Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Sparko]

Well, since we're clearly not in that situation -- the charges are not baseless and they include a number of potential crimes -- the "grand jury" here has delivered a valid indictment. We have testimony from numerous witnesses and copious evidence that Trump acted against the national security interests of the United States in order to obtain personal political "favors" and that evidence has continued to accumulate as Trump's personal attorney/fixer has traveled to Ukraine and the State Dept. has responded to FOIA requests while simultaneously withholding those same documents from Congress.

So there's no merit-based argument for the Senate not calling relevant witnesses to testify about how and why Trump withheld an official WH meeting and security aid. Other than the knowledge or fear that Trump did it for exactly the reasons alleged, of course.

--Sam

The difference between a Grand Jury and an Impeachment comes into play. While a prosecutor doesn't have to prove anything to a Grand Jury, an Impeachment can't be made merely on rumors and accusations. It needs to have evidence of a "high crime or misdemeanor" -- And they haven't done so. The articles don't even charge Trump with any actual crimes. "obstruction of congress" isn't a crime. And neither is "abuse of office" - Those are just vague terms without enough specificity to mean anything. Potential crimes don't count. They have to be ACTUAL crimes. And he has to be CHARGED with them. The Dems did neither. And they can't convict on "what ifs" - if they didn't have the witnesses they wanted, they can't just assume guilt based on lack of evidence. That is unconstitutional. Presumed innocent and all that.

Based on what the House has put in the Articles of Impeachment, they have no case whatsoever. It is not up to the Senate to fix their case for them. They need to have their ducks in a row before going to trial.

[Sam]

The difference between a Grand Jury and an Impeachment comes into play. While a prosecutor doesn't have to prove anything to a Grand Jury, an Impeachment can't be made merely on rumors and accusations. It needs to have evidence of a "high crime or misdemeanor" -- And they haven't done so. The articles don't even charge Trump with any actual crimes. "obstruction of congress" isn't a crime. And neither is "abuse of office" - Those are just vague terms without enough specificity to mean anything. Potential crimes don't count. They have to be ACTUAL crimes. And he has to be CHARGED with them. The Dems did neither. And they can't convict on "what ifs" - if they didn't have the witnesses they wanted, they can't just assume guilt based on lack of evidence. That is unconstitutional. Presumed innocent and all that.

Based on what the House has put in the Articles of Impeachment, they have no case whatsoever. It is not up to the Senate to fix their case for them. They need to have their ducks in a row before going to trial.

As various constitutional scholars have noted, there couldn't even have been a crime charged when the Constitution was drafted because there was no criminal code. The "high" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to the conduct of public officials and "crimes and misdemeanors" would include criminal activity known from common law but also the abuse of public office.

Regardless, a historical review of presidential impeachment would quickly reveal that other presidents have had articles of impeachment leveled against them that did not include charges of criminal activity (e.g., Nixon's "abuse of power" and "contempt of Congress").

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Again, you're just proving that you fear the truth coming out. Why are you afraid to see more evidence Sparko?

You keep saying that to detract from the reality the truth did come out and it wasn't what you wanted it to be. If the case is incomplete, blame your incompetent traitorous heroes in the House.

[Sparko]

As various constitutional scholars have noted, there couldn't even have been a crime charged when the Constitution was drafted because there was no criminal code. The "high" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to the conduct of public officials and "crimes and misdemeanors" would include criminal activity known from common law but also the abuse of public office.

Regardless, a historical review of presidential impeachment would quickly reveal that other presidents have had articles of impeachment leveled against them that did not include charges of criminal activity (e.g., Nixon's "abuse of power" and "contempt of Congress").

--Sam

They knew there would be laws, Sam.

And no, they didn't mean abuse of the public office in the sense that one party didn't like the way a President was handling or using his powers or managing the country. In fact when they were debating the wording, "maladministration" was suggested and rejected. Even "corruption" was removed from the language.

[Mountain Man]

So there's no merit-based argument for the Senate not calling relevant witnesses to testify...

Sure there is: the House's impeachment inquiry committee did not prove they have legal sufficiency to override executive privilege.

[Mountain Man]

They knew there would be laws, Sam.

And no, they didn't mean abuse of the public office in the sense that one party didn't like the way a President was handling or using his powers or managing the country. In fact when they were debating the wording, "maladministration" was suggested and rejected. Even "corruption" was removed from the language.

Also, it would be silly to suggest that bribery and treason weren't widely regarded as serious crimes.

[Cow Poke]

Well, that's my point: you're not approaching this in an honest manner,

You took that "How to win friends and influence people" course, didn't you?

in the same way you'd look at any other trial you had no stake in.

This is not like any other trial, Sam. Impeachment is entirely a political process, initiated by politicians, governed by politicians who set their own rules, and this one, in particular, is incredibly partisan.

You're not making a factual case why these witnesses are irrelevant to adjudicate Trump's guilt or innocence, nor are you making a procedural argument for why it's the House Democrats, and not the Trump administration, who are culpable for key witness testimony being absent.

I don't need to - both sides set their own rules, the Dems ran their part by their own power, the Repubs will run their part by their own power.... and nothing you say or argue will change that.

The testimony of Duffey, Bolton, and Mulvaney is not a pointless thing, as these are officials with reportedly detailed and first-hand knowledge of Trump's orders and state of mind. You understand this, I know, and so I don't believe you truly think that such witness testimony in a trial is pointless.

--Sam

Not did I ever make such a claim.

[Cow Poke]

The analog would be that prosecutors are only ever allowed to present at trial that was presented to a grand jury because that should be enough.

Which is where this analogy breaks down -- it's more like the "is he guilty" portion of the trial is held in the House, and the "what do we do about it" portion is held in the Senate.

More like a criminal trial where you have the presentation of the case and the verdict -- then the punishment phase.

[Sam]

They knew there would be laws, Sam.

And no, they didn't mean abuse of the public office in the sense that one party didn't like the way a President was handling or using his powers or managing the country. In fact when they were debating the wording, "maladministration" was suggested and rejected. Even "corruption" was removed from the language.

The government relied on common law during its earliest phase and common law is still routinely cited in court decisions going all the way up to SCOTUS.

What's been detailed in evidence and testimony during impeachment proceedings is not "maladministration" -- the incompetent handling of executive duties -- but corrupt acts by the President (including bribery) that fall under abuse of power.

So either way you try to have it, the House impeached the President over allegedly corrupt acts using articles of impeachment that have stood up as valid in the past. "High crimes and misdemeanors", as constitutional scholars have noted, refers to public acts of corruption and does not have to include violations of criminal code but, regardless, Trump's alleged acts meet that criteria.

And all of this just so y'all can push as hard as possible to not have relevant government officials who have been implicated by documentary and testimonial evidence appear.

Pretty sure no one is even trying to maintain Trump's innocence on the merits anymore.

--Sam

[Sam]

Which is where this analogy breaks down -- it's more like the "is he guilty" portion of the trial is held in the House, and the "what do we do about it" portion is held in the Senate.

More like a criminal trial where you have the presentation of the case and the verdict -- then the punishment phase.

No, that's not how impeachment proceedings are set up at all. There's no "trial" in the House; that's done in the Senate. The vote in the House is analogous to a grand jury vote for indictment.

-Sam

[Sam]

You took that "How to win friends and influence people" course, didn't you?



This is not like any other trial, Sam. Impeachment is entirely a political process, initiated by politicians, governed by politicians who set their own rules, and this one, in particular, is incredibly partisan.



I don't need to - both sides set their own rules, the Dems ran their part by their own power, the Repubs will run their part by their own power.... and nothing you say or argue will change that.



Not did I ever make such a claim.

Here again, you're merely resorting to "it's all partisan" to avoid dealing with substantive criticisms of Republicans' conduct instead of addressing the value of the criticism on its merit.

We all know that a majority in the Senate can run the trial more or less how it pleases. The question is whether the Senate will do what's right and necessary to hold a sincere, objective, and impartial trial.

When it was the other way -- when y'all were objecting about Trump's "due process rights" that he didn't have during witness depositions, those criticisms were addressed on their merits and factually rebutted. But no one can argue that Mulvaney, Duffey, Bolton, et al. are not key witnesses served with subpoenas so there's no factual basis for denying that the Senate should allow House managers to call them to testify. So it's all ad hoc process complaints and handwaving about it all being a partisan game.

--Sam

[Sparko]

The government relied on common law during its earliest phase and common law is still routinely cited in court decisions going all the way up to SCOTUS.

What's been detailed in evidence and testimony during impeachment proceedings is not "maladministration" -- the incompetent handling of executive duties -- but corrupt acts by the President (including bribery) that fall under abuse of power.

So either way you try to have it, the House impeached the President over allegedly corrupt acts using articles of impeachment that have stood up as valid in the past. "High crimes and misdemeanors", as constitutional scholars have noted, refers to public acts of corruption and does not have to include violations of criminal code but, regardless, Trump's alleged acts meet that criteria.

And all of this just so y'all can push as hard as possible to not have relevant government officials who have been implicated by documentary and testimonial evidence appear.

Pretty sure no one is even trying to maintain Trump's innocence on the merits anymore.

--Sam

And yet they didn't charge him with corruption or bribery. wow. They didn't mention any crimes at all in the Articles. They skirted around them. They tried to imply them. But they didn't charge them. And the whole thing was based on hearsay! A whistleblower heard someone say that Trump was extorting the Ukrainian president. Then they took that rumor, invented a motive to go along with it (he did it to affect the election) without a shred of proof and spun that whole fairy tale into "Abuse of Power" Which is not even a crime. Then when they tried to get him to participate in their kangaroo court and he refused, they accused him of another non-crime "Obstruction of Congress" - and no, he didn't obstruct congress. He refused a request by one party of the House of Congress and referred it to the Judicial branch which is exactly what he should have done. Then rather actually subpoenaing him they dropped it and still charged him with the non-crime of "obstruction of congress"

Their case is a house of cards in an earthquake. Now they want a do-over. Well if they want a do-over, they should void the articles of impeachment and start over. That is their right. But trying to extort the Senate into playing their game is not. In fact, that is an abuse of power on the House democrats part, and particularly Pelosi. She has no right to demand anything of the Senate. The House has sole power of Impeachment and the Senate has sole power of Trying that impeachment.

[Cow Poke]

Here again, you're merely resorting to "it's all partisan" to avoid dealing with substantive criticisms...

No, Sam, I'm pointing out that it's "all partisan" because it's "all partisan". You can pretend to believe otherwise.

[Sam]

And yet they didn't charge him with corruption or bribery. wow. They didn't mention any crimes at all in the Articles. They skirted around them. They tried to imply them. But they didn't charge them. And the whole thing was based on hearsay! A whistleblower heard someone say that Trump was extorting the Ukrainian president. Then they took that rumor, invented a motive to go along with it (he did it to affect the election) without a shred of proof and spun that whole fairy tale into "Abuse of Power" Which is not even a crime. Then when they tried to get him to participate in their kangaroo court and he refused, they accused him of another non-crime "Obstruction of Congress" - and no, he didn't obstruct congress. He refused a request by one party of the House of Congress and referred it to the Judicial branch which is exactly what he should have done. Then rather actually subpoenaing him they dropped it and still charged him with the non-crime of "obstruction of congress"

Their case is a house of cards in an earthquake. Now they want a do-over. Well if they want a do-over, they should void the articles of impeachment and start over. That is their right. But trying to extort the Senate into playing their game is not. In fact, that is an abuse of power on the House democrats part, and particularly Pelosi. She has no right to demand anything of the Senate. The House has sole power of Impeachment and the Senate has sole power of Trying that impeachment.

This screed appears to have been written without any relevant details or knowledge of the impeachment proceedings after Day 1 or so.

Copious direct evidence and witness testimony has verified and added to the whistleblower complaint. Numerous scholars and a Judiciary Committee report have laid out the constitutional grounds for impeachment, both including abuse of power in their explanations. The Trump administration, like the Nixon administration before it, has obstructed Congress' lawful powers by withholding witnesses and documents, even while it releases highly redacted copies of those documents to private citizens through FOIA.

And the best you can do here is argue that the House should have waited for months or years for SCOTUS to resolve executive privilege claims with officials who, purportedly, have firsthand testimony that would exonerate Trump? While Trump remains completely free to continue engaging in these solicitations and pressure campaigns for his upcoming election.

Weak stuff, folks.

--Sam

[Sparko]

This screed appears to have been written without any relevant details or knowledge of the impeachment proceedings after Day 1 or so.

Copious direct evidence and witness testimony has verified and added to the whistleblower complaint. Numerous scholars and a Judiciary Committee report have laid out the constitutional grounds for impeachment, both including abuse of power in their explanations. The Trump administration, like the Nixon administration before it, has obstructed Congress' lawful powers by withholding witnesses and documents, even while it releases highly redacted copies of those documents to private citizens through FOIA.

And the best you can do here is argue that the House should have waited for months or years for SCOTUS to resolve executive privilege claims with officials who, purportedly, have firsthand testimony that would exonerate Trump? While Trump remains completely free to continue engaging in these solicitations and pressure campaigns for his upcoming election.

Weak stuff, folks.

--Sam

So basically ad hom and argument by weblink?

If you want to show me the "Copious direct evidence and witness testimony has verified and added to the whistleblower complaint" then show it. Don't link to the Impeachment report in whole. And scholars are not evidence. They are opinions. And they have no evidence that his motive asking about Biden was regarding the election and not investigating a crime for the country as he claims and involved no quid pro quo as the Ukrainian President confirmed.

As far as making the House wait for "months or years" - not only would that not happen, they are now content to wait an indefinite period to present the articles to the Senate, so what was the hurry? And just because they don't want to wait for testimony doesn't mean they can just ASSUME it and convict anyway. If a prosecution can't get one of their key witnesses to testify, they can't just claim that proves their case and rest. They have to proceed with not enough evidence which would result in an acquittal or dismiss the charges.