Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Senate Should Vote to Dismiss the Two Impeachment Counts
The Constitution states: “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.”
The house charged Trump with:
- Abuse of Powers
- Obstruction of Congress
The House considered impeaching Trump on counts that are included such as bribery but instead proceeded on these two counts. Can’t the Senate vote to dismiss the charges since they don’t meet the criteria for impeachment? There’s no need for the House managers to appear. I realize that it would be useful to investigate how the standards for a whistleblower were suddenly modified and it would be helpful to know about the connections between Schiff and the supposed whistleblower. But there’s no need for the Senate to have deliberate these ridiculous unconstitutional grounds for impeachment.
Published in Politics
This would be a formula for us to lose the Senate, and another dozen seats in the House.
A prima facia case has been made that Trump abused his office for his own personal gain, and refused to comply with congressional subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry.
The congressional subpoenas have been appealed to the courts. The Constitutional Convention considered including a formulation similar to abuse of power but decided that every President could be impeached with that type of wording. Perhaps the House could do the difficult task of reading the Constitution.
There are only 3 reasons why this won’t happen, even though it should.
Collins, Murkowski and Romney.
Sad.
I have thought and have written for =quite a while that the sham impeachment is aboiut trying to block Trump’s nomination of a replacement for RBG. Kamala Harris has just proven me right.
Now that the Democrats’ partisan impeachment has reached the Senate, failed 2020 presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is making a similar argument to put the brakes on Trump’s making the judiciary great again. “Today, the United States Senate will receive articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump and begin to determine whether the president’s actions warrant his removal from office,” Harris said in a statement. “The president is charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, and the Senate must take seriously its constitutional role in this process. During the time when articles of impeachment are before the Senate, it would be wholly inappropriate to advance the president’s nominees to the federal judiciary.”
https://pjmedia.com/trending/kamala-harris-just-proved-that-impeachment-is-about-blocking-trumps-judicial-nominees/
Even if one assumes the truth of this, it doesn’t take the inquiry far enough. As is evident from the O/P, the question is whether the acts sufficiently satisfy the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard. It’s not settled AFAIK whether that standard requires an actual crime, so it’s arguable that the first article at least should be “tried.” As to the second article, the Democrats’ failure to pursue recognized remedies to challenge a claim of Executive Privilege raises serious questions as to whether it should be pursued.
I would think an attorney would be aware that those “subpoenas” were not valid and the Democrats ignored the possibility of judicial review as was done in the Nixon impeachment. I would also think an attorney would be familiar with the US Constitution.
This should take a total of two to three weeks. The clowns from the House will be allowed to present their case. The President will be allowed to defend himself. The Senate will then vote (51 votes necessary) on whether there is enough meat on the bones to even call witnesses. Then, IF, there is a coup of Republicans like Romney and his small ilk wishing to inflict as much nonsensical pain on Trump as their powerless little selves can project, witnesses will be called…an equal and limited (4 max) number from each side. Written questions will then be sent to the Chief Justice. The answers will be read. The vote (67 votes to convict) will be taken. Trump will be acquitted.
There are no crimes committed. Congress can make a new law in hours, if they want to outlaw some behavior. Of course executive privilege is considered a Constitutional right, so that’s a hangup. Also, if Congress wants to outlaw criminal inquiries into presidential candidates, then I would expect Trump to welcome that, because that would make this impeachment farce illegal.
Sometimes upholding the constitution is more important than winning/holding some seats.
They have to throw everything they can at him to remove him from office. Which is the goal.
I am undecided on witnesses. Steve Bannon wants a full trial with witnesses, including both Bidens and Ciamarelli, the “whistleblower.” I think the public is tuning this out as the sham it is.
Only if you thought the constitution was actually worth something other than an excuse for power to use power.
yes, but if they do not do a full trial then the senate will be accused of avoiding their job and covering for Trump. They have to have a full trial just to defend themselves.
Nope. The Republicans have won. It’s no use hoping that something else will somehow come out, Gary. It’s over. There’s nothing else. They should pick up their winnings and leave.
Agreed. It’s a farce. It’s a sham. It’s a witch hunt.
Where do you get that “us,” Gary?
Nope. Not in the constitution. Convict him or shut up.
I don’t agree with the procedure recommended in the OP.
There’s a good post here by Bucknelldad outlining the current procedure. The House managers will have 24 hours to present their case; then the President will have 24 hours for defense; then the Senators will have 16 hours to submit questions to the Chief Justice. The Senate can then decide whether to call witnesses.
Rather than a dismissal now, it makes more sense to me for the Senate to follow the procedure above, then rule that no witnesses are required because the evidence does not establish that any impeachable offense was committed.
Who is “us”? I don’t think you know the meaning of that word. Let’s just pretend Trump is not a Republican and the overwhelming approval from self-identified Republicans is some kind of cult. If that were true, and you and Michael Steele, Bill Kristol , Jen Rubin et al were the remaining true “Republicans”, the term “we” would still not apply because no one here is with you, or on your side on this. You can have the name, but not the voters. In this divorce with y’all, we get the kids – 95% of the voters.
You are too either attached to labels, or you apply labels selectively in a disingenuous manner. If you were honest about this issue, you would join the DemocratParty, a much better fit. You are misrepresenting yourself by pretending you and “we” are on the same team.
You would be more likable if you came out of the closet.
The only high crime or misdemeanor was the fact that Hillary lost the 2016 election.
The Dims are replaying the Kavanaugh hearings. Start with a very strained accusation in order to open the floodgates to even more preposterous accusations. They will throw the kitchen sink at Trump in order to hurt his re-election prospects.
No matter what the senate does the MSM will make it ugly for republicans. The less ammunition (airtime) McConnell gives this sham impeachment the better.
Gary,
If a prima facie case has been made that Trump abused his office for his personal gain, I’ve not read it, and in particular, you have never in all of your posts even hinted at one.
You and others have presented a prima facie case that Trump pressed foreign governments, using his unique legal power to do so (the DOJ has no legal power to compel foreign governments to do anything to cooperate with the USG in the enforcement of its laws) to cooperate in entirely proper Federal criminal investigations of US citizens.
You’re an attorney. I am not. Shouldn’t it be you who is arguing for the law, and I who should be pressing for some vague, emotional political cause?
And the POTUS will tweet about how they tried to stop him but failed, and people will vote for the underdog that won in the end.
Pelosi will retire from politics after stabbing a FOX corespondent in the neck with a commemorative pen – which will ultimately end up on display in the Trump Presidential Library in Florida.
A case can be made that since he impeached that his judges need to be removed
The Senate has had 3 years to call witnesses and do investigations. But the Richard Burr and others are corrupt and part of the Deep State. Don’t expect anything better in an impeachment trial.
Exactly correct.
I think this why Trump is keeping his tax returns private. There is nothing wrong there, but tax law is so complex and opinions vary so widely on tax strategies, that he doesnt want public investigations opened up = nor does he want his business acumen smeared by pundits.
As long as the pundits have no data, everything pundits say on the topic is rank speculation and can be easily dismissed without comment.
This one should be easy to dismiss in that it is in the President’s job description.