Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At a civil or criminal trial, if the accused interferes with the witnesses' ability to testify, it can result in a separate criminal charge (obstruction of justice) and the judge can either instruct that an adverse inference be taken or direct that a verdict be issued against the accused. The parallel is not perfect but here Trump's interference with the testimony of witnesses and disclosure of documents results in the functional equivalent of a separate criminal charge, which is is impeachment for obstruction of congress.
There hasn't been a trial. The House doesn't have that power. The Senate does.
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
The obstruction of Congress charge is a slam dunk. Anyone who doesn’t see that lacks intellectual honesty.
If the Democrats ever elect a president again (doubtful), the Republicans need to come up with a fake whistleblower and a fake crime, then impeach him for Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power when he doesn't cooperate.
They did, Andrew Johnson. He was fired for firing a secretary of War Stanton. Johnson had to go through the Senate to relieve or remove a sitting cabinet post. The radical Republicans baited Johnson into it with the enacting of the bill for Johnson to remove sitting cabinet members with Senate approval. Before that Johnson could have fired anyone for any reason like Trump has. It was only abuse of power because the Radical Republicans hated Johnson who was a Democrat.
Compared to this, the Democrats in this case have a legit claim.
There hasn't been a trial. The House doesn't have that power. The Senate does.
Another poster compared it to a trial, so I pointed out that while the comparison was "not perfect" the interference with the evidence (documents and testimony) by the accused can result in an additional charge and/or an adverse inference just as it does in civil and criminal court.
Put differently, if the President obstructs Congress's ability to review documents and testimony relevant to an impeachment inquiry and thus their Constitutional power to impeach, that obstruction has consequences. And rightly so.
Trump didn't withhold it. The aid was released on September 11th, nearly 3 weeks before the September 30th obligation date.
Apparently, to jojajn, releasing it within the approved deadline is equivalent to delaying it. Not sure how that works exactly, but it must be something like the mean boss edict of "if you aren't early, you're late."
Since he could have given them the aid earlier than the early he did give it, that makes him guilty of...something?
Trump did willfully ignore the subpoena he was served even his base understands this but they are under the misconception that the subpoenas were illegal. Hence Trump DID and WILLFULLY did abuse his power. The president isn’t above the law Clinton wasn’t either Trump broke the law time to play the piper.
Trump didn't withhold it. The aid was released on September 11th, nearly 3 weeks before the September 30th obligation date.
He delayed the release to Sept 11, he had to release the money or lose it for FY2019. He had no choice and some of the funding was lost because they didn't have time to obligate.
Why is it so difficult for Mulvaney or Trump to explain the delay, why the mystery.
Impeachment isn't about choosing between who you like better between the President or the President's replacement upon removal. It is about holding the President accountable for wrongdoing.
Fine, if he has committed impeachable offenses get it done. The Democrats have something, this time , so it shouldn't be an issue to get this done quickly.
Fine, if he has committed impeachable offenses get it done. The Democrats have something, this time , so it shouldn't be an issue to get this done quickly.
They issued articles of impeachment today. Seems like they are getting it done to me. What's your complaint?
Prosecutor: Was the money delivered before the deadline?
Witness: yes, but....
Prosecutor: yes or no answer. Was the money delivered before the deadline?
Witness: yes.
Prosecutor: In fact, wasn't it delivered 19 days before the deadline?
Witness: yes.
Prosecutor: so if it was delivered early, it could not have been delayed, could it?
Witness: well...no....
Prosecutor: no further questions, your Honor.
It's that simple, and after the Democrats vote to give up control of the entire circus to Mitch McConnell, that's about how it expects to play out, given the whole "must prove guilt" standard we use in the US..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
