It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

[Ecmandu]

obsrvr…

You know what else is a false narrative? That there are more urbanites than rural people. Direct democracy actually gives the rurals MORE power, it's just that people don't fucking vote…

This is a really long discussion if you get into me about this… I'm just noting YOUR false narrative!

[Carleas]

The only words anyone testified to being left out had no effect on the substantive content and no one proclaimed contrary.

I don't think this is so, though this is related to the point you make throughout your post about biased interpretations. The Democrats didn't need the removed language to believe what they believe, because they see the rest as sufficient. The Republicans see references to Biden and Burisma as legitimate in the context of routing out international corruption. But in Bayesian terms, more discussion of Biden/Burisma (and the decision to remove those references over the protest of some people on the call) should cause us to update our priors about the President's motives on the call.

In fact such higher level securing had become his practice immediately after discovering prior leaked conversations with Mexico and Australia (no doubt from Vindman and the like).

This is at odds with the Administration's own explanation of how it ended up in a secure server, which claimed that it was put there by mistake, i.e. it did not belong there. It could not have been both normal practice and a mistake.

The US electoral college is what prevents such default slavery and protects a number of non-racial minorities from power mad users (Socialists urbanites). The founders had already calculated that issue.

Your defense of the Electoral College is interesting, but I won't engage with it here. My only point with respect to the vote is that "most people who voted voted for someone else".


We finally have the Articles of Impeachment. These match my expectation: they're short and easy for the average voter to understand, they don't touch actual policy decisions, and the accused conduct is problematic enough that they justify removing a President. They'll go to Senate, Trump will be acquitted, and the Democrats will turn them into slogans that they will hammer in every forum, every debate, every ad, every opportunity they have to paint Republicans as corrupt, self-interested, anti-American, etc.

I think it's a good play, though they elide Trump's worst sins.

[Urwrongx1000]

"Corrupt" is attempting to impeach, for no reason, a duly-elected President. Not only duly-elected, but arguably the best president in 50 years, or more. "Corrupt" is abuse of power, of Congress. "Corrupt" is the "Democratic" party attempting to overturn, overthrow, and pervert Democracy.

How is this a "Democracy" when the "Democrats" won't let us vote for who we want?

Filth, drain the swamp. Democrats comprise most of this swamp.

[Urwrongx1000]

[Carleas]

Urwrong, for all your allegations of corrupt partisanship, from your participation in this thread I can't see anything more than partisanship motivating your beliefs. You don't engage with anything that contradicts your claims, and you don't offer any evidence or argument in support. You just repeat boring rhetoric like "duly-elected" -- what does that phrase even mean to you? How is it different from just "elected"? Are only unelected Presidents subject to impeachment?

Obsrvr makes the better case.

[Urwrongx1000]

Obsvr doesn't really make a case. I would like him to; but he hasn't really made one.

My "bi-partisanship" is based on the Constitution and the nature of this "impeachment". This impeachment is a clear abuse-of-power by Congress and the Democrats. I only wish I had more experience and knowledge of past impeachments, including Clinton's impeachment. I believe that this impeachment is the most corrupt and unjust in US history. It is also a direct-attack against the US Constitution and our US public. It is an attempt to invalidate, and smear, the Majority vote, that won Trump's election. It's contradiction of "Democracy". How can you be a "Democrat" if you refuse, reject, and attempt to overturn, illegally, the votes of the majority of America?!?

Without extensive Constitutional Law knowledge, I'm guessing that you can't impeach the President for "anything you want". You need to file a charge. And it ought to be criminal. And it ought to be a High Crime, meaning, explicitly illegal. I don't necessarily agree with Clinton's impeachment insofar as I don't really care, personally, that he got a blowjob from his secretary. He bold-face lied to the US public, which is wrong, but I doubt its legitimacy for impeachment. At the very least, Clinton was caught in a lie.

In this "impeachment", which is actually a Coup attempt, and treason by DNC and Liberal-Left, there is no charge! There is no crime! There is certainly no High Crime! In fact, DNC has been wasting millions and millions of taxpayer dollars for years now, attempting to find a crime, any crime! And the only reason this went forward, was because they had a gold-mine in this "whistleblower" (Traitorous Spy), which turned out to be nothing. Trump released his call, and it was legit. Trump has Right, and he is Justified, to seek Corruption in Ukraine, whether that includes Biden and his son's no-show job, or not. Trump has every Right to investigate DNC corruption and treason, which this turns out to be. The reason for the backlash, is because this "impeachment" is actually going to expose Biden, his son's No-show Ukraine job worth millions, and Biden's Quid Pro Quo Joe caught on tape. Trump is more than justified in investigating Biden.

Furthermore, this "anonymous" source, being used as the center of the impeachment, and "protecting" his identity, which is a violation of the First Amendment of US public, that "we cannot say the name" or be banned from public venues or forums, is illegal. You cannot attempt to impeach a President, under an anonymous source! Are you fucking insane?!?!? This is absolutely unjust and treasonous!!!


In what Court of Law can accusations be made anonymously, you cannot confront your accuser, and you have no recourse to defend yourself?!?

The fact that you and others, Liberal-Left think this is valid or reasonable in ANY FORM and in ANY LENGTH, is just unbearable. This is a direct attack against our US Constitution, the US Public, our voting-rights, it is Anti-Democracy. Furthermore it is traitorous and treasonous.


I hope that Trump and Republicans use the full weight of their power to destroy the DNC for this.

[Urwrongx1000]

Any Democratic Congressman who votes for this sham, is treasonous against the US Constitution and US public.

I would fully respect and support any Democratic Congressman who votes against this unjust impeachment.

If DNC and the liberal-left have any moral legitimacy, any moral quality, then they would strike this down and revoke it immediately.

[Urwrongx1000]

[Urwrongx1000]

I'm Bi-Partisan when it comes to impeachment because I disagree with the nature of Clinton's impeachment. I don't think getting a BJ from an intern, is impeachable. There is a case against Perjury, which Clinton committed, but in the case of covering up a BJ, I don't really think that's a strong enough case.

This case against Trump, however, is no case at all, which is about as corrupt as you can possibly be.


For there to be a Legitimate impeachment, there must be a High Crime of seriously and severe political and domestic implications. The vote must be Bi-partisan, not "only one party", and must follow due process of Law. There should be formal charges of a crime, with jurisprudence and overseen by the Law and Supreme Court if necessary.

I believe the US should be amended so that 2/3 of the House of Congress must vote to impeach, not 51%. That is outdated, and it clearly shows.

[Urwrongx1000]

Here's some Righteous Fury and Justice... hopefully just the beginning.

[obsrvr524]

Your defense of the Electoral College is interesting, but I won't engage with it here. My only point with respect to the vote is that "most people who voted voted for someone else".

I will take that to be as close to a concession as ever to be expected on this discussion board.

As to the rest:

The only words anyone testified to being left out had no effect on the substantive content and no one proclaimed contrary.

I don't think this is so, though this is related to the point you make throughout your post about biased interpretations. The Democrats didn't need the removed language to believe what they believe, because they see the rest as sufficient. The Republicans see references to Biden and Burisma as legitimate in the context of routing out international corruption. But in Bayesian terms, more discussion of Biden/Burisma (and the decision to remove those references over the protest of some people on the call) should cause us to update our priors about the President's motives on the call.

In fact such higher level securing had become his practice immediately after discovering prior leaked conversations with Mexico and Australia (no doubt from Vindman and the like).

This is at odds with the Administration's own explanation of how it ended up in a secure server, which claimed that it was put there by mistake, i.e. it did not belong there. It could not have been both normal practice and a mistake.

The US electoral college is what prevents such default slavery and protects a number of non-racial minorities from power mad users (Socialists urbanites). The founders had already calculated that issue.

Your defense of the Electoral College is interesting, but I won't engage with it here. My only point with respect to the vote is that "most people who voted voted for someone else".

I can see that there is an ocean of difference between your bubble of belief and mine and that you will struggle mightily to prevent yours from floating up into the light of day. I wouldn't want to be responsible for the consequences.

We finally have the Articles of Impeachment. These match my expectation: they're short and easy for the average voter to understand, they don't touch actual policy decisions, and the accused conduct is problematic enough that they justify removing a President. They'll go to Senate, Trump will be acquitted, and the Democrats will turn them into slogans that they will hammer in every forum, every debate, every ad, every opportunity they have to paint Republicans as corrupt, self-interested, anti-American, etc.

I think it's a good play, though they elide Trump's worst sins.

That is a confession to wanting to "divide the country" by once again refusing the results of a judicial system and demanding retribution and corrosive, country defeating internal resistance. Obviously you do not believe in courts but rather in media instigated public hate a d divisiveness in order to take your country from the hands of democracy into the hands of elitist socialist oligarchs (the only other option to accepting court rule and yet mentioning baysianism).

You are being a part of why your country isn't doing even better than it is already. You should hope that you never succeed.

[obsrvr524]

The articles of impeachment are

1) abuse of power - obvious hypocrisy from the Left and entirely political, easily tossed out of a real court.
2) obstruction of congress - not even a real thing but easily resolved in a real court which the Left refused merely because of political agenda timing.

The fact is that the global socialists have no scruples, morals, or ethics when is comes to gaining power over the world and yet they continue to eternally shout, "TRUST US!!".

The socialist Left in the US have openly proven that they will do anything to deceive the American population into handing them all keys to the kingdom and bowing to their dictatorial, "Third Reich" reign over the world.

The American Left (global socialists) are merely the German Nazis (national socialists) on steroids. Fortunately for the world they have been Trumped.

[Urwrongx1000]

That's right.

The Corrupt Mass Media Liberal-Left Deep State believe they own and control America, and that they can direct the thought of the Mass. Well, you can't. And you can't get away with it forever. President Trump, is true and correct, the corrupt Mass Media is an Enemy of the State. They believe they are above the law. They spread lies without consequence. And all these lies and evil are coming to fruition.

[Carleas]

I only wish I had more experience and knowledge of past impeachments [...] I believe that this impeachment is the most corrupt and unjust in US history.

You seem to be saying that you know that you don't have enough information to be very confident in this belief.

Without extensive Constitutional Law knowledge, I'm guessing that you can't impeach the President for "anything you want". You need to file a charge. And it ought to be criminal. And it ought to be a High Crime, meaning, explicitly illegal.

It doesn't. Read Hamilton and Madison and others on the standard for impeachment. Read the report on impeachment prepared during the Nixon years. Read any number of legal scholars who substantially agree that a "high crime or misdemeanor" does not mean a criminal act under the laws passed by congress.

Also note that you agree that Clinton acted criminally but shouldn't have been impeached for it. This is the same point in the other direction: impeachable conduct does not need to be criminal, and criminal conduct does not need to be impeachable.

Re: needing to file a charge, I recently learned that Andrew Johnson was impeached before the house had even drafted the Articles of Impeachment against him.

there is no charge

There are two.

I will take that to be as close to a concession as ever to be expected on this discussion board.

You shouldn't. I'm not engaging with it because it's off topic; no one is claiming Trump isn't 'duly elected', to borrow a phrase. It's a tangent to a tangent, and I'm not interested in continuing it here.

That is a confession to wanting to "divide the country" by once again refusing the results of a judicial system and demanding retribution and corrosive, country defeating internal resistance. Obviously you do not believe in courts...

Draw me out the syllogism where what I said entails wanting to divide the country.

And what does this have to do with the courts? The trial will be in Senate, it's almost completely divorced from the legal system (except that almost every member of Senate is a lawyer).

1) abuse of power - obvious hypocrisy from the Left and entirely political, easily tossed out of a real court.

Using the powers of your office to solicit foreign interference in an election by withholding military aid is a legitimate problem. Do you disagree? I'm not asking if you think that's what Trump did, I'm asking if you think that that is a misuse of the powers of the office.

2) obstruction of congress - not even a real thing but easily resolved in a real court which the Left refused merely because of political agenda timing.

We agree that obstruction of justice is a thing, right? and that interfering to make witnesses unavailable to a court is obstruction of justice? The parallel in a Congressional investigation is interfering to make witnesses unavailable to a Congressional inquiry. We know that contempt of Congress is a real thing (to which I assume you're referring when you say that a court could have resolved it), and pressuring witness to commit contempt of Congress sure seems like it would be obstruction in the same way that pressuring witnesses to violate a judicial subpoena would be obstruction.

[Urwrongx1000]

You seem to be saying that you know that you don't have enough information to be very confident in this belief.

Incorrect, I know that historically Impeachment has not been abused, except arguably in the case of Clinton (which I told you I disagree with), and especially now in the case of Trump. You're supposed to have an actual High Crime-and-Misdemeanor, not a fake one, as you represent. You can't impeach the President, simply because you don't like him, and simply because you're going to lose the next election and fall out of power. This is an Abuse of Power of Congress, they should be tried and punished. This is a violation of the US Constitution. It is a violation of America, and our Right to Vote. It is a violation of Democracy. The Majority House is trying to 'undo' and void the majority vote of the Electoral College.

It doesn't. Read Hamilton and Madison and others on the standard for impeachment. Read the report on impeachment prepared during the Nixon years. Read any number of legal scholars who substantially agree that a "high crime or misdemeanor" does not mean a criminal act under the laws passed by congress.

Also note that you agree that Clinton acted criminally but shouldn't have been impeached for it. This is the same point in the other direction: impeachable conduct does not need to be criminal, and criminal conduct does not need to be impeachable.

Re: needing to file a charge, I recently learned that Andrew Johnson was impeached before the house had even drafted the Articles of Impeachment against him.

You're wrong on this matter:



Here is an "Expert". You are not an "Expert".

There are two.

"Abuse of Power" doesn't mean anything. It's a false charge. Democrats and your DNC, may as well say, "Because we don't like the President". That's the real reason, hatred and personal bias. That is the real charge.

[Urwrongx1000]

Impeachment does mean a criminal charge, despite Carleas saying otherwise. Why? Because you can't impeach a President for no reason, or simply because "you don't like him". That is Unconstitution, and Unjust. And that is exactly what the Liberal-Left DNC are guilty of here. They are playing with fire. They are damaging the integrity of the American people, our society, our Republic, our Laws, and abusing the power of Congress.

You can't overturn the Majority Electoral College votes, for literally no reason, as Carleas claims. Ridiculous and absurd.

That is a direct attack against "Democracy". Why are "Democrats" complete hypocrites?


So voting means nothing, unless you do it according to the House of Congress? FUCK THAT!!! You know it's unjust and you're completely wrong on this one.

[Carleas]

You're wrong on this matter [that impeachable offenses need to be "explicitly illegal"]

...
a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.
...
The word “other” reflects an obvious intent to convey that the impeachable acts other than bribery and treason were meant to reach a similar level of
gravity and seriousness (even if they are not technically criminal acts).
...
As I have stressed, it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power.
...
As I stated from the outset of this controversy, a president can be impeached for abuses of power.
...

Let's remind ourselves that this is your own best evidence.

I was not familiar with Jonathan Turley prior to his testimony, but everything I've read about him (including by people who disagree with his conclusions) suggests he's a serious legal scholar who know what he's talking about. From what I've seen, his testimony is well-informed and well argued -- indeed, he's a model for what the Republican objection should look like, and the level of dialogue that should prevail in Congress. He makes the case that this is a dangerous precedent, and that is true: in the current political climate, even assuming every allegation against the President is true, anything that is perceived as lowering the bar for impeachment will be abused by the Republicans the next time they are in a position to impeach a Democratic president (that's not a knock on Republicans, similar patterns can be seen in how Democrats complained about Bush's actions and then supported similar actions under Obama). Turley's argument and testimony are the best case I've seen for not impeaching Trump (yet -- he's absolutely open to impeachment after further hearings/testimony/evidence).

But there is a countervailing danger, one of not punishing acts that undermine the institutions of law. As Turley notes, if the allegations are proven, then it can absolutely be grounds for impeachment. The question is somewhat subjective: have the allegations been proven? To hand-waive again at Bayesian reasoning, it depends on your priors. Turley isn't making the case that nothing like what the Democrats are saying is anything like what constitute grounds for impeachment, he's saying that we should be careful, have a high standard for proof, and not rush to judgement on a significant decision that will shape the future of the country.

He's not arguing that the allegations aren't impeachable, he's arguing that the evidence so far doesn't establish the alleged acts. But if you're a bit more worried about the state of the union after another year of a Trump presidency, and you're a bit less worried about future presidents doing so many possibly impeachable things, and find the accusing witnesses a bit more credible than the few defenders who chose to show up, you can take Turley's points as good and coherent and well-argued and important -- and still conclude that this impeachment should proceed.

[Urwrongx1000]

But there is a countervailing danger, one of not punishing acts that undermine the institutions of law. As Turley notes, if the allegations are proven, then it can absolutely be grounds for impeachment. The question is somewhat subjective: have the allegations been proven? To hand-waive again at Bayesian reasoning, it depends on your priors. Turley isn't making the case that nothing like what the Democrats are saying is anything like what constitute grounds for impeachment, he's saying that we should be careful, have a high standard for proof, and not rush to judgement on a significant decision that will shape the future of the country.

Democrats, the Liberal-Left, the Mass Media Deep State Establsihment, is more corrupt by a factor of 100, versus Trump. So this is no valid argument. Congress should be impeached. The Mass Media Monopolies should be smashed. Democratic treason should be addressed immediately, military intervention if necessary, to re-establish the Democratic process, that you and your are trying to undermine and shut-down.

The DNC, Liberal-Left is literally trying to void and invalidate the 2016 Democratic Election. Nadler just admitted that "election cannot be depended upon", meaning, the Democrats are against Democracy. If Democrats want to destroy this Republic, then a fight must be had. I know which side will win. If you try to invalidate the vote of the Majority (Electoral College), then so be it, let's see which side has Justice behind them.

He's not arguing that the allegations aren't impeachable, he's arguing that the evidence so far doesn't establish the alleged acts. But if you're a bit more worried about the state of the union after another year of a Trump presidency, and you're a bit less worried about future presidents doing so many possibly impeachable things, and find the accusing witnesses a bit more credible than the few defenders who chose to show up, you can take Turley's points as good and coherent and well-argued and important -- and still conclude that this impeachment should proceed.

Yes, most people hopefully understand, Democrats, you and yours, are starting with the intention first, the Conclusion, and working backward. Impeachment first, facts, evidence, and crimes, later.

Your entire party has been digging for 3 years almost, still nothing. If you can't see the nature of your corruption, how invalid and anti-reason you are, then God help you all.

[obsrvr524]

Without extensive Constitutional Law knowledge, I'm guessing that you can't impeach the President for "anything you want". You need to file a charge. And it ought to be criminal. And it ought to be a High Crime, meaning, explicitly illegal.

It doesn't. Read Hamilton and Madison and others on the standard for impeachment. Read the report on impeachment prepared during the Nixon years. Read any number of legal scholars who substantially agree that a "high crime or misdemeanor" does not mean a criminal act under the laws passed by congress.

Perhaps unlike Urwrong, I actually have read those Federalist papers from John Jay, Hamilton, and others. And it appears at the moment that you have not because Hamilton's final conclusion is partially summarized by the following quotation from Hamilton himself:

there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
.
.
too often the leaders, or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction; and on this account can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those, whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

First point - Note that the House majority is Democrat/socialist party supported very greatly by the mainstream media (propaganda ministry) aligned with the "tools" of the House; secret investigations, subpoenas, leaks to the press, and judiciary control and prejudice. This gives the accusers (the Democrat/socialists) a huge political advantage to imply and promote guilt despite any innocence.

Continuing:

The Convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust [impeachment]. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing will be least hasty in condemning that opinion; and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

Second point - Hamilton recognized that the House was much more likely to abuse such powers of accusation and thus they all settled to allow the Senate to be the final arbiter to offset the most likely imbalance and abuse of political power..

Continuing;

It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or in other words of preferring the impeachment ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body; will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement, strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share in the inquiry?

Third point - This portion of Hamilton's concern specifies that it is the House of Representative branch that should be expected to launch any impeachment inquiry but that they should plead to, hope for, and expect the Senate to agree with their decision.

In this case of Mr Trump, the House is fully aware that the Senate is completely against their decision. They already know that the true arbiters are not going to agree with them. They don't care because their aim is completely illegitimate and focused merely on political gain at the polls. They are abusing their prerogative to initiate an impeachment solely for the purpose of taking voting rights away from opposing citizens. They have admitted this abuse themselves, "We must impeach him else the people will certainly vote for him again". This is a straight forward attempt to undermine US democracy, abuse privileges granted, and treasonously attempt to overthrow a sitting US President.


Neither Hamilton, Madison, nor John Jay specified "High Crimes, Bribery, and Misdemeanors". It was George Mason who first coined the phrase but he also rejected and refused to sign the Constitution. The US Constitution first mentions it as

Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Unfortunately no one bothered to define those specific words. But there is one issue being left out in the hearings and that is that the "bribery" being called out refers to a public official BEING bribed, not any public official bribing a foreign country. Mason mentioned the issue of an English King being bribed in order to alter British laws. Whether Mr Trump actually tried to bribe Ukraine is totally irrelevant. The US Constitution has NO laws or provisions concerning mistreating foreign countries as if they were to be protected citizens of the US.

This has been a blatant abuse of language in order to falsely accuse Mr Trump.

Also note that you agree that Clinton acted criminally but shouldn't have been impeached for it. This is the same point in the other direction: impeachable conduct does not need to be criminal, and criminal conduct does not need to be impeachable.

Re: needing to file a charge, I recently learned that Andrew Johnson was impeached before the house had even drafted the Articles of Impeachment against him.

It might help to note that "Impeachment by the House" is merely a request for impeachment by the Senate. The US House cannot actually impeach anyone. They just like to call it that. The US Senate does the actual impeaching.

In the case of President William Clinton, the independent investigation team (under Kenneth Starr) found Mr Clinton guilty of 11 actual crimes. Only 2 of those were offered as articles of impeachment; Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. The crimes must be of "high crimes" nature (meaning crimes applicable to higher public officials).

Your President Barrack Obama was guilty of many crimes, including impeachable "high crimes" (including perjury). I think they didn't impeach him because it didn't work out very well when they impeached Mr Clinton.

Urwrong said that Mr Clinton shouldn't have been impeached over his sexual misconduct and he wasn't. He was impeached for perjury and trying to hide evidence from the court of that known and bipartisan agreed crime. Mr Trump has no bipartisan agreed crimes at all.

That is a confession to wanting to "divide the country" by once again refusing the results of a judicial system and demanding retribution and corrosive, country defeating internal resistance. Obviously you do not believe in courts...

Draw me out the syllogism where what I said entails wanting to divide the country.

Can do (again)...

..and the Democrats will turn them into slogans that they will hammer in every forum, every debate, every ad, every opportunity they have to paint Republicans as corrupt, self-interested, anti-American, etc.

I think it's a good play...

Note that you said nothing of them having to pursue truth and justice or balanced civility, rule of law, or anything of the like. Your first claim was that they "have to" paint a narrative that would certainly divide your country. You seem to be a demon to your own country.

And what does this have to do with the courts?

Well I guess that it is revealing of your nature to say that. The purpose of courts (and your Senate is a court fashioned after the House of Lords and the King's Court of old) is to resolve differences so that conflicts can be dropped letting life move on in a civilized manner. When people refuse the ruling of courts, or in this case simply refuse to allow the courts to decide (and also disallow the people to decide) they are inciting rebellion and corruption - exactly what global socialists want them to do - destroy the nation. The US House leaders along with the US mainstream media, are in fact, committing treason against the USA.

1) abuse of power - obvious hypocrisy from the Left and entirely political, easily tossed out of a real court.

Using the powers of your office to solicit foreign interference in an election by withholding military aid is a legitimate problem. Do you disagree? I'm not asking if you think that's what Trump did, I'm asking if you think that that is a misuse of the powers of the office.

Of course you are not asking me if I think the accusation is true. It is a strawman. You, as all socialist liberals, preface your questions with strawman presumptions so as to trick those less attentive.

Equally I believe that if President Trump published a fake birth certificate to the public, he would be guilty of perjury, an impeachable offense. But then that wasn't Mr Trump, was it.

We can play this game forever.

2) obstruction of congress - not even a real thing but easily resolved in a real court which the Left refused merely because of political agenda timing.

We agree that obstruction of justice is a thing, right?

Yes we can.

and that interfering to make witnesses unavailable to a court is obstruction of justice?

Now we cannot.

What do you think the word "justice"means? It certainly does NOT mean to submit to any inquiry. Justice means that everyone has rights that must be protected, even by corrupt politicians in US Congress. It is NOT justice for a congressman to subpoena you to testify concerning your involvement in Ukraine elections. Why? Because it is more than clear that you have absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine and the expense involved in you having to hire a barrister to protect you from procedural mistakes is unfounded abuse of congressional power.

In the case of a US President, administrative discussions are understandably held secret from political rivals as well as foreign nationals. It is called "executive privilege" for a reason. It would be highly UNJUST to make it standard procedure to open up administrative deliberations to congressional politicians and the public, especially after they have so openly displayed their extreme willingness to deceive, be excessively partial, and leak classified information. The US House leaders are very obviously not the slightest bit concerned with justice, else they would have allowed a fair and balanced investigation, which they strongly avoided.

You mentioned Alexander Hamilton. He expressly opposed the House having free reign and voted to limit their powers to overrule the Executive. Only the Senate can challenge the Executive and even they are still limited.

It is in fact the US House leadership who have been "obstructing justice" for years now. Mr Trump has merely limited their corrupt efforts and protected the US Presidency from future corrupt politicians.

[Carleas]

Just so we're, you're conceding the non-criminal abuse of power is legitimate grounds for conclusion, yes? That question is settled, now that your own witness backs what I've been telling you since page 1?

military intervention if necessary, to re-establish the Democratic process

The United States is not a democracy. If it were a democracy, Trump would not have won. The same institutions that weight votes by where they are cast also provides for the non-democratic removal of elected officials.

... you and your [sic] ... you and yours ... Your entire party ...

You are under the mistaken impression that I am a Democrat. I am not.

it appears at the moment that you have not [read Federalist 65]

What from that is at odds with anything I've said? I've acknowledged that it's a political process, that impeachment takes place in the House and the trial is held in the Senate, even that Trump will likely be acquitted in the Senate. But Federalist 65 also makes clear that the standard is not criminal, that high crimes and misdemeanors are about fitness for office, which is what I've argued from the beginning.

"Impeachment by the House" is merely a request for impeachment by the Senate.

The process is "impeachment and removal", as in, impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. Clinton was impeached. Johnson was Impeached. Neither was removed.

Your first claim was that they "have to" paint a narrative that would certainly divide your country.

My claim is nothing of the sort. Your added emphasis is misleading you. Consider:
"...the Democrats... have to [do XYZ]"
vs.
"...the Democrats will [take] every opportunity they have to [do XYZ]".
The first, your reading, takes 'have' to be a synonym for 'must', i.e. the Democrats must do XYZ. The second, what I wrote, uses 'have' to mean possess, i.e. the Democrats will use the opportunies they possess to do XYZ.

Carry on.

Well I guess that it is revealing of your nature to say that.

It's more revealing of my training. The courts are one of three co-equal branches of government, i.e. the Judicial Branch. The others are the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Impeachment takes place in the house, the trial takes place in Senate, and is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They write their own rules, and they aren't subject to review by the Judicial Branch. They aren't part of the courts, and they consider questions that are non-justiciable under the Constitutional structure.

Both you and Urwrong want to call that a court, which is probably a common colloquial use of "court". But in a technical sense it isn't a court, and that matters for how it operates, what questions it is uniquely empowered to consider, and what procedures it must follow.

Justice means that everyone has rights that must be protected

You're equivocating on 'justice' here. Yes, one sense of justice is this philosophical sense. But pleading Plato's Republic to a court isn't likely to get you very far. 'Obstruction of justice' is about obstructing 'the justice system'. Obstruction of justice is preventing the courts from doing their thing ('justice' in this sense is related to the 'judicial' in 'judicial branch', and to 'justiciable' in 'non-justiciable'). Again, these are technical terms that have both technical and colloquial meanings.

[obsrvr524]

I will accept your use of "impeachment" ONLY if you concede that impeachment, in your use, means only that a formal accusation has been made. Impeachment, much like "indictment", has nothing to do with guilt.

The US House charges the official with a crime. It is up to the US Senate to convict or acquit. This is similar to a person being indited for a crime but then being acquired in court. The US Senate IS a/the court. And you might also want to keep in mind that it is up to the Senate as to whether the accused can run for office in the future.

Additionally, I will accept your correction of my reading of your "have to" comment but then I have to ask if you approve of the Democrats "doing whatever they have to..." instead of accepting the judgement? You stated "I think it is a good play", implying that you are complicit with their lack of civility and justice.

Your use of the word "court" seems too plebeian. A court is any place where evidence is offered up for judgement. It has nothing to do with procedures and it does not merely apply to criminal, civil, or common law judiciaries.

'Obstruction of justice' is about obstructing 'the justice system'

I think that you are being too narrow in what you are calling the "justice system" in America. The justice system in the US includes the Bill of Rights, for example. The justice system is not merely the criminal and civil courts.
In a much broader sense, the entire US Constitution is a part of the USA's "justice system".

But all I was referring to was the justice system involving the court that is the US Senate and the granted rights to officials and citizens, most especially the President's right to private discussions with his staff..

[Urwrongx1000]

Just so we're, you're conceding the non-criminal abuse of power is legitimate grounds for conclusion, yes? That question is settled, now that your own witness backs what I've been telling you since page 1?

It's not settled because the requirement of impeachment is HIGH CRIME.

So no, you're simply wrong on this matter. Concerning this Coup attempt, DNC do not have any actual charges of wrongdoing, nor crimes. "Abuse of Power" doesn't even mean anything.

The United States is not a democracy.

Quoteworthy and embarrassingly wrong.

Fortunate for Americans, you and other Socialists have not risen to power, nor shall you.

It is still a Democracy, for now, despite the best attempts to undermine the Constitution and overthrow the American public.

You're equivocating on 'justice' here. Yes, one sense of justice is this philosophical sense. But pleading Plato's Republic to a court isn't likely to get you very far. 'Obstruction of justice' is about obstructing 'the justice system'. Obstruction of justice is preventing the courts from doing their thing ('justice' in this sense is related to the 'judicial' in 'judicial branch', and to 'justiciable' in 'non-justiciable'). Again, these are technical terms that have both technical and colloquial meanings.

The essence of Justice is Righteousness and Fairness.

It is neither to accuse a President on false-charges, and to invalidate the Vote and Will of the American Public.

[Urwrongx1000]

Carleas, do you agree with your President?



Won't "Impeachment" be abused on purely partisan grounds in the future? When Republicans control the House, simply impeach the Democratic President, because you don't like him?

No reasons needed. No crimes needed. No cause needed.


I presume that you agree with your President.

[Carleas]

I will accept your use of "impeachment" ONLY if you concede that impeachment, in your use, means only that a formal accusation has been made. Impeachment, much like "indictment", has nothing to do with guilt.

The US House charges the official with a crime. It is up to the US Senate to convict or acquit. This is similar to a person being indited for a crime but then being acquired in court. The US Senate IS a/the court. And you might also want to keep in mind that it is up to the Senate as to whether the accused can run for office in the future.

I agree with this description. I think we further agree that Trump will very likely be impeached by the House, and will very likely not be removed from office or barred from future office by the Senate.

But as in criminal trials, not being found guilty and not being guilty are different things.

I have to ask if you approve of the Democrats "doing whatever they have to..." instead of accepting the judgement? You stated "I think it is a good play", implying that you are complicit with their lack of civility and justice.

I think there are good principled reasons to remove Trump from office, and I think there are good pragmatic reasons to impeach Trump even though it is unlikely that he will be removed from office. I don't approve of them "doing whatever they have to" (who are you quoting there? I don't think I said that and I don't see it in any of my posts in this thread), but I approve of a reality-based approach to getting Trump out of office as soon as possible.

And to preempt what may be a response: the conduct alleged in the Articles is both likely and grounds for removal, as have been many other things that Trump has done as President. There is no tension or duplicity between thinking 1) this conduct should lead to removal, 2) this is not the first conduct that should have led to removal, 3) this conduct probably won't lead to removal, and 4) we need to ensure removal as soon as possible using the options available.

Your use of the word "court" seems too plebeian. A court is any place where evidence is offered up for judgement. It has nothing to do with procedures and it does not merely apply to criminal, civil, or common law judiciaries.

It's fine if you want to use it that way, but take care that you are sure that the conclusions you want follow from the definition of court you're using. When we use the technical term in US law, a lot of things clearly follow from it. When we use the broader colloquial definition, it isn't as clear what it entails.

The justice system in the US includes the Bill of Rights, for example.

I mean, the Constitution is part of the law, so of course it's part of the system that applies the law.

Quoteworthy and embarrassingly wrong.

Certainly could be nuanced, but not wrong in the sense that democracy was being used. As I said, "The same institutions that weight votes by where they are cast also provides for the non-democratic removal of elected officials." The Constitution explicitly limits democratic choices about who can be President. In that sense, the United States is not and was never intended to be a democracy in the sense you have appealed to.

[Urwrongx1000]

In that sense, the United States is not and was never intended to be a democracy in the sense you have appealed to.

You're the one claiming US is not Democratic, which is obviously false and a pointless lie. As-if it helped any of your points in this thread.