|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Percy writes: I agree that the evidence they already have is sufficient for voting articles of impeachment, but the more narrow and shallow the less impact. If I didn't already say it in this thread, I would like to see every Senator go on the record for every impeachable act, not just the Ukraine. House Democrats risk going down in history as giving greater weight to their political fortunes than to their constitutional responsibilities. I don't think they risk that at all. This is a very clear abuse of power on the part of Trump, and it is important to point out that it is an ongoing abuse of power. If this was something like a one-off crime (e.g. theft at a political party's offices) it might be different, but this is an ongoing campaign to solicit political favors from foreign countries, as shown by Trump's solicitation of help from China. There is an threat to the upcoming election, so it makes little sense to allow obstruction to push the investigations past the 2020 election. When Trump is impeached and it moves to a trial in the Senate I think there will be much more power behind subpoenas. I don't see any legal path for anyone to refuse testifying, so I think it is a good idea to push into the trial phase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When Trump is impeached and it moves to a trial in the Senate I think there will be much more power behind subpoenas. I don't see any legal path for anyone to refuse testifying, so I think it is a good idea to push into the trial phase. But if the subpoenas are issued now they have more time to work through the courts. Lump them all together into one court case of obstruction. Put them out there now, so that obstruction of justice can be documented when they refuse and it goes to court/s. I would list
For starters ... Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
RAZD writes: But if the subpoenas are issued now they have more time to work through the courts. I think it is rather cynical to even ask the courts to rule on whether someone has to obey a subpoena. I don't see how someone can question such a basic and fundamental constitutional power. If a citizen stated, "You know, I don't think I have to obey a subpoena," what would happen to them? I would think most courts would laugh at them, and hold them in contempt. People have been jailed for months for simply refusing to testify. How is this not settled law?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
How is this not settled law? Because some peoples' views on "executive privilege" *cough* Kavanaugh *cough* seem to change depending on who's the President.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Müller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Taq writes: If this was something like a one-off crime (e.g. theft at a political party's offices) it might be different, but this is an ongoing campaign to solicit political favors from foreign countries, as shown by Trump's solicitation of help from China. Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, but if only Ukraine articles of impeachment reach the Senate then for that trial its a one-off crime. The first successful removal of a president will require a broad range of charges that are deep in evidence.
There is an threat to the upcoming election, so it makes little sense to allow obstruction to push the investigations past the 2020 election. Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? How long has it taken to get access to il Donald's financials?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
jar writes: How long has it taken to get access to il Donald's financials? I think you're alluding to Southern District of New York lawsuit. Expedited legal proceedings are possible and probably likely for presidential impeachment lawsuits where the principles are the legislative and executive branches. An example of the courts moving quickly are the rulings issued by the Florida and US Supreme Courts after the 2000 election. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
This editorial in the NYT, Opinion | Please, Democrats, Don’t Make the Impeachment Articles Too Narrow - The New York Times, precisely captures what the Democrats are doing wrong concerning impeachment. The impeachment needs to be broad in terms of charges brought, and the evidence needs to be deep:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually I was thinking of the House request for Trump financials.
Edited by jar, : think ---> thinking
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Percy writes: Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? Possibly longer since they will start in the lowest court possible and push through each level of appeals until reaching SCOTUS. Even then, Republicans will claim that it would be unfair to remove a nominated candidate from an election, so I think it is best to get this all done before primaries are in full swing. If you are going to convince Republicans to vote for removal then you need to give them time to nominate a new candidate. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Taq writes: Percy writes: Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? Possibly longer since they will start in the lowest court possible... There are only three levels of federal courts: District, Circuit and Supreme. Lawsuits would start at the District court level, and, given the critical nature, it's reasonable to expect they'd be fast-tracked.
...and push through each level of appeals until reaching SCOTUS. There aren't a lot of level of appeals. A loser in District Court can appeal to the Circuit Court, and a loser in Circuit Court can appeal to the Supreme Court. There can be more appeals when application is made to an individual judge (appeal to a 3-judge panel or to the full court) or a 3-judge panel (appeal to the full court), but given the urgency I think each lawsuit would be brought to the full court.
Even then, Republicans will claim that it would be unfair to remove a nominated candidate from an election, so I think it is best to get this all done before primaries are in full swing. Yes, that would be best, but still not of much value without a broad array of charges and a great depth of evidence.
If you are going to convince Republicans to vote for removal... I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans.
...then you need to give them time to nominate a new candidate. Again, I can't see any scenario where the Republicans would need to nominate a new candidate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/...06-df3c54b3253e_story.html, an op-ed piece in today's post by David Von Drehle, makes several points relevant to my deepest concerns:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Percy writes: I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans. The current articles are already supported by a majority of Americans, so that isn't the problem. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. If more than half the country thinks you should be removed from office, that doesn't bode well for the next election. The only scenario where Republicans would vote Trump out would be if they saw no way of him winning. This scenario would be helped by a trial that finishes before March so they could run primaries and groom a new candidate. Just from a political standpoint, Republicans would stick with a terrible candidate Trump over a new candidate that starts out way behind the Democratic candidate. Imagine having to find a new candidate a month before the Republican convention. However, as Faith has shown us, Trump supporters aren't swayed by facts, law, or morality. Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none. The danger of that is if Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate and then the Senate decides that nothing rises to the level of Impeachment that il Donaldo will understand that to mean he really can do anything he wants with impunity. We live in Interesting Times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Taq writes: Percy writes:
The current articles are already supported by a majority of Americans, so that isn't the problem. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. If more than half the country thinks you should be removed from office, that doesn't bode well for the next election. I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans. Pick your favorite poll, but according to Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump? | FiveThirtyEight it's currently 47.8%. It's more than are against impeachment - maybe that's what you meant, that more people favor impeachment than oppose it?
The only scenario where Republicans would vote Trump out would be if they saw no way of him winning. I don't think so. I think any Republican Senator would only vote to convict if they felt it wouldn't hurt their own political fortunes.
However, as Faith has shown us, Trump supporters aren't swayed by facts, law, or morality. I don't think human beings in general are swayed by facts or logic. Trump supporters are just an especially dramatic example of this.
Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none. In all fairness, Democrats aren't much different. Two House Democrats have already come out against impeachment, and they're both from districts that Trump won in 2016. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There's effectively four levels of courts since appeals courts start with a three judge panel but the loser can ask for en banc.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024