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.
Oh I've seen every bit of "evidence", but given that it was merely hearsay and opinion, that kind of "evidence" can't prove anything.
As attorney Daniel Goldman explained at the impeachment hearing, everything Amb. Sondland said is direct evidence, not hearsay, because he is also an unnamed co-conspirator.
If this trial involved a regular citizen instead of Trump, I have no doubt that most juries would return a guilty verdict. The written and sworn testimony all point to guilt and the defense basically offered no defense, and obstructed key witnesses and documents.
With Clinton you actually had crimes though and he was charged with actual crimes. In this case, since there was literally no evidence of any crime, they didn't even bother charging him with one.
Clinton was charged with
- Lying to a Grand Jury, and
- Obstruction of justice
Trump is to be charged with
- Soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our election, and
- Obstruction of Congress
The first sounds like a crime, though I'm not sure of the statute. The second would be considered the same as obstruction of justice, a crime. It's up to the Senate to determine if there is enough evidence to support these allegations.
As we're seeing right now, the president doesn't have to commit any crime or be proven to have engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever to be impeached. You just need a corrupt and hyper partisan House to abuse their power.
True, because some actions of a president may be wrong although there is no specific legislation against their actions.
For instance, if a president was hallucinating all the time, and listening to little voices in his head, he could be impeached for it. That's right, if the guy is going crazy or under the influence of narcotics in his position he is a public menace and should be replaced.
If those strange little voices caused him to fire public servants without cause or believe in Russian KGB hoaxes (actually it is the FSB now) and let those foreign intrigues influence our foreign policy that would be impeachable too.
Anything that makes a person unfit for office is an impeachable offense.
We already know that per Justice Department policy a sitting president will not be indicted. That does not preclude the possibility that the indictable action will not be grounds for impeachment. It certainly can be.
Just as one hypothetical example:
If after the Pearl Harbor attack, the president ordered US military out of Hawaii and abandoned all the Pacific territories to Japan, it would have been within his authority as President and Commander In Chief. Perfectly legal.
Nonetheless, Congress would have been perfectly correct if it drew up articles of impeachment against him for that. Perfectly legal, but impeachable, because the congress's duty is to protect this country.
As another hypothetical example:
Suppose some president knew that some foreign nation had interfered in our election process, and wanted to do it again, but the president obstructed the investigations into that attack and left our country defenseless against further attacks.
That would be perfectly legal, but impeachable, because the congress's duty is to protect this country.
Now then, if a certain public official was engaging in illegal money laundering, or bank fraud, or tax evasion, bribery or extortion or traitorous double-dealing ... that sort of thing, that would be illegal and also be impeachable. If the evidence is sufficient, congress could (and should) act even without a conviction in any court for any malfeasance, because the congress's duty is to protect this country and a president will not be brought up on charges while he sits in office. The remedy for public malfeasance begins with impeachment.
Don't look for this to end anytime soon, unless the GOP retakes the majority in the House. TBH, every GOP candidate running for a House seat should make that a plank in their platform - if you want Congress to do something other than hold ridiculous circus hearings about Trump for the rest of the time, you should vote for me and other Republicans, since we have a legislative agenda other than trying to overturn the 2016 election.
Trump doesn’t have a problem trashing the Americans be it democrats or FBI etc. he never trashes these foreign dictators. He believes ANYTHING they tell him. They must have something on him.
As attorney Daniel Goldman explained at the impeachment hearing, everything Amb. Sondland said is direct evidence, not hearsay, because he is also an unnamed co-conspirator.
If this trial involved a regular citizen instead of Trump, I have no doubt that most juries would return a guilty verdict. The written and sworn testimony all point to guilt and the defense basically offered no defense, and obstructed key witnesses and documents.
Sondland did not give "direct evidence" as to Trump's intent, he merely said what his presumption was.
If this trial involved a regular citizen instead of Trump, it wouldn't have even been brought because the prosecutor would know it was impossible to prove intent so they'd just be wasting their time. They realized there was no way to prove intent here as well and that's why they charged him with the subjective "abuse of power" which can mean literally anything instead of an actual crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
Clinton was charged with
- Lying to a Grand Jury, and
- Obstruction of justice
Trump is to be charged with
- Soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our election, and
- Obstruction of Congress
The first sounds like a crime, though I'm not sure of the statute. The second would be considered the same as obstruction of justice, a crime. It's up to the Senate to determine if there is enough evidence to support these allegations.
Both of Clinton's charges were actual crimes, with Trump they couldn't find actual crimes so they went with "abuse of power" which is not a crime but merely a subjective criticism that could mean literally anything. The Obstruction of Congress is not a legitimate charge given that there's no basis for it. That's essentially like charging someone with Obstruction of Justice for refusing to waive their right to counsel and be interrogated alone.
So in short, you could say Obstruction of Congress is a crime....but there's no basis for that charge in this instance.
[…]
Anything that makes a person unfit for office is an impeachable offense.
[…]
That would be perfectly legal, but impeachable, because the congress's duty is to protect this country.
[…]
That's just how it is.
What nonsense, the Constitution states the circumstances for impeachment of various offices. Nowhere does it make Congress responsible for national defense.
Change is all right but it has to be done legally.
Whats being done illegally?
Quote:
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday there was no blackmail involved during a telephone call with President Donald Trump that has since set in motion an impeachment inquiry.
For 3 years the dems have tried to find something on trump, 2 of the top FBI agents in the United States found nothing, and now you're hanging your hat on something the person you are saying was pressured, says he was not pressured.
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.
