Impeachment

[Guest #1Stunner]

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

Interesting - the people who most vociferously argue now that impeachment is a political process I have seen are defenders of the Justice Department's stance that a sitting president can't be indicted, and that impeachment is the way to hold him accountable for his actions. The fact that the arguments for whether impeachment is political or legal correspond with the political interests of those making the arguments is very clear evidence that impeachment is, in fact, on its face, a political process. 

Also, stating that impeachment is a political process is not the same thing as saying it is a valid tool for winning politics. I am also not saying here it should be a political process, or that Trump should be impeached. (For the record, I do think he should but I also think more president should, and my feeling has nothing to do with the Mueller report)

I don't agree with your conclusion,...

Apparently, reasonable minds disagree, and have for a long time, on whether impeachment is LEGAL or POLITICAL.

I think that it is a legal process, that is sometimes used as a political saber (political tool).   Like when the Republicans used the legal process of impeachment of Clinton, as a political tool to try and take him down.   When used as a political tool (i.e., implemented without any valid basis), it WILL backfire.

[Akkula]

6 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Interesting - the people who most vociferously argue now that impeachment is a political process I have seen are defenders of the Justice Department's stance that a sitting president can't be indicted, and that impeachment is the way to hold him accountable for his actions. The fact that the arguments for whether impeachment is political or legal correspond with the political interests of those making the arguments is very clear evidence that impeachment is, in fact, on its face, a political process. 

Also, stating that impeachment is a political process is not the same thing as saying it is a valid tool for winning politics. I am also not saying here it should be a political process, or that Trump should be impeached. (For the record, I do think he should but I also think more president should, and my feeling has nothing to do with the Mueller report)

The president can't be indicted so what other remedy is there for criminal conduct?  Would a grand jury say there is enough evidence to proceed to trial?  If so they should go to trial instead of the grand jury just holding pointless hearings.  

The closer we get to next year they are just going to say that this is just  a political stunt for the election.  The house better do it relatively quickly and bounce it over to the senate so American people can see what a truly worthless body that is too.

[SleepingGiantFan]

5 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

The guy who wrote that also had his same article published in the Wall Street Journal.   And....he cited someone who wrote a law article (Jonathon Turley).

I thought both sides probably have a point.

So....I'll listen to any argument, and not necessarily dismiss it because I don't like the author's politics. 

The WSJ is another right-wing publication. If you have an article written by Turley that might be persuasive.

[Guest #1Stunner]

Just now, Akkula said:

The president can't be indicted so what other remedy is there for criminal conduct?  Would a grand jury say there is enough evidence to proceed to trial?  If so they should go to trial instead of the grand jury just holding pointless hearings.  

The closer we get to next year they are just going to say that this is just  a political stunt for the election.  The house better do it relatively quickly and bounce it over to the senate so American people can see what a truly worthless body that is too.

So that we can follow your arguments, can you define the criminal conduct?

What criminal statute you are referring to?

[pokebball]

10 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

The guy who wrote that works for the Cato Institute, an entity founded by the Koch brothers. As such, I didn't bother to read his propaganda.

Then I'm not going to read anything written by a liberal 

[Akkula]

3 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

So that we can follow your arguments, can you define the criminal conduct?

What criminal statute you are referring to?

Obstruction of Justice, Campaign Finance Violations, Using a Charity as a Slush Fund, among others.  There is enough evidence of a crime.

[SleepingGiantFan]

Just now, pokebball said:

Then I'm not going to read anything written by a liberal 

I wouldn't necessarily expect you to. Moreover, the Kato Institute isn't a right wing analogue to "liberals." The Kato Institute is so far right it's a right wing version of AOC.

 

[pokebball]

4 minutes ago, Akkula said:

The president can't be indicted so what other remedy is there for criminal conduct?  Would a grand jury say there is enough evidence to proceed to trial?  If so they should go to trial instead of the grand jury just holding pointless hearings.  

The closer we get to next year they are just going to say that this is just  a political stunt for the election.  The house better do it relatively quickly and bounce it over to the senate so American people can see what a truly worthless body that is too.

There were others involved - family members, others on his campaign team, etc.  Why no obstruction indictments on any of them?

[pokebball]

2 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Obstruction of Justice, Campaign Finance Violations, Using a Charity as a Slush Fund, among others.  There is enough evidence of a crime.

Again, why no indictments on these matters on others besides Trump?

[Akkula]

Another political crime is that Trump is COMPLETELY ignoring congressional requests for any oversight or subpoenas.  He has pretty much said that they can kiss his ass and he isn't going to comply with any of their requests for information.  What recourse does the Congress have when an out of control executive is taking over?  The guy has also declared an emergency declaration to steal congressionally appropriated money.  Are we all good just having an executive who can just streamroll and ignore its weak "rubber stamp" congress?

[pokebball]

3 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I wouldn't necessarily expect you to. Moreover, the Kato Institute isn't a right wing analogue to "liberals." The Kato Institute is so far right it's a right wing version of AOC.

 

Well, I would hope and expect both of us to read both.

[bornontheblue]

7 minutes ago, Akkula said:

The president can't be indicted so what other remedy is there for criminal conduct?  Would a grand jury say there is enough evidence to proceed to trial?  If so they should go to trial instead of the grand jury just holding pointless hearings.  

The closer we get to next year they are just going to say that this is just  a political stunt for the election.  The house better do it relatively quickly and bounce it over to the senate so American people can see what a truly worthless body that is too.

There has been no criminal conduct you fool!!!  Mueller never referenced any criminal conduct. 

[Akkula]

3 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Again, why no indictments on these matters on others besides Trump?

He should present his evidence at the senate trial that clears his name, as Mueller suggested.  In order to have a real trial the congress needs to have access to evidence so if he keeps stone walling that is really their only choice.

[Guest #1Stunner]

5 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Obstruction of Justice, Campaign Finance Violations, Using a Charity as a Slush Fund, among others.  There is enough evidence of a crime.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

Obstruction of Justice?   You mean "Attempted" Obstruction of Justice?  I'm not sure if that is a crime or not, but is that because Trump said to fire Mueller, and his cabinet wouldn't do it?   

Alan Dershowitz (the Democrat) already said that the executive branch has the authority to fire anyone, and so there can't be obstruction for saying fire someone.   I'm not sure what other conduct the Democrats are talking about.

 

Campaign Finance Violations.  I hadn't heard of anything plausible on this....

 

Charity as a Slush Fund.   I think there might be a real crime on that.   But I think that might be before Trump was elected.   

 

 

[Guest #1Stunner]

Just now, Akkula said:

Another political crime is that Trump is COMPLETELY ignoring congressional requests for any oversight or subpoenas.  He has pretty much said that they can kiss his ass and he isn't going to comply with any of their requests for information.  What recourse does the Congress have when an out of control executive is taking over?  The guy has also declared an emergency declaration to steal congressionally appropriated money.  Are we all good just having an executive who can just streamroll and ignore its weak "rubber stamp" congress?

OK, but that isn't a a real crime.   Apparently, he has the right to ignore this, because he is the President.

 

[pokerider]

So Trump's primary crime is he wanted to fire Mueller, but didn't.  Imagine it was a missing person murder investigation and the person shows up after the investigation is over,  and then the Dems want to charge with obstructing for a crime that wasn't committed!   Democrats got what they wanted in having a independent investigation.  Now they want to change the result. Just like the election itself.  

Now, if that can be viewed as a "Crime" then the whole shenanigans of the start of the investigation and everyone involved who used false evidence should be considered a crime as well.  
Really, if Dems want to go that route then Trump and the Justice Dept. should round them all up.  Including guys like Schiff who have been actively lying about the whole affair for 2 years now and using his political position to falsify.  And lets go after Obama's gang and start charging everyone related with crimes.  If I was Trump I would say, if the Democrats want to go down this road then we'll ALL go down this road.  

[pokebball]

3 minutes ago, Akkula said:

He should present his evidence at the senate trial that clears his name, as Mueller suggested.  In order to have a real trial the congress needs to have access to evidence so if he keeps stone walling that is really their only choice.

He doesn't need to clear his name.  He's innocent until you prove him guilty.  Get to work!

"A real trial"...you funny Akkula

[SleepingGiantFan]

Just now, pokebball said:

Well, I would hope and expect both of us to read both.

I'll take the time to read the Mueller report as I think I should. However, I honestly don't care enough about the issue of whether impeachment is a political issue versus a legal issue that I want to spend any more time on it. Maybe if someone could persuade me that the legal versus political distinction matters as to whether investigation of Trump should continue I'd be interested but as I've said, IMO that's a first step to take before impeachment should be considered and we're probably a few weeks away from that, no?

[Akkula]

4 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

OK, but that isn't a a real crime.   Apparently, he has the right to ignore this, because he is the President.

 

Well, it is a crime against the proper functioning of government even if it isn't a legal crime.  Maybe impeachment is a political exercise!?!

[Guest #1Stunner]

Just now, Akkula said:

Well, it is a crime against the proper functioning of government even if it isn't a legal crime.  Maybe impeachment is a political exercise!?!

Look, I think we have to all at least agree that it needs to be a real crime.   

We shouldn't impeach someone because their lawyer (Trump's lawyer) said don't respond to a subpoena, and Trump followed his lawyer's advice.

There is no crime on that front.

 

I think the charity slush fund, you have a point.   I'm not sure if that is a crime, or a tax issue, though.