Official Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump
Comments
-
Mr. Trump has been impeached in the U. S. House of Representatives! CM
-
Technically, he has not been impeached until the House delivers the articles to the Senate. Why will Pelosi not do this?
-
You are becoming like the man you're trying to defend. Trump has been impeached -- Just like Bill Clinton!
The Senate trial is to remove Trump from office -- so called, student of U.S. History. I thought you knew this. CM
-
He is not impeached until the House FINISHES the impeachment by delivering the articles to the Senate. Why will Pelosi not do this?
-
@reformed posted:
He is not impeached until the House FINISHES the impeachment by delivering the articles to the Senate.
Where in the Constitution or House/Senate rules do you find support for your claim that a president is not impeached until the articles are delivered to the Senate? I see nothing in the Constitution, and know of nothing in the House or Senate rules the defines article delivery as part of the impeachment process. It is of course true that the Senate can't conduct a trial of the president on impeachment articles until the House delivers them, but according to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, "the sole power of impeachment" rests in the House, while Article 1, Section 3 says the Senate has "the sole power to try impeachments." To my reading, such language excludes the Senate from having any role in the impeachment process. As I understand it, a president is impeached as soon as a majority of House members approve at least one article. He or she is NOT tried/convicted/removed from office unless the Senate acts, but impeachment is solely an action of the House. On what basis do you claim otherwise?
Why will Pelosi not do this?
On multiple occasions she and other House leaders have made clear that they are withholding the impeachment articles until they receive clarity from the Senate as to the nature of the trial, specifically as to whether the Senate will call witnesses. Two basic reasons: 1) So that the House members they choose as impeachment managers are the ones best suited for the kind of proceeding the Senate holds (some House members are better questioners of witnesses than others); 2) To advocate for and, as possible, apply pressure toward what they (House leaders) think would be a fair trial (as opposed to a show or perfunctory trial).
Given that the Senate Majority Leader has very openly said his conduct of the Senate's trial will align completely with the White House's preferences for the trial, the fact that House leaders would use whatever options are at their disposal to advocate for their preferences for the trial doesn't seem unreasonable, does it?
-
Bill, yes, the House has the sole power of impeachment. I have not disputed that. However, the completion of that action is to deliver it to the Senate so they can hold the trial of that impeachment. So, and scholars on the Democrat side have said this as well, by the House withholding the articles they effectively have not impeached the President.
And as far as Pelosi holding the articles, it surprises me you are in favor of this. Just as the Senate has nothing to do with the impeachment, the House has nothing to do with the trial. So the nature of the trial matters nothing to Pelosi and is none of her business. Why should the Senate need to call witnesses? Did the House not do a good job because they rushed it so quickly?
I also think that the Left, yourself included, are taking McConnel's words and reading more into them than what he has actually stated. All I have seen is that they will be working with the White House on logistics, not fairness of the trial, not stacking the deck.
So yes, it is very unreasonable for the House to delay this. If it was such a dire matter that they had to rush the impeachment, why is it not dire to deliver it and get the process started? Not to mention, the House has nothing to do with the trial, as stated earlier, and it is none of their business how the Senate goes about it.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill, yes, the House has the sole power of impeachment. I have not disputed that. However, the completion of that action is to deliver it to the Senate so they can hold the trial of that impeachment. So, and scholars on the Democrat side have said this as well, by the House withholding the articles they effectively have not impeached the President.
My point is that because the House has sole power over the impeachment process, it alone is involved in the impeachment process. Delivery of the articles to the Senate is necessary for the trial on those charges, but it has NOTHING to do with the impeachment process, which ended with the two House votes. Whether the Senate convicts or acquits on the two articles, President Trump has been impeached. Whether the Senate ever even holds a trial on the two articles, President Trump has been impeached. Delivery of the articles to the Senate is a necessary step, and will have to occur at some point (sooner rather than later, in my view) but it is NOT part of the impeachment process.
Consider the imperfect but helpful analogy of a sealed grand jury indictment (when a grand jury votes to indict someone but the indictment is not released to the public pending, for example, the indicted person's arrest or other developments in the case). Has that person been indicted even though his or her indictment has not been made public? Yes, because the indictment occurred when the grand jury voted to approve it, not when it was released to the public.
As for the scholars who have expressed a different point of view, I disagree with them, as do many other scholars. As for the Democrats who have expressed a different point of view, I also disagree with them, as do many Republicans.
And as far as Pelosi holding the articles, it surprises me you are in favor of this. Just as the Senate has nothing to do with the impeachment, the House has nothing to do with the trial. So the nature of the trial matters nothing to Pelosi and is none of her business.
I disagree with your claim that the House has "nothing" to do with the trial. 1) The charges the Senate will consider in the trial will be the House's charges; 2) The House will appoint managers who will present and defend those charges as part of the trial. On what basis do you claim that the body which both created and will formally present the charges during the trial has "nothing" to do with the trial? Do prosecutors who present cases against criminal defendants have "nothing" to do with the trials that hear those cases? Do you claim that prosecutors (and defense attorneys) should have NOTHING to do with which witnesses are allowed to testify in their cases? I bet not. OF COURSE the nature of the Senate trial matters to Pelosi and the House that approved the two articles of impeachment.
Why should the Senate need to call witnesses? Did the House not do a good job because they rushed it so quickly?
The Senate should call witnesses because the Senate should want to hear from the four fact witnesses the House has requested. I said fact witnesses. On many occasions you've claimed a lack of direct evidence, how so much of the case against President Trump was built on hearsay. The four people the House wants to call - but the White House refuses to allow to testify - have direct knowledge of these matters.
- John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, for example, were in meetings with the president; they heard from and spoke with him directly during the time when the hold on Ukraine's money was under discussion and then implemented.
- Emails released in recent days show that Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget, played a direct role in the matter.
- Robert Blair, a senior advisor to Mulvaney, will add important details from his first-hand involvement in the hold.
If everything about the Zelenskyy call and the hold was "perfect," as the president claims, then why not let those four testify? Surely they would back up the president's claim, yes?
Could the House have delayed the impeachment vote and instead gone to court to compel those witnesses? Of course. And the matters would have been litigated well into this election year, with final decisions coming perhaps in the summer. And the president and his defenders would have cried "Foul!" for passing impeachment articles just as the party conventions were approaching.
I also think that the Left, yourself included, are taking McConnel's words and reading more into them than what he has actually stated. All I have seen is that they will be working with the White House on logistics, not fairness of the trial, not stacking the deck.
Leader McConnell said this on the Hannity show:
- "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this."
- "We’ll be working through this process ... in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people representing the president in the well of the Senate."
Why in the world would the foreperson of the Senate jury that will hear the "charges" coordinate "everything" he does with the "defendant" in the case? And why would that foreperson implement "total coordination" with the attorneys representing the defendant in the trial, and promise "no difference" between the jury's process and the defendant's preferences for that process? How can such intentions possibly be fair and just? Where's the foreperson's promise of "total coordination" with the "prosecutors" in the trial, that there will be "no difference" between the jury's process and the prosecutors' preferences for that process?
Not to mention, the House has nothing to do with the trial, as stated earlier, and it is none of their business how the Senate goes about it.
Since you believe that it's "none of (the House's) business how the Senate goes about" the trial, do you also believe it's "none of (the White House's) business how the Senate goes about" the trial? If you do, then why don't you object to Leader McConnell's publicly stated intention to coordinate completely with the president and his counsel as to how the Senate will go about the trial?
-
Bill, it is a fair point that you make about the House managers. My point, is they have nothing to do with determining how it is run. Their managers should be competent to handle it whatever the case may be if it is as strong as they say. As far as the witnesses, why did the House not call those witnesses?
As far as the White House, I was not aware of the Majority Leader's comments on Hannity and that does give me some pause, I would want to know more about exactly what was asked and said.
Do I think it is any of the White House's business like the House? No, but it seems to me the Senate is going to them, not the other way around.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill, it is a fair point that you make about the House managers. My point, is they have nothing to do with determining how it is run. Their managers should be competent to handle it whatever the case may be if it is as strong as they say. As far as the witnesses, why did the House not call those witnesses?
According to the House Intelligence Committee's report, these twelve witnesses refused to appear before the Committee. In so doing, ten of the twelve refused duly authorized Congressional subpoenas:
- Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff
- Robert B. Blair, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff
- Ambassador John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor
- John A. Eisenberg, Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Advisor, National Security Council
- Michael Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy Legal Advisor, National Security Council
- Preston Wells Griffith, Senior Director for International Energy and Environment, National Security Council
- Dr. Charles M. Kupperman, Former Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, National Security Council
- Russell T. Vought, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
- Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security Programs, Office of Management and Budget
- Brian McCormack, Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science, Office of Management and Budget
- T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, Counselor, Department of State
- Secretary Rick Perry, Department of Energy
Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton, and Duffey - all on the list - are the four whom Senate Democrats want to testify in the Senate trial. Hence, I don't think it's fair to say the House didn't call those witnesses.
As far as the White House, I was not aware of the Majority Leader's comments on Hannity and that does give me some pause, I would want to know more about exactly what was asked and said.
Props to you for your candor; such is a rare commodity in hyper-partisan times such as these.
I *think* I recall that you don't have access to Youtube, so here's a link to a USAToday story about McConnell's appearance on the Hannity program.
Do I think it is any of the White House's business like the House? No, but it seems to me the Senate is going to them, not the other way around.
I agree. McConnell and company should not engage the White House in such an obviously-partisan manner, but he's facing a challenging re-election campaign in the fall, and he needs Trump's base to turn our for him, so he won't shy from the impropriety.
-
A few things, on the people rejecting subpoenas, that is only partially true. There was executive privilege claimed if I am not mistaken and that is playing out in the courts, which is proper. The Democrats just did not want to wait. So let's be honest here please. So my honest part is yes, it is fair then to say the House did call them technically, but threw a tantrum because they did not want to wait on the courts to decide.
As far as McConnell and the partisan manner, that is a bit humorous to me since the whole impeachment has been nothing but partisan. Why did Pelosi say a few months ago she would only proceed if this was bi-partisan and then go back on her word? Not only was this not bi-partisan, not even her entire party voted for it and she lost one member to the minority.
-
@reformed posted:
A few things, on the people rejecting subpoenas, that is only partially true. There was executive privilege claimed if I am not mistaken and that is playing out in the courts, which is proper. The Democrats just did not want to wait. So let's be honest here please. So my honest part is yes, it is fair then to say the House did call them technically, but threw a tantrum because they did not want to wait on the courts to decide.
1) The executive privilege argument has never been authentic. A five minute Google search will produce several occasions during the Mueller probe and since that the president very openly said he'd "love" for all his people - including himself! - to testify, but he couldn't do so because he feared an unfair process. Executive privilege has NOTHING to do with the fairness or unfairness of congressional or criminal proceedings. It has to do with the freedom of presidential advisers to offer candid counsel.
2) Litigating each of those cases - and we both know the White House would have fought to address each one separately - would have taken months and months, which would have moved the impeachment process well into an election year. That would have prompted objections from the president and his supporters (and probably several of the Democratic candidates!) and cries to allow the election to decide the president's fate. Impeachment is in the constitution because our founders believed there are times when the nation can't wait for the next election to hold a president accountable for his or her actions.
3) And again I contend that if the Zelenskyy call and the aid hold were as "perfect" as the president claims, then surely his advisers would confirm his claim when they testified under oath. The fact that in this matter Mr Trump has denied EVERY document request and EVERY subpoena (the officials who testified did so either against White House/State Department advice or because they were no longer in the administration) is among the most damning details. Most of the the people on that list are not covered by executive privilege. The president lied every time he claimed to want everyone to testify. The baseline reason he issued such a blanket refusal to cooperate was his fear of the truth people would tell when under oath.
As far as McConnell and the partisan manner, that is a bit humorous to me since the whole impeachment has been nothing but partisan. Why did Pelosi say a few months ago she would only proceed if this was bi-partisan and then go back on her word? Not only was this not bi-partisan, not even her entire party voted for it and she lost one member to the minority.
I think it was a mistake for the speaker to add bi-partisan to her list of impeachment prerequisites. In this era, NOTHING is bi-partisan, and impeachment was certainly not going to be. She finally saw the error of he ways, and decided to proceed with or without bi-partisan support. Doing the right thing should not be a partisan political matter.
Bipartisanship doesn't mean much anymore, anyway. BOTH parties will claim "bipartisan support" for a bill or some other action when even one member of the other party supports it. 198 Republicans can vote against a measure, but if the 199th one votes for it, Democrats will say "Our legislation received bipartisan support!" Republicans do the same thing. Silly... as is any claim of significance to the fact that two Democrats voted against the impeachment articles. So? Given that in 2018 several Democrats (40, I think) won in districts Trump won handily in 2016, the fact that only two of them voted no to impeachment speaks to the power of the charges and evidence against the president.
-
oh dear, oh dear ... what has the "Western values" press come to ?
Restoring what has been lost is the most difficult of all tasks. The Greeks failed at it. The Romans failed at it. It seems too that we are failing at it. Consider the controlled media’s multi-year campaign against Donald Trump. When Russiagate was exposed as a hoax, the presstitutes did not apologize for misleading the peoples of the world for years. Instead, the presstitutes launched into impeach-gate. Allegedly Trump threatened the Ukranian president with withholding of US funds unless the Ukrainian investigation, which was closed down by Vice President Biden, was reopened. No evidence of this accusation against Trump has been found, and the President of Ukraine denies it.
However, there is conclusive evidence that VP Biden did what the presstitutes accuse Trump of doing. Moreover, there is a video available online and posted on this site and many others, of Biden giving the President of Ukraine 6 hours to fire the investigating prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion US dollars.
What are we to conclude from this?
What is the real story? and who is the real criminal in the "Ukrainegate / impeach-gate"?
The effort of the House Democrats and the pressitutes to impeach Trump began with false accusations that Trump propositioned the Ukrainian president to come up with evidence against Biden or forfeit $1 billion US. No such evidence has been provided by an anti-Trump FBI, CIA, State Department, media, or any other source.
Evidence no longer necessary ? Is the US public really that insouciant and/or ignorant to not see through such rather simple facts?
Yet there is conclusive undeniable evidence that Biden is totally guilty of what Trump is accused. Biden brags about it in his own words before the Council on Foreign Relations: Fire the prosecutor investigating the company of which my son is a highly paid director or forfeit $1 billion.
Is it that evidence, even publically self-admitted (!!), is insignificant while false claims without evidence counts?
US folks, what has happened to the press and their readers in the land of the free??
(quotes from https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/02/the-year-before-us/)
-
Wolfgang,
Nothing is confused. It's just Mr. Reformed. He refused to accept reality. His beloved President Donald J. Trump has been impeached! If I had the power, I would make him write it a hundred time. Give his entrenchment, he would still not get it. Sad! CM
-
Yes, I admit he is TECHNICALLY impeached, but yet the Democrats won't finish the job. They are cowards, they botched this from the beginning.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)