Split Senate Acquits Trump of Impeachment Charges (politico.com) 690
The Senate on Wednesday acquitted President Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, rejecting the House's charges that he should be removed from office for abusing his power and obstructing the congressional investigation into his conduct. Politico reports: The vote capped a frenetic four-month push by House Democrats to investigate and impeach Trump for allegedly withholding U.S. military aid from Ukraine to pressure its leaders to investigate his Democratic rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. The impeachment articles also charged Trump with obstructing the House's investigation into the matter.
The first article, abuse of power, failed 48-52 -- well short of the 67-vote super-majority required to remove Trump from office. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney was the lone Republican to vote in favor of the abuse of power charge. The second article, obstruction of Congress, failed 47-53 -- a party-line vote. All Democratic senators voted to convict Trump on both counts. Chief Justice John Roberts, who presided over just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history, announced the result on each article of impeachment Wednesday afternoon, bringing the three-week trial to a close. "The Senate, having tried Donald Trump, president of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein: it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles," Roberts said.
The first article, abuse of power, failed 48-52 -- well short of the 67-vote super-majority required to remove Trump from office. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney was the lone Republican to vote in favor of the abuse of power charge. The second article, obstruction of Congress, failed 47-53 -- a party-line vote. All Democratic senators voted to convict Trump on both counts. Chief Justice John Roberts, who presided over just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history, announced the result on each article of impeachment Wednesday afternoon, bringing the three-week trial to a close. "The Senate, having tried Donald Trump, president of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein: it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles," Roberts said.
Wait a minute before posting, please (Score:5, Funny)
My microwave popcorn isn’t done.
Re:Wait a minute before posting, please (Score:5, Funny)
The federal gov't can just go away now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misspelled "years". Same goes for the White House. Just leave the rest of the Executive Branch running on autopilot, and I doubt anybody would notice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just leave the rest of the Executive Branch running on autopilot, and I doubt anybody would notice.
The far right would notice. What you just described was the Deep State. Employees loyal to their position, and do not change behavior based off of politics. They just follow the rules they are given. The far right hates those people; they are difficult to corrupt.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I understand your frustration with headline-news-awareness of the Federal government, there's a lot more to it. And it's actually really interesting, and perhaps inspiring for the nerds to read news for nerds. A quick read is Michael Lewis's "The Fifth Risk" -- plenty of information about the hard science that goes into just the national weather agencies and what value they provide. Can't do that on a local level.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The SOTU stated otherwise. There is plenty of good to be done with the right people in place. But I agree that eliminating most of the Federal Government would be required, places like the NSC seem to be teeming with people that want to control the government without any mandate to do so - such as Colonel "I tell the President what to say" Vindman.
You'll never eliminate the Federal Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal (e.g. Central) governments are simply too useful. They're needed to maintain a modern standing army, without which you get taken over by foreign invaders. Once you've got a large standing army you need a large civilian infrastructural to mange it or it becomes a Junta. Once you've got that you've got a large scale power structure in place that, if you do not actively participate in, gets used by Robber Barrons to enslave you.
Basically, if you don't build a Central Gov't for the benefit of the people someone else will build one for their benefit. The only thing that is _not_ an option is building no central gov't.
Think of a Central Government like a magic box of loaded rifles. It shows up whether you want it to or not and if you don't pick up a rifle someone else will and they'll point it at you and you will do what they say.
Don't Stay Home (Score:2)
It's up to YOU now. Yes you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's up to YOU now. Yes you. (Score:5, Funny)
No way, bro. I have to wait until I receive my voting instructions from the Russians.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't get yours yet? It should all be there in your state primary voting app.
Consolidating his power, next step retribution (Score:5, Interesting)
His son Donnie already calling for Romney to be expelled from the GOP for disloyalty to trump.
Re:Consolidating his power, next step retribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Consolidating his power, next step retribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of one's opinion on Romney's vote (and whether he's wrong or not), loyalty to a president and party should come second to loyalty to the country. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a king-maker, fascist, or both.
Before I die, we'll look back and regret that we haven't had more people to buck the party line for the good of the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Romney posed a hypothetical: What if the president decided to pardon every Republican in prison nationwide, while leaving every Democrat locked up? “There’s no law against that!” he said. “So it’s not a crime or misdemeanor. But it’s obviously absurd.”
Re: (Score:3)
It is no more absurd, than pretending — as the Democrats did — that any prosecution of a member of another party is illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the popular vote means exactly jack shit. Trump got less than half of the popular vote. In other words, more people (54%) did NOT want him in office than did, but through the magic of the Electoral College, here we are. Hell, more people wanted Hillary in office than him. No one can say that his term in office "represents the will of the people", because that's demonstrably false.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
If it wasn't for the electoral college then NO STATE that wasn't CA or NY would have any voice at all because those 2 states have enough populace to control every national election.
Those states only make up around 20% of the US population
They wouldn't be voting as a single bloc anymore, so Trump would have gotten ~32% of CA and ~37% of NY
Republicans would have a reason to campaign in those states, and conservatives in those state would have more of a reason to vote, making the outcome even closer
Trump wins by a landslide because nobody in the flyover states wanted HRC, but hey those millions of Americans shouldn't count right?
They should all count. You're the one suggesting that some people's votes aren't equal to others.
Re:It's a republic, if you can keep it (Score:4, Insightful)
For the stability of the country, I'll pass on the tyranny of the majority stemming from just a few bright blue coastal counties [publicbroadcasting.net] , in determining the Chief Executive. Thanks.
On the otherhand 60% of the population lives in these blue areas you are talking about, should they be subjected to the tyranny of the minority? I know we make a lot of fuss about how small town America is "The Real America", but that way of life has been in decline for decades as Americas youth has moved from their small towns to larger cities where standard of living is better and the nearest movie theater is blocks away instead of 40 miles to the next town. There is an argument to be made that "The Real America" is now urban, well educated and multicultural.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those blue majority areas have no problems projecting their 'tyranny' via the ballot box already, which is the point of the electoral college. The founders had already foreseen that cities would become the dominant landscape based on what happened in Europe. The electoral college gives the minority a chance to stem the tide against a house and senate against their views. By having a president who can hear them. Otherwise you get a situation like we have in Canada, where us rural and urban-rural cities ar
Re: (Score:3)
Say you're a hairdresser in Los Angeles, why should a cow farmer in rural Wyoming have more of a say in how you run your business than you have in how he runs his business?
Because that is the way things are at the moment.
Republicans in prison (Score:3)
Having been in prison, I can tell you that there are plenty of republicans inside.
Lots more democrats, of course, especially after their 'conviction therapy", but still, plenty of republicans.
In America, we lock everyone up.
Disclosure: If I belonged to a party, I would probably be a democrat.
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
The ancient law that says you shall not use your official position for personal gain either to benefit yourself or punish your enemies.
Ignorance modded up as +5 insightful. Never change, slashdot.
It was also soliciting a bribe and soliciting election help from a foreign government, though the House didn't frame the charges as such.
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Congress' job is to make laws.
No, it's there job to WRITE bills and pass them. Short of a super majority they cannot MAKE their bill into a law on their own. That takes a presidential signature or they must override the president's veto. So they only WRITE the laws at this point.
This is how government works.
As I pointed out above, not exactly. Congress writes laws, haggles over the details and passes bills. Once a bill has passed both houses it is presented to the president for signature. But it's not a law until the president signs it (or until they override the Veto which is extremely rare).
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Congress' job is to make laws.
Which then have to be approved by the Senate, and which can be vetoed by the president unless passed with a super-majority. No, Congress isn't the only body that "makes laws". This congress has ideas way above its station.
Re: Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Congress is the collective body composed of two chambers: The Senate and The House of Representatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly thought Morals were a thing for people... I mean isn't that why we have so many people in prison?
No, we have so many people in prison and so much focus on a large military because of the 13th Amendment which exempts those two categories from the prohibition on slavery. In case you haven't noticed, the military and prison system keeps getting bigger while the US Working Class keeps getting poorer. The likely end game being that once people are so poor, they will either accept life as indentured servants via Corporate backed College Tuition or slavery as Military Grunts to export democracy and import nat
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Funny)
Trump did his job of working to stop corruption.
"Fox Guards Hen House, Gaslights Farmer" -- gory film at 11pm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect. What Biden announced IS a crime.
Because it's what the Senate tried to bust Trump for. Except they had no evidence on Trump.
We have actual videographic evidence of Biden confessing to quid pro quo for personal enrichment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not hiding. Biden engaged in overt corruption, Trump did his job of working to stop corruption. The rest is Democrat hypocrisy, spin, and nonsense.
Question, if Joe and/or Hunter Biden broke the law, why hasn't the Department of Justice opened an investigation? The DoJ has a whole section dedicated to getting other countries to assist us with investigations. Why did Trump not go to them to get this done rather than this shady under the table crap he did? To me the answer is easy, probably because there is no evidence of wrong doing, but hey if you have a different answer that does not include Infowars or Breitbart conspiracy theories, I am all ears.
Re: Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are very confused about what actually happened and should go look at the actual chain of events. Biden got the investigator fired because he refused to investigate. I might add Biden was far from alone as it was internationally agreed upon as the right course of action and again, was done all in the clear. This was all known at the time this was happening. So your statements make no sense, why would Biden want an investigator fired who specifically wouldn't want to investigate his corruption? He also ha
Re: (Score:3)
This is false.
Biden demanded Shokin be fired in December, 2015.
A search warrant against Burisma was executed by Shokin in February, 2016.
Burisma sent letters to the US State Department (namedropping Hunter Biden) asking State to get the Ukrainian government to call off the investigation, in February, 2016.
Hunter Biden and his coworker Devin Archer met with State Department officials - including Secretary of State John Kerry - in February and March, 2016.
Shokin was fired in March, 2016.
The investigation was
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps if you refused aid to a foreign power in exchange for an accurate count of how many abortions he has caused, which is evidently legal now, you might manage to turn a big fraction of his base against him.
Romney has a spine (Score:2)
I find it odd the first reaction of the GOP to anyone with a spine would be to openly discuss ejecting them from the party. Then consider he was the presidential Candidate of the same party.
THe reason this requires a Spine is because Romney can't just go be an Indendent now. He needs to be able to Caucus with some party. And if the Republicans won't have him then he's going to lose influence for Utah's benefit.
To throw that away because you stand on your principles takes McCain level courage.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
well to be fair letting sanders or warren run all but assures his re-election.
Re:Donald Trump WINS in 2020! (Score:5, Insightful)
d888888b d8888b. db .
VP. `8D
.
j88.. . `88. d8' j88.. . `88. d8'
888888D. `Y88P'. 888888D. `Y88P'
Re: (Score:3)
How about we round up all you racist seditionist neo-nazi skinheads and other so-called 'Republicans' and put bullets in your brains? That'd make much more sense and solve shitloads of problems.
I see one small problem with that: you're not the people with guns. You would have to settle for canceling them on social media.
Re: Donald Trump WINS in 2020! (Score:4, Insightful)
When you say "right" or "left", you should try being more specific. Politics have far more than a single dimension.
Is collectivism left wing? That's Bernie Sanders and every socialist ever. It's also Adolf Hitler and every fascist ever. Think about it: The words that are used to describe both 'isms directly imply a collective. The Republicans strongly favor things like individual responsibility and are the total opposite. Using stupid one dimensional scales, either Hitler and Bernie are both left wing or are both right wing.
Is wanting fewer restrictions (in the form of laws) left wing? If so, that means today's Democratic party is right of the Republican party. I'm not even taking about three letter agency regulation either, I'm taking more about the basics. How many times do you see self-proclaimed progressives make posts saying "but mah freedoms!" as a mockery towards anybody who opposes hate speech laws or gun control laws?
There are also many, many other dimensions, such as preference for distributed governing structures vs concentrated governing structures (think confederated vs federated vs imperial) austerity vs welfare, free economy vs command economy, etc. Or how about this one: Is being forced to join a labor union left wing or right wing?
Arguing that one thing is more right or more left of another thing is just stupid and it's a divisive mindset that Trump's election to the presidency is a symptom of.
Right and left are only relevant in the European context of either being of nobility or being a commoner. That never, at any point, had any relevance here.
And FFS, anybody who thought Trump stood even a shadow of a chance of being removed from office is on crack. Removal requires a supermajority, and there was no chance in hell they were getting that.
Re: Donald Trump WINS in 2020! (Score:4, Insightful)
That was never formally codified in law here, but the distinction remains the same here. Everywhere and at all times, the right is in favor of maintaining existing power hierarchies (for the "nobles"), and the left is in favor of flattening them (to the benefit of the "commoners"). That is the definition of left and right, since the terms were coined in the French Revolution.
This part I'm quoting, is a combination of your own virtue signaling as well as you shifting the definition to fit your own meaning for the particular moment. The fact is, you'll just say whatever you think it is, consistency be damned. Watch this: Many self described "left" today define communists like Stalin and Mao to be extreme left. They also define the confederacy as being far right saying "well, they were today's Republicans." Yet a defining element of Stalin and Mao's philosophy is one of a very structured and hierarchical government, very opposite of flattening. That is not at all consistent with the French Revolution. One defining element of the confederacy was that they wanted a breakdown of the federal hierarchy into a confederate system, aka flattening. That is quite a bit more consistent with the French Revolution.
As if that's not enough, what both share in common is that they broke down a previous system that both viewed as being of nobility/rich/whathaveyou, and both set up their own power structures to replace it. Moreover, Lincoln himself identified as conservative, in that he was conserving the freedoms obtained from the American revolution, and, as it seems, the governing structure. (And before you mention slavery, France never really ended slavery until at least the 1950's. Them, along with most of Europe, in practice held the view that if it was overseas then it wasn't slavery.)
Do you see why left-right politics is stupid yet?
It's just that these days it's not feudal estate-holding that makes one a "noble", because we're not an agrarian economy any more. It's any kind of wealth at all. But it's still the case that the right favors whoever is already rich and therefore powerful, and the left tries to level that playing field.
And of course, you're also signaling that you think the nobility is bad, and that you're virtuous for being left leaning and against the nobility, and you can stop already. I just don't care. And yes, I'm well aware of where the etymology comes from, and I didn't claim otherwise. What I'm saying is the broader European perspective of being a commoner or a noble is where that is rooted.
Collectivism vs individualism are just instrumental, if not purely rhetorical, to those ends,
No, right vs left is rhetorical, as in, it is used purely for rhetoric, i.e. for argumentative purposes. And as I mentioned, with a meaning that has hardly any consistency from one person to the next, and most people, including yourself, couldn't even give it a consistent definition. Collectivism and individualism not only have very distinct and consistent meanings, given the two are literal antonyms of one another, putting them on a spectrum very much makes it a dimension, and a political one at that, with, again a pretty obvious definition of what lies at one end and what lies at the other end.
In other words, during the French revolution, the commonest of the common didn't sit on the far left, and the noblest of the noble didn't sit on the far right. It's nothing more than just a general location that people sat at that particular time. Think beyond your hands.
So again, I must ask, do you see why left-right politics is stupid yet?
and do not in any way define the left-right spectrum. There are, for example, individualist anarchists (libertarian socialists) who are radical left relative to the mainstream Overton window.
You just described three different political dimensions. In other words, somebody who is an anarchist, a collectivist, and favors a
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it does deserve to fail and HAS failed. Trump victory lap not withstanding.
What concerns me is what's coming next? No, I don't know what it might be, but I seriously doubt we've heard the end of this. Neither side is in the habit of backing down, so like two guys in a no-holds barred grudge match they will continue to circle the ring looking for an opening. Not to mention that this is an election year and all sorts of weird and crazy things happen at such times.
My advice? Don't take much of thi
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
what i think the dems failed to realize back in 2016, and what they STILL haven't learned about Trump is that he is not the standard politician. It's a bit like Talib wrote about reputation in Antifragile..
if a banker has a sex tape released, their reputation is ruined, and their career is pretty much over at that point.
If a rock-star or certain type of celebrity has a sex tape released, it has no such effect; hell in the case of Kim K or Tommy Lee, it even works out to their benefit.
The tactics they've used so far are not geared for a person like Trump; they just serve to embolden him. He comes out ahead EVERY SINGLE time they take a swing at him. So this 'no holds grudge match'; he'll win, hands down -- and the democrats will come away looking weak and foolish.
The proper way to deal with someone like that would have been to ignore and disengage; his ego would lead to implosion -- but we're a bit past that point now. =/
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's say I agree with you. Acting like a child and blaming the other child is not a good way to win over anyone that wants our elected officials to act like adults.
If democrats really wanted to win in 2020 all they would have to do is be more reasonable and civil than Trump. Should not be hard. Instead, we get more childish antics under the lame excuse you gave "but Trump". It's what I expect from an 8 year old.
Shitting your pants doesn't make the other guy worse. It just means you now stink like shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He's still your president...
And he is still corrupt and incompetent, your point?
Re: (Score:3)
One guess? I'd say everyone is responsible. Trump's responsible for being a divisive and disrespectful ass at the top. Both parties' representatives are responsible for being excessively tribalized and only very rarely breaking rank on the important issues. The media is responsible for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The House has abandoned all sense of established precedent and process in an effort to push partisan accusations. Partisan bullshit deserves to fail.
Even most of the Republicans admit they believe Trump did what he was accused of. They just didn't want to do anything about it.
From In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out of Fear [nytimes.com]:
They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out.
And Op-Ed: Finally, GOP senators admit what was obvious all along: Trump is guilty [latimes.com]
Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Marco Rubio (R- Fla.) were the first out of the block to explain that the president is guilty but shouldn’t be ousted for it.
And many other sources. Basically, Google: republicans admit guilty
So, not partisan and not bullshit.
Re: Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Really? NYT and LAT as your sources? Really? ...
They're *really* quoting actual republicans. How does the news provider change that ding-dong? And as I said, Google provides many more other sources if you don't like the NYT and LAT interviewing people and reporting what they say.
Re: Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
No kidding. Google censors its search index. Good luck finding unbiased information in there. They penalize conservative sources to page 138 of results, and elevate far left ones to the first page so far it's the same as free advertising. It's one of the bad things fueling polarization, people staying in safe spaces.
So you're saying that if one looks far enough down on Google or uses a different search engine they'll find a source saying those Republican Senators *didn't* say those things they were directly quoted saying? A direct quote is a direct quote regardless of the news provider -- and the NYT/LAT probably also has them audio/video taped as well.
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Guilty of what? No laws were broken nor was he charged with anything illegal.
Guilty -- "culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing" -- of doing what he was accused of doing. Don't have to be something illegal nor dies he have to be charged. The articles quoted Republicans saying that what the President did was wrong" and quoted (at least) 2 Republicans saying "the president is guilty". If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.
All foreign aid is predicated on doing what the US wants and part of the Presidents job is investigating corruption.
Interesting that, according to the timeline, Trump only became interested in this "Biden corruption" after Biden announced he was running for President and *seriously* you think Trump cares -- at all -- about corruption, in Ukraine? Wow. And it's the Justice Department's job to investigate corruption not the President's personal (or even professional) job.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't have to be something illegal
I dunno, "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crime or Misdemeanor" doesn't really sound like it's open to arbitrary interpretation. It absolutely means that something illegal must be done. Even a misdemeanor is... a crime. They would have had a stronger case to impeach him over a parking ticket than over the made up bullshit they tried. Oh and there is no such crime as "abuse of power".
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Informative)
You need to read that with the perspective of what those words meant in the 1700's, and how those words were arrived at when framing the Constitution. Our modern interpretation of that phrase doesn't match the founders' intent - here's some context. [wikipedia.org]
He definitely abused the power of his office. He definitely targeted a political rival. That's on record, and for the former we even have audio. More learned people than I can have the debate over whether that should be grounds for removal from office. It's not a debate for me, but that's me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing he was "accused of doing" was illegal or even wrong. That's why he's been acquitted.
You might want to read this, I Voted for Trump, and I Believe He May Be Guilty of Bribery [nytimes.com] by James D. Harmon Jr., a former federal prosecutor, who voted for Trump. Here are a few paragraphs:
I Voted for Trump, and I Believe He May Be Guilty of Bribery
The president’s defenders are wrong.
I am a Republican and former federal prosecutor who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. But I was deeply dismayed by the way his lawyers defended his misbegotten dealings with Ukraine during the Senate impeachment trial. Unlike Mr. Trump’s supporters, I believe the president might well be guilty of breaking the law.
Even without the additional witnesses and documents that the Senate Republicans refused to subpoena, the evidence available to date has established a prima facie case of bribery, a felony under federal law, against Mr. Trump.
If the president corruptly demanded or sought anything of value to influence an official act, then he would be guilty of bribery.
To those who find nothing wrong with the president’s words, I would just note that, according to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in Evans v. United States in 1992, an official “need not state the quid pro quo in express terms” for a crime to have been committed.
The rest of the article fills in the details.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll pass on your NYT link quoting someone nobody has ever heard of.
Well... there are many other sources and even Republican Senators (as I initially noted) that think what the President did was wrong (contrary to your opinion), but you keep on keeping yourself informed to the level you're comfortable at. Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think what he did wasn't wrong. That's why there's a big difference between opinions and the Law. The jury happened to agree with my opinion today and acquitted him of all charges.
Better luck next time.
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Informative)
We can point to Professor Jonathan Turley, who voted for Clinton, or Professor Alan Dershowitz, who also voted for Clinton, who both said that what Trump did wasn't illegal, wasn't wrong, and doesn't rise anywhere near the level of impeachment.
This is incorrect. Turley was merely unimpressed with the evidence and warned democrats craps not to rush but they of course didn't listen.
Turley explicitly said *IF* it could be shown Trump did what was alleged it would be impeachable and further a crime does not have to take place to be impeached.
As for Alan Dershowitz voted for Clinton... that's a tough sell given the guys been on fox news over 100 times and the vast majority of domain experts strongly disagree with his assertions.
Re: (Score:3)
This is incorrect. Turley was merely unimpressed with the evidence and warned democrats craps not to rush but they of course didn't listen.
Turley explicitly said *IF* it could be shown Trump did what was alleged it would be impeachable and further a crime does not have to take place to be impeached.
False. Professor Turley's statements are here [nyt.com]. See page 32 - where he explicitly states there was nothing wrong with the withholding as it happened. No "abuse of power". As far as obstruction, see pages 36 and 37 where he explicitly states no obstruction.
As for Alan Dershowitz voted for Clinton...
See 1:06 of this video [youtube.com]. Dershowitz publicly states, under oath, that he voted for Hillary Clinton.
that's a tough sell given the guys been on fox news over 100 times
So? That just shows that Fox is actually fair and balanced. They also have Donna Brazile [wikipedia.org] and Juan Williams [wikipedia.org] as prominent contributors on staff, and both
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing he was "accused of doing" was illegal or even wrong. That's why he's been acquitted.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just that obtuse. Read the impeachment. Watch all the videos of trump himself admitting to guilt and claiming to be above the law by calling this process phony and a hoax.
No one even disputes the facts any more. The GOP says 'well, even if it DID happen, it's not illegal!. What kind of delusions of grandeur does someone need to have to buy into this shit?
In black and white, he was acquitted because of his cronies and henchmen that he controls with an iron fist (remind
Re: (Score:3)
He did neither. He admitted to doing what he was accused of doing and said that what he was accused of doing was not criminal. He did not claim to be above the law, but rather as you said that the process was phony and a hoax. That is to say, he believes charges were brought against him under false pretenses and were invalid; that doesn't suggest that he thinks he is above the
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing he was "accused of doing" was illegal or even wrong. You're a liar. He ignored Congressional subpoenas, and he used his office for personal gain. Both very wrong.
Um.. That's factually not true. What the president's legal team did was to respond with "You don't have legal authority to issue these subpoenas because you don't have an official impeachment inquiry authorized by the House". Trump's legal team had a point and as you recall the House turned around and hurriedly authorized an impeachment inquiry. BUT, the House didn't turn around and issue the subpoenas again using the authority they authorized and as other posters pointed out basically took active steps to AVOID actually sending duly authorized requests for the stuff they wanted and actually took steps to avoid taking the issue to court.
Given that the House didn't press the issue in court and given the assertion of executive privilege is not out of the ordinary, the problem here is arguably that the House didn't do it's job. Now had they taken the issue to court, won, and THEN he refused to comply, THAT would have been possibly a valid reason to impeach, only for Obstruction of Justice and not just Obstruction of Congress. But as events actually happened, the House never really formally requested anything of Trump for the authorized impeachment inquiry and the assertion of Executive Privilege was not unusual, having been used to 'obstruct' congressional investigations for a long time by both sides of the isle.
On your second statement, what are you claiming he did to use his office for personal gain? And are you SURE you want to go down this road.... I got to warn you that if you press this charge too far, it's going to paint you into a corner you won't easily get out of with some of your leaders over there towards the left. It never seems to get covered, but there is a LOT of personal gain going on in public offices, especially in Congress so you'd better be really careful how you define this one.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know me, and you don't know who "my leaders" are, whatever the fuck that means. Government
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
He's allowed to ignore Congressional subpoenas according to the Constitution. It's called Executive Privilege. The House had the chance to litigate but chose not to, presumably because they knew they'd lose.
Really? Where is executive privilege described in the Constitution? Be specific, please.
It's not in the Constitution, my mistake. The principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court as part of the Constitution's Separation of Powers.
But Executive Privilege has limits as noted here, The Executive Privilege Is Far From Absolute [americanprogress.org] (each point is discussed further in the article, but I've filled in two). Notice the last one about Congressional subpoenas, as Trump has asserted he has absolute immunity from them.
So, in response to your initial assertion. Yes the House should have litigated these, because they most certainly would have won. This is the situation Nixon faced and why he resigned.
Re: (Score:3)
The Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches are "co-equal" branches of government - none has superiority over the others.
Congress can request, President and object, and SCOTUS rules.
The Congress withdrew their subpoenas, they choose not to try and defend them in the 5-4 SCOTUS. Apparently they preferred the claim that "Trump feels he's above the law" than actually submitting their subpoenas for legal review.
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Guilty of what? No laws were broken nor was he charged with anything illegal.
No laws need to be broken. That's precisely why the founders used the term of art "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is an established phrase in common law, understood at the time to be a catchall for abuse of power to work against the public interest or to create injustice.
Also, although the House didn't bother to charge it, Trump's decision to withhold the funds did actually break the law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. But that's pretty minor compared to what he was to achieve by breaking that law: Get a foreign country to help him subvert an election.
All foreign aid is predicated on doing what the US wants and part of the Presidents job is investigating corruption.
Sure, that lame-ass argument would hold water if (a) Trump had demonstrated one shred of interest in investigating corruption anywhere else or (b) he had bothered to use the proper channels to do it or (c) he hadn't "fought corruption" by firing an ambassador with a long history of corruption fighting, and done so at the request of corrupt allies who are even now being prosecuted, or... I could go on and on. I won't bother, because you won't listen; you're interested in supporting your guy, not in truth.
I will make one point, though: If Trump really believed that Joe Biden was corrupt, he should have -- and still can! -- task the FBI with investigating. They have established procedures and relationships for working with foreign governments to investigate criminal actions abroad by US citizens, and they're very effective at it. But Trump didn't do that, and he's not going to, because he knows there's nothing to find. That's why Giuliani wasn't actually trying to get Zelensky to do an investigation, but just to go to a microphone and announce an investigation. Trump didn't want an investigation, he just wanted to smear the opponent he thought he was most likely to face in November 2020. And he used the power of his office to do it.
Just keep in mind, what goes around comes around. You can bet that there will be a Democrat in office someday, maybe soon, who will exploit the precedents that Trump and the GOP have set with this farce.
I will be complaining as loudly then as I am now. Unfortunately, I think my complaints will do as much good then as they do now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh...a Democrat raped a woman in the fucking Oval Office. Did we forget that?
I certainly have no memory of it, nor can I find any reference to it. I do recall that a president got a consensual blowjob from an adult woman -- which he absolutely should not have done, given his position as POTUS and hers as an intern. But that's hardly "rape".
And, yes, I agree that Bill Clinton should have been convicted. Not so much for the blowjob, but for lying about it. Perjury isn't often prosecuted, but presidents should be held to a higher standard. That said, both a blowjob and a lie about a blowjob are vastly, vastly less harmful to our democracy than a POTUS illegally leveraging hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to extort a foreign power to smear a political rival.
If you really can't see a difference, you're blinded by partisanship.
And the First Lady threatened and slut-shamed his rape victims, with the full approval of the mainstream media?
Yes, that was despicable, and I would never vote for Hillary Clinton for dog catcher, much less president. But she wasn't president. She lost. It's time for Trump supporters to accept that.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't you been through workplace sexual harassment training?
Annually. And never once has the instructor called an improper workplace relationship "rape". Improper, yes. Potentially grounds for termination, even. But not rape. Don't cheapen the word.
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Right, and he was acquitted.
Sure, because the GOP rigged the trial in his favor -- including making it the only impeachment trial ever (out of 15) that didn't even include any testimony. That's not a trial. And even then a lot of Republican Senators ultimately said "Well, yeah, he did it and it was wrong, but I'm still not going to vote to convict."
Re:Donald Trump is above the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Which law is "Obstruction of Congress"? There's such a thing as Contempt of Congress and Obstruction of Justice, but they just made up "Obstruction of Congress". Please quote the law if you disagree.
Re: (Score:3)
18 USC 1505
Re: (Score:3)
What?
What threats of force did Trump use?
By the way, "Congress" never subpoenaed anyone or any documents, so Trump cannot have yet violated the law, because no one had any obligation to deliver them. In addition, Executive Privilege might protect those persons/documents - we don't know because the Courts haven't ever ruled... because no subpoena was ever issued!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
- our precious president sold guns to drug cartels that were used to kill Americans
Don't forget that he ALSO used executive privilege as an argument for not responding to congressional subpoenas about Fast and Furious. In fact, Holder was found in contempt for this...
Nobody got impeached for any of this stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, forgive my ignorance, but what are you referencing here? I don't remember anything like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Partisan bullshit deserves to fail.
The funny thing is -- I can't tell if you believe one side has been doing partisan bullshit, or the other, or both? or whether partisan bullshittery is more strongly correlated with some other characteristic of people in congress?
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a new thing, either. The media's been pointing out that Romney's the first person to ever break party rank on an impeachment trial. Excessive partisanship is nothing new. It should be opposed -- I think I remember that George Washington strongly opposed it -- but at this point, I don't really know how. I think everyone's been so tribalized at this point that I
Re: (Score:2)
Only 20% of young people voted in the last Presidential election. Lowest turnout ever. You are nuts.
Re:That's cool. (Score:4, Informative)
> Trump is still impeached - that never goes away.
Congrats on ensuring that Trump will always be in the history books? I guess.
But more seriously. Whenever I see someone say "oh he is forever impeached" tells me they don't understand the process of impeachment. It's just a process to levy an accusation and bring to trial a federal official. The House accused him. The Senate acquitted him. Good job, he will forever have been accused by the House on partisan divides and acquitted. Anyone that is accused will forever have been accused. Congratulations on your tautology.
The process is over and he has been acquitted of the charges. Just like Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you have some evidence of this Russian collusion that Mueller could not find, right?
Re:That's cool. (Score:5, Informative)
Trump was chosen by the people
The 54% of voters that chose someone else might beg to differ. Hell, Trump didn't even get a plurality of votes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The crazy christian fundamentalists adore Trump. He supports all of their major policy objectives and almost all of their minor ones, so they are more than willing to overlook his womanising, wealth hoarding, gambling empire, lack of biblical knowledge and a host of other sins in the name of mutual political benefit. He is using them, and they are using him, and both are happy with the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
This entire debacle was orchestrated by Mitt. He is upset that the crazy Christian Fundamentalists lost power to Trump.
Given how his religion is despised by Christian Fundamentalists, I would find that rather surprising.
Re: (Score:3)
Treason huh.
Enjoy the next 5 years. He's on his way to a historic margin next November and will probably carry the Reps to taking back the House. You guys can't even run a local caucus.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution died today. It's every man for himself going forward.
FFS, don't be such a drama queen.
Trump was accused of violating the Constitution with evidence that required using the Democrat's patented "decoder ring" (made popular when a state politician used a word no one had ever heard before "Makaka" and he was run out of town for being a racist) that turned certain key words in the phone call transcript on their head to "prove" with pure Commander Queeg Logic, just as convincingly as Comander Queeg proved the frozen strawberries were stolen. [bing.com]
What died today, after s
Re: (Score:3)
Luckily this (impeachment) trial had 17 witnesses (we saw them on the screens in the senate, we watched them testify in Congress, and we have their sworn depositions, along with over 28K pages of documents turned over by the House Managers.
It was amusing to have House Managers play video testimony from witnesses, then rail about how the trial couldn't proceed without any witnesses.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between a witness and a deposition: you can cross-examine a witness. In fact the need to cross examine witnesses puts pressure on you to come to a justifiable conclusion.
The Republicans didn't want witnesses because they didn't want to have to defend the President; they're more comfortable attacking the Democrats. That's understandable, and they have a right to do that, but they also have a duty to examine the president's actions and to either justify or condemn them. That's their Con