The Impeachment Thread

[Mick]

It's because they were part of the corruption.

 

[VolnJC]

Should we start a new thread for the next impeachment hearings or just keep this one open?

 

[Sea Ray]

Trump wins again. It must drive liberals nuts.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Donald J. Trump Foundation - Wikipedia

I'll see that and raise you the Clinton foundation and Haiti... or Ray Nagin and New Orleans

 

[Mick]

I'll see that and raise you the Clinton foundation and Haiti... or Ray Nagin and New Orleans

You already have the losing hand but go ahead.

 

[Sea Ray]

You already have the losing hand but go ahead.

Can we just accept that neither party has clean hands and move on to solve some problems to make our country better? Impeachment has been a huge distraction to those goals and has been enormously divisive. I turn on the TV looking for news and all I get are "Trump is corrupt" on one side and "Schiff is a beady eyed liar" on the other. I'm done, all right? Let's address some legislative issues for our country.

 

[37L1]

There will be other impeachments of Trump if he continues to place his own interests above those of the country on major issues, such as close to a half billion dollars in aid to a country in a shooting war with Russia. If he continues to lie about major issues like that, or continues to abuse the power of the office for personal purposes at the nation's expense.

So, Hell yes, there are likely to be additional impeachments of Trump.

Better hold on to the House then.

 

[Mick]

Can we just accept that neither party has clean hands and move on to solve some problems to make our country better? Impeachment has been a huge distraction to those goals and has been enormously divisive. I turn on the TV looking for news and all I get are "Trump is corrupt" on one side and "Schiff is a beady eyed liar" on the other. I'm done, all right? Let's address some legislative issues for our country.

The supreme court opened the doors wide open for illegal campaign contributions. Citizens United is the worst ruling ever.

 

[lawgator1]

But they have said they don't know who the whistleblower is? So what's wrong with any of those names?

That's not a very good argument. The only thing worse than a Senator or the Chief Justice publicly announcing the name of the whistleblower would be to announce the WRONG person as the whistleblower!

There is no legitimate reason to give a right or a wrong name. It serves no purpose to do so other than to intimidate. That's why it is kept secret, by law. RP is intentionally violating the spirit, if not the letter of that principle for dramatic effect. That's not a good enough reason to give the name out.

Yep, it's not a normal court and RP should ask for a vote from the full Senate on his questions.

He should absolutely ask for a vote, because they can override Roberts.

The dividing line between "regular court" and the impeachment process is admittedly blurred. It seems like both sides make that comparison when it suits their agenda. And then when it helps the other side they emphasize its not in fact "regular court." So take it all with a grain of salt.

Having said that, if you analogize it to a standard trial, the procedure for jurors to ask questions is that they write them down and give them to the judge. The judge decides both whether and how a given question will be answered. The jury does not override the judge's decision on that. I have been in many trials where the judge decides not to answer a juror's question, and responds to the request to ask it with: "You must rely on your memory of the facts and the evidence, along with the law as I have instructed you." And that's it.

 

[Sea Ray]

The supreme court opened the doors wide open for illegal campaign contributions. Citizens United is the worst ruling ever.

I'd say Obamacare was worse. John Roberts' reasoning was not lawfully sound as he desperately ruled in a way that would not throw it out.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Rand Paul needs to be careful. The reason Roberts won't ask it using the name is that he sees value in honoring the anonymity of the name. There are laws on that and he is going to abide by them, even if others have not done so, so far.

By now, it should be clear to RP that the Chief Justice views that as off limits. If this were standard court, RP would be on his way to to the woodshed right about now and warned that his next hissy fit or attempt to invoke the name of the whistleblower is going to get him held in contempt.

When they take RP they can take everyone that forced this coup through and put them in prison.

 

[hog88]

That's not a very good argument. The only thing worse than a Senator or the Chief Justice publicly announcing the name of the whistleblower would be to announce the WRONG person as the whistleblower!

There is no legitimate reason to give a right or a wrong name. It serves no purpose to do so other than to intimidate. That's why it is kept secret, by law. RP is intentionally violating the spirit, if not the letter of that principle for dramatic effect. That's not a good enough reason to give the name out.






The dividing line between "regular court" and the impeachment process is admittedly blurred. It seems like both sides make that comparison when it suits their agenda. And then when it helps the other side they emphasize its not in fact "regular court." So take it all with a grain of salt.

Having said that, if you analogize it to a standard trial, the procedure for jurors to ask questions is that they write them down and give them to the judge. The judge decides both whether and how a given question will be answered. The jury does not override the judge's decision on that. I have been in many trials where the judge decides not to answer a juror's question, and responds to the request to ask it with: "You must rely on your memory of the facts and the evidence, along with the law as I have instructed you." And that's it.

Two problems with your post.

1. The federal whistle-blower act does not guarantee anonymity. There is no wording in it whatsoever that covers it so if Roberts is using that as a reason not to read the question he is again making **** up as he goes.

2. This isn't a normal criminal trial and at any time the Senate could take a vote to allow RPs question and there is nothing Roberts could do about it. They should take the vote.

 

[Mick]

I'd say Obamacare was worse. John Roberts' reasoning was not lawfully sound as he desperately ruled in a way that would not throw it out.

OK, now what? We have different opinions of what's worse, so you want to fight about it? LOL Blue font. Have a good one.

 

[hog88]

I'd say Obamacare was worse. John Roberts' reasoning was not lawfully sound as he desperately ruled in a way that would not throw it out.

Roberts should have been removed from the bench over that ruling.

 

[RikidyBones]

lol at Schiff.

 

[Sea Ray]

OK, now what? We have different opinions of what's worse, so you want to fight about it? LOL Blue font. Have a good one.

Don't know what you mean about blue font...and no, I have no desire to fight over past SCOTUS decisions. You have your opinion; I have mine...there's nothing wrong with that. Dissent has been an American tradition since before 1776.

 

[StarRaider]

lol at Schiff.

He's desperate. Pretty rich about his begging not to be driven by the calendar.

 

[lawgator1]

Two problems with your post.

1. The federal whistle-blower act does not guarantee anonymity. There is no wording in it whatsoever that covers it so if Roberts is using that as a reason not to read the question he is again making **** up as he goes.

2. This isn't a normal criminal trial and at any time the Senate could take a vote to allow RPs question and there is nothing Roberts could do about it. They should take the vote.

1. It is far from clear what the statutes would actually say about that. Legal Implications of Outing the Whistleblower

Regardless, Roberts gets to rule on what is relevant and fair comment, and he has weighed the implications of RP's effort to out the whistleblower and decided against it. That is well within his discretion as the judge overseeing the process.

2. As I said, everyone is picking and choosing which parts of it are like a regular trial they like, and don't like, when it suits their arguments.

 

[Sea Ray]

lol at Schiff.

I'm ready for his 15 minutes (of fame) to be up...

 

[Mick]

Don't know what you mean about blue font...and no, I have no desire to fight over past SCOTUS decisions. You have your opinion; I have mine...there's nothing wrong with that. Dissent has been an American tradition since before 1776.

Blue font means sarcasm. If it's typed in blue font it's sarcastic. I didn't want you to take my comment serious. We're good.

 

[hog88]

1. It is far from clear what the statutes would actually say about that. Legal Implications of Outing the Whistleblower

Regardless, Roberts gets to rule on what is relevant and fair comment, and he has weighed the implications of RP's effort to out the whistleblower and decided against it. That is well within his discretion as the judge overseeing the process.

2. As I said, everyone is picking and choosing which parts of it are like a regular trial they like, and don't like, when it suits their arguments.

Yes, it well within his discretion. But with a simple majority vote his discretion can be taken away and should be in this matter.

This isn't an IC matter so the WB should not be protected under the IC WB rules.

 

[VolStrom]

Should we start a new thread for the next impeachment hearings or just keep this one open?

I thought about a 2021 impeachment thread, but then I realized that the dems are going to lose the house and the Republicans are going to control the house, senate and executive branch for the next 2 years at the minimum. I think this plan will see me out until my demise.

 

[Sea Ray]

Blue font means sarcasm. If it's typed in blue font it's sarcastic. I didn't want you to take my comment serious. We're good.

No problem. I didn't see any blue font plus I'm a Boomer so I'm clueless about these things anyway...

 

[hUTch2002]

Dershowitz admitting that Trump did it, but that his corruption is NOT an impeachable act.

Anyone paying attention knew it would come to this.

Trump's MO. Every. Single. Time.

Truth: If you buy this argument, YOU are corrupt.

And Blumenthal admitted that a case hasn’t been made to this point. I heard Dershowitz’s comments and it does sound like he thinks Trump did solicit foreign aid in his election but he has no more proof than the House does at this point. That’s his opinion.

 

[RikidyBones]

Schiff's nonanswer is substantiating the question as legit. Also, hes setting himself as a guaranteed called witness.