Congratulations to President Trump for his second acquittal in the Senate. I guess this means they cannot remove him from office.
I like Andrew Napolitano. But his obsession with the failed impeachment coup makes me wonder.
The Senate trial of President Donald Trump ended not with a bang but a whimper. What different outcome could one expect from a trial without so much as a single witness, a single document, any cross-examination or a defendant respectful enough to show up?
Law students are taught early on that a trial is not a grudge match or an ordeal; it is a search for the truth. Trial lawyers know that cross-examination is the most effective truth-testing tool available to them. But the search for the truth requires witnesses, and when the command from Senate Republican leaders came down that there shall be no witnesses, the truth-telling mission of Trump’s trial was radically transformed into a steamroller of political power.
And in its wake is a Congress ceding power to the presidency, almost as if the states had ratified a constitutional amendment redefining the impeachment language to permit a president to engage in high crimes and misdemeanors so long as he believes that they are in the national interest and so long as his party has an iron-clad grip on the Senate.
Cross-examination of witnesses they were not even allowed to name? Let it go.
Reverse this vote, and I think you may have the vote for-against removal. A far cry from a supermajority, they’re not going to even have an ordinary majority.
Senate Republicans rejected Democrats’ demands to call new witnesses and documents in President Trump’s impeachment trial, clearing the way for an acquittal on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges next week.
The 51-49 vote late Friday afternoon represented a major victory for Republican leadership, which has sought to complete the trial as quickly as possible and avoid testimony that could be politically damaging. Democrats had spent weeks calling for the Senate to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton and other officials, seeking testimony about Mr. Trump’s efforts to press Ukraine to launch investigations that could benefit him politically.
Two Republicans, Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, joined every Democrat to vote for the Senate to call in new witnesses. The GOP controls 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats.
Under a resolution that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) introduced late Friday, the impeachment trial will break for the weekend and resume Monday at 11 a.m. EST for four hours of arguments. After those arguments, the trial will adjourn again, giving senators the opportunity to speak on the floor about the charges before returning for a vote on the articles of impeachment at 4 p.m. on Wednesday.
Longer deliberations usually (well, sometimes) bode well for the defendant. These have been going on for four years. Interesting that the State of the Union speech is supposed to come on Tuesday.
Not mine. Jerry Nadler’s. The House Impeachment Report
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of
a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He
did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or
course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so
doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.
Obstruction and ABuse of Power – both subjective and vague. At least they drafted them.
Democrats have moved rapidly since launching their inquiry in late September after a whistleblower complaint about a July 25 telephone call in which Trump sought help from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender in the Democratic race to challenge Trump in next November’s election.
Rapidly? They’ve been dragging along since July of 2016! According to a few of the more bold enemy combatants, they plan to impeach Trump again after his reelection next year. Judging from the record, he’ll let them.
Not a bad idea. Therefore, the Dems probably won’t go for it.
Censure would allow the Democrats to move on: Obviously, the Speaker wants to send a strong message to her base that she hears their concerns and is acting on them. But every day that Democrats are not talking about health care is a day that they are slowly but steadily losing the election. The media has a limited attention span, and right now impeachment is king. While impeachment might excite the partisan bases on both sides of the aisle, to the vast middle that isn’t paying attention to the latest revelations that are dripping forth on the front pages of The New York Times, this is time not well spent making the case for their reelections.
Censure would be better for the country than impeachment: What the president did with his Ukrainian call is clearly not impeachable. But it wasn’t a perfect call either. We all know that partisan Democrats have wanted Trump removed from office since the very day he entered it and have come up with a variety of theories as to why he should be thrown out, from invoking the 25th Amendment to the current impeachment imbroglio.
But the American people, in their collective wisdom, through a process designed by the Constitution, put him there, and they have the right to have their voices heard to replace him, should they decide that is the correct path to pursue. Short-circuiting the people is a very bad precedent and would needlessly divide the country for generations.
In 1998, some congressional Republicans and Democrats floated censure as a possible alternative to impeachment and when I worked for the House GOP Leadership, I thought that would have been a more prudent approach.
Part of the challenge with censure is it’s not outlined in the Constitution as a way to punish the president for actions that fall short of high crimes and misdemeanors. And indeed, the only president to be clearly censured by the Congress was Trump’s hero, Andrew Jackson. He was censured by the Senate because he defunded the Second Bank of the United States. That censure was later expunged from the record by Jackson’s Whig allies late in his second term in office.
I would vote against censure of this president, if I were in either the House or the Senate, because I think this has been a partisan exercise not worthy of the Congress. But if I were a congressional Democrat, I would prefer censure to impeachment. Impeachment would be bad for the country but probably good for the president. Censure wouldn’t be nearly as bad for the country nor nearly as good for the president.
But, they no more want to move on than the people have that collective wisdom. This all assumes, of course, that the House goes ahead with the impeachment charade – it’s already losing steam. And, again, it won’t help them with 2020.
Odd that they neglect it at all other times. At any rate, the House “Intelligence” Committee projection report is out.
Constitutional Authority for Congressional Oversight and Impeachment
The House’s Constitutional and legal authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry is clear, as is the duty of the President to cooperate with the House’s exercise of this authority.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment.” The Framers intended the impeachment power to be an essential check on a President who might engage in corruption or abuse of power. Congress is empowered to conduct oversight and investigations to carry out its authorities under Article I. Because the impeachment power is a core component of the nation’s Constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress’ investigative authority is at its zenith during an impeachment inquiry.
So, investigate first, open the impeachment proceedings when? Not that any of this will help the enemy combatants in the slightest in 2020. Ball’s in Nancy’s court now, the voter’s next fall.
No wonder the Groypers are giving the establishment cucks fits. PCR on the rot in the GOP:
When you start thinking along these lines other puzzling questions come to mind. For example, why does the leadership of the Democratic Party seem to be in the hands of feminists and people of color on one side and crooks like Joe Biden on the other. What holds a party this naturtally divided together?
Why does an anti-white odor emanate from the Democratic Party, especially an anti-white heterosexual male ordor? Why are all of Epstein’s pedophile clients Democrats? Has the Democratic Party become the party of immigrant-invaders and sexual perverts?
Republicans come across as impotent, powerless, and stupid. They have stood there impotently while two of their more effective fundraisers and political advisers, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, were framed in broad daylight by the utterly corrupt Russiagate special prosecutor Robert Mueller and sentenced to prison. This never happens to Democrats. Only to Republicans. The Epstein case has disappeared.
Mueller was empowered to investigate Trump’s cooperation with Russian influence on his election. No one gave Mueller the task of investigating the long ago and unrelated financial affairs of Manafort and Stone.
Trump with the weakest response against an impeachment devoid of any evience is afraid to pardon Mueller’s victims, people convicted of offenses that are unrelated to the Russiagate investigation. The entire purpose of the false convictions of Manafort and Stone is to prove that Republicans are too scared to protect their own. Mueller’s purpose was to break-up the ranks of Trump supporters and turn them against one another. Once one runs for the exit, the rest follow.
Stupid is as Republican does, but things trend ridiculous. It will be instructive (or would be) to the GOP herd when Trump wins 2020 handily, even as they lose ground. It would be, but the stupid thing. A party no more?