Summations Only

I agree with this. What I can't accede to is any type of "your immoral act justifies my immoral act" reasoning. I don't believe "the ends justify the means."--Percy

The House Intelligence Committee just released its report on the findings of its investigation: The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry ReportSignificant excerpts from the introduction:Pages 7-8:

quote:

---

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

​

The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation. Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution.

---

Page 8:

quote:

---

Rather than a mechanism to overturn an election, impeachment was explicitly contemplated as a remedy of last resort for a president who fails to faithfully execute his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
...
While the Constitutional standard for removal from office is justly a high one, it is nonetheless an essential check and balance on the authority of the occupant of the Office of the President, particularly when that occupant represents a continuing threat to our fundamental democratic norms, values, and laws.

---

Pages 8-9:

quote:

---

As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

​

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

---

Pages 9-10:

quote:

---

Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain. Rather, it was a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President.

​

The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. The White House, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas.
...
The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a stronger or more complete case of obstruction than that demonstrated by the President since the inquiry began.
...
But the damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. Any future President will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.

---

Page 11:

quote:

---

But perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance, the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth.

---

--Percy

The aforementioned report, The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, Page 257, details Trump's intimidation of witnesses (the link is prepositioned at the right page):Page 257:

quote:

---

President Trump engaged in a brazen effort to publicly attack and intimidate witnesses who came forward to comply with duly authorized subpoenas and testify about his conduct, raising grave concerns about potential violations of the federal obstruction statute and other criminal laws intended to protect witnesses appearing before Congressional proceedings. President Trump issued threats, openly discussed possible retaliation, made insinuations about witnesses’ character and patriotism, and subjected them to mockery and derision. The President’s attacks were broadcast to millions of Americansincluding witnesses’ families, friends, and coworkersand his actions drew criticism from across the political spectrum, including from his own Republican supporters.

​

It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress. This statute applies to all citizens, including federal officials. Violations of this law can carry a criminal sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

---

Detailed accounts of each incident follow.I'm a bit surprised that Trump's holding out the possibility of pardons didn't receive any attention. The word "pardon" appears only once in the report, in Section II Endnotes (this link is positioned to that page):

quote:

---

In 1833, Justice Joseph Story reasonedwhile explaining why pardons cannot confer immunity from impeachmentthat, The power of impeachment will generally be applied to persons holding high office under the government; and it is of great consequence that the President should not have the power of preventing a thorough investigation of their conduct, or of securing them against the disgrace of a public conviction by impeachment, should they deserve it. The constitution has, therefore, wisely interposed this check upon his power.

---

--Percy

Today the Judiciary Committee will begin hearing the testimony of four witnesses, all lawyers from academia, three called by Democrats, one called by Republicans. Each has filed an opening statement, and Democrats would do well to heed the advice of the Republican witness, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University:

quote:

---

Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?

​

That is why this is wrong. [The] House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position...However, this does not change the fact that it is moving forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed the time or inclination to establish it...The House testimony is replete with references to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearly hold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.

​

Principle often takes us to a place where we would prefer not to be.

---

More directly, we must have the testimony of Bolton, Giuliani and Mulvaney (and I would add Perry and McGahn and others), no matter how long it takes for subpoena challenges to wend their way all the way up to the Supreme Court. Trump has chosen a path of maximum delay and resistance as well as a scorched earth policy of insult, attack, impugnment, obfuscation and misrepresentation. There is no way to change that. But as Turley reminds us, principle demands we follow an honorable course no matter the obstacles.Turley's opening statement: Written Statement, Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo in message title.

Jonathan Turley has become a bit of a rightwing nut job. He clamed multiple times that Obama exceeded his authority a number of times. Even when courts did not agree with Turley.
Turley thinks Clinton lying about getting a blowjob is much more of a threat to our Democracy than anything Trump has done.

quote:

---

But that same Jonathan Turley had a very different position on impeaching a sitting president when that president was a Democrat. Professor Turley, in a statement written November 9, 1998, declared that impeaching President Bill Clinton was necessary to literally protect the existence of the government, and to prevent contempt for law and anarchy.

---

Mr. Turley's actual writing at time of Clinton impeachment.

quote:

---

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.

---

The guy is nothing more than a right wing hack. Dishonest and partisan.GOP's legal expert insists Clinton had to be impeached to protect the 'existence of government' and prevent 'anarchy' - Alternet.orgTo address this specifics of your issues you posted. There is a tweet for that.
Edited by Theodoric, : name spellingEdited by Theodoric, : source

I already got tired of conservatives offering advice to Democrats, oh, twenty years ago.

I don't think that is needed for impeachment. There is already more than enough evidence to justify a trial.What I think people have lost sight of is that impeachment is an indictment. It isn't a conviction. The bar is much, much lower for indictment. It would also be worth reminding Republicans that no lawyers from the defense are allowed into grand jury hearings in the lead up to an indictment. That is how due process works in the US. Nowhere in due process does it give the suspect a right to be a part of the investigation or grand jury hearings.

I'd never heard of him before, but there's no hint of right-wing nonsense on his Wikipedia page (Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia) and I liked what I read in his opening statement. I think the Democrats are making a mistake by not pursuing subpoenas for all persons who should testify all the way up to the Supreme Court.--Percy

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 think there's only one person here who doesn't understand the difference between impeachment in the House and trial before the Senate, and they aren't a participant in this thread. The lower the bar is set for articles of impeachment, i.e., the less their breadth and evidence, the easier they can be dismissed. Congressional Republicans are pushing this view on their constituents because they know they will not listen to anyone with correct information. The contradictions from the Republican side abound. First the process is too private, then it is too public. First it is too slow, then it is too fast. First it is presumptuous for desiring testimony from principles, then it relies too much on testimony from non-principles.--Percy

In a post back in January of 2017 about Trump's inauguration (Message 138) I said this that resulted in a relatively brief sub-discussion with NoNukes about the value of political influence: When I wrote those words Obama was worth $12.2 million according to Google. Today he is worth $40 million. He has made $27.8 million in his nearly three years of retirement. He commands around $500,000 for a single speech. Just yesterday he closed on a $12 million house on Martha's Vineyard (an upscale island off the coast of Massachusetts).I continue to object to politics as a road to riches. The main driving force is the value of political influence. The rich are willing and able to pay a great deal of money for it. We have to get money out of politics. We want politics to attract our best and brightest, not our most greedy.To tie this back into the topic, I think Trump was attracted to the presidency because he's attracted to power and because he saw it as the ultimate money making opportunity.--Percy

From White House Officials Huddle With Senate Republicans On Impeachment Trial : NPR:

quote:

---

Across from a Capitol Hill impeachment hearing that President Trump and his allies loudly rebuked, members of the White House legal team and its top legislative aide huddled Wednesday with Senate Republicans over lunch to plot out a potential trial in the upper chamber.

---

Why is this not considered highly inappropriate collusion between the defendant and the trial judges?--Percy

All you have to do is read his arguments for Clinton impeachment and his arguments against anything Obama did and compare them to his arguments for Trump. Turley marketed himself as a civil libertarian for years, but he truly means civil libertys that support white privilege. Us true civil libertarians gave up on him decades ago.
He is the definition of a partisan hack.

Agreed.I am hoping that people will start seeing Obama as the grifter he has become. He has no moral voice any more. He can not ethically be a leader of the Democratic Party. He has made rumblings that he will endorse someone to blunt the progressive wing of the party. The party apparatchiks must be removed from power and the votes of the people used to determine who the candidate is.

You mean defendant and jury don't you?Enjoy

No. As sitting president and Senate.Impeachment and removal are not judicial functions. They were never meant to be judicial functions. That is why the framers did not place those duties with the courts.This is, as was intended from the beginning, a political process.Why the surprise when the process takes on political dimensions?So put down your copies of West's Federal Criminal Code and Rules. It does not apply.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.