Impeachment does NOT require a crime

Nonsense. The bar for CONVICTION is different than the bar for impeachment. You continually confuse the fact that trump is impeached by congress, but TRIED by the senate. That is CONSTITUTIONAL. Amazing you can't grasp this fundamental and simple concept.

NONSENSE. You don't have a constitutional republic when your president can say to a co-equal branch of that republic = "Screw You I reject all of your constitutional defined legal powers". He's a president not a monarch for crying out loud.

Beholden to congress? I see you actually haven't read the friggin' Constitution you so vehemently believe in. Dunning Kruger reigns supreme in Trumpland.

 

Unbelievable. there are dozens of precedents set about the limits of executive privilege. Just go back to Nixon's impeachment. It sure as hell does not mean immunity from upholding the very same constitution that EVERY president swears to do at inauguration.

 

That is exactly what I said. It was the House and Schiff who turned their opinion and 2nd-hand testimony into a mountain of proof.

Others have a different opinion. All I said was the specifics of the ICA law has some murkiness especially in the area of the timing of the spending. When congress appropriates money it virtually always says spend it within the fiscal year; they never dictate money to be spent by month, week, or day. Trump didn't discuss aid on the call because it was not at all part of the conversation. Why would the DOJ weigh in? It's not their call unless they want to prosecute and they cannot prosecute either the president or the congress. Congress can sue the president and maybe a judge will rule one way or another.

 

None of what those witnesses testified to has been factually refuted by Team Turd.

 

He most certainly does. One, congress cannot subpoena the president or his senior advisors at all. Two, the executive branch does not have to respond to any inappropriate congressional subpoena for anything.

 

Correct. EP applies only to certain kinds of conversations and is not permissible in order to cover up corrupt or illegal behavior.

 

Yet they have, repeatedly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ent-trump-who-has-been-subpoenaed/3912226002/

 

Not withstanding the possible ruling by a rogue ideological District judge, congress has no legitimate legislative reason or cause to subpoena Trump's tax or financial records. At least the SCOTUS will rule that way.

The courts cannot remove a president.... if that is what you are implying (or did I miss something?). If the House needs subpoenaed witnesses and documents before a court rules on their subpoenas, that is what is known in sophisticated legal circles as tough s_ _t. I think the court will go along with the blanket "immunity" from the subpoenas if for no other reason the subpoenas are inappropriate and probably illegal as the president's lawyers explained just today. The president did not claim any executive privilege for the subpoenas.

 

The bar, limitations, and criteria applies -- in the same sentence -- to both impeachment and conviction. Again I might add to be helpful, you might find benefit in reading the Constitution.

 

There is no legal precedent for any court to rule as you assert they would. No court has ever upheld the notion of absolute immunity because if they did it would set the prez up as someone who is above the law, unaccountable to anyone or anything.

 

If you did you'd find Jonsa is 100% right.

 

A weak reply. The witnesses declined to opine on the President's guilt or innocence. And, regarding Schiff, that's what prosecutors do, they take the facts of the case and weave them into a case against the accused. It's not a referendum on the defendant's guilt or innocence via the witnesses. The jury judges the facts, the judge applies the law. In this case, the House impeached and the Senate will judge. I don't think there is any "murkiness." Here is the opening paragraph:
"Paragraph 683, Recession of budget authority, (a) Transmittal of special message - Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budgetary authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons(including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budgetary has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying - (1) the amount of budget authority which he PROPOSES to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved; (2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved; (3) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved; (4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the PROPOSED rescission or of the reservation; and (5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the PROPOSED recession or the reservation, and the decision to effect the PROPOSED recession or the reservation, and to the maximum extent practicable , the estimated effect of the PROPOSED recession or the reservation upon the ob sects, purposes , and programs for which the budget authority is provided." The emphasis on "PROPOSED" is mine to illustrate, that funding may NOT be withheld prior to the submission of the "Special Message."
So...now...produce the Special Message.

 

NEWSFLASH #4(?): It is impossible to factually refute an opinion, and, in most cases, what someone says they heard from someone else, though refuting that while possible would be extremely hard.

 

I agree that the SCOTUS will ultimately decide...and would expect a split decision on the three cases before them...granting the right to review the tax document on one or more of the three, rejection on a third. But, the Court will decide.
I believe, the failure to challenge the lack of response to the initial subpoenas by the House was a decision prompted by the October 8th letter, which was a blanket rejection of the entire House impeachment process, which then became a part of the articles of impeachment (second article). I expect there will be a vote in the Senate, following the opening statements, to call again for witnesses and documentation. Failing in that vote, I suspect the House will turn to the Courts. While neither the Senate or the Court need be influenced by the polls...I believe roughly 70% of those surveyed favor additional witnesses and documents.

 

Is the existence of an e-mail stating the prez ordered the hold on military aid to Ukraine an opinion? Is someone overhearing a conversation between Trump and Sondland discussing Trump wanting to know how receptive Zelensky was to the request to announce a Biden investigation an opinion? Is DoD receiving inquiries from Ukraine about the hold on the day of the Zelensky call an opinion?

Want to know what an (uninformed) opinion is? That there are no facts showing Trump did what he is accused of doing.

 

RodB said: ↑
One, congress cannot subpoena the president or his senior advisors at all.

Of course I was referring to real, appropriate, and legal subpoenas, not words written on scrap paper. To be honest and precise (and picky) congress actually can subpoena the president and his senior advisors as you claim, and the president and his senior advisors can deposit those subpoenas directly into the circular depository and then go about their business.

 

Thanks for your opinion about the subpoenas. Now all you have to do is actually prove you are right.

 

No court would enforce an illegal subpoena for anybody. This has nothing to do with immunity or "no man is above the law."

 

I have read it and Jonsa and presumably you are 100% wrong.

 

You have failed to show why the subpoenas are illegal.

This has everything to do with "no man is above the law" because that is the crux of Team Trump's defense.

 

The witnesses strongly implied Trump's guilt hoping that their opinions would carry the day. When asked by the defense they all admitted the truth. Most prosecutors just don't make up stuff (such as Schiff's reading of the call transcript) and bring it into court. If all a prosecutor is weak evidence, like Mueller, they walk away. If they have weak evidence woven into a weak case they won't get into any trouble from the judge, though the judge might lagh to himself and remember that prosecutor as a real stooge. Impeachment is required to have a strong case in line with the Constitution, not just whatever the House drug up in the alley at the last moment and pass the onus on the Senate. The House has nothing even close. Which is probably why they took all of their 24 hours and repeated the same old crap over and over.

As an aside, the House has at least some evidence that is exculpatory to the president which they left behind. In a criminal trial that would be a no-no and in bad cases warrant a contempt citation and even maybe disbarment.

Trump did not determine or do any of that -- murkiness.

 

Do yourself (and me) a favor. Read about the judge's ruling in the McGahn case.

“PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS”: FEDERAL JUDGE DESTROYS TRUMP'S “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” DEFENSE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling

 

If you are suggesting that if the Senate absolves the president of any impeachment charges that the House will quickly go back for a do-over impeachment, I agree. I think they will run impeachment inquiries until hell freezes over or the Dems lose the House. The WaPo headlined on inauguration day that impeachment has begun. Though the real effort had to wait for the mid-terms it got going with a focused singular dedicated unwavering objective.

 

No, not at all. Your examples are all factual. I wonder why they are not what Trump is being impeached for?

 

I readily admitted that some district judges would rule on their bias and ideology and not necessarily on the law of the Constitution. Why all the ballyhooing? Is there a material surprise or something really new here?