be the states representative. As someone who has come to see the constitution as the founders designed it as far superior and more important that anything else in keeping the country together, the state of things today greatly concerns me when it comes to the future of the country. It is slowly devolving from a country where states rights were highly important, to them becoming subjugated by the national government more and more.

So I'm sorry, but I believe impeachment should be used as it is and should in fact be used more often to keep not just the president, but members of both houses (and judges although that doesn't seem to happen much) more in line. This current impeachment has made me reflect a lot more on the past and I've come to believe Clinton, despite liking him regardless of all his "faults", should have been removed from office. Even though some of us pretty much figured out that Bush went into Iraq (based on a global "plan" that had been drafted up a year or two prior to his coming into office by many of the people in his administration) under false pretenses, I can't remember if it became public knowledge while he was still in office in which case he should have been impeached as well. And I must say I've come to like the guy since he's been out of office and he did some good things as well as the bad. Obama, I didn't pay too much attention to his term as I had more important things going on in my life at the time so don't know if there were things there for him. In other words, regardless of party, if they violate the "public trust" in some way, "off with their heads" as far as I'm concerned. Maybe if enough of them (all of them) get thrown out they'll start to take it more seriously and do what's right for the people instead of themselves.


"In contrast, members of the Senate were appointed by the states until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which mandated the direct election of senators."

"James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

In this situation, I see the Senate currently protecting the president as opposed to protecting the "people". The senate has devolved into nothing more than a second House instead of what it was really meant to be. It has become a shadow of what it once was and I for one would like to see it return to what it was meant to be. A bullwork against things like the dangers of populism. The only branch that's still able to stand up and do what's right for the most part as opposed to what's popular or by being heavily influenced by the people or the other branches, is the supreme court and that's greatly concerning.

IMO that amendment was one of the worst things that could have happened and the way things operate today bear that out. It should be no wonder nothing gets done anymore and it's all about keeping their jobs and using all the voters as pawns in their games.

One thing I find interesting is that people want someone, they choose Trump this time (I view Sanders as the far left version of Trump and would not be a good thing either), to "tear down the system". Good idea, but maybe what should happen is that it return to what it used to be and what it was meant to be. I would think that anyone that really believes in the constitution would think along those lines but I rarely see that as each side only uses the constitution to support their own agenda and is willing to bastardize and twist it for everything else.

Bottom line. IMO it should be as it was. The House is who should be voted for by the people. They are the representatives and no one else should be. I'm not against the selection of Senators and the President taking into account what the people would like, but not the way it currently is or the way it's slowly moving towards being. People are basically "stupid" and far too easily manipulated to make really good choices for such important roles IMO. Of course that also means that there would need to be some good checks and balances put in place to also ensure those making the choices did it in the best interest of the people, but if you start with the premise that it should be as I think it should, then I'm sure there are things that could be implemented instead of just going the easy "sellable" route that happens. Wishful thinking I know.

Yeah, that was Alan Dershowitz' argument.

It seems like most experts disagree with this opinion and the general consensus is that a 'high crime' refers to something that isn't technically a crime and could only be committed by someone impeachable (President, Cabinet Members, Judges).  In other words, an abuse of power.

Even Dershowitz is on the record from during Clintons trial:


They kind of are, that's why we have mid-terms.  Two years after a republican sweep, the people overwhelmingly elected to give Democrats control of the House (with many of them literally running on impeachment).

I also think the reason they give Senators 6 years and require 2/3s is because they wanted a middle ground between 'holding a president accountable' and booting him out of the White House.

Impeachments are devisive and make it harder to pass laws and stuff, but it also gives America a better chance to judge not only the President, but every single member of congress, who are forced to take a stance where many would just do a political dance around the issue and just try not to piss anyone off. (ok Tulsi didn't)  It also gets America engaged in politics, which means more people will vote, which means America will be more accurately represented.

Unpopular opinion, I know.

The ability of Congress to dictate what is "abuse of power" and then bring impeachment charges, or using the threat of impeachment on such trivia effectively makes the POTUS subordinate to Congress, if and when the Senate might be aligned with them.

This is a very different situation than requiring criminal activity as grounds to impeachment, and changes the balance of power entirely. Were it to be allowed.

All of the Senate, Congress and POTUS should be strictly subordinate to the will of the people of the US, through the elections.

This impeachment and trial at times confuses me.. When you go and look at history, in terms of the meaning of words back at the time of the founding, or who has been impeached for what over the years, or you read the federalist papers, so many of the arguments against impeachment and removal for example (there are some for as well), just don't make any sense to me and I don't see how any person could buy it. But then I remember that this is a political process and is being sold to the public for sound bites. It doesn't have to be accurate or right, just needs to sway opinion of the masses.

The hypocrisy on both sides is just staggering though. No one in there seems to have any ethics what so ever. I loved the Dems playing the Lindsey video of old. And then the WH team doing the same to Schumer. It's just a beautiful thing to watch. They all need to go. Every single one of them.

I saw it on the news about Bolton, just briefly. Seems to be opposite of what is being mentioned in the Tweet above.

What's going on in Boltons mind is the biggest mystery of this whole ordeal.  I feel like it could just as easily be him using what he knows to leverage something out of Trump, or maybe to spite Trump, or maybe he's honestly just trying to do the right thing.

I find the 'he's just doing it so his book will make money' less likely, but possible.  He's known as an obsessive note-taker, history nerd and overall academic.  Legacy/Power > Money for people like this.  He's probably more motivated by knowing how many powerful Americans he could influence over the next 100 years.

Or maybe...he's just always wanted to cause a regime change and it looks like he won't get to do that to Iran or NK, why not give America a try?


I found Vindman extremely credible and think it's pretty gross the shit people have been saying about him.
But, other than a bribe, I can't imagine it was leaked for any reason other than damage Trump, which really narrows it down if Bolton really handed one single copy to NSC members working in the White House...so I can't say it's unreasonable to assume it was someone within the NCS, and the republicans have been shitting all over his brother, so there's definitely motive.

In theory, someone friendly to Trump could have either told him, or shown him the content of the manuscript, not unlike how someone friendly to Democrats leaked the contents to the New York Times.

I have always found the circumstances of Bolton's departure puzzling. Bolton was likely pushing for wars during his entire tenure, but suddenly was asked to resign after being National Security Adviser for over a year.

Trump ordered the drone strike killing the Iranian general only days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the National Security Council (Dec 30, '19), and war with Iran is something Bolton has wanted for a long time. It makes me wonder if the two were somehow related. Killing the Iranian general was a win for Trump (and for America/the world), and there were some circumstances that set up the drone strike that were outside of the control of either Trump or Bolton. If there is a connection, I don't know if Bolton was trying to use leverage to get a war with Iran, or if Trump was trying to get Bolton to avoid telling the truth publicly.

There are reports that Mr (he likes to be called Lt Col) Vindman's brother is in charge of book approvals on the National Security Council, and if this is true, I don't think any intelligent and reasonable person would need more than one guess as to who leaked the contents of the manuscript to the New York Times. Also, if this report is true, it should not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that these brothers are working to undermine the Government.

You can't force someone to testify in their own trial.  It's Trumps decision alone whether or not he testifies (I think there's basically a 0% chance of him deciding to testify)

edit:

I see deposed has two definitions:
- remove from office suddenly and forcefully.
- testify to or give (evidence) on oath, typically in a written statement.

I didn't know about the first one.  But yeah, I doubt he gets deposed (removed) or deposed (testifies).

---

Please stay on topic: Impeachment and Trial of Trump.  There are plenty of other threads to discuss why the Democrats are bad and Trump is good.

The likelihood of Trump being deposed is very small. The US economy is growing and is likely to grow even more.

Did the creator of Dilbert get hold of the transcript? Hopefully Trump sees this tweet and tells the GOP Senators to vote to subpoena Bolton.


Whether it's damning for the Dems or Republicans, I am super interested to hear what he has to say after all these mixed signals.

This is whole thing is more intriguing than any movie I've ever seen.

See WHO???

"Bolton's book manuscript clears Trump of all impeachment allegations by demonstrating that the President believed Ukraine interfered in US elections. Given that belief, right or wrong, pressuring Zelensky was completely within the job description of the presidency. "

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1221799382896394245

Who would have thought when Trump brought Bolton out from retirement that he would one day effectively call Trump a liar in his soon to be published book? This is a massive setback for Trump and his all-start legal defence team because Bolton will be called as a witness. The prosecutors would be guilty of dereliction of duty if they did not to subpoena him because he was part of the inner circle at the time.

It is all ifs and buts at the moment at least until the real drama in Court commences and to me it seems to look like the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.

I'm trying to keep this thread a place to have serious discussion on the impeachment and trial, please keep the 'my team' vs 'your team' stuff, and being disrespectful out of this thread.  If you don't think that's a reasonable request, just stop posting in this thread.




If Bolton testifies, and he is lying, Pompeo or Mulvaney or Trump or someone else senior in the administration could take the stand and refute his testimony.  One of them would be risking prison time though and I think if someone credible was willing to take the stand and defend Trump, they would've been called already.

There would be consequences to your political zealots keeping going on this. Might want to think about that. So far your team has made a number of very wrong decisions, both politically, economically, and from the point of view of practicality.

Wise up. Best to wise up fast, in my opinion. It's not Trump you are going to anger, it's the American people.


Actually it is very strong. To trump such testimony you would need actual physical evidence, such as a series of emails proving the contrary. The reason for this is suppose you have an opposing witness that says Ukraine was pressured.

Then you've got a "he said-she said" situation.

In the Senate, each Senator votes their own conscious, but the suggestion from the past is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard.

http://congressionalresearch.com/98-990/document.php

those polls are telling.  it seems that anyone who can be swayed has been swayed to wanting trump removed immediately.  maybe 1 or 2% wiggle room at most.  the 42-44% that have approved of him since day one will remain loyal no matter what.

have the day off so I have a chance to watch a bunch of the trial live.  it just started.

right off the bat they are saying since ukraine said there was no pressure that somehow proves there was no pressure to investigate bidens and dnc.  i dont think thats very strong.  Ukraine is in a tough spot and needs help.  if there was pressure, it would be in best interest of Ukrain to deny it since contradicting Trump would piss him off and damage their relationship.  

this Bolton news is a big wrench in Trumps defense. it seems like they will probably call witnesses and this trial will go on for a couple weeks longer than they wanted including during state of the union next week.  im glad a true conservative finally found a backbone and decided to call out Trump for lying.  any real conservative has respect for Bolton.