I agree with Lausten. Bolten is providing truth in the midst of propaganda. I do not consider it anti-dotard anything. I call it honest truth and if you spew propaganda about a criminal dictator (most are criminals) without any truth then the criminal goes free. We must have truth. If he stays in power, we’ll have an Oligarchy and no democracy anywhere.
He’s not being removed by Congress. Moscow Mitch has already openly stated that he has no intention of following the law or delivering a fair trial. It’s the first trial in US history where the prosecution and defense are the same people.
Moscow Mitch needs to be impeached too- for not following the Constitution and doing his duty to the people of the U.S.
He demonstrated that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress were specifically not put into the Constitution as crimes because they are too vague and can be used as political weapons.So find the legal process that should be used. Oh, there isn't one? Because that would be worse. That's why you can't detain a congressperson for speeding, if you could, the President could make a very simple deal with the police in DC and have enough senators pulled over on the day of a big vote, and he'd win that vote.
Trump has already mocked federal judges who try to rule against his policies, and in this case, he would be right, there is no court that would take this on. It is designed to be a difficult political process so that the American people continue to have a say in the outcome. But you are relinquishing that right. You are saying there needs to be a crime, that breaking his oath to you means nothing, that ignoring precedents built up over centuries means nothing. You’re allowing him greater powers than any President ever.
@ Bob
Dershowitz is Trump’s defense lawyer. How you can accept his tortured offering of Law and the purpose of Impeachment, is beyond me .
FOX NEWS JUDGE DISAGREES WITH DERSHOWITZ'S TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE: 'THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID LAST TIME'https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge-disagrees-dershowitzs-trump-impeachment-defense-thats-opposite-what-he-said-1484374
Bob: Dershowitz almost came right out and told the House managers that the House could have successfully impeached Trump if they had chosen the right charges.Are you insinuating that there actually are charges that can be made against Trump to get him impeached for crimes? What, in your view, did Trump do that criminally violated his office of President of the USA?
By Aaron Blake Jan. 16, 2020 at 9:02 a.m. MSTwww_washingtonpost_com/politics/2020/01/16/gao-severely-rebukes-trumps-ukraine-ploy-undermines-his-no-crime-defense/
The GOP has made the idea there was no crime a central argument in its impeachment defense of President Trump. The articles of impeachment, Republicans argue, don’t actually accuse Trump of a specific, statutory criminal act, so the process is illegitimate.
This, of course, ignores that you don’t need a crime to impeach. But that strained argument was just severely undermined.
The Government Accountability Office ruled Thursday the Trump administration’s withholding of aid to Ukraine violated the law, because Trump can’t use his policy priorities to supersede the constitutional power of the purse that Congress enjoys.
If Congress appropriates the money, essentially, Trump needs to have a very specific reason for withholding it, and the reasons supplied didn’t qualify.
In a nine-page report, GAO general counsel Thomas H. Armstrong delivers rebukes to Trump and his administration, saying it has failed to abide by the law, failed to substantiate its actions and failed to cooperate by providing the necessary documentation.
The GAO report specifically refers to $214 million in funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative — it hasn’t reached a conclusion on an additional $26.5 million in foreign military financing that was withheld — that was delayed via footnotes. It says the footnotes, which said the funds were withheld to make sure they were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,” don’t satisfy the requirement for overriding Congress’s appropriation of funds.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report begins. The Office of Management and Budget “withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”
File: Date: DIGEST
Office of Management and Budget—
Decision Matter of: Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
B-331564 January 16, 2020
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
One only needs to Google:" listing Trump illegal unpresidential actions" to find plenty of specifics, that FOX totally ignores.
The A to Z of Things Trump Could and Should Have Been Impeached For
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/19/a-z-trump-impeachment/
listing Trump illegal unpresidential actionsTHE ACTUAL LAWS TRUMP HAS BROKEN, JUST WITH THE UKRAINE AND CHINA AFFAIRS, COULD LAND HIM 10 YEARS IN PRISONRyan Grim October 10 2019,
IN THE FACE of an overwhelming pile of evidence suggesting that President Donald Trump pressured a foreign country to damage a political rival, most Republicans have chosen either to remain silent or to deny outright that anything out of the ordinary occurred. Others have taken a more sophisticated route: Concede his wrongdoing, but argue that it’s not impeachable.
“Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden. Some Republicans are trying, but there’s no way to spin this as a good idea,” wrote Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel recently in The Daily Caller. But, they add importantly, that doesn’t mean his error rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
They are, however, indictable. A variety of felony criminal statutes plainly implicate Trump’s behavior, and come with lengthy prison sentences — the types of sentences doled out for high crimes, to say nothing of misdemeanors. Indeed, many of them are straightforward. Altogether, if the impeachment inquiry is limited simply to Trump’s pressure on Ukraine, the charges could amount to more than 10 years in prison.
Take 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” It’s not hard to grasp:
theintercept _com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/
I’m convinced Sree knows that CC. He just thinks this is a big joke. He is part of the class of people that can freely go anywhere on the world. He believes everyone could be like him if they wanted to.
We are supposed to take the confabulated legal opinions of hypocritical partisan hacks like Dershowitz and Ken Starr?
I don’t think so. They give shysters a good name, in comparison to them. T rump wanted them on his team due to their name recognition and experience being on TV.
Dershowitz will take on ANY client and make up any upside down and ass-backwards interpretation of laws and “Constitutionality” that suits him and his client. And I say, if that shoe does fit, you should not acquit.
About an hour ago I sent both of my Senators an email asking if there is any way the Senate could have the Supreme Court determine whether the impeachment charges are constitutional.
The Supreme Court is the one body in this nation uniquely qualified to make that determination, not the House and not the Senate. Their decision would be 99% as good as an amendment to the Constitution. Until the question of constitutionality is decided nothing else really matters.
Having the Supreme Court decide the question could set a precedent which might, in any future impeachments, induce the House to have the question addressed by the Supreme Court before voting to send articles to the Senate and, if the House didn’t get a ruling from the Supreme Court, might induce the Senate to have the question addressed by the Supreme Court before setting rules for the trial.
Lausten: “It is designed to be a difficult political process so that the American people continue to have a say in the outcome.”
False. According to the Constitution the people have no say in the outcome; the Senate has sole responsibility and authority.
The fact that the Dems are trying the impeachment in the court of public opinion tells us their motives are only political. It is an obvious attempt to influence the 2020 election. They are abusing the power of the House for personal and political gain, the exact same thing they are accusing Trump of doing. They are hypocritical in the extreme.
TimB: “… will take on ANY client and make up any upside down and ass-backwards interpretation of laws and “Constitutionality” that suits him and his client.”
You have just defined the role of a lawyer.
the Senate has sole responsibility and authority.And who elects Senators ?
the exact same thing they are accusing Trump of doingSorry, who used allocated funds to coerce a foriegn leader?
The House has the Constitutional power AND duty to Impeach when deemed necessary and to send the articles of Impeachment to the Senate and to present the case to the Senate. The Senate has the responsibility and duty to decide the case (additionally, since they take an oath to be impartial, they have that responsibility also, but of course, that part was blown out the kazoo, by Trumpublicans before they even started). Other than that, the Supreme Court cannot have much to say about it. It’s called division of powers. The Constitution does not go in to detail. It just gives the basics of what must be done. Other than that it is up to the congressional bodies to make their best of it, including deciding what is Impeachable. Dems provide evidence for their side of it. Trumpublicans provide BS for their side. But it comes down to votes, either way.
Ok, Bob, so lawyers are inherently as full of shit as is their (any given) client. So take what they say with that in mind. Dershowitz and Starr have no doubt been full of shit many times. But never so much as with the client who is the MOST full of shit of all time.
When T rump gets off, maybe he and Dershowitz can join OJ Simpson in looking for who killed OJ’s wife.
Russia does not create things, it consumes the riches of the rest of the world. It doesn’t care for it’s own people, it exploits them, far more than the type of exploitation seen in America. And it has always been known for its lies, just like Trump. Those are reason for distrust, for keeping your defenses up, for protecting yourself. I wouldn’t call it hatred.Fair enough, maybe it’s not “hatred.”
My main point that Russia is less of a threat to America than the reverse still stands, and I don’t expect you will be able to provide evidence for your nonsensical accusations.