Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Tassman]

Dude, someone who has no problem criticizing Trump for his faults on this forum is not what a bubble makes. Someone who incessantly parrots "orange man bad" 24/7 and that Biden, Hillary, or any other politician from the democratic party can do no wrong and to suggest otherwise is because they're susceptible to conservative propaganda conspiracies, fake journalist hacks, Russian propaganda or whatever is the very definition of not just someone in a bubble, but a pretty psychotic one at that.

You’re paranoid. This is not about “orange man bad”. Nor is it about “Biden, Hillary or any other politician from the democratic party” doing “no wrong”. It’s about the response to a whistle-blower report. Such a response is required by law. And the investigation of the whistle-blower's report has been largely corroborated by the subsequent investigation. To argue otherwise is mere denial, because it seems that the "orange man" IS bad. He's been a very naughty boy.

[Cow Poke]

...because it seems that the "orange man" IS bad. He's been a very naughty boy.

The question is, has his "badness" risen (or descended ) to the level of an impeachable offense.

AND, since impeachment is a political process, can the House actually pass articles of impeachment to the Senate, and will the Senate remove "orange man".

(It's sounding like some Democrats in the House are starting to think that orange man's naughtiness has risen (or descended) to the level of censure, but not impeachment)

[Cow Poke]

(It's sounding like some Democrats in the House are starting to think that orange man's naughtiness has risen (or descended) to the level of censure, but not impeachment)

Are House Democrats Getting Cold Feet Over Impeachment?

[rogue06]

You may have missed this earlier, Jim. I'll bold the pertinent part....
The term "misdemeanor", of course, indicates it's a criminal court, and happens to be the same word used in the US Constitution as one of the offenses for which impeachment can be commenced.

Do I Have to Appear in Court or Can My Attorney Appear for Me?

If you are a perpetrator of a misdemeanor, your attorney is allowed to appear in court for you. He/she may defend your rights without your presence on your behalf at all stages of your case. But, if your charge is brought for a felony you must take part in all stages including arraignment, plea, preliminary hearing, parts of a trial and sentencing at the court with your attorney.

So, as I said, even in a criminal case, the defendant may not be required to be present.

Interesting that they say "If you are a perpetrator of a misdemeanor" rather than "If you are charged with a misdemeanor." Either they assume everyone is guilty or only those guilty can have their attorney appear in court for them

[rogue06]

Laughing --- I saw that (malarkey) on the side of Biden's bus, and it inspired me to make up a word!

There's a Houston contractor who regularly uses that word...

That's the slogan for a national chain. We have them in Atlanta as well.

[rogue06]

You’re paranoid. This is not about “orange man bad”. Nor is it about “Biden, Hillary or any other politician from the democratic party” doing “no wrong”. It’s about the response to a whistle-blower report. Such a response is required by law. And the investigation of the whistle-blower's report has been largely corroborated by the subsequent investigation. To argue otherwise is mere denial, because it seems that the "orange man" IS bad. He's been a very naughty boy.

Ciaramella's report (legally he is nothing but a leaker and is NOT a whistleblower) was yet another flop on par with the Mueller Report and Mueller's testifying. The hearings were packed with folks who had no direct knowledge but who had heard something from someone who overheard something with the one or two actual witnesses admitting that they had "presumed" and even "guessed"

Please Clickinate on Imagification

And Sondland even confirmed that Trump had explicitly and expressly told him that he did not want anything in exchange -- any quid pro quo. He testified that he had directly called Trump in order to find out why the aid was being delayed. "I asked the president, ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’" Sondland declared. "The president responded, ‘Nothing. There is no quid pro.’"

Sondland confirmed that Trump had told him that "I want nothing. I don’t want to give them anything, and I don’t want anything from them."

This is the nature and quality of the "evidence" that you are building this house of cards upon.

[rogue06]

Are House Democrats Getting Cold Feet Over Impeachment?

John Hinderaker has a piece at Powerline where he makes a pretty good case that the Democrats have little choice but to proceed but may wish they didn't when it gets to the Senate:

Source: ARE HOUSE DEMOCRATS GETTING COLD FEET?

A number of right-leaning news sources speculate that House Democrats are having second thoughts about impeaching President Trump. Such speculation is based in part on polls that generally show opinion turning against impeachment, especially among independents. A lot of attention–too much, I think–has also been paid to a radio interview given by Michigan Democrat Brenda Lawrence, in which she said “I don’t see the value of” impeaching Trump. Lawrence advocated a censure resolution instead, along with a focus on next year’s election. Of course, she promptly recanted when her comments became widely known.

My own view has long been that impeachment was a given once the Democrats captured the House majority last November. For them to retreat now, after two weeks of far-from-successful hearings, would be humiliating. The Democrats are a top-down party, and if House leadership demands “yes” votes on an impeachment resolution, it will get them.

And why should leadership, having set Schiff’s show in motion, change its mind now? There was never a chance of President Trump being removed by the Senate. The effort all along has been to damage the president’s re-election chances. However badly the hearings may have gone, they produced the desired result–the conjunction of “Trump” and “impeachment” in countless newspaper headlines and breathless television segments. All of that will be lost if the House now fails to pass an impeachment resolution. So the Democrats have nowhere to go but forward.

Here are the numbers: the Democrats need 217 votes to impeach Trump. There are currently 233 Democrats in the House, so they can lose 16 Democratic votes and still pass an impeachment resolution. Two House Democrats voted against beginning the impeachment proceeding, and 31 represent districts that Trump carried in 2016. In normal circumstances, Democratic leadership will free representatives in swing districts to vote against the party, as long as a majority is assured. Here, however, the Democrats need as great a show of unity as they can muster. Nancy Pelosi will do everything she can to achieve a near-unanimous impeachment vote.

Still, the Democrats must be a little worried about what lies in store in the Senate. There, the shoe will be on the other foot: an increasingly aggressive Mitch McConnell will be in charge. I assume Senate Republicans will call Adam Schiff as a witness, and they certainly will call the whistleblower Democratic Party activist who collaborated with Schiff’s staff to set this silly proceeding in motion. They also are likely to call Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses, to explore the Obama administration corruption that President Trump allegedly was trying to investigate. It has been reported that three different Senate committees are now investigating not only the Biden family’s Ukraine corruption ($3 million worth!), but also the Obama/Biden administration’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election. That, too, could be explored in a Senate trial.

So any trepidation the Democrats may feel as they vote for their impeachment resolution is understandable. There is another X-factor: Chief Justice John Roberts. The Constitution provides that Roberts will preside over the Senate “trial.” How he conducts the proceeding will be important. Roberts’ tenure so far has been disappointing to many conservatives. (For what it is worth, I have defended him against some criticisms from the right.) But this is a crucial moment: his conduct of the proceeding will make a difference in how it is perceived by the public.

Another important question is how minority voters are responding to the Democrats’ obsession with partisan advantage. As I have written before, a lot of African-American voters, especially men, identify with Trump. Among Hispanics, too, Trump’s support has steadily grown. In both cases, this has a lot to do with the success of his economic policies, which have brought unprecedented prosperity to both black and Hispanic communities. But there is a cultural element as well.

The Trump campaign has announced a six-figure ad buy on black radio stations and newspapers. The theme is “Black Voices For Trump,” and Trump’s record will make the campaign appealing to millions of black voters. Polls, as always, are variable, but in some, President Trump’s approval rating is well over 30% among African-Americans. We are seeing similar numbers among Hispanics. If Trump continues to make a strong push for minority votes over the next year, his support there could make it impossible for any Democrat to beat him. Very few minority voters are impressed by Adam Schiff and the whistleblower Democratic Party activist.

So, in my view, President Trump will be impeached, simply because the Democrats have no way to go but forward. From there on, the path gets rocky. With luck (and an assist from John Roberts) the Senate “trial” turns into a fiasco for them. Beyond that, minority voters who care a great deal about jobs and very little about Ukrainian politics are likely to see the Democrats’ anti-Trump obsession as an attack on them. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, the Democrats will gain nothing from their impeachment obsession, and may instead be the net loser. Let’s hope that turns out to be the case.




Source

© Copyright Original Source

[NorrinRadd]

I don't really trust Roberts. But as I understand it, even if he technically presides over the trial, the Senate itself will set the rules for the trial, so his wishy-washiness may be circumscribed.

[firstfloor]

Nutty Barr is having a melt-down over the IG report. He might be headed for impeachment too.

[One Bad Pig]

Hey, you've finally recognized the democratic party modis operandi, OBP. Good job!

Fixed that for you, no charge.

[Cow Poke]

Interesting that they say "If you are a perpetrator of a misdemeanor" rather than "If you are charged with a misdemeanor." Either they assume everyone is guilty or only those guilty can have their attorney appear in court for them

I think they're criminal defense attorneys - maybe they only get criminal clients.

[Cow Poke]

Nutty Barr....

Does that have nougat?

[Mountain Man]

I don't really trust Roberts. But as I understand it, even if he technically presides over the trial, the Senate itself will set the rules for the trial, so his wishy-washiness may be circumscribed.

I think he can be trusted since he will be mainly making decisions about process rather than rendering a final verdict.

[Mountain Man]

I think they're criminal defense attorneys - maybe they only get criminal clients.

I love the line from Breaking Bad that goes something like, "When you're trouble, you want a criminal lawyer... a *criminal* lawyer."

[Cow Poke]

I love the line from Breaking Bad that goes something like, "When you're trouble, you want a criminal lawyer... a *criminal* lawyer."

Yeah, we have a 'criminal lawyer' in town who, pretty much anybody knows, if he's the attorney, the client is probably 100% guilty. HOWEVER, we have to presume his client is innocent until proven guilty in court.

It's kinda like, "he can get you off", not "he can help you get the justice you deserve".