Crying Chuck Schumer was on NPR carping about the rules and witnesses this very morning. He was dismissive of questions concerning the House's opportunity to get them and their refusal to work through the courts to get them.

Wildcat said:

---

Crying Chuck Schumer was on NPR carping about the rules and witnesses this very morning. He was dismissive of questions concerning the House's opportunity to get them and their refusal to work through the courts to get them.

---

Exactly. They are already pre-empting the witness decision by appealing to the press.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The founders intended "high crimes" to mean abuse of the office, betrayal of public trust. There have been many impeachment articles over the years that charged no statutory crime.

Jefferson said of impeachment:

Quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

Trump broke statutory laws as well, in service of his corrupt scheme, but violating the Impoundment Act by itself is not impeachable.

---

Which only confirms my take that when you cut through all the legal BS it is pretty much an arbitrary process. Its kind of whatever they say it is --- so its really political in that it comes down to who holds the majority in the Senate.

Now theoretically an impeachment might be for as justified and obvious an iron-clad crime that Main Street would care about, like a rape or a murder, rather than some kind of negotiation.

But in practice, impeachment can take place for no reason at all. See my prior post that since it was declared before he even assumed powers of office, we can be certain this impeachment is political.

Quote:

---

They don't really want witnesses

---

will25u said:

---

What do our resident lawyers think of this article?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/closing_a_loophole_in_sekulow_and_cipollones_response_to_the_articles_of_imepachment.html

Quote:

---

...

That was the easy part. What's the hard part?

The hard part is that the Sixth Amendment talks about the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions at trial. The plain fact of the matter is that Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution only states that "[t]he House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." There is no intent here to characterize impeachment proceedings as a trial. In fact, the issue of trial comes up in Section 3, where the language is "[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

So, what Constitutional justification is there for claiming, as Sekulow and Cipollone do in their response, that House impeachment proceedings violated rights that President Trump has according to the Sixth Amendment when the amendment evidently applies to trials, which impeachment proceedings are not?

The answer is a version of the principle I stated in a previous article as Proposition III:

Proposition III*: If legal proceedings A and B are sufficiently similar in relevant legal respects and Sixth Amendment rights are retained during A, then they are retained during B.

Here "A" denotes criminal trials and "B" denotes impeachment proceedings. Armed with Proposition III*, Sekulow and Cipollone can close a loophole that Democrat lawyers might try to jump through. Anyone who thinks I'm being excessively legalistic should keep in mind how Democrats operate.

Of course, one would have to explain why criminal trials and impeachment proceedings are "sufficiently similar in relevant legal respects." A defense of Proposition III* belongs in a law journal, which I may write later.

---

---

Even if the 6th Amendment Argument is wrong, due, the 14th Amendment Due Process arguments are facially valid.

That's why it takes a 2/3 Senate vote. Simply owning a majority in Congress that dislike the president rarely results in impeachment.

I agree what crosses the threshold of "high crime" is subjective. But in 250 years no president has been voted out by the Senate so it doesn't seem to me that the system is recklessly skewed toward frivolous impeachment removals.

*sad face emoji not intended

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

That's why it takes a 2/3 Senate vote. Simply owning a majority in Congress that dislike the president rarely results in impeachment.

I agree what crosses the threshold of "high crime" is subjective. But in 250 years no president has been voted out by the Senate so it doesn't seem to me that the system is recklessly skewed toward frivolous impeachment removals.

*sad face emoji not intended

---

No, did not say it is recklessly skewed toward removals (that part almost never "takes' -- never happens), just said that it comes down to who is the majority. For a conviction to happen along purely partisan lines, yes, it would need to be a super-majority. But it could still be for what Main Street calls an "offense" rather than a crime.

If Democrats wanted witnesses they would have allowed full cross examination of those witnesses the first time.

They didn't allow any meaningful cross-examination of witnesses during prior testimony so to use their testimony as evidence now...still without any right to cross examination is a violation of due process. (That would certainly be my argument if I were Trump). If this thing does get to the point of calling witnesses, any reference to a witness prior testimony should be thrown out until there has been a chance to cross examine them.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The founders intended "high crimes" to mean abuse of the office, betrayal of public trust. There have been many impeachment articles over the years that charged no statutory crime.

Jefferson said of impeachment:

Quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

Trump broke statutory laws as well, in service of his corrupt scheme, but violating the Impoundment Act by itself is not impeachable.

---

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing Trump's "abuse of office."

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing Trump's "betrayal of public trust."

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing how Trump "broke statutory laws."

---

Chance?

brownbrick said:

---

If Democrats wanted witnesses they would have allowed full cross examination of those witnesses the first time.

---

How do you cross examine witnesses who never appeared because the president blocked them?

For the witnesses that did appear, minority members were given equal time for questions in the house hearings.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The founders intended "high crimes" to mean abuse of the office, betrayal of public trust. There have been many impeachment articles over the years that charged no statutory crime.

Jefferson said of impeachment:

Quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

Trump broke statutory laws as well, in service of his corrupt scheme, but violating the Impoundment Act by itself is not impeachable.

---

You say he violated public trust, he did exactly what was in the counties interest. Biden isn't immune from inquiry and investigations just because he is in the democratic primary (and fading fast).

It's his fault for allowing his son to cast doubt and conflict on Biden's official actions in China and Ukraine. Which by the contained a self-admitted threat to break the same impoundment law you are all worked up about.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

If Democrats wanted witnesses they would have allowed full cross examination of those witnesses the first time.

---

How do you cross examine witnesses who never appeared because the president blocked them?

For the witnesses that did appear, minority members were given equal time for questions in the house hearings.

---

And the majority blocked witnesses proposed by the minority. Sucks to suck.

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

If Democrats wanted witnesses they would have allowed full cross examination of those witnesses the first time.

---

How do you cross examine witnesses who never appeared because the president blocked them?

For the witnesses that did appear, minority members were given equal time for questions in the house hearings.

---

And the majority blocked witnesses proposed by the minority. Sucks to suck.

---

....and broke their own House rules to do it.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The founders intended "high crimes" to mean abuse of the office, betrayal of public trust. There have been many impeachment articles over the years that charged no statutory crime.

Jefferson said of impeachment:

Quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

Trump broke statutory laws as well, in service of his corrupt scheme, but violating the Impoundment Act by itself is not impeachable.

---

You should have told the House. Then they could have included them in the Articles of Impeachment.

Quote:

---

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing Trump's "abuse of office."

---

Asked and answered 20 times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't given.

He conditioned official acts and illegally impounded public funds to advance a corrupt scheme designed to benefit him personally.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

If Democrats wanted witnesses they would have allowed full cross examination of those witnesses the first time.

---

For the witnesses that did appear, minority members were given equal time for questions in the house hearings.

---

* equal time for questions the chairmen allowed, that is. Certain topics/responses were completely off limits, and the release of the questions/answers was done in a way to favor the Dems, also. Some is still secret, for some reason no one knows.

coolerguy12 said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Huge if true.

Quote:

---

It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office... it doesn't have to be a technical crime.

---

- Alan Dershowitz 1998

---

Y'all please just kill me if I'm ever up at 1AM posting 22 year old quotes as evidence of wrong doing. My life has clearly taken a turn for the worse and isn't showing signs of improving.

---

That's when the talking points get sent out...

One good thing about CCM/GJ is that we don't have search the web to find out what the daily talking points will. be. He brings them right to us.

Problem is:

This may have happened:

He conditioned official acts and illegally (?? still in dispute) impounded public funds

this is just hostile opinion, attempted mind-reading of motive:

Quote:

---

to advance a corrupt (?) scheme designed to benefit him personally.

---

Quote:

---

He conditioned official acts and illegally impounded public funds to advance a corrupt scheme designed to benefit him personally.

---

Or maybe he just wanted to check out the new guy and see if he was as corrupt as the old one.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Quote:

---

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing Trump's "abuse of office."

---

Asked and answered 20 times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't given.

He conditioned official acts and illegally impounded public funds to advance a corrupt scheme designed to benefit him personally.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

---

A meeting isn't an official act. Even if it was, he got "nothing of value" in return. So your theory there is bunk.

Impoundment is at least a possibility, but there is probably some surrounding laws, or contradictory laws, that gave trump cover to delay the payments. There is also the constitutionality of congress conducting foreign policy outside their power of declaring war.

So yeah, you got nothing but an accounting speeding ticket and your radar gun is probably busted.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

If Democrats wanted witnesses they would have allowed full cross examination of those witnesses the first time.

---

How do you cross examine witnesses who never appeared because the president blocked them?

For the witnesses that did appear, minority members were given equal time for questions in the house hearings.

---

You know that this is a lie. And your hypocrisy is getting tiresome. The president applied the same executive privilege that Obama used. He held nothing back with the Mueller investigation and your Dems and MSM gave him no credit for being the most open of any president. Once Mueller was a bust, almost to the day, they came up with the Ukrainian sham. The president released the transcript almost immediately, thereby showing that the allegations were false. But the idiot Dems continued anyway. Once the transcript was released any other 'evidence' became secondary and irrelevant. So why should he continue to cooperate with an obvious kangaroo investigation that is only for political purposes?

By the Dems standards of interfering with a political opponent, every one who voted for impeachment is now in violation of the standards they they are applying to the president.

When will all but two of the House Democrats resign for abuse of power and obstruction of the government?

hbtheduce said:

---

So yeah, you got nothing but an accounting speeding ticket and your radar gun is probably busted.

---

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

In that other thread, there was a recent interview with Deshowitz where he also said that it didn't have crime. I'm not sure what the "gotcha" moment is.

His point is that "abuse of power" is not impeachable, that the founding fathers considered making it so, but reject it because it is a vague assertion that can mean anything.

---

But that wouldn't matter if it was a Democratic majority Senate. They would just craft something that fits their tastes and go from there.

Notice how the Democrats declare along with the MSM a desire to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. That proves it is not a legal criminal process, but a political stunt. Imagine saying you have decided to jail a CEO for insurance fraud before any claim had taken place. You can't "plan to arrest someone for a crime" that hasn't happened yet. Yet here we had the Democratic Party and elements of the MSM like the Washington Post calling for impeachment from the get-go. Before there was the slightest trace or even possibility Trump had committed wrongs as a President.

See?

Its just political. So was Johnson's and Clintons, and probably Nixon's as more comes out.

---

I'm not arguing that the libs are honest in any of this. Just that there is no "gotcha" moment from what Dershowitrz said.

Quote:

---

You should have told the House. Then they could have included them in the Articles of Impeachment

---

You're right that statutory federal crimes are not cited in the articles, they are superfluous to the constitutional crimes Trump committed. A much graver offense.

Statutory crimes are detailed in the house impeachment report however.

Quote:

---

He conditioned official acts and illegally (?? still in dispute) impounded public funds

---

The temporary withholding of the lethal military aid was an official act.

Not setting a White House meeting is not an official act.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Quote:

---

You should have told the House. Then they could have included them in the Articles of Impeachment

---

You're right that statutory federal crimes are not cited in the articles, they are superfluous to the constitutional crimes Trump committed. A much graver offense.

Statutory crimes are detailed in the house impeachment report however.

---

The GAO doesn't write or adjudicate laws. That's an accounting department.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Quote:

---

You should have told the House. Then they could have included them in the Articles of Impeachment

---

You're right that statutory federal crimes are not cited in the articles, they are superfluous to the constitutional crimes Trump committed. A much graver offense.

Statutory crimes are detailed in the house impeachment report however.

---

Yes ignoring real crimes (even if they aren't the focus), for vauge "crimes" defied by Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi really sells the country this a serious endeavor.

The Constitution is a real law. There were no statutory laws when it was written.

aTmAg said:

---

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

In that other thread, there was a recent interview with Deshowitz where he also said that it didn't have crime. I'm not sure what the "gotcha" moment is.

His point is that "abuse of power" is not impeachable, that the founding fathers considered making it so, but reject it because it is a vague assertion that can mean anything.

---

But that wouldn't matter if it was a Democratic majority Senate. They would just craft something that fits their tastes and go from there.

Notice how the Democrats declare along with the MSM a desire to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. That proves it is not a legal criminal process, but a political stunt. Imagine saying you have decided to jail a CEO for insurance fraud before any claim had taken place. You can't "plan to arrest someone for a crime" that hasn't happened yet. Yet here we had the Democratic Party and elements of the MSM like the Washington Post calling for impeachment from the get-go. Before there was the slightest trace or even possibility Trump had committed wrongs as a President.

See?

Its just political. So was Johnson's and Clintons, and probably Nixon's as more comes out.

---

I'm not arguing that the libs are honest in any of this. Just that there is no "gotcha" moment from what Dershowitrz said.

---

I know. But what I am saying is they do not need one if they want to convict. If it was a Democratic Senate it would be a done deal. They would have enough flake-outs (pun intended) to do it.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The Constitution is a real law. There were no statutory laws when it was written.

---

The constitution is not a law, which is why both congress and the executive break it all the time without being called criminals. Was the line-item veto a crime? (Which in a way is what this President tried to do).

A law is a bill passed by congress, signed by the president. Civics 101 pal.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

He conditioned official acts and illegally (?? still in dispute) impounded public funds

---

The temporary withholding of the lethal military aid was an official act.

Not setting a White House meeting is not an official act.

---

So it is even flimsier than I thought and proves my point.

So only this is valid:

Quote:

---

He [DID NOT] condition official acts and illegally (?? still in dispute) other than impounded public funds

---

And conditioning official acts is not a crime, nor corrupt, without the official taking "something of value" in return.


An investigation, or announcement of an investigation, isn't "something of value". Trump pressuring Ukraine to stay at his hotels would fit the bill.