NYT Impeachment Hearings Open With Revelation on Trump’s Ukraine Pressure
The Hill Trump campaign dismisses Taylor, Kent testimony as 'third-hand opinions'
WE Democrat met with laughter after suggesting Trump testify before impeachment committee
CNN GOP's defense of Trump, Democrats' rebuttal and more from the impeachment inquiry
FOX Impeachment hearing testimony details Trump pursuit of Ukraine ‘investigations,’ as GOP decries ‘hearsay’
I liked this summary from CNN: 6 reasons to impeach Trump and 4 reasons not to impeach Trump. CNN's Marshall Cohen wrote an extremely detailed examination of the arguments, which I've tried to distill as much as possible.
Reasons to impeach Trump
The Hill Trump campaign dismisses Taylor, Kent testimony as 'third-hand opinions'
WE Democrat met with laughter after suggesting Trump testify before impeachment committee
CNN GOP's defense of Trump, Democrats' rebuttal and more from the impeachment inquiry
FOX Impeachment hearing testimony details Trump pursuit of Ukraine ‘investigations,’ as GOP decries ‘hearsay’
I liked this summary from CNN: 6 reasons to impeach Trump and 4 reasons not to impeach Trump. CNN's Marshall Cohen wrote an extremely detailed examination of the arguments, which I've tried to distill as much as possible.
Reasons to impeach Trump
- Trump solicited election meddling from Ukraine
- There was a quid pro quo for a White House invite
- There was a quid pro quo for US military aid
- Trump's directives to his lawyer Rudy Giuliani undercut US policy
- Trump improperly removed US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
- The Trump administration obstructed the inquiry
Reasons not to impeach Trump
- The process of the inquiry was fatally flawed
- Presidents have vast foreign policy powers
- Limited insight into Trump's state of mind
- Ukraine got the military assistance after all
15 comments:
The argument seems to be that because the president has constitutional powers, nothing he does implementing them can be an impeachable offense. The framers inserted the impeachment provisions in the constitution for window dressing never to be used. Since the president is very unlikely to be removed from office, I do think that will be the precedent set.
Something I would point out is that unlike every other elected official in Washington, the president is not elected by voters. He is the the choice of the majority of voters in the electoral college, whose names don't even appear on the ballot. What I would toss out is that because the president isn't there because of popular support, his actions while in office should be reviewed with a higher level of vigilance and scrutiny. In that context, does it really make sense to rationalize the power of impeachment allocated to Congress by the constitution? Was that what the framers had in mind when they created the unelected presidency?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I think in this case one needs to remember that this is more like political theater than anything. Each side is trying to convince voters what to do in Nov...
It is highly unlikely that the Senate will find Trump guilty unless something worse is found during the impeachment inquiry.
As for your continual complaints about small state voters having more say per vote than larger state voters. Again... It is a feature and not a flaw.
Politics is always theater. It's why so many actors make successful politicians.
--Hiram
It is highly unlikely that the Senate will find Trump guilty unless something worse is found during the impeachment inquiry.
I don't think that there is anything that Trump could do that would result in his removal from office. Let's think about what Republicans are asking us to believe. They argue that executive privilege is absolute. That means the president could plan crimes with his associates, and evidence of such planning would be protected by the constitution. If we accept the Republican view, how is it possible for a president ever to be convicted of anything?
--Hiram
Actually the CNN guy had more normal reasons for finding him not guilty...
1.The process of the inquiry was fatally flawed
2.Presidents have vast foreign policy powers
3.Limited insight into Trump's state of mind
4.Ukraine got the military assistance after all
One question is criminal intent. In Trump's delusional world was he trying to do a good thing? Maybe he can go with in insanity plea. :-)
The Hill Guilty of?
What is odd is that Trump and the GOP want due process...
And yet they are not allowing key witnesses to testify.
In what court case can witnesses other than accused say no?
I mean how bad is it if the Congress can not compel the Secretary of States to Testify?
Would the GOP have allowed Obama to block his secretaries from testifying?
I don't think the GOP wants due process. They want to disrupt the process in order to save Donald Trump. Republicans have expended no effort at all to make their positions plausible. One instance of this I have been talking about this morning (there are always so many to choose from) was when they asked the witnesses if they thought what they were describing was an impeachable offense. Well, I have watched a lot of lawyer tv shows over the years and never once in any of them did the prosecuting attorney ask a witness if he thought the defendant had committed the crime with which he is charged. The reasons for this are obvious, and I think it is impossible for any reasonable person not to be convinced by them yet Republicans argued that the failure to answer those questions supported this case. In making these kinds of arguments, Republicans can't hope to convince anyone, they are just taking up time and space, knowing that the underlying reality is that they have the votes, and those who object to a president who has committed crimes will just have to get over it.
--Hiram
It was strange that Trump crows about the witnesses not having an answer.
I agree that it is not the job of the witness to name the crime...
And as often noted, if it is such an innocent excellent call... Why isn't Trump testifying under oath?
Witnesses are not jurors.
Why isn't Trump testifying under oath?
I am amused that Ken Starr has weighed on these issues to the effect that the prosecutors have gone way too far. The principal reason why special prosecutors are in disrepute was because Starr so vastly exceeded his brief Mueller was acutely aware of how Starr abused the process and was scrupulous about staying within his authority. It was the right thing to do, but without good faith cooperation from the Justice Department, his work was rendered useless. The further downside seems to be that when Trump found he could get away with his Russian shenanigans, aided by an attorney general who would look the other, he felt he could get away with anything, and so he escalated.
--Hiram
"The process of the inquiry was fatally flawed"
How so?
Sean,
I think <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/trump-impeachment-arguments/index.html?utm_source=CNN%E2%80%99s+Impeachment+Tracker&utm_campaign=cd09ef548a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_12_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_84015bed88-cd09ef548a-108420857>those statements came from this piece</a>.
"The process of the inquiry was fatally flawed
Trump and congressional Republicans have complained about the process from the very beginning, and they're likely to continue raising these procedural concerns until the bitter end. Trump tweeted on Sunday that his "due process" rights were being trampled.
Primary among their concerns is the fact that Trump's lawyers don't have a guaranteed role in the private depositions and public hearings, which means his legal team can't cross-examine witnesses. Republicans are also upset that they don't have unilateral power to issue subpoenas.
"They are going to say that the process was not designed to get to the truth," Garber said, noting that Clinton's lawyers were given the right to participate in his impeachment proceedings.
House Republicans recently appointed Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio to the House Intelligence Committee, which will handle the first public impeachment hearings. Jordan has been making the case that the inquiry was "completely unfair" and deprived Trump of his due process rights.
If the House votes to impeach, the few Senate Republicans who might have reservations about Trump's actions with Ukraine could still vote for his acquittal and place the blame on Democrats for tainting the investigation.
"Republicans will remind us of the incredibly high standard for impeachment, and that in the entire history of our country, no president has been found guilty of meeting that standard," Garber said. "The standard is so incredibly high, and the costs to the country are so serious.""
Personally I think they are incorrect, though it was strange how much leaked during the closed door sessions.
I thought the goal was to make sure everyone testified with no idea what others were saying...
"Personally I think they are incorrect, though it was strange how much leaked during the closed door sessions."
The Trump-era investigations (Mueller and the impeachment inquiry) have been much more buttoned down than say, the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton, which was a leakfest -- particularly as it related to the grand jury testimony.
Personally I thought it was funny that the GOPers complained about the leaks...
I think they were just mad that they had no good "defense" news to leak...
Post a Comment