NYT Senate Impeachment Process Comparison
The politics and cover up seem to be continuing... Please note that the GOP does not seem concerned with the factual timeline, they seem to be pointing everywhere else but the facts.
As I keep asking, I wonder if they would be doing the same things if it was Obama? Or are they truly hypocrites who do not care about institutions, law and order?
Of course, the opposite question applies... Would the DEMs be out for blood if it was Obama? :-)
The polls are still tight:
Impeachment
Remove from Office
Please remember that I do not care if they remove him from office or not.
What I care about is that know the facts before they determine a verdict.
If this Summer was such a harmless wonderful non-secretive transaction, then Trump etal as Public Servants should testify under oath. Wouldn't you expect that from someone who works for you?
The politics and cover up seem to be continuing... Please note that the GOP does not seem concerned with the factual timeline, they seem to be pointing everywhere else but the facts.
As I keep asking, I wonder if they would be doing the same things if it was Obama? Or are they truly hypocrites who do not care about institutions, law and order?
Of course, the opposite question applies... Would the DEMs be out for blood if it was Obama? :-)
The polls are still tight:
Impeachment
Remove from Office
Please remember that I do not care if they remove him from office or not.
What I care about is that know the facts before they determine a verdict.
If this Summer was such a harmless wonderful non-secretive transaction, then Trump etal as Public Servants should testify under oath. Wouldn't you expect that from someone who works for you?
22 comments:
WAPO Comparison
Republicans also want witnesses
Precedent is what politicians use when they want rationalize the repetition of a mistake.
It's not that complicated. Was a high crime and/or misdemeanor committed by President Trump. I have no idea why non constitutional procedural niceties should in any way affect the substance of those issues.
Did Trump invite foreign interference in our election? I think there is reason to think he did but the indisputable fact is that a lot more evidence is easily available which might definitively the matter one way or another. Why shouldn't the American people have it so that they can knowledgeably direct their senators how to act in the matter?
--Hiram
Have you made up your mind whether Trump is guilty and should be removed from office?
Kevin Drum makes a simple case as to why Trump is guilty:
Ukrainegate Is All About a Personal Benefit
Hiram.
For better or worse our legal system sometimes let's criminals off on technicalities / violation of process / etc. (ie Miranda rights, Improper search / seizure, etc) Is that good or bad?
I agree that our civil servants and politicians should have to testify under oath. They do work for us I thought.
Though the GOPers do have a slight point, why didn't the House let the courts solve the resisted subpoena issue?
Laurie,
I think at the least they should censure his bad behavior / actions, definitely not acquit him cleanly...
As for removing from office... I just don't know where that line is... And we do have an election in ~10 months... Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to decided?
For better or worse our legal system sometimes let's criminals off on technicalities / violation of process / etc. (ie Miranda rights, Improper search / seizure, etc) Is that good or bad?
But impeachment is not a criminal trial. Nor does Trump have a right to due process. There should be no getting off a procedural grounds for him, no exclusion of evidence because of violation of rights because the president has no rights in this context.
the House let the courts solve the resisted subpoena issue?
They could have arrested the president and locked him up in the jail cell they have in the Capitol basement. But they decided that just wasn't a practical solution.
--Hiram
Of course the President / Executive branch has a lot of Rights.
As long as we have 3 equal branches of government, that would be a challenge...
Especially when half the people in Congress and half the citizens would be against it...
Of course the President / Executive branch has a lot of Rights
In this context, no. Since President Trump doesn't have a right to be president, issues of due process which apply to rights are not raised.
Each branch has it's own power. The power to impeach is vested solely in the legislative branch. Any attempt to interfere with that by the executive branch violates separation of power.
--Hiram
"Since President Trump doesn't have a right to be president"
You are so funny... :-)
It would have been nice to have a court confirm your opinion.
"...why didn't the House let the courts solve the resisted subpoena issue?"
Because IMPOTUS is meddling in the 2020 election. The security of our elections is vital to our Constitutional Republic.
Moose
"Because IMPOTUS is meddling in the 2020 election. The security of our elections is vital to our Constitutional Republic."
Also because the Trump Administration isn't playing this issue straight. It argues in front of Congress that the courts are the proper ones to decide on subpoenas. But then when it has gone to the courts they argue that the courts have no role deciding between the two other branches of government. They are merely choosing a path of obstruction.
Moose,
Correction. He was trying to make negative news about a political opponent in another country... I am not sure it would have had any impact on the US elections?
Do you think DEM voters care about the Biden Ukraine fiasco?
And that effort has been pretty well stopped...
Do you know of any other on going issues they are trying to stop or prevent with regard to the 2020 election?
Sean,
But at least then 2 branches of government would be aligned against the third...
Right now it is like 2 kids throwing rocks at each other.
what is the "Biden Ukraine fiasco" ?
fiasco: "a thing that is a complete failure, especially in a ludicrous or humiliating way."
Laurie,
Oh come now... DEMs are all over Trump and his kids for making money off the Presidency...
And Hunter Biden certainly made a lot of money because of who his father was.
The unknown question is what did Joe Biden know about and was he involved?
Do you think DEMs would care if Biden helped Hunter get that sweet high paying Director gig?
"Do you know of any other on going issues they are trying to stop or prevent with regard to the 2020 election?"
Just a couple of months ago, Trump called for China to investigate the Bidens. We know Barr and Giuliani are traveling the world trying to dig up dirt on various topics. Trump is raising similar issues with other world leaders to protect his personal political interests.
NYT: Trump Publicly Urges China to Investigate the Bidens
Reuters: Barr met with Italian intellignce officials
CNN: Giuliani says Trump still supports his dirt-digging in Ukraine
NYT: Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry Origins
"Do you think DEMs would care if Biden helped Hunter get that sweet high paying Director gig?"
There's zero evidence that Joe Biden did any such thing.
President Trump isn't being impeached because Candidate Trump recommended investigations...
He is being impeached because President Trump likely illegally withheld appropriated funds to force an investigation that may benefit Candidate Trump, and President Trump obstructed Congress's investigation.
My point being that what Trump's personnel lawyer investigates is his business.
And the Durham Investigation is well covered and transparent. Nothing wrong there?
Here is an interesting timeline of the Biden activities.
Timeline Try 2
"My point being that what Trump's personnel lawyer investigates is his business."
When that personal lawyer is coordinating with government officials, it isn't. And it's clear from the Ukraine stuff that Giuliani was engaged in the official foreign policy of the President.
"Here is an interesting timeline of the Biden activities."
OK, great. Still no evidence of any wrongdoing on Joe Biden's part.
The line sure did get fuzzy when Candidate Trump's lawyer starts throwing around President Trump's name to open doors...
One does not need proof to question and open an investigation. Just enough smoke...
Post a Comment