President Donald J. Trump Impeached for Abuse of Power in Historic Vote

First topic message reminder :

With the vote still ongoing, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump on the first article for abuse of power. This followed weeks of testimony related to his dealings with Ukraine and hours of fiery debate over the process.

Should the articles pass, as expected, in the Democratic-controlled House, it would make Trump only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. The hearing is expected to begin at 9 a.m. Follow us here for all of the latest breaking news and analysis from NBC News' political reporters, as well as our teams on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/live-updates-house-votes-impeachment-president-trump-n1103576

This is a mark on his record that, much like Bill Clinton, Trump will never be rid of. And it's well-deserved.

The House impeaches and then the Senate has a trial on the question of whether to remove the president.

Since the Republicans control the Senate with a slight majority, and several Republican Senators have said they do not intend to be fair or to allow witnesses to testify in the Senate trial, Pelosi has wisely refrained from kicking the articles up to the Senate. This is driving Trump crazy, because he wants closure, and he may pressure his Senate lackeys into promising a more fair trial than what they've been willing to offer thus far.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads:



Donald Trump has already been elected/appointed (by the electoral college) once.  Your sources, Dean, are confusing the issue of impeachment with the issue of succession.

The problem arises when a president dies in office with less than two years remaining in his term.  The Vice President takes over, not ever having been elected or serving more than two years as the replacement president.  So, he could conceivably finish out the term of the deceased president, and then have two terms himself.

This happened with Lyndon Johnson, but he decided not to run in 1968.

There is an even more remote theory that has to do with the definition of “elected”.  The theory goes: since Trump was appointed (by the electoral college), and not popularly elected (he lost by nearly 3-million votes), he still has two terms under the 22nd Amendment to which he could be "elected".  But that has nothing to do with impeachment, so I assume that is not your question.

At the risk of attracting yet another of Wolfie's incoherent and probably inebriated comments, could I ask you, Quill: According to press, radio and TV reports over here, the President has been impeached by the House of Representatives. Does that mean that he has been found guilty of the allegations of abuse of power, etc.?

Or does it mean that the House of Representatives have found that there is a case to be answered - much like the preliminary procedure in a British Magistrates' court where serious and indictable crimes are involved, and that only your Upper House, the Senate, can determine the outcome?

Also, could your Supreme Court overrule the decision of the Senate?

Here, the actual finding of guilt or innocence would be the responsibility of a higher Crown court, with the possibility of appeals to the Court of Appeal and even, in major constitutionally-related cases, to the Supreme Court which sits as our ultimate appellant court, our House of Lords.

Sorry if this is causing glazed eyes among some of you, but it is of genuine interest to me as I have a couple of (very old and outdated) professional qualifications in the law and constitution of the UK, but I have absolutely no knowledge of the US political and constitutional systems.

This is much like our Grand Jury. Trump has basically been indicted and is awaiting trial to determine if his actions warrant removal.

So he could be found not guilty ?

nicko wrote: So he could be found not guilty ?

It's not really a court of law. The Senate will be deciding if he should be removed.

In theory, I guess he could be tried in a regular courtroom too. But I don't see that happening.

Clinton was not removed either but was found guilty of perjury and fined by the judge in the Paula Jones case. He then surrendered his law license as part of plea deal in that case too.

I can tell you most people in England don't know what the fuck is going on, and they don't really care !

The same as American don't care about Brexit !

nicko wrote:The same as American don't care about Brexit !

This American cares the shit out of Brexit! And I'm sure I'm not the only one in the world.

Only three presidents have been impeached in our history, so there's not a lot of precedent on the subject.  So, you are as much in-the-know as anyone, nick.  Here's what we know:

1.  It's a political process, not a legal one.  Yet, the framers modeled it after legal procedure.  So, it bears resemblance to an indictment in the House, to be tried in the Senate.

2.  The Courts play limited roles in the process, since it is political and not legal (courts are for law).  The Chief Justice sits as judge, but he can be overruled by a simple majority on any order he hands down.

3.  A simple majority (51 votes) is all that is necessary for any question, including any framework of rules.

However, the oath of office as specified in the Constitution requires each Senator to "do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you God".

At least two Senators, one the Senate Majority leader, and the other the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have said openly to the media and the Senate session, they will vote to acquit no matter what happens at trial.  This is action in bad faith.  It is a breach of the oath, before the fact, and should they go forward with their intent, it would be tantamount bearing false witness...and perjury, what Clinton was impeached for.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi does not wish to provoke or entrap these Senators, so she is withholding the Articles until she receives assurances that all Senators will serve "in good faith".  However, she will not take their word for it, but will require a set of rules, drafted beforehand, so that regardless of the vote, good faith or bad, the minority can try the case to (at least) the public, and get the truth out there.

The Senate Majority Leader does not want any witnesses or evidence at trial, and insists on just a straight up or down vote.  Trump's open corruption--involving embezzlement (usurping the funds), extortion (dangling the funds before the Ukraine president) and bribery (paying the funds only after Ukraine does Trump's bidding)--has been hidden by Trump refusing to let aides testify to Congress.  The reason why things have moved so quickly is because Trump wouldn't release the evidence and witnesses.  Now, the Republican Senate is playing the same game, foreclosing witnesses and evidence to hide the truth from the American public.  That is the impasse as it now stands.

Pelosi has boxed in the Republicans.  She has illuminated a spot light on the controversy, and if the Republican Senate does not now act in good faith, it will be a message to the electorate of who to vote for come the election next November. Republicans, acting in bad faith, do not have good records. They are betraying the public, and hiding the fact in their shenanigans to close the Senate door on facts.

nicko wrote:I can tell you most people in England don't know what the fuck is going on, and they don't really care !

I'm interested in Brexit, but I dont have any skin in that game. My general position in all politics is power being situated closer to those being governed so I supported the idea of a Brexit.

But, you are sorta correct in saying I don't care. I think that's different than being interested or intrigued enough to have an opinion on the concept.

Maddog wrote:

nicko wrote:I can tell you most people in England don't know what the fuck is going on, and they don't really care !

I'm interested in Brexit,  but I dont have any skin in that game. My general position in all politics is power being situated closer to those being governed so I supported the idea of a Brexit.  

But, you are sorta correct in saying I don't care.  I think that's different than being interested or intrigued enough to have an opinion on the concept.  

So you don't support the federal government in Washington, D.C. spending gazillions of dollars to seize up South Texas ranchlands and build a massive wall that most immigration and law enforcement experts believe will be ineffectual?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm interested in Brexit,  but I dont have any skin in that game. My general position in all politics is power being situated closer to those being governed so I supported the idea of a Brexit.  

But, you are sorta correct in saying I don't care.  I think that's different than being interested or intrigued enough to have an opinion on the concept.  

So you don't support the federal government in Washington, D.C. spending gazillions of dollars to seize up South Texas ranchlands and build a massive wall that most immigration and law enforcement experts believe will be ineffectual?

Nope, but immigration is a federal issue by law (states can't really enforce it, per the courts). So while I think there needs to be some sort of border, with people being checked when they cross, there is no need for "the wall".

I supported Gary Johnson. Do you even know what his immigration plan entailed?

No, I pay no attention to third-party candidates in presidential elections; it's a waste of time.

Edit: But I bet I would have liked his plan. I agree with Johnson on a lot of things.

What is fueling the immigration issue is voter suppression.  That is why it is a RW issue.  They see it as restrictive and punitive.

Within twenty years Hispanics will be in the majority.  They will overtake the voting public.  Hispanics, like Blacks, gravitate to one party...the Democrats.  Immigration is the spigot for new recruits for the Democrats.  You don't see any wall going up on the Canadian border; Canadians don't export Hispanics.

Republicans, to a greater and greater extent, are winnowing down to white, old men, and only the issues that please old, white men.  Republicans are taking themselves out of the race by sticking to issues and answers that are rapidly going out of business.

The old, white men are simply trying to stop time.  They champion 1950's values, and try to keep away anyone who might wish to change the value-framework. Because time keeps marching forward, and time is inevitable, they are left behind.