The Impeachment Inquiry

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Impeachment is the process by which an elected representative may be removed from office for committing crimes while holding public office. The Constitution states that the justification for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" but it did not define exactly which crimes or misdemeanors. The SCOUTS ruled that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as part of the impeachment process is a political question and thus the House of Representatives gets to define what that phrase means. In other words, anything the House of Reprsentatives can *claim* is a "high crime or misdemeanor" is grounds for impeachment, even if the act for which they are impeaching is not, itself, a crime.

There are two articles of impeachment, one for "obstruction of Congress" and another for "abuse of power". On the first....the "obstruction" was because the Executive Branch did not immediately acquiesce and hand over every piece of paper the Legislative wanted and some of the people pushed back against Congressional subpoenas. Now, a regular court-issued subpoena has legal enforcement--if you ignore it then police/baliffs/marshals will arrest you and make you show up. A Congressional subpoena is more of a strong suggestion--they would like you to show up, please, but they cannot enforce it unless they go to a Federal Court to have it enforced. This is where the current House of Representatives failed--they did not want to wait for a court to enforce their subpoenas, so they simply said "obstruction of Congress". The laughable point is this: the phrase "obstruction of Congress" is not in the U. S. Code, the compilation of all Federal laws--it is not technically a crime.

On the second...."abuse of power" is also not defined in the U. S. Code because it is far too nebulous to define. Trump withholding military aid until the legal hold date to pressure Ukraine? Abuse. Obama withholding foreign aid to pressure a different country? Not abuse. "Abuse of power" is nothing but a political opinion, which is why it is not a crime. That being said, because the House gets to define impeachable offenses they said "this is impeachable".

The result of this will be a legacy of *dangerous* proportions--I cannot stress that point enough. In the future, if the POTUS and House of Representatives are controlled by different political parties, then any Congressional subpoena which is not met with immediate compliance is grounds for impeachment. Anything which the House can define as "abuse of power" is grounds for impeachment--and "abuse of power" can be as simple as "recalled an ambassador which was appointed by a previous POTUS from a different political party" or "signed an executive order without consulting Congress".

The real reasons the Democrats in the House did not want to take their time to investigate thoroughly are:
1) they did not want to risk tying up any Senators who are running for the office of POTUS, preventing them from attending the national convention
2) they risked uncovering exculpatory evidence which would actually have cleared the POTUS of any wrongdoing
3) the longer they dragged out the investigation without any real damning evidence would be more proof that the charges were bogus
4) they wanted to pawn off the responsibility onto the Senate. The House can claim "we did our job; they did not do theirs" or "the trial wasn't *fair*"

What is funny is that for a long time Democrats claimed that Trump was not a legitimate POTUS because Hillary won the popular vote or there were questions of foreign interference (as if Russian agents actually hacked voting machines and changed results). When they voted to impeach Trump, they actually legitimized his Presidency--you cannot impeach someone whom you think is not a legitimate POTUS!

The claim now, of course, is "the acquittal is not legitimate". Whatever--they can say what they want but that does not make it reality.

The vote not to hear witnesses was 51 - 49, which is probably what the vote to acquit will be unless one or two Democrats switch sides.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

Thanks for that Hashi - it makes it much clearer for me and easier to understand why the whole thing was sitting on such shakey ground. The next week will most likely see the end of it however and it will be back to business as usual which has to be better than indulging in pointless distractions.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

I can't wait until November to do my part and cast a vote against the Democrats. The Dems have poisoned the waters enough that I don't believe I could ever vote for one again. I am sure that I am not the only person with this sentiment.

#walkaway
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:... The SCOUTS ruled that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as part of the impeachment process is a political question and thus the House of Representatives gets to define what that phrase means. ...

[...]

... "Abuse of power" is nothing but a political opinion, which is why it is not a crime. ...

[...]
This seems like a contradiction.


Image
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9190
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

There are two articles of impeachment, one for "obstruction of Congress" and another for "abuse of power". On the first....the "obstruction" was because the Executive Branch did not immediately acquiesce and hand over every piece of paper the Legislative wanted and some of the people pushed back against Congressional subpoenas.
I was debating someone recently on this and had heard some of the Democratic leadership say something similar. If he has nothing to hide then present the documents we ask for and cooperate with us. If not, then you are showing yourself to be guilty.

What they (as lawyers most of them) should understand is that our legal system doesn't work that way. You don't have to prove your innocence and one cannot infer your guilt based on your refusal to cooperate. If they dont like that they can cede their citizenship and move where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and see how they like that.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Savor Dam
Will Be Herd!
Posts: 6140
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Savor Dam »

As a private citizen, you cannot refuse access to LEOs bearing a search warrant. Should you do so, the charge of obstruction of justice would be added to whatever charges were related to the original search warrant, and the search would still proceed. Active resistance to the search will result in still more charges...as well as more immediate consequences.

Generally, it would not go well.
Love prevails.
~ Tracie Mckinney-Hammon

Change is not a process for the impatient.
~ Barbara Reinhold

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.
~ George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

SD, that's why search warrants have a high legal bar for being granted. A warrant is a suspension of your Constitutional rights against illegal searches.
They require approval of the courts who decide if there is probable cause, not just the whims of political hacks who have already promised "We're going to impeach the motherfucker" before the current "crime" was even on the radar.

If the House had wanted to go to the courts to demand the witnesses and documents that Trump wouldn't give up, they could have. But they didn't. They wanted instead to have the talking point, "Trump is obstructing!" and hope the an ignorant electorate would just lap it up.

Our system has checks and balances. Executive, legislative, judicial. None are above the other. That's why the House doesn't have the enforcement power to demand that Trump turn over the documents. Trump--like the rest of us--can refuse to be searched. And then the cop/Congress has to get a warrant. If the cop doesn't even try to get a warrant, he can't fault you for insisting upon your Constitutional rights not to be searched.

Just because someone with an axe to grind--like your political enemies--wants to investigate you doesn't mean you are obligated to help them do it.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9190
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Exactly correct Z. Until the courts issue a warrant, you are under no obligation to help them win their case against you. It is in fact dangerous (legally) for you to do so.

In this case, the House refused to go to the courts because in their words "it would take too long". You want to talk about a dangerous precedent, that is one right there. Dig deeper. The real reason is that they dont believe that they can beat him in the General Election. So they double downed, put all their chips in, and tried to bluff the Senate. It appears the bluff is being called.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:... The SCOUTS ruled that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as part of the impeachment process is a political question and thus the House of Representatives gets to define what that phrase means. ...

[...]

... "Abuse of power" is nothing but a political opinion, which is why it is not a crime. ...

[...]
This seems like a contradiction.
It isn't. The phrase "high crime" does not actually have to be a crime, so the House may impeach for things which are not actual crimes.

One person--did not note who--has already mentioned impeaching Biden. That is definitely putting the cart before the horse.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9190
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Looks like Mitt Romney will become more of a Pariah in the GOP. He will be the only Senator to vote for impeachment and removing Trump from office.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

SoulBiter wrote:Looks like Mitt Romney will become more of a Pariah in the GOP. He will be the only Senator to vote for impeachment and removing Trump from office.
Only Republican Senator*, but yes, it's amusing how even his own niece is against him on this. The guy hates Trump so much he's willing to commit political suicide over something stupid.
User avatar
Savor Dam
Will Be Herd!
Posts: 6140
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Savor Dam »

Political suicide may be overstating the impact. Senator Romney isn't up for reelection until 2024. If today's vote is still defining to the voters of Utah at that point, then he will not have been a particularly effective Senator and will deserve to be replaced.
Love prevails.
~ Tracie Mckinney-Hammon

Change is not a process for the impatient.
~ Barbara Reinhold

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.
~ George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
DoctorGamgee
Bloodguard
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:54 pm
Location: Laredo, TX

Post by DoctorGamgee »

Acquitted on both counts, as was expected.

Sigh...Next....
Proud father of G-minor and the Bean
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Yes, the votes were 52/48 and 53/47 on articles 1 and 2, respectively--acquittal on both counts. We just wasted 6 months on the result everyone already knew was coming.

What now, Democrats? Your most powerful weapon just got wasted, meaning your only chance at victory is to win the election in November. Good luck.

How long should we leave this thread open? Another week or two?
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Why close the thread? You actually think the Dems are done trying to undo the last election?

This was a national embarrassment. In November, Pelosi was accusing Trump of bribery, then voted on articles of impeachment that never mentioned bribery. Then sat on those articles for a month. Then ripped up a SOTU speech on the House floor, throwing a pathetic little hissy fit before all of America.

It must drive Dems to the point of maddness that this orange blowhard keeps out playing them. It's sad that they can't join the rest of us in celebrating this great country and how much better off we are.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

I can live with that.

How much more bent out of shape will they be if RBGs health fails or Thomas steps down? That would be hilarious.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

We have more in the pipeline.
User avatar
Savor Dam
Will Be Herd!
Posts: 6140
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Savor Dam »

Thomas stepping down wouldn't be so bad. He really has not been a shining star of jurisprudence.
Love prevails.
~ Tracie Mckinney-Hammon

Change is not a process for the impatient.
~ Barbara Reinhold

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.
~ George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9190
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Zarathustra wrote:Why close the thread? You actually think the Dems are done trying to undo the last election?

This was a national embarrassment. In November, Pelosi was accusing Trump of bribery, then voted on articles of impeachment that never mentioned bribery. Then sat on those articles for a month. Then ripped up a SOTU speech on the House floor, throwing a pathetic little hissy fit before all of America.

It must drive Dems to the point of maddness that this orange blowhard keeps out playing them. It's sad that they can't join the rest of us in celebrating this great country and how much better off we are.
+1

The Dems have already signaled a subpoena of Bolton and a new round of investigations.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5904
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Proving once again that they've learned nothing.
Image
Locked

Return to “Coercri”