It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[jamil]

Perhaps raising the required vote % to something like 75%... which guarantees bipartisanship.

If it's there as a protection against corrupt Presidents... then it should be put in motion when it's so obvious that something bad has happened, that both sides agree it needs to be done. This would remove the idea of using it as a political tool, because it would absolutely be a waste of time and an obvious ploy.

The one time it was used in a bipartisan way was Nixon. All others were partisan. Of course a lot of people don’t give a **** about that. Any excuse to impeach should do. Because CNN rules their thoughts.

 

[KG1]

Yep.

[video=youtube_share;NyN9R_MCWSA]http://youtu.be/NyN9R_MCWSA[/video]

That’s pretty much the long version of what I was trying to convey. Very persuasive.

The Trump defense should’ve had that attorney make their constitutional argument for them although you would think it should’ve already carried some weight to have two prominent esteemed Democrat law scholars such as Turley and Dershowitz speak in your defense.

They did not have to come forward and subject themselves to all the scrutiny but they chose to do it.

 

[jamil]

That’s pretty much the long version of what I was trying to convey. Very persuasive.

The Trump defense should’ve had that attorney make their constitutional argument for them although you would think it should’ve already carried some weight to have two prominent esteemed Democrat law scholars such as Turley and Dershowitz speak in your defense.

They did not have to come forward and subject themselves to all the scrutiny but they chose to do it.

Dershowitz did make that argument about the standard for what is impeachable. I have been of the mind that the intent of impeachment in the constitution was that it’s political and that it required political capital to pull it off. So the protection against partisan impeachments was fear of political reprisals. And I thought that was sufficient.

But, Barnes makes a convincing argument that this was not the case. That “High crimes/misdemeanors meant laws on the books actually broken. I’ve changed my view on that accordingly, at least until some more convincing historical evidence comes forth.

Dersh was right about the Clinton impeachment. It did not rise to the level. He lied under oath about something that was not illegal. Had it not been for the investigation, no crime would have been committed. And I’m not defending Clinton. I hated that administration. It’s the same defense for the Trump administration, for having convictions without crimes not related to something other than the investigation itself as a result of the Mueller investigation.

So my belief is now that a high crime on the same level as treason, a crime that is objectively damaging to the Republic was intended to be the standard of impeachment.

Also, I would not mind seeing the constitution changed to require that to pass articles of impeachment, the House must have a majority, plus 1/3 of the Administration’s party in agreement. Every impeachment proceeding thus far except for Nixon, was purely partisan. In Nixon’s case > 1/3 of Republicans in the committee voted to bring it to the floor, where eventually, they likely would have impeached Nixon with > 1/3 the support of the President’s own party. Watergate was a textbook case for why impeachment exists, and the appropriate standard for it.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Dershowitz did make that argument about the standard for what is impeachable. I have been of the mind that the intent of impeachment in the constitution was that it’s political and that it required political capital to pull it off. So the protection against partisan impeachments was fear of political reprisals. And I thought that was sufficient.

But, Barnes makes a convincing argument that this was not the case. That “High crimes/misdemeanors meant laws on the books actually broken. I’ve changed my view on that accordingly, at least until some more convincing historical evidence comes forth.

Dersh was right about the Clinton impeachment. It did not rise to the level. He lied under oath about something that was not illegal. Had it not been for the investigation, no crime would have been committed. And I’m not defending Clinton. I hated that administration. It’s the same defense for the Trump administration, for having convictions without crimes not related to something other than the investigation itself as a result of the Mueller investigation.

So my belief is now that a high crime on the same level as treason, a crime that is objectively damaging to the Republic was intended to be the standard of impeachment.

Also, I would not mind seeing the constitution changed to require that to pass articles of impeachment, the House must have a majority, plus 1/3 of the Administration’s party in agreement. Every impeachment proceeding thus far except for Nixon, was purely partisan. In Nixon’s case > 1/3 of Republicans in the committee voted to bring it to the floor, where eventually, they likely would have impeached Nixon with > 1/3 the support of the President’s own party. Watergate was a textbook case for why impeachment exists, and the appropriate standard for it.

Well said.

 

[Ingomike]

Dershowitz did make that argument about the standard for what is impeachable. I have been of the mind that the intent of impeachment in the constitution was that it’s political and that it required political capital to pull it off. So the protection against partisan impeachments was fear of political reprisals. And I thought that was sufficient.

But, Barnes makes a convincing argument that this was not the case. That “High crimes/misdemeanors meant laws on the books actually broken. I’ve changed my view on that accordingly, at least until some more convincing historical evidence comes forth.

Dersh was right about the Clinton impeachment. It did not rise to the level. He lied under oath about something that was not illegal. Had it not been for the investigation, no crime would have been committed. And I’m not defending Clinton. I hated that administration. It’s the same defense for the Trump administration, for having convictions without crimes not related to something other than the investigation itself as a result of the Mueller investigation.

So my belief is now that a high crime on the same level as treason, a crime that is objectively damaging to the Republic was intended to be the standard of impeachment.

Also, I would not mind seeing the constitution changed to require that to pass articles of impeachment, the House must have a majority, plus 1/3 of the Administration’s party in agreement. Every impeachment proceeding thus far except for Nixon, was purely partisan. In Nixon’s case > 1/3 of Republicans in the committee voted to bring it to the floor, where eventually, they likely would have impeached Nixon with > 1/3 the support of the President’s own party. Watergate was a textbook case for why impeachment exists, and the appropriate standard for it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

Well thought out...

 

[Leadeye]

Dershowitz did make that argument about the standard for what is impeachable. I have been of the mind that the intent of impeachment in the constitution was that it’s political and that it required political capital to pull it off. So the protection against partisan impeachments was fear of political reprisals. And I thought that was sufficient.

But, Barnes makes a convincing argument that this was not the case. That “High crimes/misdemeanors meant laws on the books actually broken. I’ve changed my view on that accordingly, at least until some more convincing historical evidence comes forth.

Dersh was right about the Clinton impeachment. It did not rise to the level. He lied under oath about something that was not illegal. Had it not been for the investigation, no crime would have been committed. And I’m not defending Clinton. I hated that administration. It’s the same defense for the Trump administration, for having convictions without crimes not related to something other than the investigation itself as a result of the Mueller investigation.

So my belief is now that a high crime on the same level as treason, a crime that is objectively damaging to the Republic was intended to be the standard of impeachment.

Also, I would not mind seeing the constitution changed to require that to pass articles of impeachment, the House must have a majority, plus 1/3 of the Administration’s party in agreement. Every impeachment proceeding thus far except for Nixon, was purely partisan. In Nixon’s case > 1/3 of Republicans in the committee voted to bring it to the floor, where eventually, they likely would have impeached Nixon with > 1/3 the support of the President’s own party. Watergate was a textbook case for why impeachment exists, and the appropriate standard for it.

To me this impeachment fiasco was like a recall election that the taxpayers funded. It provided a feast for big media, lots of free publicity for some along with a fortune to the dc legal community. It's been quite lucrative, even in failure, so I expect in the future you will see a lot more of it. That said, it will be tougher going if you are trying to impeach officials that support the ideological current of big media. It's always harder to swim upstream in a river.

AFTM

 

[KG1]

Dershowitz did make that argument about the standard for what is impeachable. I have been of the mind that the intent of impeachment in the constitution was that it’s political and that it required political capital to pull it off. So the protection against partisan impeachments was fear of political reprisals. And I thought that was sufficient.

But, Barnes makes a convincing argument that this was not the case. That “High crimes/misdemeanors meant laws on the books actually broken. I’ve changed my view on that accordingly, at least until some more convincing historical evidence comes forth.

Dersh was right about the Clinton impeachment. It did not rise to the level. He lied under oath about something that was not illegal. Had it not been for the investigation, no crime would have been committed. And I’m not defending Clinton. I hated that administration. It’s the same defense for the Trump administration, for having convictions without crimes not related to something other than the investigation itself as a result of the Mueller investigation.

So my belief is now that a high crime on the same level as treason, a crime that is objectively damaging to the Republic was intended to be the standard of impeachment.

Also, I would not mind seeing the constitution changed to require that to pass articles of impeachment, the House must have a majority, plus 1/3 of the Administration’s party in agreement. Every impeachment proceeding thus far except for Nixon, was purely partisan. In Nixon’s case > 1/3 of Republicans in the committee voted to bring it to the floor, where eventually, they likely would have impeached Nixon with > 1/3 the support of the President’s own party. Watergate was a textbook case for why impeachment exists, and the appropriate standard for it.

I can agree with pretty much all of this. I think Dershowitz was correct also in regards to the Clinton impeachment. As much as I disliked the Clintons I didn't feel that a removal from office would've been appropriate.

Now as to your point about an impeachable offense it should be set to a higher bar. Something that would be damaging to the Republic. The Democrats tried to argue the case that Trump put our national security at risk by witholding the aid but I'm just not seeing it having any such effect. No more so than the Obama administration refusing to provide military aid.

As far as the Burisma/Biden thing goes I think there is enough leeway to suggest that an inquiry into that whole deal was not entirely without merit given the history of the Biden family benefiting form Joe Biden's political status. I think if nothing else it would have been more beneficial to the Republic than damaging to know if a candidate had a corrupt history.

Now on to your last point I agree that a higher vote threshold should be set in the House other than a simple partisan controlled majority. I think the founders got it right with respect to a 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate as a check against the potential for a one party majority in both Houses having the sole power to impeach and convict.

In any case a 2/3 majority is a very high bar to meet and would almost guarantee the need for bipartisan support for removal.

 

[Ingomike]

To me this impeachment fiasco was like a recall election that the taxpayers funded. It provided a feast for big media, lots of free publicity for some along with a fortune to the dc legal community. It's been quite lucrative, even in failure, so I expect in the future you will see a lot more of it.

AFTM

As CM likes to say, follow the money...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dershowitz did make that argument about the standard for what is impeachable. I have been of the mind that the intent of impeachment in the constitution was that it’s political and that it required political capital to pull it off. So the protection against partisan impeachments was fear of political reprisals. And I thought that was sufficient.

But, Barnes makes a convincing argument that this was not the case. That “High crimes/misdemeanors meant laws on the books actually broken. I’ve changed my view on that accordingly, at least until some more convincing historical evidence comes forth.

Dersh was right about the Clinton impeachment. It did not rise to the level. He lied under oath about something that was not illegal. Had it not been for the investigation, no crime would have been committed. And I’m not defending Clinton. I hated that administration. It’s the same defense for the Trump administration, for having convictions without crimes not related to something other than the investigation itself as a result of the Mueller investigation.

So my belief is now that a high crime on the same level as treason, a crime that is objectively damaging to the Republic was intended to be the standard of impeachment.

Also, I would not mind seeing the constitution changed to require that to pass articles of impeachment, the House must have a majority, plus 1/3 of the Administration’s party in agreement. Every impeachment proceeding thus far except for Nixon, was purely partisan. In Nixon’s case > 1/3 of Republicans in the committee voted to bring it to the floor, where eventually, they likely would have impeached Nixon with > 1/3 the support of the President’s own party. Watergate was a textbook case for why impeachment exists, and the appropriate standard for it.

So just I’m getting this straight, and not to put words in your mouth, you think that an actual “on the books” law must be broken to be impeached?

 

[Dr.Midnight]

So just I’m getting this straight, and not to put words in your mouth, you think that an actual “on the books” law must be broken to be impeached?

 

[nonobaddog]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

 

[Phase2]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

A disagreement with the House that can be resolved by going to the Supreme Court is none of the above.

 

[drillsgt]

So just I’m getting this straight, and not to put words in your mouth, you think that an actual “on the books” law must be broken to be impeached?

That would probably be a good place to start.

 

[printcraft]

So just I’m getting this straight, and not to put words in your mouth, you think that an actual “on the books” law must be broken to be impeached?

Remember all the times you arrested people for breaking one of "kut's laws" that weren't actual laws on the books?
Please tell us of all the convictions that resulted.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Remember all the times you arrested people for breaking one of "kut's laws" that weren't actual laws on the books?
Please tell us of all the convictions that resulted.

Part of me wants to ask about this, but another part doesn’t. Nope. I don’t. Not on a weekend. Nope. Not gonna do it.

 

[jamil]

I can agree with pretty much all of this. I think Dershowitz was correct also in regards to the Clinton impeachment. As much as I disliked the Clintons I didn't feel that a removal from office would've been appropriate.

Now as to your point about an impeachable offense it should be set to a higher bar. Something that would be damaging to the Republic. The Democrats tried to argue the case that Trump put our national security at risk by witholding the aid but I'm just not seeing it having any such effect. No more so than the Obama administration refusing to provide military aid.

As far as the Burisma/Biden thing goes I think there is enough leeway to suggest that an inquiry into that whole deal was not entirely without merit given the history of the Biden family benefiting form Joe Biden's political status. I think if nothing else it would have been more beneficial to the Republic than damaging to know if a candidate had a corrupt history.

Now on to your last point I agree that a higher vote threshold should be set in the House other than a simple partisan controlled majority. I think the founders got it right with respect to a 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate as a check against the potential for a one party majority in both Houses having the sole power to impeach and convict.

In any case a 2/3 majority is a very high bar to meet and would almost guarantee the need for bipartisan support for removal.

The reason I stipulated that the simple majority in the house should include 1/3 of the president’s party, is that a partisan supermajority could still provide purely partisan articles of impeachment. This happened to Johnson. The house overwhelmingly voted in favor of the articles 147-46.

Only 4 Representatives from Johnson’s own party voted in favor. It was about as partisan as it could be. The Senate also had a supermajority and could have voted to convict, but the constitutional arguments made against impeachment by the defense, which was essentially Dershowitz’s argument, convinced enough Republicans that the rule of law were more important to the Republic than their partisan whims were to them. I’m saying the requirement would be put in place so that impeaching the president does not even make it to the senate unless it has bipartisan support (at least 2/3 of the president’s own party) even if the overall vote is a simple majority.

About the standard of actual damage to the Republic, I’m not sure there’s an objective way to define that. Every side is gonna rationalize it into favoring them. But I don’t really have a problem making that the standard and then watching the parties break limbs while contorting the logic to fit their partisan needs. Doesn’t matter a lot if they still have to get support from the other party.

 

[Phase2]

About the standard of actual damage to the Republic, I’m not sure there’s an objective way to define that.

How about: partisan political removal of the president?

 

[jamil]

So just I’m getting this straight, and not to put words in your mouth, you think that an actual “on the books” law must be broken to be impeached?

Yes. I do now. The standard needs to be objective and far above Orange man bad, or, “he’s undoing our bureaucracy!”

And the actual law broken should be on the same level as treason, bribery, real ass Nixonian obstruction of justice. Impeachment was not intended to be the equivalent of a recall. A political party should not be able to arbitrarily impeach a president like the House Democrats did.

Earlier you asked if we thought the Republicans would have tried to impeach Obama if he had done the same thing. I said, no they wouldn’t, because Obama had way more political capital than the Republicans. Even the premise of the question implies that it is political. I think if Republicans had enough political capital, the media behind them, partisan opposition deep in the government, and a rabidly partisan Speaker like Pelosi, they would have tried to concoct something to impeach Obama.

Many Republicans had similar reactions to Obama as Democrats to Trump. There was talk of impeaching Obama from the start of his administration too. But no one took it seriously because it was primarily the bat-**** crazy wing of the Republican party, and they didn’t have much power, not even after the TEA Party invasion.

I’m saying for the good of the country, presidents should be chosen by elections, and impeached only under extraordinary circumstances. If we’re going to accept the standards under which the Democrats tried to remove Trump, then we should have an impeachment trial for every president, and Obama most certainly should have been impeached.

 

[jamil]

How about: partisan political removal of the president?

That is damaging to the Republic, but the damage caused appears to be welcomed by many Democrats. They seem to be embracing the idea of burying the half of the country who disagrees with them.

But, I think if the standard for impeachment were changed to make bipartisan support a requirement, the Democrats could never have gotten it this far. Now, to get rid of the bad orange man, they’ll probably have to resurrect more dead voters.

 

[JAL]

Crime, crime, we don't need no stinking crime!

There will be another set of Articles of Impeachment starting February 6th. They will continue generating Articles of Impeachment back-to-back until the Republicans regain control of the House. The objective is completely gridlocking the Legislative Branch to prevent any legislation from being passed. Welcome to Impeachment Filibuster.

John