The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.”
This has been the main argument (from me) that the stooges of liberalism (here and elsewhere) have been rejecting. The Judiciary committee (knowing full well it will be brought up in a Senate Trial) are finally acknowledging that the President asking for something in return for aid is "legally permissible". They are apparently trying to get out ahead of it by demanding that the "legal action" of the President asking the Ukrainian President for assistance in investigations was based on "illegitimate motives".
While I might argue that the Democrats have not actually established any quid pro quo, this entire thing is a reference to the 60 year old law that allows the executive branch to set the terms and conditions for the release of aid. This law and the historical precedents for this will be brought up in any sort of Senate trial. Very likely the Joe Biden "fire the prosecutor" will be hammered by Republicans, who will demand Democrats explain the double standard. Why do Democrats defend Biden threatening aid if Ukraine didn't do as requested, while Democrats vote to impeach Trump for "allegedly" doing the same thing.
First Problem:
Once this moves to the Senate and into the light of day, it will be literally impossible for Democrats to continue to imply that asking for something in exchange for the release of foreign aid is illegal in and of itself, and still defend Joe Biden (who is on record admitting to doing just that). So the argument that they will try to make will be that Biden's actions were based on "legitimate motives" where-as Trump's actions were based on "illegitimate motives". One big problem with that is that they refuse to acknowledge any sort of need to explore the Biden situation (which leads to a serious lack of consistency).
The bigger problem, however, is that several of their own witnesses admitted under oath that the Hunter Biden situation was known to be a Problem going back to the Obama Administration and that they supported the idea that Burisma should be investigated. That is factual evidence that will be used by Republicans in the Senate to argue that what the President asked for was a legitimate request, even based on the opinions of the anti-Trump deep state witnesses brought forward to bring him down.
This is where the Democrats are required to make a fairly poor argument
- It was legal for the President to request something in return for aid.
- The Burisma investigation is a legitimate request based on the opinions of career State employees.
- But that the President had a "illegitimate motive" for the perfectly reasonable and perfectly legal request.
This requires them to prove the "intentions" of the President, which they are attempting to do without providing any evidence of... well... anything.
Second Problem:
Moreover, while Bidens' quid pro quo was clearly established, the Trump quid pro quo has yet to be actually proven by any reasonable manner within our American legal or constitutional system. The heavy burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is on the accuser in this Country and not on the accused to prove themselves innocent. The "if he was innocent he would bring forward some evidence" isn't how our country handles allegations of wrongdoing. Innocent until proven guilty is part of the fundamental backbone of our nation. Finding someone guilty of a criminal action with opinions, second hand rumors, and speculation is quite frankly un-American and unconstitutional.
The reality is that there was no mention in any phone transcripts or any sort of electronic correspondence or any other means to actually "prove" the allegation that the aid was being held up over these investigation requests. The fact that the aid was released without garnering any of the concessions that the Democrats claim were required, is damning to their case base on all legal and constitutional reasoning. At the very best, the Democrats can only claim "attempted" abuse of power.
Bottom line:
Democrats can not actually prove that any quid pro quo happened. Even if they could prove that the quid pro quo happened, they are admitting that it's not actually illegal. Their own witnesses acknowledged that Burisma and Hunter Biden was a legitimate American concern.
So they are left with demanding that contrary to every public statement made and without any actual proof otherwise, that the President had "illegitimate motives" for his legal request for a legitimate action that factually never actually happened.
50 comments:
Contrary to your argument is quite clear and simple.
The house of representatives has the right, authority and obligation to indict the sitting President for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The President of Ukraine was informed of the fact that the military aid was being withheld when the President had the "perfect" phone call.
I don't have to write a 500 word response. People with first hand evidence will be subpoenaed to testify in the Senate trial.
The Chief justice Roberts, IMNSHO may not allow the President and the Republican majority leader Moscow Mitch to subpoena Joe Biden, and turn the investigation into a reality show trial.
The house of representatives has the right, authority and obligation to indict the sitting President for high crimes and misdemeanors.
indeed. and we're still waiting for the crime - high or otherwise - or the misdemeanor.
fat nadler's report has veered off into the land of 'thought crimes.' it doesn't get any more absurd than this.
People with first hand evidence will be subpoenaed to testify in the Senate trial.
so why didn't they testify at the house hearing, alky?
The Chief justice Roberts, IMNSHO may not allow the President and the Republican majority leader Moscow Mitch to subpoena Joe Biden
on what legal basis, alky?
being a declared candidate for president - or any public office - does not provide any level of immunity or exemption from investigation or subsequent prosecution. none.
so... these bullshit talking points you've obviously plagiarized...
...as usual they make no sense.
So what do we gain by all this, my fellow Americans? If Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler & Co. were to succeed in impeaching and removing Donald Trump, what would they inherit? Not the wind, but something worse—the whirlwind—a country split beyond comprehension, even on the brink of civil war. What an accomplishment!
The gang at CNN, MSNBC, and so on. should be very proud. That’s what they wanted, isn’t it? (I wonder if they ever think about that.)
And what if the same group were to go through with the impeachment, but it misfires, fails in the Senate, as seems likely? What then? Trump is reelected but the hate remains, probably increases, even doubles or triples.
During his second term, are there constant demonstrations in the streets? Does Antifa grow with windows smashing in half the downtowns in our country? Do all our shopping malls turn into war zones? What a terrific thing to look forward to.
Of course, there is another way. It’s called saying no. It’s going back to the business of government, passing the USMCA and working on infrastructure, maybe figuring out a rational immigration system that everyone could stick to or doing something serious about all our brothers and sisters overdosing on fentanyl.
We could do all that, or even some, but unfortunately, it’s probably too late.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/suppose-they-threw-an-impeachment-and-nobody-came_3168140.html
good job democrats. because you couldn't accept the result of an election you've delivered the nation to the brink of destruction.
everything liberals touch always turns to shit.
everything.
Today's Socialist Democrats started the Impeachment on Nov. 4th, 2016.
During last Wednesday’s impeachment hearing, Democrats presented a video clip in which President Trump is seen saying: “Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
The edited video was also manipulated by MSNBC and CNN to misquote Donald Trump’s words supposedly referring to Article II of the Constitution.
As Breitbart News points out, CNN legal analyst and former Attorney General Elie Honig cited the clip edited in two special broadcasts explaining the case of the impeachment inquiry against Trump, one broadcast on Thursday and the other on Friday, Dec. 6.
In addition, MSNBC presenter and political commentator Chris Mathews played a similar video of Trump’s words on Wednesday during the “Hardball “program. And MSNBC host Joe Scarboroug again quoted the clip edited on “Morning Joe” on Thursday.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Democratic counsel for the Judiciary Norman Eisen asked Harvard Law School witness Noah Feldman to comment on the clip, to which the witness replied, “As someone who cares about the Constitution,” Trump’s words “struck a kind of horror in me,” according to Breitbart News.
Moments later, Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, mentioned the quotation heard in the altered clip and then claimed that President Trump “believes that in his own words, ‘I can do whatever I want.'”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Trump was betraying the Founders and the Constitution by acting as a ‘king’ or ‘monarch.’
However, in the unedited tape, the president’s words turn around another issue, actually referring to his power to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, not to his power to do whatever he wants.
In the original video, the president explains, “Look, Article II, I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller. Assuming I did all of the things, I said I want to fire him. Number one, I didn’t. He wasn’t fired.”
“Number one, very importantly but more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would allow me to fire him. I wasn’t going to fire him. You know why—because I watched Richard Nixon firing everybody and that didn’t work out too well,” the president explains in the clip, as picked up by Breitbart News.
https://thebl.com/politics/msnbc-and-cnn-use-a-well-known-deceptively-edited-video-to-discredit-trump.html
so when your single piece of evidence and talking point is a fucking lie, i'd say your impeachment effort is wasting everyone's time.
Roger...
I am talking about the AMERICAN constitutional principles of Justice.
- Innocent until proven guilty
- Due process
- The responsibility of the accuser to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt
You keep acting as if it is the right of one Party in one of the two Congressional chambers to ignore all of the basic principles of Justice because of semantic wording.
From the start, this is has been an exercise in how far from the meaning of impeachment can Democrats drag their faithful, all in pursuit of bringing down the "bad orange man".
There can be no doubt, Roger... that you have followed them into completely ignoring every legal and constitutional principles we have when it comes to Justice.
At least you admit that those principles are not important to you anymore.
Scott. the framers wrote the Constitution before we had a system of laws and regulations. Therefore as decided in the past that a specific indictment of high crimes and misdemeanors are made by the house of Representatives.
You keep acting as if it is the right of one Party in one of the two Congressional chambers to ignore all of the basic principles of Justice because of semantic wording.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
If you actually cared about the Constitution and our country you would not supporting this President. He has repeatedly said that he can do anything he wants to do as the President of the United States of America and The Constitution of America, against all enemies foreign and domestic so help me God.
Impeachment is not a Court case. Pure and simple.
He has repeatedly said that he can do anything he wants to do as the President of the United States of America
that's a demonstrable LIE.
you can repeat it a million times and it will still be a LIE.
Please for once don't invoke the deep state conspiracy theories.
From the start, this is has been an exercise in how far from the meaning of impeachment can Democrats drag their faithful, all in pursuit of bringing down the "bad orange man".
This is why I call you Scott A**hole
“Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,”
https://youtu.be/sl_gO3uOds8
Funny the only flaw in your argument Lil Scotty is you and the assholes cannot dispel the facts......BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! The whole R defense is the process is UNFAIR!!!!!!!!! Yep.....those facts are very unfair to trump and his fellators!!!!!!
https://youtu.be/sl_gO3uOds8
Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
Which is why nobody (not beholden to Democratic politics) will be convinced he is actually guilty.
The problem, Roger is that our country is not founded on making the argument that our constitutional principles compete with one another, but rather we follow them all.
The argument being made for all practical purposes is that Democrats have some sort of constitutional right to toss aside the legal standards, legal protections, and other principles from the Constitution and specifically from our Bill of Rights...
Because they are the majority Party?
This runs contrary to the first three impeachments our country went through and runs contrary to what happens in every single legal procedure we have had in this country for 240 plus years.
The very "first" time in the history of our Country we have made this sort of accusation against an American citizen while blatantly suggesting that we do not have to provide "any" sort of due process, actually show any sort of crime, or follow any sort of rules....
Because Democrats say the constitution allows them to make up their own rules.
That is bull shit and if it was Republicans doing it, you would be besides yourself with anger and would have probably been committed by now.
Your fatal flaw is that this concept that Democrats in the House get to set the rules is not going to go over in the Senate, and for the life of me, I have no idea why you think Justice Roberts is somehow going to override the Senate Majority in order to enforce whatever standards Schiff and Pelosi came up with in the House.
Republicans and the President WILL get to call all of their witnesses and I am pretty sure that Democrats can do the same. Both sides will likely fight the subpoenas and it will either go through the courts, or Judge Roberts can rule from the bench.
Either way, Roberts will respect the Bill of Rights (even if you no longer do) and he will allow the President his due process to call his witnesses and to cross examine everyone in plain sight.
Roberts will (if the Senate votes that way) rule to disallow any hearsay, opinion witnesses, and can refuse to allow people to testify that do not have any first hand evidence of events.
The Democratic argument IS that Trump bringing up Burisma and the Prosecutor is predicated by the assumption that the request is illegitimate. They WILL be required to prove that and Trump will be allowed to call witnesses to repute it.
You cannot predicate everything on the Bidens being innocent and not allow them to be witnesses at the trial. If a Prosecutor did that in a real court of law the case would be tossed out.
While the House can do whatever they want (according to you)... The Senate is planning on treating this like a criminal trial and Justice Roberts will treat it as such.
What you are saying is almost exactly what I said before. The indictment is deeply partisan. No doubt about.
If you actually are correct The Senate is planning on treating this like a criminal trial and Justice Roberts will treat it as such.
And he won't let either side to turn it into a carnival game.
He's one of the few Conservative Justices I deeply respect.
While the House can do whatever they want (according to you)... The Senate is planning on treating this like a criminal trial and Justice Roberts will treat it as such.
Well Roger...
What the President says about his authority as President has absolutely nothing to do with your case. It's just more red herring about what you dont' like about the President.
Our founding fathers made it crystal clear that there was never any consensus for any sort of recall, ability to call for new elections, or anything that closely resembled allowing Congress to remove a President over anything other than a High Crime.
Democrats spent much of their impeachment hearings bringing forth witness that spent 99% of their time criticizing the President and his policies, and then spent 1% of their time testifying to hearsay regarding the actual allegations (as if they were a second hand thought).
One witnesses was not even employed at the time of the alleged incident took place and admitted under oath that she had ZERO knowledge of the events in question. She was given a standing ovation by the Democrats after her "impeachment testimony".
The "bad President" argument is barking at the moon. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to remove a President because they don't like him or because they believe he is doing a poor job. The Constitution (as well as all of the papers written by the founding fathers on the concept of impeachment) make it crystal clear that we (as America) were going to let the voters decide if a President should be removed from office over his policies when that person is up for reelection.
The constitution and everything associated with it made it extremely difficult to remove a sitting President without major consensus and a large bi-partisan belief that CRIME was committed by the President and that he had to be removed.
There has never been an argument (prior to 2016) that Presidents could be removed based on a legal action that one Party in the House of Representatives "defined" as an impeachable offense.
Actually Roger...
The House is supposed to follow the Constitution.
Pelosi and Schiff clearly didn't.
The Senate Republicans and Judge Roberts will.
And the so called "impeachable offense" will be exposed as a farce.
The President will be acquitted with a much better chance of being reelected than if they never engaged in this shit show.
Roberts will respect the Constitution.
It will require a majority vote to call witness.
It's time for football will impeach the baster next month
Pelosi and Schiff clearly followed the Constitution. Exactly.
Trump is calling for a trial. He will not have to testify because his lawyers know that he would commit perjury or worse.
Save this like my "Kerr in a landslid!"
The President will be acquitted with a much better chance of being reelected than if they never engaged in this shit show.
Consider Andrew Johnson...
He was not elected President, but took over when Lincoln was assassinated. Most member of Congress didn't like him. They thought he was arrogant, a racist, and an overall bad man. When he started to fire all of Lincoln's confirmed cabinet members and started to install his own, they thought that it was clearly an Abuse of Power considering he was an interim President.
But they didn't rush into impeachment based on their idea that they didn't like him, and they knew that Abuse of Power had specifically NOT been included in the list of impeachable offenses.
So they create a trap door law that stated that the President of the United States could not fire a Cabinet member until the Senate approved the replacement. It was clearly unconstitutional (and was eventually tossed by the courts as such) but they passed it because they knew Johnson would break it. They even defined it in the law as a "high crime" specifically for impeachment purposes.
Now we can have arguments about Abuse of Power impeachments. They didn't feel you could do it. Some scholars believe you can. But either way, they create a law so that they had a crime, because it was their belief that a crime needed to be cited to impeach a President.
I think that these people had a better understanding of the constitution than we do 150 years later.
But Democrats started with Quid Pro Quo, they moved it to Bribery (based on focus group politics) and now have sort of moved away from that. They can't even come up with a set crime to charge him with.
Again... when in doubt, we use Precedent. All three Presidents who have been impeached were impeached because clear laws had been broken and there was no one arguing that they were not. Johnson broke the trap door law, Nixon broke several laws, and Clinton was cited in the Starr Report as committing several indictable offenses (which he admitted to).
In the case of Clinton... he broke the law. Nobody argued differently. But the argument was whether or not that broken law was enough to impeach him. They literally set the standard "HIGHER" than an actual crime.
In the case of Trump.... there is no broken low. Nobody has really proven anything. To some degree, the argument that impeachment is what Democrats in the House want it to be is an admission that they don't have a real crime.
But they want to lower the bar for Trump to include behavior that most of their own witnesses simply deemed to be "inappropriate".
It's a farce.
I'm going back to watch football.
I won't need to waist 300 words to give you a history lesson.
CH doesn't need a history lesson. He's got his history down just fine.
You, on the other hand should never give anyone a history lesson
Roger Amick said...
I'm going back to watch football.
I won't need to waist 300 words to give you a history lesson.
Is roger really, really fat or does he need an English lesson ?
I won't need to waste 300 words to give you a history lesson..
The microphone app isn'tas always actually correct.
😓😓😓😓🌋
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Consider Andrew Johnson...
Why.......undoubtedly in the bottom tier of all POTUS where trump will be!!!!!!!!! No relevance to trump and his treasonous behavior or wealth!!!!!1 Maybe if you compared trump to putin is a better analog since you both admire him........BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
It was very sad watching Todd defang and emasculate ted cruz today.....Here's what teddy espoused and got hammered on...
And as for Cruz, Cold Warrior, Obama critic and anti-Putin hawk, he now declares there is evidence of Ukraine interference in our election because an op-ed was written criticizing Trump’s campaign rhetoric about Ukraine. This is what Cruz is now reduced to — making excuses for a president willing to stab Ukraine in the back to the utter delight of Putin.
He also claimed that Ukraine officials writing op eds was equivalent to meddling like the russians.....sad he was a babbling idiot kinda like you Lil Scotty with his zeal fellating trump!!!!!
Here's what Ch says and HERE IN CAPS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH WHAT CH SAYS:h
CH SAYS
"Once this moves to the Senate and into the light of day, it will be literally impossible NO, IT WILL STILL BE POSSIBLE for Democrats to continue to imply NO, TO INSIST that asking for something FOR PERSONAL GAIN in exchange for the release of foreign aid is illegal in and of itself WHICH IT IS, and still defend Joe Biden (who is NOT on record admitting to doing just that, NO, FOR HE WITHHELD MONEY BUT NOT FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN). So the argument that they will try to make will be that Biden's actions were based on "legitimate motives" WHICH THEY WERE, FOR HE HAD NOTHING TO GAIN PERSONALLY FROM SUCH ACTIONS whereas Trump's actions were based on "illegitimate motives" WHICH THEY WERE, BECAUSE HE STOOD PERSONALLY TO GAIN POLITICALLY FROM EVEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BE POLITICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO HIM WERE EVEN JUST GOING TO BE STARTED.
INSERTING CAPITALS INTO CH'S BULLETINGS:
*It was NOT legal for the President to request something OF PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN in return for aid.
*The Burisma investigation is INDEED a legitimate request FOR IT WAS based on the opinions of career State employees, OPINIONS BASED ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY NEEDS, AND NOT JUST ON TRUMP'S ALL PERSONAL POLITICAL NEEDS.
*AND the President had aN "illegitimate motive" for HIS UNreasonable and IL-legal request WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY IN THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
James, YOU DROVE A NAIL INTO THE COFFIN OF FORMERLY COLDHEARTEDTRUTH COFFIN.
The impeachment trial is the political actions of the President. It is strictly Constitutionally authorized to serve to check on the Executive branch of the Constitution. Quid pro quo is not a crime. His own words and his actions as
President will indict him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Many prominent Republicans are concerned about the President. But they say: so what:!
Unless the President is not proved guilty, he probably will be reelected President.
My concern is not partisan minded. I believe the separation of powers provided by
the US Constitution is in danger of being damaged and Trump does not care about the Constitution. Just himself.
Thought crimes.
"The report states: “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.”"
It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.”"
Yeah....all criminals need to be mentally tested to see whether at the time of the crime they were sane!!!!!!! Thought crimes since everything trump directs his people to do are for his own benefit which you seem to be blind to!!!!!......shouldn't that be a problem to even slurpers like you?????
Anyone think Lil Scotty will start an apology thread about his IG report prediction and how wrong it was??????.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Long-awaited inspector general report on FBI’s Russia investigation set to be made public
The report is expected to conclude that top FBI officials running the Russia probe were not tainted by political bias and that they had adequate cause to open an investigation ahead of the 2016 election, according to people familiar with drafts of the document.
By Matt Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett1 hour ago
oboma/Biden Allowed and at times encouraged the interference in our 2016 elections.
by 2018, Pres. Trump cleared it up.
Are the Three Socialist Stooges of CHT now saying the influence by Russia is back for 2020?
ansasDemocrat said...
oboma/Biden Allowed and at times encouraged the interference in our 2016 elections
More unadulterated fake horseshit from the goat fucking idiot.......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! God you are a dumb fuck!!!!!
WHY DO YOU HATE THE US??????
So what you are saying Denny that if you think about murdering or robbing somebody I should have you arrested, right?
I'm not saying anything cramps....only showing once again how disingenuous and stupid you are!!!!!!! Sorry sport...keep making shit up it is your forte!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!!!
So if James merely thinks about the Obama daughter, we should arrest him and put him on a sex abuser list?
This is wrong is so many ways. Why would anyone defend this tactic?
Anonymous Myballs said...
So if James merely thinks about the Obama daughter,
You are a dumber fuck than cramps......BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! Most amusing is that cramps started this subject!!!!!!
They don't have a real crime to impeach him on so they come up with this nonsense that only the TDS infected mind will buy.
If I were a swing district Democrat I would ask Pelosi; "Seriously? This is the hill you want me to die on?"
"I'm not saying anything" Denny
There is your problem , as a troll , you don't say anything but gibberish that makes the 23 Socialist Democrats running for Pres. look smart.
And the goat fucker once again shows his colors of abject stupidity.....BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Dumb fuck!!!!
Socialist Democrat Party and China losing to Trump.
"China exports fall for fourth consecutive month as Beijing demands tariff rollback as part of trade deal."
Export drops 11% year over year for the Friends of The Biden's.
James...
You have your logic backwards.
In politics "everything" that is done either helps or hurts someone's reelection chances.
The ONLY thing that is judged is whether or not the action serves a legitimate purpose for the interest in the United States. If it does serve a legitimate purpose, then how it effects someone's election changes becomes irrelevant.
It's not in even the general vicinity of "enough" to simply show that a legal action made by a Politician might benefit him or her politically to declare the actions to be "abuse of power".
You literally have to prove that the legal action had no legitimate purpose what-so-ever regarding the United States interest. It doesn't have to be an interest that "everyone" agrees with (this seldom happens in politics). It just needs to serve a purpose for the United States.
In this case... can you prove that an investigation into Burisma serves absolutely no tangible purpose for the United States? Can you argue that when three of the Democrats own witnesses conceded that Burisma probably should be investigated?
If the legal action serves a purpose an an interest for the United States, it is not abuse of power.
You cannot rearrange the laws and principle to declare that no political can ever make any legitimate action if it can be shown that it helps them with a reelection. The idea would be fundamentally stupid.
Post a Comment