Anyone else horrified?

[edwardmurphy]

This whole Schumer Schiff Sham Show directed by Pelosi was unconstitutional from the get-go.

Please explain why the impeachment investigation was unconstitutional, quoting relevant excerpts from the Constitution to support your position. Repeating your assertion is not the same as proving that it's valid.

A purely partisan exercise with no due process,

Due process? What are you even talking about?

The Democrats conducted an impeachment investigation. Due process is required in a criminal trial, not a House investigation, and all of the Republican lawyers (so most of the Republicans in Congress) who made the "due process" claim are lying to you. They think that you're dumb and that you'll just accept any BS they tell you without taking the time to fact check their claims or even think about whether or not they make sense.

You're literally arguing that a person being investigated for a crime has the right to stomp into the police station and demand a role in the investigation. Think about that for a wee second. Does that make sense? Is that how we do things?

The President was not entitled to due process during the investigation, but according to the rules the Dems were following - rules put in place by the Republicans - all members of the committees conducting the investigation were permitted to be there and had equal time to ask questions. So when Jim Jordan said "We're heading back to the windowless vault where the Democrats are going to continue their secret investigation with no oversight" what he meant was "We're heading back to a conference room where 47 Republicans will have a chance to question each witness."

Beyond that, do you really want to start talking about how trials are supposed to work? You do? Great! Let's do it.

Here are the major players in Donald Trump's impeachment trial:

The House Impeachment Managers (The Prosecution)
The President's legal team (The Defense)
The President (The Defendant)
The Senate (The Jury)
The Chief Justice (The Judge - pretty sure he's sleeping)
The Justice Department (The Defendant's Pet Lawyers)

I think everybody knows how trials generally work, so I'll skip that and talk about how Trump's "trial" has gone.

Before the trial started the defendant informed the prosecution that they couldn't have access to any testimony or documents that would make him look guilty. The defendant could have given a real reason, like Executive Privilege, but he didn't. (Note that it's illegal to use EP to hide a criminal enterprise and draw your own conclusions.) He just told the prosecution to pound sand and added that they could sue if they wanted to, but that he'd make it take years.

At that same time the defendant's pet DOJ lawyers went to the courts and said that if the prosecution wanted testimony and documents that they'd have to impeach the defendant because they had no grounds to sue for documents and witnesses.

CATCH-22? Yes indeed! Cynical? Yup! Hypocritical? You bet!

But still the jury foreman, one Mitch McConnell, not only accepted it, but pushed the narrative. You know, like a juror upholding his oath to be impartial.

The prosecution took what they could get, put together excellent cases for corruption and obstruction, and passed it to the jury.

Right from the start the jury foreman made it clear that he would be working closely with the defendant and the defense team to ensure that the prosecution wasn't able to inconvenience the defendant too much. That seems fair, right? That's just what juries do! Due process, baby!

When the prosecution asked the foreman to consider new information or to seek the witnessed and documents that the defendant had refused to turn over the foreman said it wasn't the jury's job to look at all the available evidence. Remember the Catch-22? Well there it is again.

Anyway, having ignored all of the old evidence, blocked all of the new evidence, and done everything in his power to help the defendant the foreman scheduled a vote to formally declare the defendant innocent. Notice how I hardly even mentioned the defense? Yeah, they didn't even need to be there. The fix was in.

All that and you're whining about due process...?

zero evidence,

And that's why the Senate declined to listen when the President's former National Security Advisor when he told them that he had direct evidence and he was willing to testify right?

Also, your claim is laughably false. It's like a five year old claiming that you never told him to brush his teeth because he had his back turned and his ears plugged when you said it.

Here are some quotes from some folks who looked at the evidence and know without a doubt that Trump did what he was accused of and that it was wrong (but still don't really care).

The President's behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation. The President has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and the honor of the office, not just for himself, but for all future presidents. Degrading the office by actions or even name-calling weakens it for future presidents and it weakens our country.

~ Senator Lisa Murkowski (R)

I agree that he called the president of Ukraine and asked him to investigate the Bidens. I was convinced that at least in part, he withheld [military] aid in order to encourage the investigation.

~ Senator Lamar Alexander (R)

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

~ Senator Marco Rubio (R)

In other words, there's plenty of evidence. You just don't care and don't want to admit it.

and a con rush job,

You guys are going to have to decide if you're mad because the impeachment investigation happened too close to the 2020 election or because it happened too fast. You can't have it both ways. Or maybe you can. Nothing else you've said makes any sense either.

all in an effort to box the senate who refused to do the house's dirty work.

By "dirty work" do you mean listen to voluntary testimony from John Bolton? You know this is the only impeachment trial ever held where there were no witnesses called, right? And you realize that the Senate is actually the jury, not the defense team, right? And you understand that the whole purpose of this process is to allow the Legislative Branch to check the power of the Chief Executive, right?

Do you understand the role of precedents and norms in a Constitutional democracy, right? The Constitution is deliberately vague, but we can't just reinvent the wheel every single time a dispute arises, so over the last couple of hundred years Presidents, lawmakers, and judges have developed ways of doing things? Those ways are called norms and precedents? They're not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but they have the weight of tradition behind them, and ignoring causes uncertainty, hard feelings, and chaos?

[Byblos]

This whole Schumer Schiff Sham Show directed by Pelosi was unconstitutional from the get-go.

Please explain why the impeachment investigation was unconstitutional, quoting relevant excerpts from the Constitution to support your position. Repeating your assertion is not the same as proving that it's valid.

A purely partisan exercise with no due process,

Due process? What are you even talking about?

The Democrats conducted an impeachment investigation. Due process is required in a criminal trial, not a House investigation, and all of the Republican lawyers (so most of the Republicans in Congress) who made the "due process" claim are lying to you. They think that you're dumb and that you'll just accept any BS they tell you without taking the time to fact check their claims or even think about whether or not they make sense.

You're literally arguing that a person being investigated for a crime has the right to stomp into the police station and demand a role in the investigation. Think about that for a wee second. Does that make sense? Is that how we do things?

The President was not entitled to due process during the investigation, but according to the rules the Dems were following - rules put in place by the Republicans - all members of the committees conducting the investigation were permitted to be there and had equal time to ask questions. So when Jim Jordan said "We're heading back to the windowless vault where the Democrats are going to continue their secret investigation with no oversight" what he meant was "We're heading back to a conference room where 47 Republicans will have a chance to question each witness."

Beyond that, do you really want to start talking about how trials are supposed to work? You do? Great! Let's do it.

Here are the major players in Donald Trump's impeachment trial:

The House Impeachment Managers (The Prosecution)
The President's legal team (The Defense)
The President (The Defendant)
The Senate (The Jury)
The Chief Justice (The Judge - pretty sure he's sleeping)
The Justice Department (The Defendant's Pet Lawyers)

I think everybody knows how trials generally work, so I'll skip that and talk about how Trump's "trial" has gone.

Before the trial started the defendant informed the prosecution that they couldn't have access to any testimony or documents that would make him look guilty. The defendant could have given a real reason, like Executive Privilege, but he didn't. (Note that it's illegal to use EP to hide a criminal enterprise and draw your own conclusions.) He just told the prosecution to pound sand and added that they could sue if they wanted to, but that he'd make it take years.

At that same time the defendant's pet DOJ lawyers went to the courts and said that if the prosecution wanted testimony and documents that they'd have to impeach the defendant because they had no grounds to sue for documents and witnesses.

CATCH-22? Yes indeed! Cynical? Yup! Hypocritical? You bet!

But still the jury foreman, one Mitch McConnell, not only accepted it, but pushed the narrative. You know, like a juror upholding his oath to be impartial.

The prosecution took what they could get, put together excellent cases for corruption and obstruction, and passed it to the jury.

Right from the start the jury foreman made it clear that he would be working closely with the defendant and the defense team to ensure that the prosecution wasn't able to inconvenience the defendant too much. That seems fair, right? That's just what juries do! Due process, baby!

When the prosecution asked the foreman to consider new information or to seek the witnessed and documents that the defendant had refused to turn over the foreman said it wasn't the jury's job to look at all the available evidence. Remember the Catch-22? Well there it is again.

Anyway, having ignored all of the old evidence, blocked all of the new evidence, and done everything in his power to help the defendant the foreman scheduled a vote to formally declare the defendant innocent. Notice how I hardly even mentioned the defense? Yeah, they didn't even need to be there. The fix was in.

All that and you're whining about due process...?

zero evidence,

And that's why the Senate declined to listen when the President's former National Security Advisor when he told them that he had direct evidence and he was willing to testify right?

Also, your claim is laughably false. It's like a five year old claiming that you never told him to brush his teeth because he had his back turned and his ears plugged when you said it.

Here are some quotes from some folks who looked at the evidence and know without a doubt that Trump did what he was accused of and that it was wrong (but still don't really care).

The President's behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation. The President has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and the honor of the office, not just for himself, but for all future presidents. Degrading the office by actions or even name-calling weakens it for future presidents and it weakens our country.

~ Senator Lisa Murkowski (R)

I agree that he called the president of Ukraine and asked him to investigate the Bidens. I was convinced that at least in part, he withheld [military] aid in order to encourage the investigation.

~ Senator Lamar Alexander (R)

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

~ Senator Marco Rubio (R)

In other words, there's plenty of evidence. You just don't care and don't want to admit it.

and a con rush job,

You guys are going to have to decide if you're mad because the impeachment investigation happened too close to the 2020 election or because it happened too fast. You can't have it both ways. Or maybe you can. Nothing else you've said makes any sense either.

all in an effort to box the senate who refused to do the house's dirty work.

By "dirty work" do you mean listen to voluntary testimony from John Bolton? You know this is the only impeachment trial ever held where there were no witnesses called, right? And you realize that the Senate is actually the jury, not the defense team, right? And you understand that the whole purpose of this process is to allow the Legislative Branch to check the power of the Chief Executive, right?

Do you understand the role of precedents and norms in a Constitutional democracy, right? The Constitution is deliberately vague, but we can't just reinvent the wheel every single time a dispute arises, so over the last couple of hundred years Presidents, lawmakers, and judges have developed ways of doing things? Those ways are called norms and precedents? They're not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but they have the weight of tradition behind them, and ignoring causes uncertainty, hard feelings, and chaos?

You sound very bitter Ed, what's the matter, things aren't going your way? Chill man, you'll have plenty of time to vent the next 5 years.

All of the above, all of it, is what the democrats have been spinning for 3 years. They could not accept the 2016 election results and are still trying to undue it as well as remove Trump from the ballot in the next election. Talk about election interference, on a massive scale. .

The facts are incontrovertible:

- The constitution gives the power of impeachment to congress, not the majority leader, not some committee, to CONGRESS,. Without a congressional vote authorizing some committee to start impeachment proceedings and issue subpoenas, the whole sham is unconstitutional (remember this one as to why Trump did not assert executive privilege).

- Talk about precedent? In every impeachment process defense counsel was afforded due process, cross examine witnesses and call their own. Before this sham show allowed defense witnesses and cross examination in public, the outcome was already predetermined, a mere formality.

- It was such an urgent matter that congress didn't have time to follow proper legal channels that they had to ram articles of impeachment down the senate's throat before they can go on vacation for Christmas. And it was such a national security threat that they held the articles for over 30 days before actually submitting them. When there are disputes between the legislative and executive branches, the framers thought fit to offer a remedy of checks and balances. The courts are that proper venue, without consideration as to length of time, IF, that is, congress is concerned about finding the truth. We all know the answer to that one.

- Trump did not assert executive privilege simply because he didn't have to as he considered the whole process unconstitutional. And if the house managers disagreed, guess what, the courts are the proper venue. Forget the BS that Ed and the house managers are peddling. Oh woe is me, Trump and his team would have blocked us every step of the way. Seriously? House managers knew exactly what they were doing. Their intention from the beginning was political, they had no intention of pursuing legal matters because their goal was never actual conviction. They simply wanted to affect the next election massively and I believe they have. I'm just not sure they know to what side they have tilted the scales.

- The 2 articles of impeachment don't even allege a crime. Neither abuse of power nor obstruction of congress is an impeachable offense. Abuse of power was in fact EXCLUDED as an impeachable offense (what was termed as maladministration). The reason was that it was so vague that it can be used by a majority house to impeach a sitting president on policy differences. Prophetic huh? Obstruction of congress in this case is not an impeachable offense simply because defense asserted that the impeachment process was unconstitutional, therefore lacked proper authority. If the house managers disagreed, and didn't care about a nefarious timeline, they could have sought redress in the courts. They didn't and we all know why, it wasn't important to their end goal.

- 17 witnesses and not a single one of them testified to any factual, FACTUAL, link between holding the aid and the investigation
- Even if there were such a link, this type of quid pro quo happens all the time. As long as one of the motive is in the public interest and a foreign policy directive (burden sharing and corruption, both of which were front and center in Trump campaign pledges for years), the other motives are irrelevant as long as they are not criminal in nature. If they end up helping Trump in the election is not a crime. If politicians must avoid acts that will appear to help them win elections there would no politicians and no elections. This is precisely why Bolton (and other witnesses) testifying was irrelevant and why this whole thing is a sham, the do-nothing democrats want you to believe that somehow doing the right thing even if it helps you win an election is somehow a criminal act.

- It is upon congress to investigate and present its case to the senate for trial. It is on congress to seek remedies in the courts where there are disputes, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES. You can't skirt your responsibility because you're pressed for time, delay sending the articles of impeachment for 30 days when you claim it was an urgent matter, then expect the senate to do your dirty work and tie up the senate in an investigation that yes, may even take years. That was the job of house sub-committee that should have been duly authorized by a congressional vote. Sham show from the get-go.

- The facts don't change: Ukraine got the funds. Zelensky himself stated there was no pressure. We know that for sure since he did not even know the money was held before end of August, well after the phone call, How could there possibly be any pressure when the instrument by which pressure was allegedly applied didn't even exist in the mind of the party allegedly being pressured? Ukraine received the funds and the White house-level meetings without announcing any investigations.

And yes, I watched this sham impeachment show every chance I got, almost in its entirety, lest Ed accuse me of listening to conservative pundits and forming a biased opinion. But I'm sure Ed will put whatever spin he wants, exactly as he did in his last post. November 2020 is the great equalizer. Let the American people vote and may the Electoral College emerge victorious once again.

[DBowling]

The facts are incontrovertible:

- The constitution gives the power of impeachment to congress, not the majority leader, not some committee, to CONGRESS,. Without a congressional vote authorizing some committee to start impeachment proceedings and issue subpoenas, the whole sham is unconstitutional (remember this one as to why Trump did not assert executive privilege).

Actually this particular assertion is a fabrication not a fact.

From an article in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... as/605635/

Although the House investigation into Ukraine was initiated by three standing committees exercising their general oversight power and the subpoena power conferred on them by Rule X of the standing rules of the House, on September 24, Speaker Pelosi announced her support for an impeachment inquiry. But not until October 31 did the House as a whole approve a resolution formally declaring the ongoing investigations to be an impeachment inquiry and laying out the process for its public phase.

The president’s counsel argues that all the subpoenas issued by the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees prior to October 31 were invalid because the House hadn’t formally adopted an impeachment resolution. Therefore, they say, the president had no obligation to comply with any of them, thus exonerating him from obstruction. That is, to be plain, ridiculous. The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules. The president’s position, incredibly, is that if an ongoing oversight investigation begins to produce evidence that might result in impeachment, the committees conducting that investigation somehow lose their subpoena authority until the whole House declares a formal impeachment inquiry.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely daft. The power of the House to compel presidential disclosure increases once impeachment is contemplated. Some have argued that this increment of constitutional authority is not available unless and until the House formally declares that it is engaging in an impeachment inquiry, a point I have refuted elsewhere. But the White House is now arguing that the ordinary investigative powers of Congress disappear as soon as it becomes evident to House leadership that impeachment should be contemplated.

And the existing House rules under which the House Committees legally issued the subpoenas was explained during the House Manager's presentation.

[edwardmurphy]

The facts are incontrovertible:

I love that your very next line was a partisan lie.

Before this sham show allowed defense witnesses and cross examination in public, the outcome was already predetermined, a mere formality.

So what you're saying is that after the House investigation concluded and the evidence of Trump's impeachable conduct had been collected it was a given that he'd be charged? And you're saying that that's somehow unfair?

If a guy is investigated for murder and the investigation finds enough evidence to support a charge then I guess it's a given that charges will be filed. I'm not seeing how that's in any way unfair.

- It was such an urgent matter that congress didn't have time to follow proper legal channels that they had to ram articles of impeachment down the senate's throat before they can go on vacation for Christmas. And it was such a national security threat that they held the articles for over 30 days before actually submitting them. When there are disputes between the legislative and executive branches, the framers thought fit to offer a remedy of checks and balances. The courts are that proper venue, without consideration as to length of time, IF, that is, congress is concerned about finding the truth. We all know the answer to that one.

If we all know that then why is the Justice Department in court literally arguing the opposite position to block the House from getting witnesses and documents?

Explain that fact, Byblos. If one position or the other is true than why are Trump's people arguing both?

And if the house managers disagreed, guess what, the courts are the proper venue.

Again, Trump's Justice Department is currently in court arguing that the courts are NOT the proper venue.

In court they say that impeachment is the proper remedy. In the impeachment trial they say that the courts are the proper remedy.

Add it up and what it means is that the Administration has asserted that they don't have to bother with being investigated if they don't feel like it, and the Senate Republicans have backed them up.

How can you not see how dangerous a precedent this sets???

- The 2 articles of impeachment don't even allege a crime. Neither abuse of power nor obstruction of congress is an impeachable offense.

Citation, please.

Abuse of power was in fact EXCLUDED as an impeachable offense (what was termed as maladministration).

Citation, please.

If the house managers disagreed, and didn't care about a nefarious timeline, they could have sought redress in the courts. They didn't and we all know why, it wasn't important to their end goal.

According to the Senate the courts are the only redress.

According to Trump's Justice Department the House has no standing to take the matter to court.

Byblos, they're lying! They can't have it both ways!

- 17 witnesses and not a single one of them testified to any factual, FACTUAL, link between holding the aid and the investigation
- Even if there were such a link, this type of quid pro quo happens all the time.

Senators Murkowski, Alexander, and Rubio and I are going to have to agree to disagree with your argument.

- It is upon congress to investigate and present its case to the senate for trial. It is on congress to seek remedies in the courts where there are disputes, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES. You can't skirt your responsibility because you're pressed for time, delay sending the articles of impeachment for 30 days when you claim it was an urgent matter, then expect the senate to do your dirty work and tie up the senate in an investigation that yes, may even take years. That was the job of house sub-committee that should have been duly authorized by a congressional vote. Sham show from the get-go.

Citation, please. You're making a series of legal arguments. Back them up if you can.

Zelensky himself stated there was no pressure. We know that for sure since he did not even know the money was held before end of August, well after the phone call, How could there possibly be any pressure when the instrument by which pressure was allegedly applied didn't even exist in the mind of the party allegedly being pressured? Ukraine received the funds and the White house-level meetings without announcing any investigations.

1) Of course Zelensky said he was under no pressure. Donald Trump is petty and vindictive, and Zelensky desperately needed his help.

2) Ukraine knew the aid was frozen well before the end of August.

November 2020 is the great equalizer.

Only it's not equal if Trump is trying to get foreign governments to help him cheat. Which the evidence clearly shows he did. Just like the last one wasn't equal because foreign powers interfered on his behalf.

And yet again, I can't believe that you fail to grasp the long term implications of these events.

[Byblos]

Only it's not equal if Trump is trying to get foreign governments to help him cheat. Which the evidence clearly shows he did. Just like the last one wasn't equal because foreign powers interfered on his behalf.

If only there were any evidence. But let me remind you where there was actual evidence of foreign AND domestic interference, something like the foreign operative Steele and his fabricated dossier paid for by the DNC. And don't forget the subsequent FISA subpenas based on said fabricated dossier to investigate a presidential candidate. Is that what you mean?

And yet again, I can't believe that you fail to grasp the long term implications of these events.

Back at ya pal.

[Byblos]

The facts are incontrovertible:

- The constitution gives the power of impeachment to congress, not the majority leader, not some committee, to CONGRESS,. Without a congressional vote authorizing some committee to start impeachment proceedings and issue subpoenas, the whole sham is unconstitutional (remember this one as to why Trump did not assert executive privilege).

Actually this particular assertion is a fabrication not a fact.

From an article in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... as/605635/

Although the House investigation into Ukraine was initiated by three standing committees exercising their general oversight power and the subpoena power conferred on them by Rule X of the standing rules of the House, on September 24, Speaker Pelosi announced her support for an impeachment inquiry. But not until October 31 did the House as a whole approve a resolution formally declaring the ongoing investigations to be an impeachment inquiry and laying out the process for its public phase.

The president’s counsel argues that all the subpoenas issued by the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees prior to October 31 were invalid because the House hadn’t formally adopted an impeachment resolution. Therefore, they say, the president had no obligation to comply with any of them, thus exonerating him from obstruction. That is, to be plain, ridiculous. The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules. The president’s position, incredibly, is that if an ongoing oversight investigation begins to produce evidence that might result in impeachment, the committees conducting that investigation somehow lose their subpoena authority until the whole House declares a formal impeachment inquiry.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely daft. The power of the House to compel presidential disclosure increases once impeachment is contemplated. Some have argued that this increment of constitutional authority is not available unless and until the House formally declares that it is engaging in an impeachment inquiry, a point I have refuted elsewhere. But the White House is now arguing that the ordinary investigative powers of Congress disappear as soon as it becomes evident to House leadership that impeachment should be contemplated.

And the existing House rules under which the House Committees legally issued the subpoenas was explained during the House Manager's presentation.

Sure, the Atlantic, the premiere authority on constitutional matters.

Here's a link to the full transcript of defense counsel's opening statements. It's a fantastic read but pay close attention to Patrick Philbin's argument. And if the house managers disagreed, guess what, they could have gone to the courts. They chose not to. A phrase often repeated throughout the senate trial: "The hose managers didn't tell you that. Why not?".

Then just for kicks you might want to read Alan Dershowitz's statement.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tr ... ura-raskin

[edwardmurphy]

That comparison between the "perfect" phone call and the Steele Dossier thing has been debunked hundreds of times.

The problem with Trump's conduct is that he used the power of his office for personal gain, to the detriment of American national security.

Clinton had no office. Steele was not a member of a foreign government. The research was initially requested by the Rubio Campaign, and then taken over by the DNC. It was paid for from campaign funds.

If Trump had asked the RNC contract with some Ukrainian private investigator to conduct opposition research on Biden and they'd paid for it with campaign funds then he'd be fine.

But he didn't.

Trump wanted something much bigger than simple opposition research. Trump wanted President Zelinsky to go on TV and say "My government is investigating Joe and Hunter Biden for corruption." He couldn't get that by hiring some opposition research firm. He needed a way to convince Zelensky to make that announcement, so he used a White House visit and the military aid money as leverage.

As for the FISA thing, the report came out a while back. It was a dud. It pretty much said that the FBI tends to be too aggressive when they're trying to get warrants and there needs to be more oversight.

Anyway, now that the previously debunked lies are out of the way, here's the important stuff:

I said this part three times and you ignored it:

Trump's Justice Department have been in court arguing that the courts are not the proper venue to seek access to the witnesses and documents that the Administration withheld.

Trump's defense team has been in front of the Senate arguing that impeachment is not the proper venue to seek access to the witnesses and documents that the Administration withheld.

The Administration is literally asserting that the Executive Branch can obstruct a House investigation simply because they feel like it, no justification is required, and there's not a damned thing the House can do.

You seriously don't see the problem?

Try a thought experiment - switch all the (R)s and (D)s to the other side so that you can think rationally about this.

[edwardmurphy]

Sure, the Atlantic, the premiere authority on constitutional matters.

It was written by a law professor. What the hell difference does it make where it's published? I'm taking you less seriously by the moment.

[DBowling]

The facts are incontrovertible:

- The constitution gives the power of impeachment to congress, not the majority leader, not some committee, to CONGRESS,. Without a congressional vote authorizing some committee to start impeachment proceedings and issue subpoenas, the whole sham is unconstitutional (remember this one as to why Trump did not assert executive privilege).

Actually this particular assertion is a fabrication not a fact.

From an article in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... as/605635/

Although the House investigation into Ukraine was initiated by three standing committees exercising their general oversight power and the subpoena power conferred on them by Rule X of the standing rules of the House, on September 24, Speaker Pelosi announced her support for an impeachment inquiry. But not until October 31 did the House as a whole approve a resolution formally declaring the ongoing investigations to be an impeachment inquiry and laying out the process for its public phase.

The president’s counsel argues that all the subpoenas issued by the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees prior to October 31 were invalid because the House hadn’t formally adopted an impeachment resolution. Therefore, they say, the president had no obligation to comply with any of them, thus exonerating him from obstruction. That is, to be plain, ridiculous. The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules. The president’s position, incredibly, is that if an ongoing oversight investigation begins to produce evidence that might result in impeachment, the committees conducting that investigation somehow lose their subpoena authority until the whole House declares a formal impeachment inquiry.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely daft. The power of the House to compel presidential disclosure increases once impeachment is contemplated. Some have argued that this increment of constitutional authority is not available unless and until the House formally declares that it is engaging in an impeachment inquiry, a point I have refuted elsewhere. But the White House is now arguing that the ordinary investigative powers of Congress disappear as soon as it becomes evident to House leadership that impeachment should be contemplated.

And the existing House rules under which the House Committees legally issued the subpoenas was explained during the House Manager's presentation.

Sure, the Atlantic, the premiere authority on constitutional matters.

Here's a link to the full transcript of defense counsel's opening statements. It's a fantastic read but pay close attention to Patrick Philbin's argument. And if the house managers disagreed, guess what, they could have gone to the courts. They chose not to. A phrase often repeated throughout the senate trial: "The hose managers didn't tell you that. Why not?".

Then just for kicks you might want to read Alan Dershowitz's statement.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tr ... ura-raskin

I watched and/or listened to most of the argumentation on both sides so I am familiar with the various positions.

Dershowitz explicitly stated that he was not addressing the "facts" of the case, and I don't believe he addressed the authority and legality of the House subpoenas either.
Dershowitz is essentially proposing that even if you accept everything presented in the House articles of impeachment as true, that still doesn't meet the high Constitutional bar for removing a President from office. That is Dershowitz' opinion, but only a small minority of Constitutional scholars (if any) share Dershowitz opinion.

The article in the Atlantic is responding to the false assertion by Trump's legal team that subpoenas submitted before the impeachment vote in the House are not legal. That is just nonsense. The House is only bound by the Rules of the House of Representatives where impeachment is involved. The executive branch has no authority to refuse subpoenas legally submitted by the House in accordance with the Rules of the House.
Trump had the right to assert executive privilege to challenge those subpoenas.
But he chose not to exert executive privilege.

If memory serves, Zoe Lofgren addressed that fabrication by Trump's team and the specific House rules that gave the relevant House Committees the legal authority to subpoena the executive branch during her presentation on January 24th.
Unfortunately I have been unable to locate a transcript of Zoe Lofgren's January 24th presentation online... but I'll keep looking.

As for "They didn't tell you that"...
Why did Trump and his council refuse to respond to legal subpoenas for documents and testimony from the House?
Why did Trump and his council (and the Republicans in the Senate) block testimony from John Bolton who agreed to honor a subpoena from the Senate?

What is Trump and his legal council trying so desperately to hide from the House of Representatives and the American people?
That's a rhetorical question...
Because the information we already have regarding his ... I'l use the word "misconduct"... regarding Ukraine and soliciting foreign interference in American elections in general shows us exactly what he's trying to hide.
But the truth will come out... eventually...

And as I think we both agree...
The American voters will provide their verdict in November.

[Byblos]

That comparison between the "perfect" phone call and the Steele Dossier thing has been debunked hundreds of times.

If one more time I hear something was debunked I will scream. The Steele Dossier was debunked. The Biden interference on behalf of his son was debunked, Everything was debunked. Hollow claims.

The problem with Trump's conduct is that he used the power of his office for personal gain, to the detriment of American national security.

Clinton had no office. Steele was not a member of a foreign government. The research was initially requested by the Rubio Campaign, and then taken over by the DNC. It was paid for from campaign funds.

If Trump had asked the RNC contract with some Ukrainian private investigator to conduct opposition research on Biden and they'd paid for it with campaign funds then he'd be fine.

But he didn't.

Trump wanted something much bigger than simple opposition research. Trump wanted President Zelinsky to go on TV and say "My government is investigating Joe and Hunter Biden for corruption." He couldn't get that by hiring some opposition research firm. He needed a way to convince Zelensky to make that announcement, so he used a White House visit and the military aid money as leverage.

Lol, that's what you call the Steele Dossier? Opposition research? That's just rich. Total fabrications made to look like truths, used to paint a candidate , then a President, as a Russian operative, all funded by an opponent, and all to influence an election. That's now opposition research? Get real Ed.

And you better believe he wanted something bigger than opposition research. He ran on a platform of burden sharing and rooting out corruption. During the phone call he discussed exactly that, burden sharing and corruption. In that spirit, he asked Zlensky to do US a favor and look into the Burisma and the Bidens. That was the primary directive. If a secondary byproduct is an effect on Biden's electability, first and foremost there's nothing criminal about it, and second, that's Biden's problem.

As for the FISA thing, the report came out a while back. It was a dud. It pretty much said that the FBI tends to be too aggressive when they're trying to get warrants and there needs to be more oversight.

Of course, that was debunked too, right?

Anyway, now that the previously debunked lies are out of the way, here's the important stuff:

I said this part three times and you ignored it:

Trump's Justice Department have been in court arguing that the courts are not the proper venue to seek access to the witnesses and documents that the Administration withheld.

Trump's defense team has been in front of the Senate arguing that impeachment is not the proper venue to seek access to the witnesses and documents that the Administration withheld.

The Administration is literally asserting that the Executive Branch can obstruct a House investigation simply because they feel like it, no justification is required, and there's not a damned thing the House can do.

You seriously don't see the problem?

Try a thought experiment - switch all the (R)s and (D)s to the other side so that you can think rationally about this.

I don't see a problem at all. Anyone can assert anything they want. How do we decide if those assertions are merit-worthy? What a novel idea, we resort to the courts. Please Ed, stop with the red herring. It is really unbecoming.

[Byblos]

The facts are incontrovertible:

- The constitution gives the power of impeachment to congress, not the majority leader, not some committee, to CONGRESS,. Without a congressional vote authorizing some committee to start impeachment proceedings and issue subpoenas, the whole sham is unconstitutional (remember this one as to why Trump did not assert executive privilege).

Actually this particular assertion is a fabrication not a fact.

From an article in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... as/605635/

Although the House investigation into Ukraine was initiated by three standing committees exercising their general oversight power and the subpoena power conferred on them by Rule X of the standing rules of the House, on September 24, Speaker Pelosi announced her support for an impeachment inquiry. But not until October 31 did the House as a whole approve a resolution formally declaring the ongoing investigations to be an impeachment inquiry and laying out the process for its public phase.

The president’s counsel argues that all the subpoenas issued by the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight Committees prior to October 31 were invalid because the House hadn’t formally adopted an impeachment resolution. Therefore, they say, the president had no obligation to comply with any of them, thus exonerating him from obstruction. That is, to be plain, ridiculous. The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules. The president’s position, incredibly, is that if an ongoing oversight investigation begins to produce evidence that might result in impeachment, the committees conducting that investigation somehow lose their subpoena authority until the whole House declares a formal impeachment inquiry.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely daft. The power of the House to compel presidential disclosure increases once impeachment is contemplated. Some have argued that this increment of constitutional authority is not available unless and until the House formally declares that it is engaging in an impeachment inquiry, a point I have refuted elsewhere. But the White House is now arguing that the ordinary investigative powers of Congress disappear as soon as it becomes evident to House leadership that impeachment should be contemplated.

And the existing House rules under which the House Committees legally issued the subpoenas was explained during the House Manager's presentation.

Sure, the Atlantic, the premiere authority on constitutional matters.

Here's a link to the full transcript of defense counsel's opening statements. It's a fantastic read but pay close attention to Patrick Philbin's argument. And if the house managers disagreed, guess what, they could have gone to the courts. They chose not to. A phrase often repeated throughout the senate trial: "The hose managers didn't tell you that. Why not?".

Then just for kicks you might want to read Alan Dershowitz's statement.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tr ... ura-raskin

I watched and/or listened to most of the argumentation on both sides so I am familiar with the various positions.

Dershowitz explicitly stated that he was not addressing the "facts" of the case, and I don't believe he addressed the authority and legality of the House subpoenas either.
Dershowitz is essentially proposing that even if you accept everything presented in the House articles of impeachment as true, that still doesn't meet the high Constitutional bar for removing a President from office. That is Dershowitz' opinion, but only a small minority of Constitutional scholars (if any) share Dershowitz opinion.

The article in the Atlantic is responding to the false assertion by Trump's legal team that subpoenas submitted before the impeachment vote in the House are not legal. That is just nonsense. The House is only bound by the Rules of the House of Representatives where impeachment is involved. The executive branch has no authority to refuse subpoenas legally submitted by the House in accordance with the Rules of the House.
Trump had the right to assert executive privilege to challenge those subpoenas.
But he chose not to exert executive privilege.

If memory serves, Zoe Lofgren addressed that fabrication by Trump's team and the specific House rules that gave the relevant House Committees the legal authority to subpoena the executive branch during her presentation on January 24th.
Unfortunately I have been unable to locate a transcript of Zoe Lofgren's January 24th presentation online... but I'll keep looking.

The issue of the legality of the subpoenas was addressed by Patrick Philbin, not Dershowitz.

As for "They didn't tell you that"...
Why did Trump and his council refuse to respond to legal subpoenas for documents and testimony from the House?
Why did Trump and his council (and the Republicans in the Senate) block testimony from John Bolton who agreed to honor a subpoena from the Senate?

Here're a couple of not so new concepts protected by the constitution, innocent until proven guilty and executive privilege.

What is Trump and his legal council trying so desperately to hide from the House of Representatives and the American people?
That's a rhetorical question...

A rhetorical question only if you throw the constitution out the window, which is precisely what the do-nothing democrats did.

Because the information we already have regarding his ... I'l use the word "misconduct"... regarding Ukraine and soliciting foreign interference in American elections in general shows us exactly what he's trying to hide.
But the truth will come out... eventually...

1. Burden sharing
2. Corruption

No matter what the after-effects are, those were the primary directives. There is nothing, NOTHING criminal about either. In fact they are in the public interest.

And as I think we both agree...
The American voters will provide their verdict in November.

I can't wait. I really do mean it when I say no matter the outcome, I trust in this process and will accept the outcome.

[PaulSacramento]

What a mess you guys are in.
A President that doesn't shake the hand of the House Speaker and a House Speaker the tears apart a SOU speech on Live TV.

Wow...

No high road for anyone.

[Byblos]

What a mess you guys are in.
A President that doesn't shake the hand of the House Speaker and a House Speaker the tears apart a SOU speech on Live TV.

Wow...

No high road for anyone.

Actually I'm not sure Trump deliberately did that, he may not have noticed her extend her hand, given he didn't even shake his own vice president's hand. Is it possible he ignored her? Absolutely. But for her to tare up the speech is not just a slight towards Trump but an insult to the office of the presidency and the entire nation. It was petty and classless.

[RickD]

Just curious about this...

For those of you in this discussion, or anyone else who wishes to participate, hypothetically, if you had the choice of voting for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, and you had to pick one or the other, who would you vote for? And part of the equation is that you are guaranteed to get 4 more years of Trump as he has been for this presidency, and if you pick Sanders, we will assume that what he is campaigning for, will actually come to fruition.

[edwardmurphy]

I don't see a problem at all. Anyone can assert anything they want. How do we decide if those assertions are merit-worthy? What a novel idea, we resort to the courts. Please Ed, stop with the red herring. It is really unbecoming.

A red herring?

The Republicans are saying that Trump had the right to deny the Dems the evidence that they requested and to fight subpoenas in court. They are simultaneously in court arguing that the House Dems have no standing because impeachment is the proper venue to address the President's conduct.

They're not asserting privilege. They're not citing national security. They're saying that the Courts have no right to interfere in a dispute between the House and the Administration.

That is, at the very least, and incredibly cynical, bad faith argument.

Beyond that, we can't just look at abstractions. We have to think about how things play out in the real world. If the House issues a subpoena as part of an impeachment inquiry and the Administration fights it in court the following process unfolds:

1) The House files suit in the district court. The Administration resists the suit, and most likely does its best to slow the process down by seeking delays, filing motions, and so forth. Months go by. Eventually the House wins. Meantime the Administration is free to keep on doing whatever it is they were impeached for doing.

2) The Administration appeals the decision to the circuit court and most likely does its best to slow the process down by seeking delays, filing motions, and so forth. Months go by. Eventually the House wins. Meantime the Administration is free to keep on doing whatever it is they were impeached for doing.

3) The Administration appeals the decision to the Supreme Court and most likely does its best to slow the process down by seeking delays, filing motions, and so forth. Months go by. Eventually the House wins.

4) Now that they have their witnesses and/or documents the House can finally get around to launching an investigation - a process which will take a couple of months - not that it matters because the election was last week.

In short, in the real world this process allows the Administration - any Administration - to obstruct Congressional oversight of their actions by literally years, and perhaps even to run out the clock before the House is able to move forward. Therefore, unless the President's malfeasance takes place within the first year or so, impeachment is not a realistic option.

The power of the Executive Branch has been steadily increasing for my entire life, but under Trump the balance has shifted further and more rapidly than ever before. The President can now apparently take money appropriated to the military budget and redirect it to build a border wall. He can now apparently decline to release money allocated as foreign aid, even if all of the legal requirements for releasing that aid have been met. And now he can apparently reject Congressional oversight simply because he doesn't feel like dealing with it.

I know that you have faith in the strength of our institutions and in the democratic process, but I don't think that you're recognizing that that strength is being steadily eroded due to executing overreach and partisan politics. The Constitution is deliberately vague, and our system relies heavily on established precedents and norms and on our elected leaders following both the letter and the spirit of the law. Trump is ignoring those precedents and norms, and the Congressional GOP, rather than following their Constitutional responsibility and checking his overreach, is giving him cover.

We're literally watching as the system breaks down.