Impeachment does NOT require a crime

That is pretty well said. Except none of the three previous or attempted impeachments involved misappropriation of funds, IIRC.

 

Sorry...that isn't true. It's paragraph 683 (a)(3) of the ICA. You may look it up, but it states that the Presidential notice sent to Congress must include, "the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved."

 

How would you know? You have no idea what it says.

 

Limbaugh wrongly claims Republicans are being shut out of impeachment hearings
https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...gh-wrongly-claims-republicans-are-being-shut/

 

Abuse of Power is NOT a Crime.An Ethics violation could be related
to an abuse of power.Using one's Congressional Office for entertaining
Foreign Actors.
Abuse of Power could constitute most anything.Jonathan Turley
made the case that how the House Impeachment Mngrs. could be
accused of Abuse of Power if they act in a complete { 100% } Partisan
manner.What the Founders were profoundly concerned about.
Yet Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler Have acted precisely that way.In a
Partisan attempt to remove a sitting President.

 

After the trial implies after a vote of guilt or innocence, which then would mean a new trial altogether and, depending on the evidence, possibly putting the defendant in "double jeopardy," in a criminal case. I would say the introduction of new evidence (in the form of new relevant documentation and witnesses, which the President just admitted he has, in a press briefing this morning) is better introduced at the beginning of the trial, not afterwards. The essential purpose of a trial by jury is for a jury of one's peers to arrive at the applicable "facts" of the charge. How does the jury do that without witnesses and documentation as evidence? Seems to me that you are trying to deprive the jury of relevant factual material.

 

Appalling lack, huh???? The House judiciary almost exclusively used only the information they got from Starr including documentation Starr obtained from the WH. Nixon provided nothing to the House that the court did not rule that he had to. And quit trying to feint me out by sliding into the impeachment trial which in Trump's case has not actually begun yet.

 

Constitutional law expert explains why Trump’s attorneys should not ‘be allowed to use bogus legal arguments’ during impeachment trial
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/co...gus-legal-arguments-during-impeachment-trial/

 

But Clinton didn't stonewall Starr's investigation as Trump has stonewalled the House inquiry and now the Senate proceeding.

 

William Barr himself shot down the claim a president can’t be impeached for abuse of power: 2018 memo
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/wi...nt-be-impeached-for-abuse-of-power-2018-memo/

"One of the arguments that President Donald Trump’s legal team has been using is in his defense is that the two articles of impeachment he is facing — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — are not impeachable offenses according to established law. But legal expert Jerry Lambe, in an article for Law & Crime, writes that Attorney General William Barr himself shot down that argument in a June 8, 2018 memo.

Lambe notes that in his memo, Barr wrote, “Every four years, the people as a whole make a solemn national decision as to the person whom they trust to make these prudential judgments. In the interim, the people’s representatives stand watch and have the tools to oversee, discipline and, if they deem appropriate, remove the president from office. Thus, under the Framers’ plan, the determination whether the president is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the people, through the election process, and the Congress, through the impeachment process.” Barr, Lambe points out, went on to emphasize his belief in “political accountability.”

 

It doesn't even rise to that level. It's a totally fabricated faux legal argument. He just makes it up as he goes, and then proclaims it to be "the law".

 

What "due process"?

Tell us all what the impeachment handbook says about the process which is due.

 

Yes, Rod---when a president does that, he is obligated to give notice to Congress, and provide a policy reason for withholding the money.

 

It gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It does not give the president the ability to obstruct that sole power.

If you believe that the Constitution magically allows a president to flatly refuse to provide witnesses and evidence, please point out in the Constitution where it says that.

As an aside, you trumpublicans keep claiming that you're "strict constructionists", and yet here you are re-writing the Constitution to include things which are simply not there.

 

Then you agree with the House managers proposed amendments.

 

If a man is holding a gun in his hand and demanding your money, he doesn't have to say, "This is a robbery," for you to know this is a robbery.

Do you expect Trump to say, "Zelensky, I am now going to extort you?" That is pretty stupid.

Zelensky knew he was being backed into corner by Trump's actions and statements. It is obvious to everyone, even to those unwilling to acknowledge the truth.

 

Doesn't mean it's not grounds for impeachment. Johnson's was over an essentially Democratic President arguing with a Republican Congress over Reconstruction policy...a bad political move by Lincoln when he chose Johnson for VP. The Clinton impeachment was over perjured testimony by Clinton in either a deposition or to a Grand Jury (can't remember which). Nixon was never, of course, impeached but would have been in conjunction with the Watergate burglary cover-up. Hope you're not saying that the misappropriation of Congressionally approved funds or even the withholding of such funds without notice or cause, according to statute law, is NOT an impeachable offense, are you?

 

So you assume **** and go to trial on that basis. You'd get thrown out of every court in the U.S.

 

Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mitt Romney (UT), and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are frauds. We have learned that from the past.

In this case, for the sake of the party, they will say really nice things about witnesses and documents that all Americans want to hear. Then, when it comes crunch time, when they have to actually commit to what they are saying, they will vote the party line.

It has all happened before.

On November 3, Americans will have the final say on Trump's guilt or innocence because we all know what will happen in the Trump Republican controlled Senate, which includes Collins, Romney, and Murkowski.

 

So...to clarify. You are saying that a) all evidence to date should be transferred to the Senate and b) additional witnesses and documentation may be called for upon the beginning of the trial? And, that yesterday's amendments were out of place, because the actual trial had not yet begun and that it was simply a pre-trial session to agree upon the rules? But, that you support subsequent additional relevant evidence in the form of witness testimony and documentation?

 

Actions determine guilt or innocence, not words. Yes, I would be happy going to trial based on a criminal's actions.

 

Nah...that's why we passed RICO statutes. Based on the Giuliani stuff and the 17 House witnesses, a jury could infer Trump was working a con ...a quid pro quo and that his personal lawyer, using implied government powers, conspired to set it up. IMO, the President is one step from removal from office...that step being the testimony (or documentation) of a direct conversation in which Trump orders the withholding of the aid for his personal purposes. That may come from direct witness testimony or his own testimony - under oath.

 

I agree, the republican 'crap show' <your words, not mine> in the house was a joke, especially now that we hear about Nunes

 

only one preventing those witnesses and doc is Trump, why, cause he knows what they would say

well, republican in the Senate might prevent it too, but we do not know that for sure yet

 

It wasn't republicans that voted for the dem crap show or republicans that keep claiming false claims.