Alexander has a truly novel reason why no witnesses are necessary – we already know Trump is guilty AF! (But that is not grounds for removal.)
The logic goes like this:
* There’s no doubt that Trump did what he is accused of
* Therefore, we need no more witnesses or evidence. It’s proven.
* But what he did does not merit removal.
Honest to God, I’m not kidding. That really is his argument. See the Tweet below. Overwhelmed by a mountain of uncontradicted facts, and still intending to vote against removal, some GOP senators have obviously decided to salve their consciences with the “Yeah, he did it, but it’s not impeachable!” argument.
That’s actually a pretty clever position. Weaselly, but brilliant, because it allows them to vote “nay” on removal and “nay” on witnesses while avoiding the accusation of a cover-up. In essence: “When we voted to exclude witnesses, that was no cover-up. We already knew what he did, so what did we need additional proof for? But even given our knowledge that he did everything he is accused of, we can’t agree that it reaches the bar for removal from office.”
The reason that position is so brilliant is that it is defensible. What Trump actually did is not a matter of opinion. It’s a fact. He did it. There’s overwhelming proof. But whether that is sufficient grounds for removal IS a matter of opinion because the Constitution leaves plenty of wiggle room. People can argue that Trump has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or they can argue that he has not, and scholars could debate this ad infinitum with erudite references to the Federalist Papers and citations from precedents, but no matter how long they argue, neither side can say “The definition of a removable offense is completely clear.”
I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.1/15
— Sen. Lamar Alexander (@SenAlexander) January 31, 2020
Thank you for the knowledge and effort you have put into your posts, UncleScoopy. I have learned things, which is good for me.
Mom:
The JA was in ref to the “younger generation of freethinkers” nonsense. I don’t know what’s worse – that stuff or “My 401 is cool so Trump is cool”.
The latter makes me want to think that Jugurtha’s comment in Sallust about the venality of Rome would fit this country too.
The GOP just went all in on the argument that a President can do whatever he/she wants because the person in the office IS the state and should not be questioned.
I hope every single bit of these soundbites are saved after Trump is out of office this year, and I’m all for Bernie this fall going scorched earth on the GOP with executive orders.
Idiots voted this moron in, and he’s done nothing for anyone except make the billionaires wealthier, and for his own personal gain. McConnell has played his ends justify the means card to the end with Trump, and the boomerang is going to come back around soon enough.
Hope when Bernie is running this thing, the filibuster is killed, SCOTUS is stacked with another 7 judges of his choosing, the corporate tax rate triples, and people like Donald Trump have their wealth frozen and annexed.
GOP wants to play hardball with the destruction of the world for never ending greed, I’m game for going full Mad Max. The people of this country weren’t put on this earth so Donald J Trump and the rest of the billionaires milk this world of resources for their greed and gluttony.
Life is about more than people being slaves to the next dopamine hit for a billionaire. What goes around comes around.
You sound jealous. Sorry you didn’t find the success you felt you were entitled to
Actually I’m pretty well off, not that I get my dopamine hit off of the stupid shit you probably spend your money on. But after having a certain amount of expendable income, you realize how completely pointless having any more than yours means is, while people out there die because they have diabetes and can’t afford insulin – because billionaires out there want a little more.
You want to be bent over by billionaires like the bitch you are? Be my guest. I’m willing to bet you’re not one of them if you’re on this forum, so I’m not exactly sure why so many people like yourself take it up the ass for the 160 people that own half the world’s wealth.
But you seem like the type to be the founding member of a ‘cuck for billionaires’ fanclub.
Why do I have to be a billionaire to enjoy this economy? I’ve made a ton of money. I couldn’t care less what someone else has. I get mine. That’s all that matters. You are the one obsessed with taking down billionaires and, like I wrote, that sounds like jealousy.
It’s not taking down billionaires, its the fact that there are a finite amount of resources on this earth. I don’t care about the money going to ME. I care about it doing things this earth is capable of doing, but for some reason people like you choose not to. Like, fighting cancer. Fighting disease. Fighting hunger.
And you seem to be in a fact free world to not know who is targeted, so a couple simple questions. Is your net worth $32 million or more? I’m guessing not if you’re on here. Then you aren’t even effected, so back to your question: why should YOU care then?
“This wealth tax would only apply to net worth of over $32 million and would raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade. Anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.”
Another hypothetical question. 160 people in the entire world hold half of the earth’s wealth. Do you think we live on this planet to be slaves for them? Do you think that any human being on this earth can POSSIBLY be worth that much to earth as a whole just based on consumable goods?
Would you rather that money to go to, I don’t know – ANYTHING else? Like fighting cancer, for instance?
This isn’t a difficult equation. The ones targeted aren’t even you, no matter how well you’ve done for yourself.
If you’ve had a family member die of cancer or any other disease or illness, I’m not sure how you can sleep at night knowing you chose not to do anything about that, among other things, when you could have. All because of some fictional narrative that the evil liberals are going to attack a tax bracket you’re not even close to.
I have no interest in gettin into my personal finances here. I also have no interest with putting another loon in the White House. I don’t believe in free college. I don’t believe in illegal immigration. And I know what a nightmare a single payer healthcare system looks like. You want to see people dying of cancer? You’ll get it. The billionaires who you despise will put the elite doctors on payroll for their personal use. The millionaires will band together and go to private pay concierge practices and the other 90% will wait months to see doctors hundreds of miles away who don’t speak English. No thanks.
I also don’t think it’s possible to fund anything without raising taxes across the board and Bernie said on the debate stage that he will raise taxes on the middle class.
I’m a Bloomberg supporter if that matters. But I will vote for trump over sanders or warren.
Lots of fiction there, it doesn’t happen in other countries Steve. Hell it didn’t even happen here decades ago. When people go bankrupt over an ER trip in the US, and you’re worried about lines being too long, it’s a little bit ridiculous. Putting life or death situations into terms of ‘I can’t afford it’ because the executives of Merck should make billions of dollars.
This idea of ‘well cant do anything because billionaires will just hold everyone hostage’ is a defeatist joke, and not based in fact. We not only pay more for public insurance here, we pay more for private overhead as well.
We put the most money as a country into the health industry in the entire world and get the least of it out. For someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, you seem pretty damn comfortable paying trillions in overhead so executives can get rich on up-charging 100-1000 times the cost of things like insulin or other cheap to make drugs.
It’s a simple equation – life or death situations should not involve the overhead of a for-profit industry. I don’t even care if the government is involved – put the money to Universities and non-profit research organizations. For some reason this shit didn’t happen when the creator of the polio vaccine wasn’t slapping a patent on it to make money, was it?
Add up every single quarter of profit for every single pharmaceutical and insurance company the past 10 years and cut the overhead out and re-balance the executive compensation and you see exactly why it’s so expensive.
You can be a do-nothing centrist or conform to defeatism that the billionaires are going to hold the system hostage, I’m not.
For an independent, you sure sound like a MAGAt.
I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I despise sanders and Warren who seem to think they can spend my money better than I can.
A syphilitic longshoreman can spend your money better than you can.
Steve, you think your tax dollars will be wasted on essential service?
I’m alright Jack, the rest of you can go fuck yourselves…
In your infinite wisdom, how do economies that perpetually spend more than they earn, borrow more than they can pay back, end?
It was only 100 years ago that the paper economy started to collapse and caused the Great Depression… That was a reset of wealth and power, and you will be one of casualties of this reset, will you still think that the I’m alright Jack philosophy works or will you mature your views?
You are very NOT socially liberal, Steve. As far as I can make out from your posts, you care about your money, but not your country or its people. Any government that MIGHT raise your taxes is, by you, socialist and worse than Trump (or Hitler). From what you write here, that is the truth about you.
As far as fiscally conservative, no one who has voted Republican since Bush the Younger’s first term can call themselves that. They have spent like drunker sailors, but refuse to tap the one source of wealth that could pay for it – the earnings of the top 0.1%.
So, even if you can’t stop kidding yourself, please stop trying to kid us. We (or at least I) am tired of your act.
Yes, Steve never grew up.
l’etat c’est moi…spoken by that pillar of democracy Louis XIV. The French Revolution followed.
I’m sure in the next decade or so, the US will have it’s own ‘Storming of the Bastille’ – by the younger generation of free thinkers who haven’t been brainwashed to defend the ruling class like Steve here.
At some point, society will come to realize most societal ills could be solved with the realization 7.7 billion people were not put on this earth to worship and be slaves for a few hundred. That the chemotherapy someone has to try to stay alive shouldn’t come with having to sell their house. That heart and lung disease from pollution and terrible work conditions doesn’t have to happen.
These are a choice people SPECIFICALLY make. Currency is a societal construct, and how it is distributed and determined who controls it is a decision made by society.
You either believe 7.7 billion were put on this earth to be slaves for a few hundred, to grant individuals like the Saudi royal family more wealth they could ever spend in a hundred lifetimes, or you don’t. I choose not to, and I don’t see how any rational human being would choose otherwise.
So your perspective is we are all in this together? I didn’t ask you to worry about me. I won’t worry about you either. If you feel like a slave, that’s on you. I’m certainly no slave and I also don’t care about you. You’re not my friend or family. Feel free to give your money to the poor. Just stay away from mine.
From the last post: do you have $32 million net worth? Then shut up, because your narrative isn’t factual to even effect you. Sanders isn’t raising your taxes a damn bit, so research the facts.
For some reason, you seem more concerned with billionaires gains than your own. Why you choose to believe some fictional narrative about where your money would go instead of common sense is beyond me.
But hey, when the next person close to you dies from something preventable if the world’s resources were even CLOSE to in check, by all means keep believing you couldn’t do anything about it.
One generation got old. Another generation got soul.
Where have I heard this shit before?
Where are you hearing it now?
Also, Jefferson Airplane
Good luck from Europe.
Louis probably never said it. And the Bastille was 74 years after he died.
Tanner said “l’etat c’est moi…spoken by that pillar of democracy Louis XIV. The French Revolution followed.”
Well, that’s right, Tanner, although the connection is not a direct one.
What happened, as I understand it, was the French aristocracy kept getting themselves more and more tax exemptions. Because you become an aristocrat by buying a new title, more and more rich people became aristocrats.
Over time, this meant heavier and heavier taxes for those who were not aristocrats. The aristocrats diverted attention from themselves by blaming this on mismanagement by the king(s).
After the spending a lot of money fighting the British in the War of the American Revolution, France was broke. The king was forced to call the French parliament for the first time in more than a century. The aristocrats had pretended to be the friends of the commoners against the king, but this was quickly disproved when the aristocrats voted down every feasible solution to the financial crisis, because they all involved taxing the aristocrats. The commoners began to turn against both the aristocrats and the king.
When the king realized that things were getting out of hand, he tried to dissolve the parliament, but failed. (This Louis was not a bad man, but he was an ineffectual king.) This started the slide to the Revolution, the Terror, and Napoleon’s Empire – a full generation of bloodshed.
So the situation in America today is even more similar than one might think, because of the financial aspect and the way the rich have shirked paying for the state they live in. If the US dollar collapses and takes the US economy with it, who knows what will follow?
My point precisely.
You had a wake up call with GFC and what did that teach you?
About three fifths of fuck all by the sound of it, and since bailing out the companies that caused it, and looking the other way when it came to actually fixing the system (now that all the safeguards have been repealed), you expect a different outcome when China becomes sick of your shit and calls in all the loans that it holds against your country?
Won’t be any need for tarrifs on Chinese goods anymore, because they will certainly own your asses.
You can’t see beyond your next election, the Chinese are looking at the next generations.
But don’t worry about it Steve, you will be alright, cause your doing OK.
For now.
It’s a nice fantasy, but a fantasy.
Scoopy: Of course, there is nothing political in the Articles. There is everything political in their intent.
If the articles were not true, of even if there was room for some slight doubt, you could make that argument, but the fact of the matter is that the President is corrupt. If they did NOT impeach him, they would be derelict in their duty. They are doing what the people elected them to do, which is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
And furthermore, there is no political advantage. Removing Trump places into the presidency somebody even more conservative and even more beloved by the Christian right. Furthermore, Pence would have the right to name any Vice-President of his choice, with guaranteed confirmation in the Republican-held Senate. Depending on the specifics of the Senate vote, he could, in fact, name Trump and then resign!
(The vote to remove somebody from office is separate from the vote to bar them from future offices. Amazingly, most of those removed from office have NOT been barred from future offices. There is now a man in the House who was formerly impeached and removed from a federal judgeship.)
There is no question in my mind that if Clinton had been convicted and removed from office, Al Gore would have won in 2000. The Clinton impeachment certainly didn’t benefit the GOP, but I think it was the right thing to do.
I don’t think the Trump impeachment will benefit the Democrats politically. I am not sure if it will ultimately help Trump. But Trump has made himself so hated by nearly half the country, I think there are a substantial number of Democrats that would support removal even if they knew Pence would win in 2020 and maybe even 2024. I don’t particularly like Pence, but really only because of the way he talks about Trump. I’d be perfectly content if Trump was removed and Pence won reelection.
SeeK mental help if you haven’t already.
The two sides have done all the political damage they can muster, at the suffrage of the public. The real test will be in the steps to be taken to prevent this political scrawl from happening again – worse yet, from becoming common practice.
There’s nothing political about the impeachment articles. Trump did the very thing that the founders were most afraid of – enlisting a foreign power in an effort to influence an American election.
However, his exoneration is certainly political. The Republican senators know he’s guilty, and they know his offenses are just about the worst a president can possibly commit, and are certainly impeachable. We all know why they can’t vote that way. They are terrified of the wrath of Trump’s base.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
(the oath of the Senate)
These people are damned lucky they can’t be charged with perjury.
“Presidents don’t need to be removed because they can be voted out.”
Hamilton and Madison had it all wrong then? Not bloody likely.
If he broke the law I’d feel differently. But even Clinton broke the law and he was acquitted.
Clinton broke no laws, although he certainly brought shame on the office of the Presidency.
Trump has broken many, many laws.
In the matter of withholding the aid to Ukraine without any justification or prompt notice to Congress, he broke the law even if no conditions were imposed.
In the matter of asking a foreign power to help him in a re-election bid, he broke election laws.
Even if those things were not tied to one another, each of them separately was a crime. If they were tied together, then he was guilty of many more crimes, including extortion, bribery and racketeering. Since Ukraine is an ally of the United States, and therefore it can be argued that their enemy is our enemy, by improperly withholding military aid, Trump could arguably be charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is actually a capital crime! I would not take it that far, but it is certainly a plausible position.
(Not mentioned in the impeachment, but already decided by the courts – Trump broke election laws in the payoffs to Stormy and the other woman. Michael Cohen is now serving time for breaking those laws with Trump, but Trump could not be indicted because he is a sitting president. If Trump had held any other office but President – even senator, vice-president or justice of the supreme court – he would now be in jail with Cohen.)
But those are just a few examples of his long list of crimes.
He committed perjury which is most certainly a crime. It’s actually a felony
That is commonly stated, but is not actually true.
The funds were released prior to the deadline. No crime was committed. You can argue that it was because he got caught but you can’t prove that. The money was released and he didn’t receive anything for releasing them.
Clinton most certainly committed perjury and the first article of impeachment was perjury. To your earlier point about trump, the same holds true for Clinton. If he was not a sitting president he would have gone to prison.
No matter how many times you or the wild-eyed right-wing nutbags repeat that, it is certainly not true under any definition of perjury.
First of all, he never lied. He only misled some lawyers who were not clever enough to ask the correct questions. The Supreme Court ruled in the Bronston case that answers given to questions under oath that are literally truthful but unresponsive or technically misleading do not constitute perjury, and that the proper remedy is clarifying questions by examiner.
Second of all, it wouldn’t matter if he did lie. Not every lie under oath is perjury. It is only perjury if the lie is material to the commission of a crime or other legal matter. Let’s say you are on trial. The DA asks you if you are wearing a wig. You lie and say “no.” If that is somehow material to the trial, then you have committed perjury. (Let’s say if the murderer is known to have been bald.) But it is irrelevant and immaterial to the proceedings, then there is no perjury. Getting a blowjob is not a crime, so even if he had lied outright about it, it would still not be perjury.
The timing has nothing to do with it and is not relevant in any way. He broke the ICA.
Scoop, that’s a GAO issued opinion. That’s a far cry from being convicted in a court of law.
It is just an opinion, but is not contested. There is no legal argument against that opinion. The fact that there is no conviction is again irrelevant. There cannot be a conviction as long as he is President. It is the same as the Cohen case. He committed the crimes, but can’t be charged with them … for now.
And you’re missing the really big ones. (1) Asking a foreign power to interfere in an American election is a crime in and of itself – and the greatest fear of the founding fathers! (2) Denying military aid to an ally at war after that aid had been approved by Congress is really on the very edge of treason. It would hinge on the legal dispute around this question – Is the enemy of our ally to be legally considered our enemy? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then the President actually committed treason. Again, I personally would not answer that question with a definite “yes,” but it’s a position that is debatable.
The GOA has said that it was a crime. I’ll take their word over the blithering if a so called independent who keeps parroting GOP falsehoods.
“Attempted bribery” is bribery, legally. “He didn’t receive anything for releasing them” is not a defense.
The question I am addressing is whether perjury in a civil case which is rarely prosecuted and results in house arrest qualifies as a “high crimes and misdemeanors. “ It doesn’t and the impeachment of Clinton was blatantly political.
I’d appreciate sourcing for Scoopy’s comment regarding the details of the “loophole.”
This link might do the trick
Well, Clinton was disbarred for some reason. Most would say for committing perjury.
He misled and spun under oath in a judicial proceeding. If you were the state or federal authorities, is that the kind of guy you want practicing law in your jurisdiction?
I never said Bill Clinton was a decent human being, just that he did not commit a crime.
He was never indicted or charged with that in a criminal proceeding (let alone convicted),
and
He was accused of that by the House, and was overwhelmingly cleared by the Senate. Not only did the Senate fail to get the required 67 votes, but they couldn’t even muster a majority. The article was defeated 55-45.
Hey, I don’t want to be in the position of defending Clinton, but even if he did commit felony perjury as the Limbaughs and Alex Joneses of the world insist, his actions did not in any way present any danger to the country or its citizens, and had no bearing on any election (it was his second term). It was all just personal crap and had no business in an impeachment proceeding. You should impeach somebody for being a corrupt president, not for being a sleazy horndog.
Having said that, I sure wish he was still president. In fact I’d prefer to have Bush, Kerry, Obama, Hickenlooper, Zombie Dead Reagan, the ghost of Barry Goldwater, Romney, Pence, Bob Eubanks – pretty much any other American. Even Dick Cheney.
Tanner, I suppose if someone was accused of breaking a law that was on the books but that was never prosecuted, you could argue that it wasn’t really a crime. For instance, as I understand it, the Logan Act has been on the books for more than 220 years, but no one has ever been convicted of violating it. The argument against a violation of such a law being a crime is that people have no reason to be aware it is a crime because it is never enforced.
But civil perjury is regularly prosecuted even if only a small percentage of people that are alleged to have perjured themselves are prosecuted. But no one who is prosecuted for it would get very far arguing to the judge that since it is so rarely prosecuted their case should be dismissed.
Try conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. You don’t need to commit a crime to be disbarred.
Clinton did break the law. He was disbarred for perjury and obstruction of justice. The obstruction was allegedly urging other witnesses to lie. The Arkansas Bar clearly felt there was enough evidence of this to disbar him, but I don’t know what the evidence was.
But Clinton unquestionably committed perjury in a civil deposition when he lied about sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton tried to claim oral sex wasn’t sex, but the federal judge present at his deposition (a former law student of Clinton’s) had given an exhaustive definition of sex that included oral sex so that Clinton would only have to answer one question about it. Otherwise Paula Jones’ attorneys would have asked dozens of questions about every kind of sex they could think of.
Lots of people like to argue that no one is ever prosecuted for perjury in a civil deposition. When I worked in a legal clinic for prisoners at the Alderson Federal Prison Camp for women (Martha Stewart’s old home), I met 2 sisters who were there for committing perjury in a civil deposition. They hadn’t lied about oral sex, rather they had lied about chickens. But lying about any material fact in a deposition is a felony. Clinton isn’t a felon, but only because he was never prosecuted.
Perjury in a civil case is almost never prosecuted as a crime. The penalty typically is the party committing the perjury loses the case. If you don’t know the law, don’t practice it. The fact that you are aware of an alleged exception to that standard doesn’t change how perjury in civil cases is dealt with. I suggest those sisters had incompetent legal representation if that was the only reason they were in Federal Prison. I doubt it was.
I just read Scoopy’s argument about why Clinton didn’t commit perjury. Let me explain why that’s wrong.
He is right that a literally true but misleading answer cannot constitute perjury. But his answer was literally false because the judge sitting at the table as the deposition was going on had given an exhaustive definition of sex. It’s not that Paula Jones’ attorneys weren’t skilled enough to ask the proper question. Clinton’s lawyers had objected arguing he shouldn’t have to answer multiple questions about sex with Lewinsky. So before he answered, the judge gave Clinton a definition of “sex” that included receiving oral sex. While it can be argued that oral sex does not meet the ordinary definition of sex, it did meet the definition supplied by the judge before he gave his answer.
Sexual contact with Lewinsky was a material fact. A fact is material in a deposition if it would be admissible at trial or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Clinton was accused of sexually propositioning and sexually harassing a subordinate. Therefore, any questions about sexually propositioning or about any sexual relationships he might have had with subordinates were material. That is why the judge ordered Clinton to answer. If the answer wouldn’t be material, she wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of creating that definition. Well the lawyers probably argued over it and she just accepted what they agreed to. But that wouldn’t have happened if the answer wasn’t material.
Clinton’s history of propositioning subordinates and/or sexual relationships with them could be admitted as evidence of a pattern or practice. It’s also possible that other subordinates might testify that they were propositioned in the same or similar crude way Paula Jones claimed she was. But in order to depose these potential women, they first need to find out if they existed and who they were. Finally, by having evidence that he had sexual contact with an intern, it prevents Clinton from claiming he would has never and would never proposition a subordinate.
Of all the people that argued that Clinton shouldn’t have had to answer embarrassing questions about sex, I never heard one argue for the creation of a privilege that would allow people accused of sexual harassment to decline to answer embarrassing questions about sex. Why shouldn’t poor Harvey Weinstein be allowed to keep his sexual history private?
I agree that Clinton’s perjury may not have been a threat to the nation. But in my opinion it did do damage. I practiced employment law in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal. I had a client that had been told by a bank executive that they force people out after they turn 40. My client later turned 40 and was suing because he was terminated. Another bank employee had been present for the conversation, admitted to me that the executive had said exactly what my client said he said, but informed me that if I subpoenaed him for a deposition he would lie. He told me perjury was no big deal, Clinton had done it.
I believe it is important for people to testify truthfully when under oath. If you agree with me on that, understand that Clinton convinced some people lying under oath was no big deal.
Tanner I may be a little rusty, but I did go to law school and I did pass the NY Bar exam. I also practiced in an employment law firm for several years where we represented both plaintiffs and defendants in sexual harassment suits.
Honestly, I have no idea what percentage of people accused of perjury in a civil case are prosecuted. I imagine it’s low because perjury is alleged fairly often in civil cases. But perjury in a civil deposition is a crime and people are prosecuted and convicted for it. Clinton committed a crime, perjury, for which he was disbarred. You can say he was never convicted, but you can’t say he didn’t commit a crime, at least not honestly.
See https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/08/is-civil-perjury-punishable.html and references therein for a discussion. It’s rarely prosecuted.
I accidentally posted this one thread to high. But I am re-posting it here just so the conversation is easier to follow. I am sorry for any confusion.
Tanner, I suppose if someone was accused of breaking a law that was on the books but that was never prosecuted, you could argue that it wasn’t really a crime. For instance, as I understand it, the Logan Act has been on the books for more than 220 years, but no one has ever been convicted of violating it. The argument against a violation of such a law being a crime is that people have no reason to be aware it is a crime because it is never enforced.
But civil perjury is regularly prosecuted even if only a small percentage of people that are alleged to have perjured themselves are prosecuted. But no one who is prosecuted for it would get very far arguing to the judge that since it is so rarely prosecuted their case should be dismissed.
You did see that the woman prosecuted for perjury In a civil case was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, right? And how rarely it it is prosecuted? You have no argument.
Tanner, what is it exactly that you think I am arguing? I am not arguing that Bill Clinton should have been prosecuted or that he would have been sentenced to prison if he had. All I am saying is that Bill Clinton lied under oath and that lie met all the elements of the statutory crime of perjury, i.e. that Bill Clinton committed a crime. I don’t understand how a woman that committed perjury in a civil deposition being sentenced to house arrest affects my analysis of whether Bill Clinton committed a crime. The woman sentenced to house arrest WAS convicted of a crime after all.
That does remind me of something I was told by several different inmates of Alderson sometime in 1998. Rumors tend to fly through prisons and these women had heard that Congress was about to pass “the Hillary Clinton Law” that would allow first time non-violent offenders to be sentenced to house arrest rather than prison. They believed this law was going to be passed so that when Hillary was convicted for Whitewater she wouldn’t have to go to Alderson. They were very excited because they thought this law would allow them to go on house arrest instead of completing their sentences in prison. I tried to explain there was no pending prosecution of Hillary and even if there was I didn’t think the GOP controlled Congress would pass a law to keep her out of prison, but they were adamant the law was going to be passed. That anecdote might seem amusing, but it really was quite sad. But I imagine there are inmates at a minimum security prison for men excited that the “Donald Trump Law” will allow them to be released early.
Where you’re wrong is that the definition the judge gave him did NOT force a clear interpretation that receiving oral sex was considered sexual relations. When Clinton was being deposed in the Jones lawsuit, one of the first things that the Jones lawyers did was to hand him the definition of “sexual relations” with three separate paragraphs. After legal back-and-forth between the lawyers, Judge Wright narrowed the definition to only the first of the three numbered paragraphs. Clinton testified that he circled part one to remind him that it was the only one that applied. Receiving oral gratification was NOT covered by that, but giving it was. By the definition he was asked to consider, Lewinsky had had sexual relations with him, but he had not had sexual relations with her. That was how Clinton interpreted the definition, and it is also how I interpreted it. Other interpretations could be considered, but the fact of the matter is that Clinton’s interpretation is a valid one, and given that perfectly valid interpretation, he did not commit perjury. I would have given the same answer in his stead.
All Jones’s lawyers would have had to ask him is whether he considered receiving oral sex to be covered by the definition, and they would have been able to pin him down further from there. But they never did ask the only question that was relevant.
If the judge had permitted the other two paragraphs, Clinton would have had to admit to having sex by that written definition. Clinton had studied the matter very carefully, and had found the loophole in the poor wording by Jones’s lawyers.
He certainly intended to mislead his questioners in the Jones deposition, but the Bronston case emphasized that intent to mislead is not the legal standard in deciding whether someone made a false statement under federal perjury law. It is up to the examining lawyer to establish a clear record of the witness’s testimony. This is something that the Jones lawyers failed to do. Instead of probing how Clinton understood phrases like “sexual relationship,” they handed him their own definition. That definition provided Clinton with an opportunity to search for loopholes – and he found them.
Oddly enough, if the judge had left in paragraph two, Clinton would have had to admit to sex with Lewinsky, not because of the BJ action, which would still not have been covered, but because of the cigar!
Who cares? You want him gone, you have your shot in November. That’s what this is all about. Presidents don’t need to be removed because they can be voted out. Stop trying to change the results of the 2016 election. Make your voices heard in 2020.
“Presidents don’t need to be removed because they can be voted out.”
Except when they abuse their power to rig elections in their favor. That’s what happens in authoritarian dictatorships disguised as democracies, and Senate Republicans have now tacitly endorsed it here.
Precisely! Some people just practice willful blindness.
What a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense. Russian bots aren’t changing anything. The hunter Biden thing stinks to all hell and should cost Biden votes. Stop making excuses and whining about monarchies and fake democracies. You just sound crazy. And I’m an independent.
You missed the point, Steve. You can’t just say “leave it to the election” because the essence of the impeachment is that he’s cheating in the election.
I guess you could argue that he’s much too stupid to cheat competently, and therefore will have no impact on the election.
I don’t see evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden as “cheating”. If something happened I want to know about it so it can be factored into my calculus for my vote.
I might consider that argument, except
(1) There has never been any suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of either Hunter or Joe Biden. the whole matter is just a desperate stunt for political gain.
(2) The witnesses have testified that Trump had no interest in anything about Ukraine. He just wanted a smear on his most likely opponent.
(3) As Sondland testified, Trump had no interest at all in whether Ukraine actually conducted the investigations. He only wanted Zelensky to ANNOUNCE them publicly. Again, just political theater.
As Lamar Alexander conceded, there is absolutely no doubt that Trump did everything he is accused of. There is a mountain of evidence against him, no evidence for him, and he is preventing anyone else with knowledge of the matter from coming forward. I think we all know very well what Lamar knows – that if any of Trump’s people could exonerate him, he would be personally driving them over in a golf cart to testify.
Let’s face the real facts – every single Republican senator (or maybe all but five of them) knows that a vote to remove is the correct vote. Apparently they are even saying that off the record. But they simply can’t afford to do it because Trump’s rabid followers would turn on them hard, not only to defeat them in primaries, but possibly to threaten them and their families. There is no longer a tough man of principles like Goldwater to stand up and say “I’ll take my changes with the crazies. I have to do what’s right.” I sympathize with those poor schmucks. In their shoes I would probably do the same. I would not want to destroy my career and, more important, I would not want to bring the wrath of the nutbags on myself and my family.
I disagree that there has never been a suggestion of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden and his role with Burisma. I don’t believe there have been serious allegation of ILLEGALITY and thus there is no justification for a criminal investigation. But there are many people, myself included, that believe it is wrong for Hunter Biden to cash in on his name and relationship to the US Vice President, to secure a position paying him $50,000 per month for which he does not otherwise seem qualified. If Joe gets the nomination I expect we will here quite a bit about Hunter and other Biden relatives cashing in on Joe’s positions. But Joe Biden is still way more honest and ethical then Trump.
Your point makes no sense at all. Are you saying that if your dad was Vice President, and (let’s say) Shell Norway offered you a cushy job overseas, you should be legally prevented from taking it? On what basis? The law has no authority to punish you for the crime of being related to your dad.
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if such a thing were even remotely possible, the Trump family would be forced to divest all of their international holdings, since their dad has tremendous influence over decisions which can mean millions of dollars lost or gained for them. Perhaps that would be a good idea, but such a law will never exist. Burisma offered Hunter Biden a job, and he took it. At the same time they also offered a board position to the ex-president of Poland and some powerful French financier whose name I have forgotten. All of those hires were meant to make Burisma seem legit and remove the stain of their former money laundering accusations. I get that. But even though I would have known I was being hired as a figurehead, if I had been Scoop Biden, I would have taken that job in a heartbeat. Why in the world would I refuse?
Also, directors are very often just some random schmucks who are hired despite no relevant experience in the field. Trump knows that and is being disingenuous. As I recall from my days with Southland, our board included all sorts of people who had not only zero experience in retailing, but had no experience in business at all, or even in government. I think one of the guys on the board was a plastic surgeon. God only knows what he contributed at board meetings for whatever lavish package they gave him to be on that board. Maybe he provided free face lifts for the officers’ wives. But the point is that it’s just SOP on corporate boards. There’s nothing out of the ordinary about Biden being recruited.
Scoopy I guess I was unclear. It’s not that the Biden family cashing in is a crime, it’s not. You are also right that making that behavior illegal would be difficult, if not impossible to do fairly. But voters are free to decide if that behavior should reflect on Biden and if so whether he is worthy of their vote. I think we will see many ads attacking Biden about this if he is the nominee. My personal opinion is it stinks, but it pales in comparison to Trump’s misdeeds. Given a choice between Trump and Biden, I, the former president of the Washington and Lee Law School chapter of the Federalist Society will vote for Biden. Just don’t nominate a socialist instead.
Good point. It’s like the classic Wizard of Id cartoon, where someone enters the voting to find two levers: “The King” or “The Other Guy”. In front of the The Other Guy there is a clearly visible trap door if you pull that lever.
If Russia could rig up that system for Trump, anyone want to guess whether he’d accept it? Who needs electoral votes after all!
“enters the voting booth”
There is no effort to overturn the 2016 election. Mike Pence was also elected then, and his politics are probably more conservative than Trump’s. The Dems would not be trying to make Mike Pence president unless they felt that serious crimes had been committed.
Except they didn’t accuse him of a crime. They accused him of one activity which has a subjective threshold (abuse) and another that needs to be litigated (obstruction).
He WAS accused of many crimes, and the House managers arguments repeatedly summarised them. The Impoundment Act violation — a strict liability felony — was referenced most often. It exists precisely to restrain Presidential conduct; no one else can violate it.
And then there is solicitation of foreign campaign assistance. You don’t need to tell a roomful of Senators that it is a crime to solicit something of value in connection with a campaign from a foreign national. Each of them knows it would be a felony if they did the same thing. You don’t need to repeatedly cite the particular statute, 52 USC sec. 30121(a), that shows Trump committed another felony here. And note 52 USC sec. 30121(a) only requires a “quid”, not a “quo”, as Lindsay Graham noted all the way back in September. If the President solicited foreign aid that alone is a felony whether or not he offered to do something in exchange for that aid.
And if he DID offer to do something in exchange for that ‘favour’? If there was an actual “quid pro quo” proposed by Trump? Then it is bribery. As the House Managers conclusively argued and proved.
You only have to listen to the proceedings.
There is also the possibility that Trump will emerge as an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing money laundering trial of Parnas and Fruman. After all, someone must have been behind ordering them to break the laws that they did in seeking to aid the Trump re-election campaign. As Deep Throat famously said in Watergate times: “Follow the money.”
Seriously, if they were going to investigate and prosecute ALL his crimes. it would take forever. Far as I’m concerned, the best thing the House could have done would have been to have impeachment ready to go at 8:0 a.m., day 1.
Obstruction of Congress cannot be litigated. Impeachment is the only remedy. If the courts order him to do something, he can simply refuse, and what can the courts do about it? Nothing. He can’t be prosecuted because he is the president. He can however, be impeached and removed by Congress, and that is the process currently underway. If, for some reason, he were found guilty on the charge of Obstruction of Congress, there is no judicial appeal. The Senate has the sole power to remove a president. This is one of the very few places where the Constitution is extremely specific. He will, of course, be exonerated, and there is no appeal there either. As they say on the game shows, the decision of the judge (the Senate in this case) is final.
If the courts do ultimately rule against him, he can simply ignore them. Again, because he is the sitting president, he can’t be charged with a crime. If he does so, the only recourse of the American people is for Congress to go through this process again.
As for the other point, they did not specifically NAME a crime as the title of any article of impeachment, but the actions detailed in that article encompass, many, many crimes, as I’ve mentioned. The “not accused of a crime” argument is just a talking point used by right-leaning media, but has no real meaning.
Obstruction of Congress can be litigated. During Watergate, Nixon claimed executive privilege on his tapes. But the courts, including the Supreme Court, ordered that the tapes be given to Congress. You are right, that if Nixon had refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s order, impeachment would be the only remedy. I recall the Supreme Court ordering Andrew Jackson to stop violating the rights of (I believe) the Cherokee. Jackson supposedly said “Mr. Marshal (the Chief Justice) has issued his order, now let him enforce it.” But in modern times, refusing to comply with an order of the Supreme Court would exact a heavy political price. I think Trump would be removed if he did that.
But, the House declined to go to court to litigate Trump’s executive privilege claims. They decided they didn’t want to wait until those claims worked there way up to the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court would have most likely ruled 9 – 0 against Trump. They could have litigated it, but they were in too much of a hurry.
Well, I suppose if you want to be technical, you can litigate it, but there is nothing the courts can do to enforce it if the president simply says “no,” so in that sense any litigation is purely cosmetic. If the courts rule in Trump’s favor, he crows about it. If they rule against him, he drags it through all levels of the judiciary to as long as possible, then refuses to comply if the Supremes rule against him
“I think Trump would be removed if he did that.”
Not a chance in hell. In order to remove him, they would have to have the backbones to face the wrath of his crazies in order to assert a matter of principle. There are very few Senators in that category. Maybe none, since McCain died. Impeachment/removal is a political process, and the facts don’t matter. The Senators want to keep their jobs. Hell, Trump has already done worse things than defy the Supreme Court. He has withheld military aid from an ally at war after our congress deemed it vital. If our congress, the same congress that thought our ally needed that aid, won’t remove him for that, they simply won’t remove him.
Republicans senators seem to be justifying the foregone acquittal by saying that what Trump did/was accused of did not warrant removal. At least many of them are saying that. But refusing to obey a lawful final order from the Supreme Court would be impossible to justify, though I am sure some would try. But I think there would be enough votes to remove him if he did that. Maybe I am wrong about that. But I think Trump would follow the order because he couldn’t be sure the Republican senators wouldn’t convict him. He would also take a major hit politically and would have to worry about a possible prosecution by the next administration. I can hear the chants now. “Lock him up!!! Lock him up!!! Lock him up!!! Come to think of it, the Dem nominee will probably hear that chant at their rallies anyway. The question is will they start and lead the chant?
You live in a cave? Are you not paying attention to what’s going on? If the election economy is still rigged, and said rigging us ignored, how the fuck is a fair election a possibility??
Oh fuck will you stop with that “overturn an election” horseshit? Impeaching Trump doesn’t make Hillary pres (thank Christ) or put Merrick Garland on the Court or get us back into the Paris Agreement. It just holds an incompetent jag responsible for his actions. Would you like to have seen Nixon stay in office through ’76? Pull your head out.
If acting totally against US interests and totally in favor of his own (and Putin’s) to strongarm a friendly country into fabricating garbage about his presumed opponent is not impeachable abuse of power what the fuck would ever be?
Getting a little blowie under the desk?
I think Lamar Alexander’s position makes a lot of sense. There are 2 questions. 1. Did Trump do what he is accused of? 2. If he did it, was it a high crime or misdemeanor? i.e. Does it warrant removal?
Witnesses are only relevant to question 1. Of the Democrats who want witnesses (i.e. all of them) how many are unsure of his guilt? They want witnesses because they hope the testimony will lead to news stories that hurt Trump politically. They may also hope that the evidence may pile so high that Trump has to stop denying his guilt, but that will never happen. Trump and his most loyal sycophants will continue to insist it was a “perfect call.” A gallup pole came out yesterday that showed double-digit increases in public satisfaction with the nation’s economy, security from terrorism, military strength and the state of race relations since Trump’s inauguration. The economy is booming and unemployment is ridiculously low. He also signed the USMCA this week. It’s hard to imagine a better week for a President, but that call was so perfect it got him impeached.
I am ready for the trial to be over, so I am fine with no witnesses because I know Trump did it. I am ready for it to be November so we can vote him out or alternatively save the US from a socialist president.
If Trump rigs the election it won’t matter how you personally vote. The whole purpose of the Ukraine deal was to have Ukraine generate fake facts at taxpayer expense (aid) to impugn Biden and draw votes away from Biden who Trump considers to be the greatest threat to his re-election. Alexander says he wants the voters to decide but you need informed voters. With the President generating false information at taxpayer expense aimed at his potential opponent, the voters are misinformed. Trump has misappropriated the power and resources of the federal government to try to ensure his re-election. That’s what dictators do and it’s clear to anyone with half a brain that impeachment was meant to stop dictatorship and the tyranny that inevitably comes with it.
Read the Federalist papers some time, particularly some of Hamilton’s work. The argument by Alexander: “The Framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. 12/15” doesn’t pass the smell test. The Framers here were concerned with sectionalism not political parties.
What Tanner said.
Even if Biden’s threat to cut off aid to force the firing of the prosecutor had nothing to do with his son’s connection to that company (and I don’t believe it did), Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board stinks to high heaven. But it wasn’t illegal. I think that’s a reason we might want to update certain ethics laws. Then again, that may be a tricky law to write. How fair is it to say “your relative was just elected so here’s a list of companies you can’t work for”?
Perhaps it’s more of a semantics argument, but I don’t think digging up dirt on your opponent or covering up a scandal constitute “rigging” an election. I remember getting into a major argument with a professor in college after the professor claimed Nixon “fixed” the 1972 election by covering up Watergate. To me “rigging” or “fixing” an election requiring manipulating vote totals in some way. While I think the Russians influenced the 2016 election with timed leaks of material damaging to Hillary, I don’t think they fixed it. That is in no way to excuse what they did as it was both wrong and illegal. Hunter Biden’s appointment to that Board was merely wrong.
If there was a chance Trump might be convicted, I’d say take as long as you need. But as that won’t happen, I say lets get it over with.
Yes, your point is exactly right. Nothing Hunter Biden did was illegal, nor could it ever be. You can’t pass a law to punish somebody for being related to somebody else. If your father was the President, the courts could not tell you who you can and can’t go to work for. If Shell Norway offers you a million bucks a year, take the cash, even though you seem unqualified. Your father and you are two different people.
Similarly, if your father is President, you can’t be asked to divest all of your real estate holdings internationally, even though he can take improper actions to protect you. Let’s say, for example, you own some very valuable holdings in Istanbul. Your dad might permit Turkey to invade another country without suffering any reprisals from the United States, even if many of America’s allies might be killed in the process, while many of America’s enemies might go free in the process. Many people might say that he was working a quid pro quo in order to protect your holdings in Istanbul, because if he did not, the Turkish president could make your life a living hell. But of course, such a thing could never really happen. That’s just a far-fetched example.
It’s withholding taxpayer funds appropriated by Congress to extort a country (Ukraine) to advance your re-election chances. That’s the issue. Some people are thick.
I have to say that the thing that bothers me the most is that the leverage he chose to use for his extortion was military aid to an ally at war – aid that Congress deemed necessary.
If he were just screwin’ around with “announce Biden investigations or no White House meetings,” I wouldn’t consider it any more than a typical dirty deal. But withholding authorized military aid to an ally at war with an invader makes it so much more serious.
Strange, unresolved matter – Ukraine never has announced those investigations. I wonder what Zelensky is thinking now. He must have been terrified of Trump’s wrath when he cancelled that CNN announcement.
It is a “well, Der” moment. This was always going to happen, as soon as the Republicans had a defensible position to hang their hats on, it was all in. You obviously will have the die hards and the Trump spouting complete vindication, and no republican denying it, but it was always going to happen.
When it is your life being a career politician (and politics is full of Laywers, the best fact manipulators in the world) and you have to appease the voters to keep you in power, you will always sway like a bamboo in the wind to remain elected.
My major concern is that, now that the bar is so low for conduct, and so high for removal, the Orange buffoon, and any future Democrat president with the same belief that the truth is whatever they say it is, will go completely rogue and ruin it for everyone who values democracy.
Russia invaded your political space, for elected the man they wanted and can manipulate, and you are now suffering the fate you deserve.
Reminds me of the Simpsons with Kang being elected because you have the two party system, and it was bad no matter who was elected.
I have said it before, it is like watching the fall of Rome, but much quicker than when that happened.
One question, for the people who think the country is great because the economy is booming, will you still believe when a recession caused by your trillions in deficit and debt come home to roost?
Still my fave bumper sticker: all red, white and blue. A flag, an eagle, and “2016 – We’re Screwed”. Sadly accurate.
And trying to rig an election is not an impeachable activity yet Alexander says let the people decide not the Senate. Hmm…there’s some circular reasoning here.
Calling the US a Republic at this point completely insults that word.