The Trump Crime Family

Valcazar · Nov 12, 2019

You can get impeached for whatever the House feels you should be impeached for and you an get whenever enough of the Senate thinks the House's reasons for impeaching you merit your removal. That's it.
The people can then decide those lawmakers were wrong and vote them out. The Constitution offers guidelines for what that standard should be, but that's it.

Clinton got a blowjob, and the GOP house decided lying about it was worth impeaching him. The Senate thought lying about a blowjob wasn't worth removing him from office.

The current debate is about the House deciding whether Trump's actions warrant impeachment, then the Senate will decide of what they come up warrants removal from office. It seems very unlikely the GOP will find anything to merit his removal. The people can then decide whether or not their decision was correct. (Sort of, since the voting system in the US doesn't actually measure what "the people" want.)

Bred Sob · Nov 12, 2019

Valcazar said:
You can get impeached for whatever the House feels you should be impeached for

So, you are saying, this is similar to the U.K. system where MPs can vote no confidence in the Prime Minister any time they wish.

anon_vlad · Nov 12, 2019

Bred Sob said:
So, you are saying, this is similar to the U.K. system where MPs can vote no confidence in the Prime Minister any time they wish.

Obviously, the English parliamentary procedures influenced the writers of the American Constitution, so there are similarities. However, no confidence motions are used to change leaders even when there is no hint of malfeasance.

The founders of the US intentionally left grounds for impeachment vague, but the idea was that a president could and should be impeached for bringing disrepute on the office.

Bred Sob · Nov 12, 2019

anon_vlad said:
Obviously, the English parliamentary procedures influenced the writers of the American Constitution, so there are similarities.

Yes, of course, there was influence, but of a very specific sort. My understanding is that the Founding Fathers deliberately rejected the English system and set the impeachment bar pretty high. Even if the exact definition was left rather vague, agree on that point.

Valcazar · Nov 13, 2019

Bred Sob said:
Yes, of course, there was influence, but of a very specific sort. My understanding is that the Founding Fathers deliberately rejected the English system and set the impeachment bar pretty high. Even if the exact definition was left rather vague, agree on that point.

Nothing of the sort.
Votes of no-confidence didn't even exist yet. (I think the first one was for losing the colonies). They really became a thing in the 19th century.

The Founders didn't reject much of the British system, they just tried to fix things they thought weren't working. Elections gave you a way to remove a head of state you disagreed with but they eventually decided they needed something for when that would be too long. So they included the President in the people you could impeach and fhen remove. The rules for it were basically the same as for other offices... Abuse of the office. I mean, they almost impeached a president for too many vetos. He wasn't doing his job.

Remember, high crimes and misdemeanors are things done by "high officials". You are using your office to do bad things.

Bred Sob · Nov 13, 2019

Valcazar said:
Nothing of the sort.
Votes of no-confidence didn't even exist yet. (I think the first one was for losing the colonies). They really became a thing in the 19th century.

Not exactly. The first one happened earlier than that, in 1742. They did become a thing in the 19th century, but the first three happened in the 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom

That is, if we are speaking of Prime Ministers; there were many other impeachments before that. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown.

Valcazar said:
The Founders didn't reject much of the British system, they just tried to fix things they thought weren't working.

I think they rejected the British system in its entirety, didn't they?

Valcazar said:
Remember, high crimes and misdemeanors are things done by "high officials". You are using your office to do bad things.

That is right. But if they meant any bad thing done by a high official, why did they specifically include "treason and bribery" in their formula? Redundant, isn't it?

Valcazar · Nov 13, 2019

Bred Sob said:
Not exactly. The first one happened earlier than that, in 1742. They did become a thing in the 19th century, but the first three happened in the 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom

Ah! I did not know about the 1742 one. I see the second one was about the revolutionary war as I remembered.

That is, if we are speaking of Prime Ministers; there were many other impeachments before that. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown.

Click to expand...

Yes, impeachments are far older. That's probably why the Founders used impeachment, since it was the model that existed at the time. And the use of the term high crimes and misdemeanors, as your link shows.

I think they rejected the British system in its entirety, didn't they?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you would think that? They rejected the crown in the end. They explicitly decided to split the executive branch off. But it wasn' t like they said "anything in the British system will be rejected even if it is good". They took the parts they thought worked, put in some new fangled ideas they had been working on, and haggled out solutions to the problems they thought might come up. But it isn't like they rejected common law, or the idea of a parliament or congress, or voting, or districts, etc.

I guess the Articles of Confederation are more radically different than the British system, but even then I'm not sure they viewed it as a rejection of that system so much as a deal between the various states as equals.

That is right. But if they meant any bad thing done by a high official, why did they specifically include "treason and bribery" in their formula? Redundant, isn't it?

Click to expand...

From your own link - Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.

Benjamin Franklin said impeachment was for when the President "rendered himself obnoxious" because otherwise people would just assassinate him.

The phrase is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" - I guess they wanted to call those two out as big deals. But yes, any bad thing that the legislature thinks is an abuse of the office.
They did decide to make it hard, with the two step process, so that they didn't lose an executive every time the House decided to be assholes. The result has been that people take it seriously and it hasn't been used often.

Click to expand...

Bred Sob · Nov 13, 2019

Valcazar said:
I'm not sure why you would think that?

Maybe not. Perhaps they had just changed a few minor things. Like getting rid of the monarchy, splitting off, as you point out, the executive branch, and of course dropping 'u' before 'r' in some words. Cosmetics really.

Valcazar said:
The phrase is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" - I guess they wanted to call those two out as big deals. But yes, any bad thing that the legislature thinks is an abuse of the office.

I guess they had simply misspoken. They probably meant to say "Treason, Bribery, or a Parking Ticket".

Valcazar · Nov 14, 2019

Bred Sob said:
Maybe not. Perhaps they had just changed a few minor things. Like getting rid of the monarchy, splitting off, as you point out, the executive branch, and of course dropping 'u' before 'r' in some words. Cosmetics really.

Noah Webster was a Fouding Father now? Adorable.

Yes, they got rid of stuff, and kept a lot of other stuff. There was no blanket rejection of all British concepts of government, so the idea that they rejected the British view of impeachment because it was British needs some other supporting evidence. You could read the impeachment debate from the Constitutional Convention and the various Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers perhaps and make an argument.

I guess they had simply misspoken. They probably meant to say "Treason, Bribery, or a Parking Ticket".

Good thing no one is talking about impeaching someone for a parking ticket. (Although people have been impeached for tax evasion.)

You do know that people have been impeached before. You could look at those and make a reasonable guess at what high crimes and misdemeanours includes.

Bred Sob · Nov 14, 2019

Valcazar said:
Good thing no one is talking about impeaching someone for a parking ticket.

That's right. Maybe next time.

Valcazar · Nov 15, 2019

Bred Sob said:
That's right. Maybe next time.

I wouldn't put it past the GOP, that's true. I still hold out hope they won't try impeaching for a parking ticket, though. I'm an optimist.

Valcazar · Nov 15, 2019

Roger Stone guilty of witness tampering and Donald Trump does witness tampering in real time during the impeachment trial.

These boys do love their crime.

Sol Tee Nutz · Nov 15, 2019

Have not followed this too much, do not care too much but had this sent to me from a Trump fan.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-...icial-damages-democrats-impeachment-narrative

Valcazar · Nov 15, 2019

"Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations,” Prystaiko said, according to Reuters. “You should ask him.”

Good point. Luckily, Sondland is testifying next week I think? So they can ask him.

anon_vlad · Nov 15, 2019

Trump's defence strategy keeps shifting.

His chief of staff, Mulvaney, stated that there was a quid pro quo and told everybody to "get over it", but despite his admission being on camera, denied he had said it.

Lindsey Graham defense is Trump's incompetence: "I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo". He also demanded transcripts of the closed door hearings, but is now refusing to read them.

The Republican senators are now saying that the testimony is second hand, but Trump has forbidden anybody with first hand knowledge to testify.

Bill Oakley, a Simpsons' writer, accuses the Republicans of stealing one of his scripts in which Sideshow Bob defends himself against a charge of attempted murder with the argument that attempted crimes should not be punished as attempted successes are not rewarded.

It is understandable that one issue voters (anti-abortion, NRA, tax cuts for the rich, exploiting public lands, profit from the loosening of regulations pertaining to pollution or finance, benefit from the high cost of private education) still support Trump, but anybody who still asserts that Trump is not a criminal is ingenuous or irrational.

Carmine Falcone · Nov 15, 2019

Valcazar said:
"Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations,” Prystaiko said, according to Reuters. “You should ask him.”

Good point. Luckily, Sondland is testifying next week I think? So they can ask him.

That sound you hear in the far distance? That would be Sondland currently shitting bricks. He's already had to revise testimony once and now this Trump phone call is now public knowledge. Even some talking head on Fox News today said Sondland is in a tough spot. Next week is going to be very interesting, to say the least.

Anon Vlad, Republicans don't have a viable defense. That's why they are currently in the monkey poo flinging phase, with Nunes going on about naked pictures of Trump (in case there's an ipecac shortage, maybe?) and the little stunt he and Stefanik pulled today.

Valcazar · Nov 16, 2019

They seem to be settling on a 4-point defense:

* The transcript of the June 25 call did not show evidence of a quid pro quo, particularly with respect to military assistance.
* At the time of that call, the Ukrainians were unaware of the suspension of military aid, so they could not have felt any pressure in that respect.
* President Zelensky has consistently denied that he felt pressured or coerced.
* The aid was ultimately released without the Ukrainians meeting Trump’s demands.

I'm not sure how that will hold up, but at least they seem to have settled on something. There is also a hint of "ok, this wasn't great, but it isn't worth impeachment" defense creeping in, with all the talk of it not being "outlandish" or that "he had good reason to think Ukraine was out to get him". Call that "The Parking Ticket" defense.

It would seem that the parking ticket defense would be a good tactic. Argue the President should be censured and then everyone should move on. I suspect that even that small level of criticism of the President might be too much, though, and they are afraid Trump will attack them for being disloyal.

anon_vlad · Nov 16, 2019

Valcazar said:
...
* The transcript of the June 25 call did not show evidence of a quid pro quo, particularly with respect to military assistance.
* At the time of that call, the Ukrainians were unaware of the suspension of military aid, so they could not have felt any pressure in that respect.
* President Zelensky has consistently denied that he felt pressured or coerced.
* The aid was ultimately released without the Ukrainians meeting Trump’s demands.

1) "I want you to do me a favor, though." Mulvaney has admitted on video (but later denied he said it) that there was a quid pro quo.
2) This is false. The Ukrainians did know that funds were being held up.
3) Zelensky can't afford, for the sake of the defence of his country, to contradict Trump.
4) The aide was released due to intense pressure from Congress Republicans when it became known that the funds had not been disbursed and nobody from the WH could provide an explanation for the suspension.

jalimon · Nov 16, 2019

The trumpet is now the incarnation of corruptions he had vowed to clear taking office. Who is surprised?

Cheers,

Valcazar · Nov 16, 2019

anon_vlad said:
1) "I want you to do me a favor, though." Mulvaney has admitted on video (but later denied he said it) that there was a quid pro quo.
2) This is false. The Ukrainians did know that funds were being held up.
3) Zelensky can't afford, for the sake of the defence of his country, to contradict Trump.
4) The aid was released due to intense pressure from Congress Republicans when it became known that the funds had not been disbursed and nobody from the WH could provide an explanation for the suspension.

None of the defenses hold up in a factual way, no. (I figured that would be obvious.) They just seem to think this is a pitch they can make. One of their problems is that Trump himself keeps gutting other approaches they try. I think the jury is somewhat out on 2 (in terms of when they knew what, exactly, was being held up) but they knew something was up - they may not have had all the details at that point. As for #4, I'm not sure it was pressure from the Republicans. Congress having been alerted by the whistleblower does seem to be the main thing, though. (Think of it as calling off the drug deal when the cops roll up in their car.)

The Trump Crime Family

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I am addicted member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads